LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9047
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Friday, 26 April 2013
The Council continued to meet at Nine 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 LEE CHEUK-YAN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.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, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, M.H.
DR THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P.
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. 9048 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, 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 ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
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
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9049
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., 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.
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, J.P.
9050 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
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 CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN
MEMBERS ABSENT:
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9051
PUBLIC OFFICER ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE TSANG TAK-SING, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL
MR ANDY LAU KWOK-CHEONG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
9052 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
BILLS
Committee Stage
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Good morning. Committee will now continue to examine the Appropriation Bill 2013. We will now continue with the second joint debate. Does any Member wish to speak?
APPROPRIATION BILL 2013
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I believe Members should be summoned to the Chamber to show greater respect to you. According to Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure, I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.
(When the summoning bell was ringing, Mr WONG Kwok-hing stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, what is your point?
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to say a word to you while doing the headcount. Today is the third day, and $3 million public funds have been wasted ……
(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, what is your point?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, point of order. Can Member speak to the Chairman at this juncture? This is not in compliance with the Rules of Procedure.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9053
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, please let me finish first. I do not want to be interrupted.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The meeting is not in progress now. Mr Albert CHAN, please sit down.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, in that case, I wish to say a few words too. Chairman, if a Member wishes to make a comment, we can make comments on a range of matters. May I ask the Chairman, now ……
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am now speaking.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please sit down.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): But he has said ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, Mr WONG has raised his hand and I am listening to him. If I think what he said is out of order, I will point it out.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, thank you for ending last night's meeting with a concluding remark on the number of headcounts and the time spent in doing headcounts during the previous two meeting days. In fact, I hope you would consider how to deal with the situation where the Member who requests a headcount is not present at the meeting. Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Concerning the headcount and how to deal with the lack of a quorum, there are clear provisions under the Rules of Procedure (RoP). For matters which are provided in the RoP, I will deal with them in strict accordance with the provisions. For matters which are not provided in the RoP, I cannot do anything.
9054 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, could you tell Members to study the RoP carefully before speaking so that they will not waste the time of other Members? Members should not be so ignorant as to keep standing up to put forward views which are irrelevant to the RoP. This is a waste of time. Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, the RoP only requires that Members should not keep repeating their arguments or introduce matter which is irrelevant to the question. There is no provision that Members should not waste time.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We will proceed with the second debate. Does any Member wish to speak?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, today we will continue with the second joint debate on the expenses for the Executive Council and the honoraria for its non-official Members. Regarding my amendment, that is Amendment No 8, I will continue to explain why I wish to deduct an amount equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the Executive Council.
Yesterday, I pointed out, from the perspectives of concept, legal basis and structure, that the existence of the Executive Council failed to serve any functions and its demerits outnumbered its merits. I also pointed out that there were other more cost-effective ways to achieve similar results. Yesterday, I also mentioned that Articles 54 to 56 of the Basic Law could not ensure that non-official Members of the Executive Council could influence the important decisions of the Chief Executive or the Government. In addition, I also tried to point out that from the perspective of political reward, the organizational structure of the Executive Council was neither fish nor fowl.
Today I will continue to expound on this argument, and then I will turn from the conceptual level to the practical level concerning the composition and candidates of the current-term Executive Council, so as to support my proposal of reducing the annual estimated expenditure for the Executive Council to $1,000.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9055
In fact, since the introduction of the accountability system in the era of TUNG Chee-hwa, the authorities have all along intended to form a ruling coalition in the Executive Council through its non-official Members. This is the original purpose of having non-official Members in the Executive Council. But unfortunately ― the comment is not made by me but by Mr Jasper TSANG, a former Executive Council Member and the incumbent President of the Legislative Council ― this ruling coalition only got a share of shame but no glory. Regarding the reasons ― said by me but not the President of the Legislative Council ― Members of the Executive Council do not share a common governance philosophy, they join together reluctantly and engage in infighting and struggling for power. As pro-government parties are drawn to the Executive Council, people have an objective impression that the Executive Council is a mechanism for transferring political interests. In the Legislative Council, Executive Council Members try hard to play the role of monitoring or providing checks and balances against the Government. However, outside the Legislative Council and in the Executive Council, they bargain with the Government with the votes in their hands. Thus, they can boast to the public that they are more capable of influencing government decisions than other Members. Under such an inherent situation, as we know, no one from the democratic camp serves as Members of the Executive Council, at least not in the current-term Executive Council. Thus, the democrats give people an impression that they are destructive rather than constructive. In the meantime, as political parties in the ruling coalition have taken advantage of the Government, it is difficult for the Government to establish its governance credibility.
As the Executive Council is the core of power of the Government, the integrity of its Members should be whiter than white. Unfortunately, I do not only direst against Members of the current-term Executive Council, but those of the past three terms, including both the official and non-official Members, they have been haunted by scandals, and they are not subject to the monitoring of the public. Therefore, I think it is fair and reasonable to reduce the honoraria for non-official Members of the Executive Council.
In this debate session, I will mainly speak on my Amendment No 8. But given that I have proposed a total of 70-odd amendments, Members may decide whether they should give their support by listening to my speech on each amendment to see if my arguments are convincing. Generally speaking, I think the Executive Council fails to play a positive role for Hong Kong's political system. Rather, it has become a hotbed of transfer of political benefits. Thus, 9056 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 the proposed 70-odd amendments aim at reducing the annual estimated provision for the Executive Council and honoraria for its non-official Members.
I hope I have, concept-wise, clearly demonstrated the inherent defects of the Executive Council: it cannot perform its functions, its demerits outnumber its merits, its non-existence is more desirable than its existence and there are other means to perform the functions. Next, I will specifically speak on the composition of the current-term Executive Council. As I have proposed to reduce the estimated expenditure for the Executive Council in this Budget, I have to comment on the composition of the current-term Executive Council. Apart from mentioning the concept of structural defects, I have to talk about the composition of the current-term Executive Council, as well as the performance, integrity, popularity rating and recognition of individual Members.
Regarding the Executive Council of the current-term LEUNG Chun-ying's Government, the public will certainly think that it is a gathering of "LEUNG's fans". Some Members have pointed out that the "LEUNG's fans" in the Executive Council lick the boots of LEUNG. Such Members include Fanny LAW; Barry CHEUNG, Chairman of Urban Renewal Authority; CHEUNG Chi-kong of the One Country Two Systems Research Institute; CHENG Yiu-tong of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions which belongs to the traditional pro-establishment camp, and CHEUNG Hok-ming of the rural faction. In addition, there are Laura CHA, CHOW Chung-kong and Bernard CHAN of the business sector; Ms Starry LEE, Mrs Regina IP and Mr Jeffrey LAM of the political circle, as well as LAM Woon-kwong, Convenor of the Executive Council.
Let us not talk about other criticisms against the composition of the Executive Council. The original purpose of forming the Executive Council, that is, to gauge views from different strata of society, cannot be met. Furthermore, each Chief Executive claimed that he would revamp the Executive Council. As we can see, there are absolutely no opposing views in the current Executive Council, hence, it cannot perform the function of gauging diverse opinions.
Supposedly, the Executive Council should have another function, that is, to promote great reconciliation among different parties, such as the "LEUNG's camp", the "TANG's camp" and the "HO's camp", and their respective supporters. Can the composition of the Executive Council achieve the purpose of great reconciliation? I fail to see any achievement in this respect.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9057
Apart from failing to performing its duties, the current-term Executive Council has a lot of drawbacks. I will explain the drawbacks one by one in my speech.
The Executive Council formed by LEUNG Chun-ying after his assumption of duty has to meet several requirements. In his speech to the public, he said that Members of the Executive Council should work harder and take less holiday. This is the first point. He even requested Executive Council Members to visit local communities, as what Directors of Bureaux would do. He has publicly and explicitly raised these two points. As I said yesterday, the system and the structure of the Executive Council followed the system of the Executive Council during the British Hong Kong era. It is in fact the highest advisory body of the SAR Government, responsible for advising the Chief Executive in making important decisions. Yesterday, we also pointed out that Article 54 of the Basic Law provides that the Executive Council shall be an organ for assisting the Chief Executive in policy-making. However, as we all know, the Executive Council is not responsible for policy implementation. If he requests Members of the Executive Council to visit local communities …… Furthermore, should they visit local communities on their own or should they accompany the Chief Executive to do so? More importantly, will Members of the Executive Council have to be responsible for policy implementation in the future?
The public have great doubts about this. At present, some Legislative Council Members also serve on the Executive Council. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them. As they receive honoraria from the Executive Council, one third of their remunerations from the Legislative Council have to be deducted. As I said yesterday, there are two other issues, that is, confidentiality and collective responsibility, which are highly controversial. Some people think that this is the tradition of the British Hong Kong Administration. Under the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance, there are express provisions concerning Members of the Executive Council. According to press reports, some Members of the current-term Executive Council have voiced the need to review the system of confidentiality and collective responsibility. As we mentioned yesterday, the system of confidentiality and collective responsibility certainly has its purposes. However, it has also turned the Executive Council into a black hole and a mysterious organization because any issues submitted to the Executive Council will disappear, and no decision will be made despite repeated discussions. However, there is no mechanism whatsoever in Hong Kong to deal with such a problem.
9058 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
I wish to point out that given the system of confidentiality and collective responsibility of the Executive Council, theoretically, when Members of the Executive Council have a conflict of interest …… currently there is a system under which they should withdraw from the discussion, and the frequency of their withdrawal from the discussion is very high. Yesterday a Member also mentioned this point in his speech. The Executive Council does not have any stringent system to record the attendance rate of its Members for compilation of report for reference by Legislative Council Members at the special Finance Committee meetings.
Given the system of confidentiality and collective responsibility, theoretically, Members of the Executive Council should not inform their relatives, friends or companies of any important decision made by the Executive Council. Neither should they do "jump the gun" to take any actions. Therefore, regarding the need to withdraw from discussion, I think this is not the critical point. On the contrary, as both approaches are adopted at the same time, the efficiency of the Executive Council is adversely affected. I do not think it is worth the money to earmark $21.8 million annually as expenses for the Executive Council and honoraria for its non-official Members.
Yesterday, a Member pointed out the problems related to the recognition and popularity of the current Executive Council Members. In fact, the data in this aspect can be used as reference. Should honoraria be offered to Executive Council Members when their recognition rate is so low? Should we still support the allocation of funds? The University of Hong Kong has been conducting surveys on the popularity rating of Members of the Executive Council. Unfortunately, owing to the extremely low recognition rate of Executive Council Members, Mr Franklin LAM ranked among the top five Executive Council Members according to findings published by the University of Hong Kong by the end of January, even though he has been severely criticized. Why? Because the recognition rate of other Executive Council Members is too low. For instance, while Laura CHA's popularity rating is 49.4%, her recognition rate was so low that she could not be ranked among the top Executive Council Members. As a result, Franklin LAM ranked fifth to our dismay.
I would announce the ranking of the top five Executive Council Members, but not the others. The popularity rating of Mrs Regina IP, our Honourable colleague in the Legislative Council, ranked first at 57.4%. Her rating was even higher than that of LAM Woon-kwong, Convenor of the Executive Council, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9059 whose rating was 56.8%. With a rating of 51.6%, Mrs Fanny LAW ranked third, followed by another Honourable colleague Ms Starry LEE, whose popularity rating was 49.5%, although 49.5% was not a high score in any sense. How come some Members with a higher support rate than that of Franklin LAM (42.3%) were not included in the popularity list, thus enabling Franklin LAM to take up the fifth position? Is Franklin LAM, who jumped the gun in selling his properties and is currently on vacation, still entitled to remuneration? I have asked a number of Legislative Council Members, but no one can tell me whether he is still entitled to remuneration while on vacation. On seeing the facial expression of Mrs IP, I know how ridiculous this mysterious black hole is. It does not matter whether those who are on vacation can still receive remuneration. What matters is that we do not know the answer. This is not the problem of whether remuneration is paid. It is a big joke instead because (The buzzer sounded) ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, your speaking time is up. Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, the 11 amendments proposed by me seek to deduct one month's honoraria for non-official Members of the Executive Council. Yesterday, I pointed out that the first Member who should have his honoraria deducted was Franklin LAM who jumped the gun in selling his flats, as mentioned by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen earlier. I had briefly explained why I put him on the top of the list.
The second place goes to CHEUNG Chi-kong. I had raised most of the reasons yesterday, so today, I will only add a few points. CHEUNG Chi-kong's attitude is despicable, in particular in the national education incident, he ignored public opinions and paid no heed to the importance attached to education by Hong Kong people and parents. Back then, the "anti-national education" had sparked massive outcry. The Secretary for Education was utterly incapable in handling the incident, and the Chief Secretary for Administration had to personally handle the situation.
As a Member of the Executive Council, CHEUNG Chi-kong did nothing to ease public indignation and grievance; on the contrary, he infuriated the public by adding fuel to the fire. At that time, he pointed out strictly that if the national 9060 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 education subject was to be shelved due to opposition, society would not be able to advance forward. At a time when public outrage was intense and when assemblies were staged every night, he definitely acted like a political "hatchet man" in giving such comments.
However, being a Member of the Executive Council, he definitely cannot continue to play the role as a political "hatchet man". If he continues to play such a role, Hong Kong will gradually have the ambience that prevailed during the Cultural Revolution. Political figures of Hong Kong, particularly Members of the Executive Council, should not adopt such an attitude. Hence, I think his practice will only bring negative impact on the overall governance of Hong Kong.
Many people doubt that the practice adopted by CHEUNG Chi-kong, the political "hatchet man", is a new strategy and a new mode of "Hong Kong Communists ruling Hong Kong". Let us review the recent tactics adopted by organizations such as the Caring Hong Kong Power, where they counter people with people, challenges with challenges and radical moves with radical moves. In other words, since there are Members like us who are regarded as radicals in the Legislative Council, some radicals should be included in the Executive Council to counter the opposing force and the radical camp in Hong Kong. These radicals should play the role as political "ratchet men". All these practices seem to involve political strategies, plots and deployment.
If that is the case, it is absolutely a misfortune to Hong Kong. Under the principle of "one country, two systems" for Hong Kong, we all expect that the ruling party and the governing team of the Government, particularly those in the top echelon, will convince the public with reasons, and they will give regard to the interest of all parties by means of consultation, conventional mode of governance and reasonable practices, instead of resuming control through tyrannical, high-handed and suppressing approaches. Certainly, the controlling power is now absolute. For these reasons, CHEUNG Chi-kong is the second person on my proposed list for deduction of honoraria for non-official Members of the Executive Council.
I would like to add one more point. CHEUNG Chi-kong's comment on the flag-raising ceremony had aroused public discontent. At a flag-raising ceremony held in 2012, certain attending persons were removed from the scene, even though they had not performed any illegal acts. Rumour has it that the police has a blacklist, and whoever on the list appeared on certain occasions, they LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9061 would be removed from the scene no matter they had taken any action or not. The media and the democratic camp unanimously criticized the police for abuse of power. However, CHEUNG Chi-kong's support to the practice of the police well reflected his role as a political hatchet man.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, according to Rule 41(7) of the Rules of Procedure, a Member should not, in his speech, raise the conduct of a Member of the Executive Council otherwise than in the performance of his official duties. Will Member please pay attention to this rule.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I talk about his performance merely to explain why I propose to deduct his honorarium.
The third person whom I proposed to deduct the honorarium is Barry CHEUNG. This proposal is under Amendment No 93, which involves the deduction of $202,170, which is equivalent to one-month's honoraria for three non-official Members of the Executive Council. This is indeed a small amount. Barry CHEUNG gives people the impression that he is honest and quite hardworking. People's impression of him is not bad. Why do I place him in the top three of the list? In terms of performance at work and political stance, he is actually better than other Members of the Executive Council.
The reason I propose to deduct his honorarium is that he has taken up too many public offices. When compared with other Members, the number of public offices he has taken up is really alarming. In my view, in taking up so many public offices, he utterly does not have the ability, time and energy to handle each of these tasks in a focused manner. When one has to take up too many responsibilities and get involved in too many committees, he can hardly do a good job. Perhaps as he had helped in LEUNG Chun-ying's electioneering, LEUNG Chun-ying regarded him as his close aide and, as a reward, arranged him to take up many public offices as well as oversee other important policies.
I have counted the number of public offices he has taken up. It is really doubtful how he can undertake so many responsibilities. His public offices include: Chairman of the Standing Committee on Disciplined Services Salaries and Conditions of Service (he is even appointed as the Chairman), Acting Chairman of the Pay Trend Survey Committee, Vice-Chairman of the Commission on Strategic Development, Member of the Hong Kong Standing 9062 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
Commission on Civil Service Salaries and Conditions of Service, Member of the Honours Committee and Member of the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee.
The scope of work of the aforesaid committees involves extremely important issues, the tasks to be undertaken and the number of persons and public interest involved are also of great significance. Many of these committees involve strategic development, which have tremendous impact on Hong Kong as a whole. If he only participates in the relevant work as a matter of routine, attend meetings upon notification and absent from meetings from time to time ― the attendance rate of the aforesaid committees may not be on the high side, the low participation rate may result in the formulation of policies which do not meet public interest or the overall interest of Hong Kong, thereby jeopardizing the community.
Since Barry CHEUNG has to attend to so many duties, he can only attend meetings without giving in-depth consideration. Of course, many Members in this Chamber just the same. A quorum is not present. Chairman, please do a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please continue.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I mentioned earlier that Barry CHEUNG had taken up many public offices, and he even established a new company last year. Chairman, he formed a special company with Raymond TANG under the name Hong Kong United Foundation Limited (the United Foundation). According to my understanding, this company is a consultancy in some measure, and its major work is to unite "LEUNG's Fans" to wage a media war, so as to create an atmosphere for supporting LEUNG Chun-ying's governance and harbour him.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9063
For instance, when LEW Mon-hung, a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, put forth the series of allegations against LEUNG Chun-ying, the United Foundation had helped to defuse the bomb. As an Executive Council Member, Barry CHEUNG has set up a company and will this company undertake any political mission? Is there any conflict in terms of personal interest and status?
I dare not comment on the conflict of personal interest, for I do not have any information in this aspect. As regards whether the company has any financial support which enables him to benefit from the operation of the company, no one can tell. However, on the face of it, this mode of operation is hardly acceptable. Since he is a Member of the Executive Council, he is obliged to assist the Chief Executive in planning strategies on handling public opinions, public relationship and governance. Due to his unique role and contribution in the Government, his practice is somehow strange.
I propose deducting his honorarium because firstly, he is holding too many public offices, and secondly, I consider the practice hardly acceptable in his unique capacity. Hence, I place him in the third place in the list of Members who should have their honorarium deducted.
The fourth person who should have his honorarium deducted is CHENG Yiu-tong. He, as well as a number of Members in the Chamber, belongs to the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU). Amendment No 92 proposes to deduct a total amount of $269,560, which is equivalent to one-month's honorarium for four non-official Members. Though only a small amount of money is involved, the deduction carries a symbolic meaning. CHENG Yiu-tong is the most senior Member among the other Members of the Executive Council, and he has served three terms of Government. He has been a Member of the Executive Council since 1 July 2002, serving in the eras under the governance of TUNG Chee-hwa, "Greedy TSANG" and "689". The total amount of honorarium he received during his office as a Member of the Executive Council has amounted to an impressive sum of $7.94 million, which is sufficient for home purchase. Besides, he has other jobs. I do not know how much he has received for other jobs.
Therefore, in terms of seniority, I think he is the most senior Member, just second to LEUNG Chun-ying. He is the representative of the labour sector. In my view, it is desirable to have a representative of the labour sector in the 9064 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
Executive Council, but one representative only is not sufficient, it will be more desirable if a few more representatives can be included. However, can he represent the labour sector? Has he vigorously strived for the interest of the labour sector in the Executive Council?
In reviewing the governance of the Government in the past decade or so, it is noted that the living condition of the labour sector has been increasingly difficult. In other words, he has been incapable of affecting the policies adopted by the Government, or he has not strived for the interest of the labour sector in the Executive Council. He has been a Member of the Executive Council for 11 years, but he has rarely spoken for the labour sector. In the recent strike of dock workers, he has shunned like a tortoise and refused to come forward to speak for the workers.
Ironically, it was revealed recently that certain persons on the highest echelon of the FTU ― the so-called representative of the labour sector ― turned out to be senior management on the employers' side. CHENG Yiu-tong has been a political figure in the labour sector for several decades, yet he has fallen short of our expectation ……
(Mr WONG Kwok-kin stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-kin, what is your point?
MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): A point of order.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): What is it?
MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): Can Members shoot his mouth off and speak without regard to the facts? What Mr Albert CHAN has said just now is not founded on facts, nor can he produce any facts or evidence.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please sit down. This is not the first time that you take part in the debates of this Council. The Rules of Procedure does not require that all the comments made by Members must be founded on LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9065 facts. However, since a debate is being conducted now, if any Member disagrees with the comments made by other Members or wants to challenge whether the comments made are founded on facts, he can certainly raise his hand to request to speak and have a debate. Nevertheless, Members should also have a good understanding of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure and cannot abuse the arrangement for raising procedural matters.
MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): Thank you, Chairman, for your enlightenment. As far as I understand, the comments made by you just now mean that Members can talk irresponsibly.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, this remark of yours is totally meaningless. I remind Members again that if Members want to rebut other Members' views and have a debate, they should follow the proper procedure for holding debates rather than raising points of order frequently.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, thank you for correcting these ignorant Members.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please continue.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I absolutely welcome other Members to speak later to correct my mistakes. If any Member queries my allegations as being not founded on facts, he may not have paid any attention to news reports since it was widely reported in the press that the senior level of the FTU ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you have strayed away from the question.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Yes, I am sorry. Chairman, I mention this point because someone challenged my remarks.
9066 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
Chairman, the behaviour of CHENG Yiu-tong makes (The buzzer sounded) …… Chairman, I will make further comments later.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, good morning. Please hold on. I am sorry, there is a lamp here. First, thank you for giving me a lamp because I really cannot see. I am already a little presbyopic now. All right, let's return to the subject under discussion.
In fact, Members really do not have to be so angry. I have incessantly received calls from members of the public supporting you. A Mr LAU said, "Mr 'Long Hair', you have filibustered for so many days, when are you going to have loose bowels?" This is to curse me, wishing that I would have diarrhea. While I was looking at this remark, I was really emptying my bowels. Therefore, I think there is no need for Members of this Council to get angry. If Members think what I say is wrong, they can stand up to rebut me ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This is the third time you speak. Please do not say anything irrelevant to the question.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I understand. I am only voicing out my personal feeling.
Yesterday, Mr WONG Yuk-man made an analysis about the Executive Council being weakened and made titular, as well as the transformation of the system of the Executive Council. He gave an example, saying that many Members indicated that they had conflicts of interests at meetings, so they had to withdraw from discussions. To withdraw from discussions is certainly a desirable course of action. If there is any conflict of interest, the Member concerned will not be present at the relevant meeting, nor can he vote. Alternatively, this has to be put on record after speaking, to the effect that a subject matter is relevant to one's interests. Of course, this has to be decided by the Chairman. However, Mr WONG Yuk-man has omitted a very simple analysis. He thinks that anyone not attending any meeting is a "wimp". LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9067
However, he does not understand the operation of cronyism. In fact, even making a pay cut is not enough to vent one's anger.
Chairman, let me assume that there are three areas related to Hong Kong's interests, for example, finance, real estate and shipping. These three groups of Members know one another and according to Article 55 of the Basic Law, Members of the Executive Council shall be appointed by the Chief Executive from among the principal officials of the executive authorities, Members of the Legislative Council and public figures. At present, a large number of public figures have joined the Executive Council under the fine excuse of representing various sectors of society. Let us not analyse the makeup of their social classes now, but it seems to me that the lower class is not represented. However, it does not matter because this is how the system works. In mentioning the three sectors of the finance, real estate and shipping, the vested interest groups are interrelated. Chairman, the operation is simple. When financial policies are being discussed, members from the financial sector would certainly have to withdraw from discussion. However, since the real estate sector is closely related to the financial sector, or members in these two sectors actually know each other, hence while some people have to withdraw from discussion, other people can speak for them. Today, when members of the real estate sector have to withdraw from discussion, members of the financial sector can speak on their behalf. Tomorrow, when members of the shipping sector have to withdraw from discussion, members of the financial sector can speak for them. This is cronyism. If this auntie does not speak, another auntie can speak, what difference does it make? Such a system is highly deplorable. I am not going to talk about this anymore. Concerning the studies in this regard, Mr Paul KRUGMAN has talked a lot about crony capitalism in Asia and if Members want to learn about it ― I am not the one who advocate this saying ― Members can search the webpages of the New York Times on the Internet. The analyses on typical cases that are similar to our political system can be found. Before those countries practised democracy, for example, in Indonesia, South Korea …… I am not going to talk about this in the legislature anymore because talking at length is not allowed.
Members, when the highest decision-making body helps a leader …… of course, the Chief Executive is the leader who is above everyone else. If he decides to adopt such an arrangement, what can be done? In fact, to a certain extent, the arrangements in the British-Hong Kong era were even more reasonable because all people were colonial bureaucrats and the Government of 9068 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 the sovereign state was far away. The governance was unreasonable because the sovereign state was so far away from us, and thus it identified a group of bureaucrats to govern Hong Kong and this was in a way better than amending Article 55 of the Basic Law all the time since no provisions have been laid down. As I said yesterday, this was because Article 55 of the Basic Law was constitutionally ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you are right in saying that you talked about this point yesterday, please do not repeat.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I did not repeat anything.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Basically, what you said just now was said yesterday.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I had not said so. If you listen to the audio recording, you would know that I had not said so. Crony capitalism, just to explain …… Mr WONG Yuk-man, I only said that he was lazy ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please do not repeat.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I definitely have not repeated anything because Mr WONG Yuk-man's viewpoint is wrong and I do not necessarily have to agree with his viewpoint. Can I not refute Mr WONG Yuk-man? He said he was lazy but I say that he is not, and that he is lazy with a reason. I cited an example, Chairman, saying that in the era of "Greedy TSANG", 161 items were discussed from January to June 2012 and among them, some members had to withdraw from discussions of 49 items and the total number of withdrawals from discussions was 222. Since "Greedy TSANG" was in a hurry to leave before the "close of business", there were many things that he could not take with him, so he could only hold meetings continuously and many people had to withdraw from discussions. In the second half of his final year, he had to hold meetings continually. Could he prevent a large number of people LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9069 from withdrawing from discussions? Because of the shortcomings of the system ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, this is already the third time that you speak. If you keep repeating yourself or talking about irrelevant matters, I will prohibit you from speaking in accordance with Rule 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Why is this irrelevant, Chairman? Chairman, I know you have the power and you can ask me to leave right now. If you listen to the audio recording again, I am the first one to mention this point and I disagree with the analyses made by a certain Member. Such an argument has never been raised before. I also ask Members to search for the work of a certain author on the Internet, is that also a waste of time? If I cite Paul KRUGMAN's works extensively …… I am trying to prove my argument with information but you said …… what should I do? When I went from an argument to a piece of information, you said that this was …… so it means this is self-explanatory.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please speak on the question immediately.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): This is very simple. This proves the degradation of a system. When the Chief Executive dealt with the final tasks during the remaining period of his tenure, many people had to withdraw from discussions. In fact, these people did not care for a remuneration of several ten thousand dollars. Their withdrawal from discussions reflected the degradation of the whole system, as this person or that had to withdraw from discussions. However, as they had already formed a united front, they could complement each other. Therefore, this system is very corrupt. Under such a system, it is useless even if you are a person of integrity.
I will cite one more example and say no more. In fact, this example will put LEUNG Chun-ying in a favourable light. From July to December 2012, the Executive Council held 23 meetings to discuss 108 items. Members had to withdraw from discussions of 20 items, and the total number of withdrawals from 9070 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 discussions was 30. This is a lot less than that during the time of "Greedy TSANG". Therefore, I want to point out that the system has evolved. What are the reasons? When everything had to be re-established from scratch, the items discussed had little to do with various vested interests. Therefore, on this issue, since I am a fair person, I am not directing against a certain regime but the system itself. It can be argued that as LEUNG Chun-ying and Donald TSANG are two different persons, they have appointed different people, and the outcomes would also be different; or during that period of time, the items for discussion were different. Since I have not conducted any in-depth analysis, my conjecture is that among those 108 items for discussion, only a few were sensitive because many issues had not been discussed. Chairman, this is my argument.
It is meaningless for Members to think that their remunerations are too high. It can be said that they have not done their best. My argument is that the annual estimated expenditure should be reduced to $1,000. If the whole system has not degenerated …… I am talking about the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, not the one to deduct one month's remuneration for each non-official Member of the Executive Council. You may have mistaken. Otherwise, why would a Member propose an amendment to reduce the relevant annual estimated expenditure to $1,000, thus making the Executive Council virtually non-existent?
Chairman, just now, I talked about by chance, that is, after a new Chief Executive has come to office, he may rely heavily on the principal officials of the executive authorities. This is traceable. I believe you also remember that after the introduction of the "three Secretaries of Departments and 12 Directors of Bureaux" and after "Greedy TSANG" had come to power, he believed that civil servants can help him because he belonged to that system. So, he asked the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux to hold meetings whenever they had time. It seems this practice had started during the reign of TUNG Chee-hwa and subsequently, Donald TSANG followed suit. That is why Mr WONG Yuk-man cannot trace the whereabouts of the funding. Why do we only have the total amount of remuneration, why is it not possible to tell us how much each person receives as remuneration? The total amount will be adjusted upward and downward constantly. Does any system exist at all?
Yesterday, I talked a lot here. The enactment of constitution, that is, the right to enforce the constitution after its promulgation is not something simple, that is, has a Government fulfilled its responsibilities? If you are conferred with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9071 certain powers under the constitutional provision of the Basic Law, do you have any means to make all the people comply with it? How can this constitutional right be exercised? All in all, it concerns with the constraints on the power of the Government. Article 55 itself is a major loophole and I have not yet talked about Article 56. On this issue, instead of devoting our attention to discussing who is the lazier ― of course, I will talk about this later ― it is more preferable to carry out a reform on the system.
My argument is: If Mr LEUNG Chun-ying is so appropriately proactive in governance, I call on him to be appropriately proactive in relation to these three provisions. To formulate on his own …… since Articles 54, 55 and 56 cannot be amended, there are no restrictions on the formulation of rules governing how the Executive Council conducts its meetings, how interests are declared as well as the composition of the Executive Council. Hence, when the Constitution confers powers on such an imposing and authoritative regime, if the person in power is virtuous, people would surely know how to comply. I believe if Mr LEUNG Chun-ying were in charge today, and upon hearing what Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has said, he would be all right. If he can really draw up relevant rules, lay down the requirements on the formation of the Executive Council and stipulate that Members who withdraw from discussions too often should not remain in office, the issue can then be resolved because this would allow all Hong Kong people to be aware of the problem.
Chairman, if you were blind, just like the judges, you would not be able to read the information. If we ask him one thing and he answers the other, we can never get an answer. If a system does not allow people in charge of monitoring to perform his monitoring duties, may I ask Members if this is a bad system? Supposedly, Members of the Legislative Council are in a higher position to monitor him, but they cannot perform the monitoring duty, and the door is shut in their face. How then can ordinary members of the public petition the Chief Executive and monitor him? Therefore, if the outdated provisions in Articles 54, 55 and 56 of the Basic Law cannot …… to use a modern technical term, if they cannot be revitalized, they would be meaningless. In other words, if the powers are too great, he is not obliged to impose some restrictions on himself after the acquisition of powers.
Chairman, you were once a Member of the Executive Council, so you should be aware of this. In fact, Mr WONG Yuk-man said yesterday that if the Broadcasting Authority (BA) endorsed a report, the Chief Executive would surely ditch it. This saying is wrong because the Citizens' Radio once sought a judicial 9072 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 review. What was the issue in question? It was about the need for the Chief Executive to give a reason for not following the recommendations of the BA. In other words, according to the internal requirement, if the BA approves the issue of a licence, the Chief Executive in Council can convene a meeting, or he does not need to convene a meeting because according to Article 56 of the Basic Law, if no important policy is involved, there is no need to convene a meeting of the Executive Council and he can make decisions on his own. In other words, LEUNG Chun-ying alone can decide whether or not to issue a licence to Ricky Wong. Another point is that he only has to notify his subordinate, that is, the BA, saying that he would not approve at present. He does not need to give any reasons for his decision. May I ask Members if this is a corrupt system? This system is certainly corrupt and even Article 56 has not laid down any clear provisions.
Therefore, Chairman, many people have said that what I said in this Council would not do Hong Kong any good. Chairman, would they do any good? The constitutional reform is very important. Chairman, as you had served in the Executive Council for some years and due to the confidentiality principle, you could not make any comments, but I am not restricted by this requirement. Here, I am voicing the grievances on your behalf and on behalf of those people who were condemned because of the degeneration and decadence of this system. Am I wrong to do so? This is because you cannot talk about whether or not this system is corrupt. All the people who have served in the Executive Council could not talk about this. Therefore, Chairman, do not belittle us. We do make contribution and we have the knowledge to level criticisms at this corrupt system. I am not going to repeat myself but I only want to repeat one point. I have the right to request a headcount according to Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure, so I ask the Chairman to uphold the dignity of the Legislative Council by summoning Members back, so that there is a sufficient number of Members in the Chamber to hold the discussion.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I hope that the Members who uphold the dignity of the Legislative Council will stay in the Chamber instead of leaving. Will the Clerk please ring the summoning bell to summon Members back to the Chamber?
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9073
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to your seat. Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): You have not called upon me to speak.
Good morning, Chairman. Good morning, everybody. Today, I will continue to speak on the second debate, which covers a total of 102 amendments. Two of the amendments are proposed by me. I will speak on various relevant issues but my focus is still the system itself and some of the people concerned.
Yesterday, I talked about the honorarium issue at the end of my last speech. Regarding the Executive Council, its provision for 2013-2014 is 8.5% higher than the revised estimate for 2012-2013. This percentage is much higher than the increase of 0.6% in the estimate for the Chief Executive's Office. What will the increase cover? We have dug into this matter and found that the increase is to pay for the honoraria for non-official Members of the Executive Council as there are three more non-official Members in this term of Government, or in the era of LEUNG Chun-ying, adding the total number of non-official Members to 16.
Besides, as stated yesterday, the honoraria for non-official Members of the Executive Council are adjusted automatically. Under the existing mechanism, the automatic adjustment is based on the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). While the CPI had only risen by 5%, the relevant provision had increased by 8.5%. Deducting 5% from 8.5% will give an excess of 3.5%. If, under the so-called "automatic adjustment mechanism", the adjustment is based on the CPI movement, there will be an excess of 3.5%. How will this 3.5% of provision be spent? I learnt that it is used for payment of provident fund for civil servants. Yet, I am perplexed by this remark. I later learnt that there are civil servants in the Executive Council. As my proposed amendment concerns the estimate for the whole year and hence covers the honoraria for Members and other expenses, the contribution to the Mandatory Provident Fund may fall under other expenses.
What are the problems with the honoraria? Is there a ceiling for the number of non-official Executive Council Members? Is there a ceiling for official Members? Right now, the official Members include three Secretaries of Departments and 12 Directors of Bureaux, giving a total of 15 Members. Yet, LEUNG Chun-ying had previously tried to expand the accountability system. 9074 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
He wanted his new Government to have a new style of leadership. That was why he put forth the package of five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux once he was elected the Chief Executive. Of course, LEUNG Chun-ying was doomed to failure when he was confronted by WONG Yuk-man. His proposal of five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux was knocked out right away, wasn't it? If we now have five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux, the number of official Members will go up to 19. For this simple reason, I had to stop the Executive Council from having 19 official Members.
It turns out that there is no ceiling for the number of Executive Council Members. There is no upper limit for its membership. Moreover, the honoraria will be adjusted automatically by referring to the movement in the CPI. Furthermore, the extra provision for the Executive Council can be spent at will. In contrast, we, the Legislative Council Members, are miserable. Last time, we had to rely on the committee chaired by Ms Emily LAU to fight for our remuneration adjustment. After all the twists and turns, we could only have an "insignificant" increment. Worse still, we were denounced harshly. As a matter of fact, the committee under the Legislative Council is not allowed to give a pay rise to us. It can only submit its recommendation to a committee comprising bigwigs for approval. However, the Executive Council does not have to ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, you mentioned this point yesterday.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Yes, I know. As I am talking about the maximum number of Members, I must mention this point. I have to speak for us, Legislative Council Members, even though you, Chairman, do not think this Council has much dignity. You said that those who have dignity should stay in the Chamber for the meeting, I cannot agree with you more.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please do not repeat what you said yesterday.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9075
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): I am repeating your words to remind Members that they should stay in the Chamber to join the meeting if they have dignity.
I will continue with my speech. Some people think that it is a waste of life, or a waste of time, for us to launch a filibuster. But filibuster is indeed a solemn matter. Because of this process, we can now have a discussion on the Executive Council. This important constitutional organ of power affects the well-being of some 7 million people in Hong Kong. Yet, it is controlled by dozens of people plus the three Secretaries of Departments and 12 Directors of Bureaux. They stand high above the masses and do not have the people's mandate. However, they are the ones who control the fate of the 7 million people, and decide the well-being of the 7 million people. Chairman, is that right?
On the other hand, the legislature, being the monitoring body, has the mandate of the people, and is a representative body. Should we undertake the responsibility to check and balance, as well as monitor these Executive Council Members who, despite without the people's mandate, still stand high above the masses and decide the well-being of the 7 million people? Do we have the responsibility to monitor them on all fronts? Therefore, the speech I give today and these 102 proposed amendments are all very solemn, Chairman!
Now, I am going to comment on individual Executive Council Member. Some of them are present right now because, as I said yesterday, they are our colleagues in the Legislative Council. I will not criticize them on this occasion. Let us look at the official Members. They are also known as "ex-officio members". They are products of small-circle election and they lack recognition from the people. After "689" nominated them to the Central Government for appointment as principal officials, they automatically occupy the centre of supreme power in our constitution.
For these ex-officio members of the Executive Council, what kind of people are they? I will skip the three Secretaries of Departments and take Raymond TAM Chi-yuen as an example. He is now the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, and previously the Director of the Chief Executive's Office and the Under Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs. Does he have any say on the constitutional development? No. Then, what is his duty in the Executive Council? Why does he have to waste time 9076 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 attending the meeting of Executive Council every Tuesday? While he cannot make any contribution to the constitutional development, why does he have to join the Executive Council? What is his role in the Executive Council?
Chairman, a Member has raised her hand.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, we are now discussing the honorarium issue. Please make a ruling according to Rule 41(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, what have you said?
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): The honorarium issue.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): What is your point?
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, according to Rule 41(1) of the Rules of Procedure, a Member shall restrict his observations to the subject under discussion and shall not introduce matter irrelevant to that subject. At present, the subject under discussion is the honorarium issue. Yet, I note that Mr WONG has spoken on a number of issues which are not directly relevant to the honorarium issue. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, I know this debate has been going on for a long time, but I hope that Members in the Chamber can be more patient and listen to the speeches of other Members seriously.
The subject under discussion involves more than 100 amendments. As suggested by Dr CHIANG, this subject covers the reduction of the provision for the Executive Council and the reduction of honoraria for Executive Council Members. According to my understanding, Mr WONG is trying to explain why he does not think the Executive Council has properly discharged its duties and hence requests to deduct its provision, as well as why he thinks individual Executive Council Member should have his honorarium deducted. Mr WONG's LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9077 speech is not irrelevant to the subject. Mr WONG, please continue with your speech.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Thank you, Chairman. Our discussion mainly focuses on the system, and I would like to ask Dr CHIANG to read my two amendments. In fact, I have already skipped some of the Executive Council Members in my speech. Even if I comment on them one by one, I have the right to do so because some amendments in this debate suggest a deduction of remuneration for individual Executive Council Member. Right? As some of the amendments are about these people, I have the right to speak on these ten-odd Members. Right? However, what I am doing now is to justify my amendments. I hope Dr CHIANG can understand.
I have just mentioned some official Members of the Executive Council. Just now, Dr CHIANG has reminded me not to digress too far from the subject. Yet, I only speak on some selected Members to illustrate my view. I have skipped the three Secretaries of Departments, right? Raymond TAM, being the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, is the official Member of the Executive Council. Every Tuesday, he has to attend the Executive Council meeting. His monthly salary of some $300,000 is paid by public money for his service as a Director of Bureau and a principal official. This amount has not yet included his allowances. If the amount of $380,000 is divided by his working hours …… when he attends the meetings, his service is paid by taxpayers. Right? Therefore, we are obliged to monitor his performance. Moreover, today, we are discussing my proposed amendment which requests to cut or reduce the annual estimate for the Executive Council. This estimate covers expenses of other operations. Therefore, I must comment on various Members, especially this guy, who attends the Executive Council meeting every Tuesday but has made no contribution to the constitutional reform. Another question is: Why does the system require the Executive Council to have official Members? Is it for the sake of consistency in policy administration? Yet, the non-official Members of the Executive Council are actually senior advisors without policy administration power. Theoretically, it is impossible for them take the initiative to formulate policies. Right? They can only hold discussion at meetings and then ask the authorities or Policy Bureau under the accountability system to formulate policies to be executed by the Civil Service. This is how the process goes. Frankly speaking, this process worked well in the past; and we are not trying to say that there are problems with this decision-making process. Instead, we are only 9078 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 fighting for enhancing the legitimacy of the decision-makers. All of us, including the pro-establishment colleagues, are fighting for this goal, only that we have different views on the priority. We all hope that the whole Government can have the people's mandate so that the Executive Council will consider public views in its decision-making process. Is that right? The existing problem is that there is no way for public views to be brought into this decision-making body. This problem is linked to the entire political system, and this is not what we have to discuss today. At present, we only focus on the operation mode of the Executive Council to prove that it is incompetent.
Yesterday, I gave my speech from an ideological or theoretical point of view to illustrate that the Executive Council has been weakened and made titular. It is a fundamental structural problem. Today, what I want to say is that all Executive Council Members are incompetent for their jobs as they fail to meet the existing constitutional or statutory requirements. They should hence be fired for their incompetence to discharge their statutory duties. This proposal is similar to another amendment which requests the whole Central Policy Unit to be scrapped. I propose this amendment every year, and I have my justifications for proposing this amendment.
Let us get back to the official Members of the Executive Council. Basically, it is meaningless for him to attend the meetings of the Executive Council. If not for the time constraint, I will cite Matthew CHEUNG Kin-chung as another example. He is another official Member of the Executive Council. Whenever I talk about Matthew CHEUNG, I will be furious. Being the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, he has the responsibility to tell, in the Executive Council, the livelihood issues which Hong Kong people care most ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I have just said that the performance of individual principal officials is not too relevant to this question, which is about the Executive Council Members as a whole.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): I see. It is because he is also an Executive Council Member. Never mind, I have nothing more to say on this part. OK.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9079
I have nothing more to say on the official Members of the Executive Council. Just now, I only wanted to give one or two examples. I cited him as a case in point mainly because his remuneration is paid by public money and he attends the Executive Council meeting every Tuesday without making any contribution. If one argues that he is not paid for his service as an Executive Council Member but for his service as a government official, this argument is simply unsound. He gets paid anyway, and the remuneration of principal officials is also paid by taxpayers. In addition, he has to attend the Executive Council meetings. Will these meeting incur expenses? While one may say that such expenses are not relevant to the honoraria, we are now discussing the estimated expenses which include transport or other expenses. Is the money spent on serving these Executive Council Members part of the Executive Council expenses? Sure, it is. How can they be separated from each other? They are definitely related.
Moreover, regarding the honorarium issue, I would like to say once again that the increase is unreasonable. Here, I have a clear chart but I do not want to waste time on stating all the details. I can actually tell you the data since 1998 to 1999, that is, after the reunification. Now, the problem is obvious. With an increased number of Members, the expenditure on honoraria has been driven up and the increase in their honoraria is simply unreasonable. It is one of the reasons why I think we will let the voters down if we do not cut back on the estimated expenses for the Executive Council. We are already in the fourth session of our discussion on the Executive Council. In my view, we must review the entire system. Only in this way can we show our accountability to Hong Kong people. We, the legislature, must play fully perform our duties to monitor the executive authorities, which include the Executive Council. We hope all the colleagues can think about this question seriously as it is our duty. Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to mention a few more crucial points before speaking on issues in this session. Besides, I also want to respond to some Members who consider my speech unclear. And express my disagreement to some of the amendments proposed by other Members.
9080 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
In the previous session, I cited the example of Mr Franklin LAM. My remarks were not directed against him personally, but against the funding and the honorarium system as a whole. It is reported that Mr Franklin LAM is now suspended from office. In that case, is he still entitled to receive an honorarium? It seems that the general public, Legislative Council Members and even other Members of the Executive Council dare not give an unequivocal answer. Some people think that he should not have received an honorarium and the amount of money should have been held back. In that case, how should the money be handled? I am not absolutely sure. If the allegation is true, should the total amount of honorarium be returned to the public coffers and should the Government give an account to the Legislative Council or the Financial Committee? Or if it has been proven that he has made no mistake, should he be paid the total amount of honorarium? Is there any other way to handle the money? I think no one can answer these questions.
I only want to highlight one important principle. As funding is approved by us, a Committee of the whole Council is now scrutinizing the amendments on deducting the provisions under the Budget, which will then be approved by the Legislative Council. If we have no power to monitor, change or influence the Budget, or if we even do not have the right to know the details, we should not approve the funding as requested by the authorities like issuing a cheque with our eyes closed. In my opinion, each Legislative Council Member should reflect on this case. The expenditure of the Executive Council is like a fathomless black hole. Although the amount of money involved is not big, the principle involved is significant. If Members have any views, I hope they would take this chance to raise them for discussion.
Secondly, just now Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung mentioned my Amendment No 8 in which I propose to reduce the provision to $1,000. I wish to reiterate that the Basic Law has stipulated the setting up of the Executive Council, but in my opinion, its drawbacks overshadow its advantages and it fails to fully perform its functions. How can this problem be solved so that the Executive Council can perform its function with a reduced amount of funding? This is precisely the spirit behind my amendment. The Basic Law has not provided for the number of the Executive Council Members. It only provides that Members of the Executive Council shall be appointed from among the principal officials, Members of the Legislative Council and public figures. As the word "and" is used in this provision, implying that the composition of the Executive Council should comprise these three categories of people. If Legislative Council LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9081
Members are appointed, actually they need not be granted honoraria separately, and there are many Members willing to serve in the Executive Council.
As for the number of public figures, it may be reduced to a minimal number as according to my proposal, the funding will be deducted to $1,000. Since it is not stipulated in the Basic Law that these people should be remunerated, this $1,000 may be granted to them in the form of "lai see". Regarding the administrative expenses, the Government and the Chief Executive's Office may absorb the expenditure on providing secretariat service to the Executive Council in their daily operating costs. In that case, the Executive Council can still perform its functions after its expenditure has been deducted as proposed.
Thirdly, although Mr Albert CHAN is a member of the People Power, I do not agree to his amendment in relation to this part. Furthermore, I have great reservation because his amendment is really too mild. Mr Albert CHAN has moved a total of 11 amendments numbered 85 to 95, which seek to deduct an amount equivalent to one month's honorarium of 1 to 11 non-official Members of the Executive Council. Just now Mr Albert CHAN said that it is a nominal deduction. However, on the basis of his criticism just now, I will not support his proposal for the nominal one month's honorarium deduction for each Member of the Executive Council because more and harsher amendments will follow. I wonder why Mr Albert CHAN has proposed to deduct one month's honorarium. Is it because he is on good terms with some of the Executive Council Members as he has participated in politics for a long time and he wants to show mercy to them?
My other query is why only 11 Members will have their honoraria deducted? I hope Mr Albert CHAN will make a response when he has the opportunity to speak later. There are 16 non-official Members of the Executive Council, why did he let five Members off? According to the logic of Mr WONG Yuk-man, Members of this Council will be exempted from having their honoraria deducted, and they are Mrs Regina IP, Ms Starry LEE and Mr Jeffery LAM. Then, who are the remaining two? Would you respond to it when you have the opportunity to speak later?
However, I found that Mr Albert CHAN may have another way of reasoning. He may not want to deduct the honoraria of female Members and there are only five women serving as non-official Members of the Executive 9082 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
Council. Since Mr Albert CHAN is particularly merciful towards female Members, there is such a possibility. I hope that he will clarify his stance.
After responding to several arguments, I would like to continue with my speech that I have yet to finish when I spoke earlier. I propose to deduct the honoraria for non-official Members of the Executive Council and one of the reasons is their extremely low popularity rating and recognition rate. As I mentioned earlier, even with a bad public image and riddled with scandals, Franklin LAM still ranked fifth in terms of popularity, which fully reflected the low popularity of other non-official Members.
According to a survey conducted by the University of Hong Kong at the end of January, among the 614 people surveyed, 80 respondents were able to mention the name of Mrs Regina IP who enjoyed the highest level of recognition and popularity rating in her capacity as a Member of the Executive Council. However, the recognition rate of Executive Council Members who rank between seventh and 16th is so low that less than 20 respondents could mention their names. In other words, their recognition rates range from more than 1% to 0.1%. While only 12 respondents could mention the name of Barry CHEUNG, only seven respondents could mention the names of Anna WU and CHEUNG Chi-kong. CHEUNG Hok-ming, Jeffrey LAM and CHOW Chung-kong have the lowest recognition rates as only one respondent could mention their names. However, I have some reservations about the recognition rate of Jeffery LAM since he joined the Executive Council at a later stage and should not be measured by the same standard.
Nevertheless, we can see that the recognition rate of non-official Members of the Executive Council is indeed pitifully low. Perhaps I should read out the relevant figures for other Members of the Executive Council: 80 respondents could mention the name of Mrs IP; 64 respondents could mention the name of LAM Woon-kwong; 40 respondents could mention the name of Franklin LAM probably because of that incident. In addition, 32 respondents could mention the name of Starry LEE; 24 respondents could mention the name of Fanny LAW; 22 respondents could mention the name of Laura CHA. In view of such low scores, we can see that the recognition rate for Members of the current-term Executive Council is almost the lowest. I believe it would be very difficult for Honourable colleagues in this Chamber to mention the names of all 16 non-official Members of the Executive Council.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9083
Next, I would like to discuss Amendment No 97 proposed by me. This amendment is very strange as it is almost identical to Amendment No 96 proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung. Under Amendment No 97, it is resolved that the annual estimated provision be deducted by an amount roughly equivalent to the honorarium for the Convenor of the non-official Members of the Executive Council. According to Amendment No 96 proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, it seeks to deduct the annual estimated provision by an amount equivalent to the honorarium for the Convenor of the non-official Members of the Executive Council. The difference between these two amendments lies in the word "roughly", but the amount involved is the same and that is, $1,294,920, which is the annual honorarium for the Convenor of the non-official Members of the Executive Council. Here, I would like to discuss my amendment at two levels.
The first level is not directed against an individual but the position held by him, while the second level is related to the incumbent Convenor of the non-official Members of the Executive Council, Mr LAM Woon-kwong. Instead of targeting the person, I would look at the issue purely from the perspective of his position. Though I have sought the advice of many people and read a lot of papers, I cannot find out any significant difference in duties, functions and effectiveness between the Convenor of the non-official Members and other non-official Members of the Executive Council. However, concerning the estimated provision under the Budget, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has raised a question at a special meeting of the Finance Committee about the honorarium for each non-official Member and the Convenor of the non-official Members of the Executive Council under the Chief Executive's Office. In reply, the Government said that each non-official Member of the Executive Council receives an honorarium of $67,390 per month. To my knowledge, those who also serve as Legislative Council Member will have one third of his honorarium deducted. In that case, should the Government appoint as many Legislative Council Members into the Executive Council as possible because one third of their honoraria will be refunded? But certainly this will not happen …… (A Member was speaking while sitting) …… only one third of the honorarium for the Legislative Council Member will be deducted, right?
The honorarium for the Convenor of the non-official Members of the Executive Council is $107,910 per month. These two figures represent a significant difference. Take the Legislative Council as an example. The honorarium for the President is certainly different from other Members. We fully understand the arrangement because the President has to work much harder 9084 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 than we do, especially during the filibuster. As I observe yesterday, the President only went to the toilet for the first time at 12:00 noon. As for today, the President is still presiding the meeting up to this moment and cannot leave the Chamber. So, we fully understand why there is a difference in the amount of honorarium, and we will not raise queries. I believe we are willing to triple the President's honorarium if we have 10 filibusters a year.
Regarding the structure of the Executive Council, I do not see why the honorarium of the Convenor of the non-official Members should be higher than that of other non-official Members. I cannot find, after a literature search, any information indicating that there is any significant difference in their functions and duties. In fact, I have sought the advice of some veterans in the political circle and was told that if a banquet is hosted by Members of the Executive Council, the Convenor of the non-official Members should in theory attend. But it does not matter whether other non-official Members will attend it or not. This is the only answer I can get. Probably there is a quota for inviting Members of the Executive Council for dinner. But is this a duty or welfare? Is this a justifiable reason for him to receive a higher honorarium? Certainly I do not think so. In my discussion at this level, I am not against anybody. I just hope that by proposing Amendment No 97 to deduct the honorarium of the Convenor of the non-official Members of the Executive Council, the authorities concerned will review his functions and decide whether it is necessary to offer different levels of honorarium.
As for the discussion at the second level, what I want to raise is related to LAM Woon-kwong, Convenor of the non-official Members of the Executive Council. Although Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung had said a lot on this subject yesterday, I hope that the Chairman would give me sufficient time to illustrate this point because the amendment seeks to deduct the full amount of his honorarium. It is not a joke, but a very serious amendment. Just now I talked about the problems related to his position. But this will have a great impact on him. So, it is necessary to allow me sufficient time to explain my logic and rationale. Mr LAM Woon-kwong is a person whom I respect most in the political circle. Regarding his performances in different positions in the past, there were areas which I supported and opposed. Why should I, under such circumstances, still propose an amendment which has such a profound effect (The buzzer sounded) …… I hope I will have more time for further elaboration later on.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9085
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, it would be most desirable to have Mr WONG Kwok-kin present at the meeting as I will mention CHENG Yiu-tong in my speech. Would you please summon him back in accordance with Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, please ask Mr WONG Kwok-kin if he wants to come back to the Chamber as he has just challenged my criticism against the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU). Chairman, when we look at the composition of the Executive Council and only focus on the representativeness of its Members but not their performance, we will find that there is only one labour representative in the Executive Council. He is CHENG Yiu-tong. When a Member, after joining the Executive Council, has ample opportunities to meet with people who are rich and powerful, he may become less critical or alert. The situation is just like that of Timothy TONG, the former ICAC Commissioner. As he had more frequent contacts with prominent figures, particularly those from the Central Authorities, he might start to drink maotai.
While the Executive Council had discussed many issues in the past, in particular those related to public interests, CHENG Yiu-tong had seldom spoken on behalf of the labour sector on public occasions. As regards whether he has voiced his views at meetings of the Executive Council, there is no way for us to know, as we are not even allowed to know the attendance record of the Executive Council Members, not to mention what they have said. Back in the old days, when the Executive Council had not moved to the new Chief Executive's Office, but still in the old Central Government Offices, the media was allowed to film 9086 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
Executive Council Members entering the Central Government Offices, where many people might gather there for petitioning or staging a protest. Yet, after the Executive Council has moved to the new Chief Executive's Office, the media has fewer chances to interview or film Executive Council Members as there are different accesses to the Chief Executive's Office and special vehicles are allowed to drive into the building directly. As a result, no one knows which Members have attended the meetings or walked into the building. This "secret chamber" has become increasingly dark, and people inside are more tight-lipped than before. The public know nothing about the meetings. In the past, we knew who had entered the premises to attend the meetings, but now we do not have any information.
Let us now discuss the performance and effectiveness of the Executive Council. It can be said that CHENG Yiu-tong is the only person who represents the labour sector in the Executive Council. Perhaps some large consortia have thought highly of him. Therefore, they are willing to give support, including financial support, to the FTU, and more and more big bosses have invited the FTU members to join their management. The FTU itself may consequently become a new stepping stone for people to become bigwigs. Yet, I do not want to see this happen as the FTU is supposed to be the largest labour group in Hong Kong.
Obviously, CHENG Yiu-tong was appointed because of his status as a member of the FTU. He has been the Executive Council Member to three Chief Executives for a total of 11 years. However, over the years, he has never been asked to be held accountable. Neither has he gone through any election. His appointment was simply based on his political status or perhaps, he has other political status which is not known to the public. Many people suspect that senior personnel of the FTU, including you, the Chairman, are all members of the Communist Party. This speculation is in the air. Even if this is a political appointment, if his actual performance can meet the aspirations of the public and he plays a good role in being an Executive Council Member to offer real help to the labour sector, no one would complain about him getting a payment of over $7 million in the past 11 years. People will not envy him for his high status and great power as long as he does not betray the workers. Unfortunately, he had actually betrayed them before. During the period of the Provisional Legislative Council, he had surrendered the right to collective bargaining to large consortia, depriving people of the right which they should have ……
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9087
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you have strayed away from the question.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): I get your point. I am just trying to give some additional background information. Based on the above reasons, CHENG Yiu-tong is the fourth Executive Council Member on my list to have his one-month's honorarium deducted. The fifth Member is Fanny LAW. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has just asked me why I have not put her on the list and queried if it is because she is a woman. Of course, that is not the reason as I do not practice sexual discrimination. I have decided their rankings simply by considering their wrongdoings, poor performance and biased views.
I propose that Fanny LAW should be the fifth Executive Council Member to have her one-month's honorarium deducted (that is, Amendment No 91), and the proposed deduction for these five Executive Council Members will involve a total of $336,950. Fanny LAW has held government or public posts for many years. Hence, she must be very familiar with the operation of the Government. In the past, she had somehow proved her competency in different posts. Regrettably, when she was in charge of education before leaving the Government, her arrogance and indifference to the views of the education sector had given her a bad name. The education problems had aggravated and much controversies had arisen. Obviously, she had not done well in handling the education issues. However, it is not the reason for my proposed deduction of honorarium. The reason for my proposed deduction is that she has not kept her promise to the people. Integrity is very important for political figures.
Many people believe that she was appointed to the Executive Council because she had assisted LEUNG Chun-ying in his election campaign by acting as the Director of his Campaign Office. A lot of Members, particularly those who were members of the Election Committee, should have contacted her over the phone or at banquets for many times. I think Fanny LAW had tried hard to reach out to people of different sectors. Of course, it was her own choice to assist LEUNG Chun-ying. Yet, it would be extremely inappropriate for her to receive political reward and appointment in return. If we give this case a logical analysis, we will wonder if it constitutes a bribery or corruption offence. But that is actually another issue. What I want to highlight is that it is inappropriate for her to obtain reward for her assistance, especially when the reward was in the form of public appointment and public money was involved. At the outset, 9088 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 when Fanny LAW offered help in LEUNG Chun-ying's election campaign, she once said in public that she would not take up any official position even if LEUNG Chun-ying was elected Chief Executive. I am not sure if she was playing on words like the ICAC did, that is, offering food like swallow's nest is not deemed as offering gifts. To Fanny LAW, serving in the Executive Council may not be same as serving an official post. However, according to the precedence list of the Protocol Division ― with the Chief Executive being put at the top of the list, and the President of the Legislative Council at the top three if I am not wrong ― Executive Council Members are given a higher ranking than Legislative Council Members and government officials. Fanny LAW had once pledged in all sincerity to the public, "While I help this man to run for the Chief Executive Election, I will not take up any official post after he wins." However, when LEUNG Chun-ying announced the membership of his Executive Council soon after he won the election, she was surprisingly on the list. I would say that being an Executive Council Member is definitely taking up an official post.
Therefore, in my view, Fanny LAW seems to have cheated the people by breaking her promise. It is unacceptable for her, a person in such a prominent position, not to keep her words. Also, her behaviour and attitude …… in the days when she was a government official, particularly when she was in the era of "Old TUNG" ― in the words of Yuk-man ― she was "having her butt to direct her brain". Her position had decided her behaviour. It is hard to negate what she did at that time. Yet, considering her attitude and behaviour at the time when she was in such a high position, I do not think she should abuse her power and bully others.
I remember that when she was in charge of education policies, I, as a Legislative Council Member, had discussed with her the education problems of the ethnic minorities. At that time, Nepalese and people of Indian or Pakistani nationalities living in Tin Shui Wai, Yuen Long and Tung Chung were facing a multitude of education problems. It was particularly difficult for them to pursue further studies. When I told her my views on these problems, she did not consider my suggestions at all as she strongly believed in the American concept of the "melting pot". She held that people of all nationalities should integrate themselves into the Han culture and the "Greater Hongkongism". She simply ignored the needs of the ethnic minorities. While I had given an explanation and asked her to refer to the multi-cultural policies and education objectives pursued by Canada, she just responded that they were not the policies of Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9089
As Hong Kong is a place marked with pluralistic culture, society and core values, in my opinion, her arrogance and mindset have rendered her unfit for the post of an Executive Council Member. Although Executive Council Members must have their own views and stances on different issues, they should listen to people from different sectors, classes and races. Here, I would like to emphasize the point of "different races". When they formulate a policy, they must think about different factors. Apart from interests, they must also ponder on the tradition, features and characteristics of different people. In formulating policies, particularly those which involve government spending, they should give thought to the impacts on different ethnic and social groups.
I do not think she has the breadth of mind and wisdom on that score. Worse still, she is not even interested in listening to others. In our previous discussion, whenever my views did not go in line with the established government policies, she would not be interested in listening to me. That was my personal experience and feeling. Of course, I do not have the chance to contact or work directly with each Executive Council Member. However, among the Members with whom I have contacted, she is the one with disappointing performance, and I have lost confidence in her. Yet, I have only put her at the fifth, instead of the first, place in my list because some other Members are even more terrible.
The Member who ranks sixth on my list had worked closely with Fanny LAW in formulating education policies. They were "the gang of two" who destroyed the tradition of local education. This Member is Arthur LI Kwok-cheung. He is in the sixth place. In Amendment No 90, I request to deduct one-month's honorarium for six Executive Council Members which will add up to $404,340. Among the various Executive Council Members, Arthur LI is somewhat "invisible". If you ask the public or the media if they know LI is an Executive Council Member …… ever since LEUNG Chun-ying has come to power, the people who deal with public affairs, conduct consultation on various policies and speak up when the Government is in great trouble …… Chairman, I find that there is a special feature for the Executive Council of this term, that is, Executive Council Members who involve in scandals have more extensive coverage in the press and than those who act as spokespersons of the Government. The public are also more familiar with the scandal-plagued Members. Yet, I have digressed from the subject.
9090 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
Why do I give Arthur LI such a high ranking? It is because I cannot see any of his achievement. Besides, I am not sure if he is really interested in acting as an Executive Council Member as we have never seen him coming up to speak on any government policies. Perhaps, it is because he is involved in multiple interests. Chairman, I have looked up the declaration of interests by Executive Council Members, only to find that some other Members are more prone to conflicts of interests (The buzzer sounded) …… I will later give additional information on this aspect.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak in support of Amendment No 84 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. The amendment proposes that head 21 be reduced by $808,680 in respect of subhead 000, which is equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on the honorarium for one non-official Member of the Executive Council. Actually, the hundred or so amendments varied merely in numerical combinations. I have studied the amendments in detail, but I do not quite understand the logic of certain numerical combinations. We know that the Executive Council is the organ with the highest authority in the territory, yet it is obvious to all that its performance is far from satisfactory, particularly the appointment process of its Members, where the people of Hong Kong have no way to participate.
Therefore, many Members of this Council do not think that these Executive Council Members are qualified or competent for their present positions. However, among the Members of the Executive Council, some are respected by the public. Ms Anna WU is one of them. For this reason, I can hardly support reducing the expenditure on the honoraria for various numbers of Members of the Executive Council for one month, six months or one whole year without naming the specific Members to have their honoraria deducted.
However, in Amendment No 84, it is clearly specified that the honorarium for a Member of the Executive Council ― allow me to state his name ― Franklin LAM, should be deducted for the whole year. In fact, the Executive Council ……
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9091
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): A point of order. According to the Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure, will the Chairman please summon Members to the Chamber to learn about the poor performance of Franklin LAM.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO, please continue.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to thank colleagues for returning to the Chamber.
Franklin LAM is appointed as a Member of the Executive Council by LEUNG Chun-ying. As colleagues have said earlier, the Executive Council is the centre of the highest authority of the Government, which is a fact known to all. Policies formulated by the Government must first be discussed by the Executive Council. Since policies submitted to the Legislative Council and announced to the public are first discussed by the Executive Council, Members of the Executive Council are aware of the opportunities available in advance. In this era when information means wealth, the knowledge of the availability of certain opportunities are of great importance. Anyone knowing a certain piece of information a few hours earlier than the others may orchestrate ups and downs in the stock market, making prior purchase or sales. Hence, the integrity of Executive Council Members is extremely important.
Some years ago, the former Financial Secretary, Anthony LEUNG had to step down for jumping the gun in buying a car. Hence, Members of the Executive Council should strictly avoid conflicts of interest, and should not disclose the information they have got hold of, not even to their family members, lest they shift the blame to their wives later. These days, many male political 9092 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 figures incline to shirk their responsibilities to their wives, which is dubbed as "BMW" ― blame my wife. These issues have to be reviewed in the future, so that not only the conduct of the Members but also that of their family members will be subject to regulation.
As for competency, as he had only served as an Executive Council Member for a short period of time, we do not know how competent he is. Besides, competence is subjective. Since the minutes of meeting of the Executive Council are not made public, there is no way for the public to know the ability and knowledge of individual Executive Council Member. However, the conduct of Franklin LAM is obvious. He had jumped the gun …… perhaps I should not say he had jumped the gun, I should only say that he had carried out property transactions prior to the introduction of new taxes.
Actually, since many people in Hong Kong are living in deplorable conditions struggling to cope with the housing expenditure, when a Member of the Executive Council can acquire wealth through property transactions, it will surely arouse extreme dissatisfaction from the public. Moreover, Franklin LAM had carried out property transactions before the introduction of the Special Stamp Duty, and he was suspected of offering kickbacks later. He defended that the sum involved was donation to the charity fund of Centaline Property, but Centaline Property refused to accept the donation and claimed that they had never discussed this issue. The truth of the case remains unknown to date. The Chief Executive should appoint an independent committee to conduct investigation, but the Chief Executive is partial to this Executive Council Member. He allows Franklin LAM to take sick leave ― sorry, he is not taking sick leave ― he allows Franklin LAM to take leave and has done nothing to handle the case.
Chairman, how can a member of a public organization, who is not sick, take such a long period of leave, it is against the established practice and he should be removed from office. Members of the Legislative Council, who are absent without reasons for three months, may be removed from office, and Members of District Council who are absent from meetings for four months without the consent of the Chairman ― that is failing to obtain approval for leave in advance ― will be removed from office. I hope the Secretary will talk about the situation of Franklin LAM and whether he is still on leave when the Secretary responds later. Is he still receiving an honorarium? If he is still on leave, what is the reason for taking the leave? Why did the Chief Executive approve him to take such a long period of leave? Why did the Chief Executive not simply LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9093 request him to resign? As regards whether there is a need to appoint another person in replacement, I think this can be discussed later. However, it is improper that such a significant doubt has not been addressed.
Chairman, government officials had given no response in the previous discussion session. Of course, they can refuse to respond on the ground that they consider the amendments intolerable, but the public will have their own judgment. However, the present situation about Franklin LAM is an issue of public concern. No matter which Directors of Bureaux will be in the Chamber later, they should make use of the speaking time to respond to the concern of the public. What is his present status? What is his role in the Executive Council now? Why do the authorities not simply remove him from office?
If the Secretary cannot answer these questions and if Franklin LAM is still on paid leave, I will surely support Amendment No 84 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to reduce the estimated annual expenditure on the honoraria for one non-official Member of the Executive Council. I have to state the name of this Member and he is Franklin LAM.
Thank you, Chairman.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to talk about deducting the honorarium of Mr LAM Woon-kwong, the incumbent Convenor of the Executive Council.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen expressed his sadness for he has all along supported Mr LAM Woon-kwong. Hence, when he decided to deduct Mr LAM's honorarium, he asked the Chairman to give him some time to speak. I think he is an affectionate person, and he wants to make things clear. However, I do not have any doubts. When Mr LAM Woon-kwong accepted the appointment of the Chief Executive at a time when he was the Chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), thus taking up two posts concurrently, he had made a mistake. I will not elaborate further to avoid repetition.
Nevertheless, I wish to raise one point, that is, Articles 54 to 56 of the Basic Law have not specified the work or duties of the so-called Convenor. Are meetings really convened by him? Generally speaking, convenors play an 9094 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 important role. Let me give a simple example as an illustration. There are provisions requiring that if the Convenor has decided not to convene any meetings, even if the head of a nation requests for a meeting, no meeting can be convened. In other words, if the Chief Executive wishes to convene a meeting, he has to ask the Convenor for consent. If the Convenor has decided not to convene a meeting, no meeting will be convened, or if the Convenor is not certain about the subject matter raised by the Chief Executive, he can decide not to convene a meeting. This Convenor is like the General Secretary of the Secretariat of the Chinese Communist Party, and meetings cannot be convened if he is not willing to do so, even if "Grandpa" has made such a request. Of course, a well-known case is that DENG Xiaoping convened a meeting against the rule to sack LIU Shaoqi. He was derelict of duty because of his intolerance, and he had to suffer.
However, in the current case, the Convenor has no position and he does not perform the functions of the Convenor in general, that is, checking and balancing the conduct of the appointed Executive Council Members. The incumbent Convenor does not perform this function. I have no idea about the situation in the British Hong Kong era. Perhaps the Convenor at that time performed this function because the then Chief Secretary had a chance to do so, but I do not know about the current situation.
If that is the case, why do we have to raise his salaries? If people whose salaries are paid from public funds have adequately performed their duties, or if they have to undertake additional and indispensable duties, there is certainly a need to raise their salaries. Of course, honorarium is not the only yardstick, because it is difficult to decide the amount of payment. In fact, money is only a means to express gratitude, because he is not an employee. Concerning the current performance of LAM Woon-kwong, because of his inherent deficiency, there is no solution, be he "LEE Woon-kwong" or "CHAN Woon-kwong", the result will still be the same. Let us put aside constitutional ambiguity for the time being.
It is certain that LAM Woon-kwong has quite well known among members of the public. The question is, as a Convenor, has he fulfilled his responsibility on the controversial issue of retirement protection for the elderly? We have an objective yardstick, I cannot say whatever I like. For Mr LAM Woon-kwong, I do not know if he speaks for himself or for other people. When he has no other LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9095 posts, that is, when he does not take up two posts at the same time, I think he speaks to the media in the capacity as Convenor of the Executive Council.
What has Mr LAM Woon-kwong said? I met him once in a forum on social security. At that time, he recalled his experience working in the Government and pointed out that he was responsible for introducing the old age pension scheme in 1993. From his experience in public offices, there were great obstacles within the Government for introducing the scheme. I quote his words: "Some people said I advocate socialism". In other words, he knew about the situation concerning the introduction of the old age pension scheme at that time. That scheme is generally the same as the universal retirement protection we are striving for today. Regarding this point, I would not elaborate further, because Mr TAM Yiu-chung also said the plan was feasible at that time and a provision of $10 billion would be sufficient. We then assume that it is feasible. What has LAM Woon-kwong done after he became the Convenor of the Executive Council? Being in a special position with a higher amount of honorarium, what has he done? At one time, he said "in fact it should be done", and at another time, he suddenly said "it is difficult to reach a consensus".
Chairman, just on this issue alone, how can we offer him an honorarium? If he were not the Convenor and had not taken up any official position, I could not do anything against him even if he changed his mind frequently. However, as long as he is the Convenor, he should have his own views, because the Chief Executive may attach particular importance to his views when consulting his views. At one time, Mr LAM Woon-kwong said the scheme could be implemented immediately, but at another time, he said a consensus has yet to be reached. Which version is true? I think his performance is much worse than Mr Nelson CHOW whom I talked about earlier. Why do I say so? Mr CHOW once said he had a perfect proposal, and only a cash handout of $4,000 would be required. His proposal was different from others. However, he said that the Commission on Poverty could not foster a consensus even by 2017. In any case, his views are clear and he has his own ideas. On the contrary, Mr LAM Woon-kwong seemingly does not know what he has said, or he does not insist on his views. President, I must admit that he is bound by the confidentiality rule of the Executive Council, but I am not asking him to tell us what he has said in the Executive Council: I am only asking for his views, but he still did not say anything.
9096 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
Chairman, regarding this problem, I noted that when he was the Chairperson of the EOC, he spoke explicitly which I highly appreciated. The fact that he had, after leaving the Civil Service, joined the EOC and made fair comments is highly commendable. I remember that on one occasion, when he was explaining his slides, there were mistakes with the Chinese characters in the slides, I moved forward to tell him, "Mr LAM, there are mistakes with the Chinese characters in the slides, please correct them, it is not good to have slides with wrong Chinese characters". My impression is ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, this is the fourth time you speak. I reminded Members yesterday not to make lengthy statement on the acts of individuals.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Fine, I do not talk about individual cases. I also think that I should not mention the wrong Chinese characters as the slides were not prepared by him.
Honourable Members, have you noticed the substantial difference? The difference is, before he wore the hat "Convenor of the Executive Council", he was an "upright" person. What does an "upright" person mean? As NIETZSHCE said, our ancestors lied on the ground facing downward, but "upright" persons spoke the facts. However, when he no longer held any public offices and has taken up the post of the Convenor of the Executive Council, he becomes hesitant in his speech.
Chairman, while he gets such a huge amount of honorarium, he fails to perform his duty expected of as the Convenor of the Executive Council. We do not know whether that is true or not, but supposedly, he should be the closest advisor to the Chief Executive. This is only my assumption, otherwise, why is the post of the Convenor created? In fact, he has not performed the functions of a Convenor like that of other councils or policy institutions where the head of state would consult the convenor on every issue.
Chairman, Mr LAM Woon-kwong suddenly changed his attitude and said that the issue was complicated and had to be discussed afresh. I think the problem lies in the relevant provisions of the Executive Council. As I have said, Articles 54, 55 and 56 of the Basic Law have not provided for the conduct of Executive Council Members. Can they express their views in private? We LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9097 only know the confidentiality rule. The question is simple, can an Executive Council Member, in particular a Member as important as he, uphold justice and give advice like an admonishing official, and become a dissident leader in the society? If he can tell us matters other than the confidentiality agreement, the public funds spent are value for money, because in the process of top decision-making, he not only fulfilled his responsibility to advise the Chief Executive and the colleagues, but also the society as a whole.
When he worked in the EOC, he received a salary. Now he takes up the post of the Convenor of the Executive Council, and he also receives an honorarium. In the EOC, he was powerful and spoke explicitly. How come when he becomes the Convenor of the Executive Council, he cannot act in the same way? Frankly speaking, how can we pay honorarium to him? We are taxpayers, how can we allow a person to neglect his duty? Hence, in respect of deducting the honorarium of Mr LAM Woon-kwong, I truly do not wish to point my finger at him, but I cannot help. "Upon entering a rich man's house, Mr LAM has become a stranger". He is like a stranger to me now. I dare not ask him about the correct use of Chinese, because we have nothing to talk about.
Chairman, why I have to make such a detailed account of this point? Although I have to cut his honorarium at present, I want to do him justice. In my view, should he know that the bureaucratic system would restrict his achievement, he should not have taken up the post. I also hope that other "Mr LAM", "Mr LEE" and "Mr TSANG" will not repeat the same mistake. In this regard, my proposals are as follows: firstly, cutting the expenses for the whole institution to $1,000; secondly, taking Mr LAM as an example, it can do him justice, or "my strong criticisms are out of my deep love for him".
Hence, please pay attention that a person who eats salted fish must stand thirst and one must have a big head to wear a big hat. Today, Mr LAM wears a hat "Convenor of the Executive Council", of course I must use this yardstick to make criticisms. Please be cautious and do not take up an official post against your will. It is not too good to be an official. When you are a good official, you will be praised, otherwise you will be criticized. Mr LAM, I do not mean to point my finger at you today, but I hope you can do what is best for yourself, so that I do not need to deduct your honorarium.
Chairman, I have finished speaking. I sit down first and let other Members speak.
9098 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, we will continue to express our views on these 102 amendments.
I want to declare my stand first. I totally agree ― of course, I support my two amendments ― with the other 100 amendments in the second joint debate. I agree with all the amendments. Given that I support all the amendments …… All these 102 amendments share the same objective of deducting the honoraria, presented in a way such as deducting the honoraria of 16 Members for 11 months, deducting the honoraria of 16 Members for 10 months, deducting the honoraria of 15 Members for 11 months, so on and so forth. Altogether, there are 102 amendments.
On account of its contents, we basically support each individual amendment. In other words, we consider that all non-official Members of the Executive Council should not receive any honoraria, or they should no longer serve in the Executive Council.
I would like to point out in this joint debate that I had asked a question at the special meeting of the Finance Committee about a particular Member of the Executive Council who often expresses his views in public. By "often", I mean every day. He has a clear political stand and his views …… His political views are poles apart from mine, even more radical than mine, if other people consider my views radical. No matter what people see me, as a democrat, a radical, or even a "Mad Dog" outside the democratic camp, my views are indeed very radical. However, this guy is also a member with radical views in his camp. Had he been a columnist, there would be no problem at all; but as a Member of the Executive Council of the HKSAR, his daily exposition of similar views will create a serious problem.
Therefore, in addition to an oral question I raised in this Council, I had also asked a question at the special meetings of the Finance Committee to examine the draft estimates of expenditure. But I was gravely dissatisfied with the reply. My question is quite simple, that is, what kind of support would be provided by the Government regarding the views and actions of Members of the Executive Council? I also asked whether the Government has established any mechanism LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9099 of sanction or checks and balances in case the image of the Government has been tarnished by statements made by Members of the Executive Council? No ……
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I request a headcount to see if a quorum is present in the Chamber. Please do a headcount according to Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yuk-man, please continue.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, we were just talking about deducting the honorarium, or the issue concerning honorarium. Had a value-for-money audit been conducted by the Audit Commission, all our amendments would have been passed today.
The Chairman has asked us not to comment on the performance of individuals, that is, we should not spend too much time or talk too much about the performance of individuals. I want to talk about the Executive Council as a whole, including the role of its Convenor. Prior to LEUNG Chun-ying's Government, LEUNG himself was the Convenor of the Executive Council. When LEUNG Chun-ying was the Convenor of the Executive Council, he had a special interest. I want to draw a comparison between him and the incumbent Convenor. When LEUNG Chun-ying was the Convenor of the Executive Council, he had a special practice, particularly in the past two or three years, he 9100 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 was very keen to express his opinions and write articles in newspapers. He even published a book on the collection of his articles.
As I have just mentioned, I once raised a question about inappropriate statements made by Members of the Executive Council, and whether a mechanism of checks and balances has been put in place. My question was replied by Ms Alice LAU ― I dare not say she is a low-ranking official because she is the Permanent Secretary of the Chief Executive's Office. My question was replied by her, or perhaps under the establishment, she should be the official responsible for answering the questions. Then, on whose behalf did she give her reply? Her reply was made on behalf of the Chief Executive. Previously, my oral question about Members of the Executive Council was answered by the Chief Secretary for Administration. I was confused by the arrangement. Regarding the reply given by a civil servant at this rank, I hardly have any expectation at all. As usual, she replied that Members of the Executive Council must uphold the principles of confidentiality and collective responsibility; other than that, they have a right to express their personal opinions like other members of the public. They are responsible for their personal opinions. I did not say that Members of the Executive Council should not have any freedom of expression, right?
The freedom of expression is the same as the right to privacy. To many public figures and powerful people who have taken basic human rights for granted, they may sometimes enjoy relatively less freedom than ordinary members of the public. But at times, they can enjoy ample freedom of expression, for instance, I am now fully exercising my freedom of expression, right? Now in this Chamber, other Members cannot speak while I am speaking because in this platform or under this mechanism, I have the right and the status to speak. But even though some people also have this status, they refuse to speak. I am talking about our status as Members of the Legislative Council. Today, we are in Committee of the whole Council to consider the Appropriation Bill. Members can exercise their right of speech in full, and even with exemption from legal liabilities. But they refuse to speak. So WONG Yuk-man will speak from start to finish. Considered from this perspective, I have more freedom of expression than most others, but only because they have given up their right to free speech, right?
Nonetheless, as a public official, can the said Member of the Executive Council speak without any discretion or restriction? Is his explanation that he LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9101 only speaks for himself and not the Executive Council acceptable? By the logic that he has freedom of speech and he can express his opinions, does that mean he can call me, WONG Yuk-man, "mad dog", "sworn brother" or lackey. True, he has the freedom of speech, but as a public official and a person in power, he should be very careful with what he said. Chairman, that is why even if you are totally dissatisfied with the performance or behaviour of a particular Member, you will definitely not let it show, not to mention calling him those names, right? As you are now sitting in that chair up there, you must be absolutely impartial; although I would doubt you at times, the way you preside over meetings of the Legislative Council has at least given us the feeling of impartiality. You also have the freedom of speech, and you may find certain behaviour of us or other Members disagreeable ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, this is the fifth time you speak. Do not raise any argument that is not related to the subject matter.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): I got it, that is, to speak as precise as possible. I am now talking about the freedom of speech. Members of the Executive Council can say that they are expressing their own opinions, but as Members of the Executive Council, they should not speak carelessly.
Let me go back to LEUNG Chun-ying. In fact, I meant to talk about LEUNG Chun-ying, but I got sidetracked as I spoke. LEUNG Chun-ying is the incumbent Chief Executive who has appointed the current non-official Members of the Executive Council, including the Convenor, Mr LAM Woon-kwong. In other words, LEUNG also appointed Mr LAM Woon-kwong, the Convenor, who is the target of our present amendment to deduct his honorarium. How bad was his performance? Again, I have to refer to the remarks made by LEUNG ― the person who appointed LAM ― when he was the Convenor himself. "What the superior loves, his inferiors will be found to love exceedingly."1 During the period between 2010 and 2011, as I have just mentioned, in the past two or three years, LEUNG Chun-ying was keen to express his opinions and write articles. Over the years, he wrote many articles in the commentary/opinion section of Ming Pao, which he later compiled into a book. He wrote those articles under
1
There was one particular article which I recall vividly. I think Ms Eva CHENG, a former Director of Bureau, also had deep impression of that article. At that time, LEUNG Chun-ying wrote a newspaper article about the housing problem, and as we all know, housing is his specialism. He once published articles about the housing problem, yet what he said about the housing problem now is "a pit of shit"; nonetheless, that is not my concern now as we will follow it up later. At that time, he criticized a Director of Bureau, namely, Ms Eva CHENG, in his discussion about the housing problem. He criticized Eva CHENG for her remarks that it was not an objective of the Government's policy to encourage citizens to buy their own home, and the building of Home Ownership Scheme flats by the Government had driven down property prices. Those remarks were made by the former Secretary for Transport and Housing, Eva CHENG. What was LEUNG Chun-ying's criticism of Eva CHENG? His words have now become a classic; he said, "Over the past 40 years, she has probably lived on Mars and not in Hong Kong." That was his criticism of Secretary Eva CHENG. She was criticized by Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, the Convenor of the Executive Council, who was her colleague in the same governing team. One week later, Eva CHENG wrote an article in refute, pointing out that while it was the Government's responsibility to ensure that each person was provided with housing, there must be strong reasons and wide consensus before the Government could formulate policy and allocate resources to induce home ownership. The current fluctuations in the global financial market could easily impact on Hong Kong's liquidity, interest rate movements, and so on ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, what is the relationship between the article you were quoting and this subject matter?
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): …… It is because in the past two years, the then Convenor of the Executive Council, LEUNG Chun-ying, was keen to express views contrary to those of the Government led by Donald TSANG who LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9103 appointed him as the Convenor. This had created some dire consequences and a bad precedent for the current Members of the Executive Council. For example, LAM Woon-kwong had also publicly expressed some views that were contrary to the statements and stands of the "689" Government led by LEUNG Chun-ying, right? How can we trust this team? How can we entrust the fate of 7 million people to the Executive Council led by LAM Woon-kwong and the HKSAR Government led by LEUNG Chun-ying? Right? As a straw shows which way the wind blows, we can make associations from this example, right? A boss of such disposition will have the same kind of employees. Although LAM Woon-kwong is not LEUNG Chun-ying's employee, LEUNG had inclined to do so, in particular, he made a lot of criticisms before he announced his candidacy, right? He acted as if the perverse policies of Donald TSANG's Government had nothing to do with him.
Chairman, that is a very dangerous situation because I am worried about persons who were former Administrative Officers (AO) like LAM Woon-kwong. When he was an AO, he was very competent. When I first knew him, he was an AO. We had crossed swords on a number of occasions when I was a radio programme host, including the time when the Government proposed to legalize soccer betting during his term as the Secretary for Home Affairs, and later when he was the Secretary for the Civil Service. I think he was very competent as an AO, and later as a Director of Bureau. But why was the performance of such a competent AO so disappointingly lacklustre after he became a Member of the Executive Council? The most obvious example ― Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung had also spoken about it at length earlier ― was his indecisive and evasive attitude when facing public queries concerning his dual role as the Convenor of the Executive Council and the Chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission. Chairman, why was the performance of such a competent AO, an outstanding Director of Bureau or principal official under the accountability system, so lacklustre when he became the Convenor of the Executive Council? That is because his boss, "689" was deplorable, buddy. Therefore, LAM Woon-kwong is in a miserable position now. If he acts and speaks in a more logical manner, such that he gains greater public acceptance than LEUNG Chun-ying, he is guilty of outshining his master. He will certainly meet a terrible fate. As I do not want him to meet a terrible fate, I think he should better resign.(The buzzer sounded) ……
9104 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
MS CLAUDIA MO: I am standing up to speak not in support of this filibustering exercise. I am standing up to speak to speak my mind, to fulfil my duty, my responsibility as a legislator. I was more than saddened to hear earlier the statements from Mr CHAN Chi-chuen over what he said were his encounters with Ms Fanny LAW, who was our former education chief and now an incumbent Executive Councillor. Allegedly Fanny LAW told Mr CHAN that as far as ethnic minorities' education issues are concerned, the Hong Kong government policy is one of the so-called melting pot policy; we are copying the Americans' melting pot. But it is not just meaningless; it is senseless. The American culture is very dominating. We all know that. As a matter of fact, in this globalization era, some people would actually call it "Americanization". Globalization is just Americanization. You try to copy the Americans. But what exactly have you done to help people to get into this melting pot, to be melted?
As a matter of fact, there was a forum not too long ago on ethnic minorities' education in Hong Kong ― how they fail to learn Chinese properly, Chairman. You have no heart to teach Hong Kong ethnic minority kids how to learn Chinese properly. On that occasion, there was actually an Education Bureau representative showing PowerPoint slides, saying "Oh, Confucius Institute". What on earth are you talking about? In Hong Kong, where we use proper traditional Chinese characters, where we speak Cantonese, not Mandarin, how are you going to help them?
Now, Chairman, I know you are going to tell me that "you are getting off topic". But I am not sure if Ms Fanny LAW is still advising the Chief Executive on the same issue. If things go on like this, this is not going to be tolerable. We cannot allow things to go on just like this if that is the sort of advice our Chief Executive is getting. Equal opportunities? Where are equal opportunities? In America, people of all nationalities can easily stand for elections. President OBAMA is half black. Look at our political system here. Do we have one real ethnic minority here? Do they have a chance to move up? Even now, I am not too sure what this Executive Council is doing, and how it is actually serving the Hong Kong society.
When I was a journalist, I used to call this Hong Kong Executive Council the Governor's, and later the Chief Executive's, cabinet ― cabinet advising him on various major policies. But now we have this minister system. All his LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9105
Policy Bureau chiefs are supposed to form his cabinet. So what exactly is this Executive Council doing? Why should it be paid so much of our public funds? I do not know.
And earlier, Ms Cyd HO, our peer and colleague, mentioned Mr Franklin LAM Fan-keung. I would like to know, as a legislator, and I think this entire Council should have the right to know what exactly this so-called Executive Councillor has been doing. And why and how has he been paid still his full salary? Exactly on what reasons, what grounds he was allowed to take leave indefinitely like this? What sort of Administration is this? I was told that Mr Franklin LAM Fan-keung actually said something like …… no, I was told he was there to advise the Chief Executive on housing policy and I quote from a press report on 14 July last year. This Mr Franklin LAM actually told the press that low housing prices are not the Government's housing policy goal, not the Government's housing policy objective. So what is our housing policy goal, our housing policy objective then? And this person …… of course there is no goal, no objective because this Mr LAM was there to advise the Chief Executive but he is no longer around, although he still keeps being paid. We have to question the logistics and the logic of this entire set-up. Why should Hong Kong taxpayers' money be spent on people of this kind? And this Executive Council surely does not deserve such huge expenditure sums from our public coffers. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Today, we have proceeded to the second joint debate which covers 102 amendments in total. Originally, I had prepared about …… I have now with me information about five to six Members of the Executive Council. I intend to talk about them one by one. But I think I should only be able to speak once today, and may not have the chance to speak again because I have to go to court next Monday for the verdict. If I do not have to go to jail or if I am granted bail, I may return to the Chamber to continue with my speeches. But I think the second joint debate will probably end before I come back. The Council will proceed with other debates, and I wonder how many would be completed. In the remaining time, I hope the Chairman will allow me to clearly explain my Amendment No 97 in relation to the Convenor of the Executive Council, that is, to deduct a sum which is equivalent to the annual 9106 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 estimated expenditure on the honorarium for the Convenor of the Executive Council.
As I have just said, my analysis will cover two perspectives. First, I will speak from the institutional perspective and explain why the system of appointing the Convenor of the Executive Council should no longer exist and should not be provided with funding. Second, I will speak from the personal perspective of Mr LAM Woon-kwong. In fact, there is another perspective in between, that is, the appointment of Members of the Executive Council by the Chief Executive. That is because even if the funding provision is reduced, there is nothing to stop the appointees from accepting the offers of appointment to the Executive Council made by the Chief Executive. We can only exert pressure, through this amendment, on the person who made the appointment, that is, the Chief Executive, hoping that he would be more prudent and careful when appointing Members of the Executive Council in the future. Although the Legislative Council cannot influence the appointment of Executive Council Members, we can criticize, discuss, or even vote against the appointment, or even propose amendments to reduce their honoraria.
I will spare no pains and repeat once again that according to Article 55 of the Basic Law, Members of the Executive Council include principal officials of the executive authorities, Members of the Legislative Council and public figures. Some hold that according to the Basic Law, the Government or the Chief Executive should avoid appointing these public officers remunerated from public coffers who are neither principal officials nor Members of the Legislative Council, and not really widely-known public figures. A major question exists regarding the capacity of these public officials in accepting the appointment as Members of the Executive Council.
Apart from Mr LAM Woon-kwong who is the subject of my amendment, other incumbent Members of the Executive Council also belong to this category, for example, Mr Barry CHEUNG, Chairman of the Urban Renewal Authority, who is also remunerated from public offers annually. Separately, with regard to appointment, although Mr LAM Woon-kwong is no longer the Chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), I would like to speak further about the problem institution-wise. A very bad precedent has been set by Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying in appointing a person who also holds the public office of EOC Chairperson into the Executive Council. Taking the opportunity of this amendment to the draft Estimates of Expenditure, I want to caution him against LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9107 making the same mistake in the future because under the Paris Principles of the United Nations (UN) ― the EOC of Hong Kong also qualifies as a national human rights institution (NHRI) under the Paris Principles ― independence is the key element of an NHRI. The UN explains that, "An effective national institution will be one which is capable of acting independently of government, of party politics and of all other entities and situations which may be in a position to affect its work." An NHRI's independence is also arguably the most difficult and controversial. True independence, such as keeping at arm's length with the Government, having adequate resources to carry out its functions, maintaining operation independence without direct and indirect interference, conducting investigation without any obstacles, and so on, are fundamental to the success of an institution. That is the spirit of the Paris Principles, which has previously been mentioned by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung. Regardless of whether my present amendment is passed or not, I hope that from now on, the Chief Executive will strictly adhere to the Paris Principles in the appointment of Members of the Executive Council, especially the symbolic position of the Convenor of the Executive Council.
Next, I am going to talk about the appointment of Mr LAM Woon-kwong. As Mr LAM was also the EOC Chairperson when he accepted the appointment, many controversies had been created. First and foremost, I must acknowledge the contributions made by Mr LAM Woon-kwong as the EOC Chairperson. Certain achievements had been made regarding the implementation of the four legislations on equal opportunities, viz. the Sex Discrimination Ordinance, the Race Discrimination Ordinance, the Disability Discrimination Ordinance and the Family Status Discrimination Ordinance. Moreover, even in respect of sexual orientation discrimination which falls outside these four legislations, Mr LAM Woon-kwong had worked proactively for the interest of sexual minorities. I think every citizen in Hong Kong is well aware of his stand. He had urged the Government to expeditiously proceed with legislation, and not just consultation, for he considered that the conditions were ready except whether the responsible Government official was willing to take the first step. His clear stand has remained unchanged even after he joined the Executive Council and became the Convenor.
However, doubts had been raised in society as to whether Mr LAM Woon-kwong could maintain to be outspoken after he joined the Executive Council. With regard to policies of this nature, I think Mr LAM Woon-kwong has not backed down at all, but it is clear that his stand is opposite to that held by the SAR Government or the SAR Government led by LEUNG Chun-ying. In 9108 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 fact, there are other Members in the Executive Council, including Mrs Regina IP, who supports the proposal to launch public consultation on enacting legislation against sexual orientation discrimination.
Mr LAM Woon-kwong accepted the appointment as the Convenor of the Executive Council in July last year. When confronted by the public about role conflicts, he said that he would definitely resign from the post of the Convenor of the Executive Council should obvious conflict of interest or role conflicts existed in his dual role as the EOC Chairperson and the Convenor of the Executive Council. He also stated that his role as the Convenor of the Executive Council could in fact help prevent the enactment of evil laws. Of course, he finally chose to stay on as the Convenor of Non-official Members of the Executive Council, and he is no longer the EOC Chairperson now.
Nevertheless, I must say that the crux is not whether he is still the EOC Chairperson. Instead, if the views of a Member of the Executive Council, especially the Convenor, in a major and critical policy is opposite to that of the SAR Government or of LEUNG Chun-ying, head of the SAR Government, and that the Executive Council Member has clearly voiced his stance outside the Executive Council, if I were Mr LAM Woon-kwong ― of course, I am not ― I would not have stayed in the Executive Council.
Hence, I propose to deduct the annual honorarium for the Convenor of the Executive Council. Subsequently, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung proposes other amendments. While my amendment seeks to deduct the honorarium for the Convenor for 12 months, he proposes a series of amendments to deduct the honorarium for the Convenor of the Executive Council for a descending number of months, up to one month in Amendment No 108.
Under the collective responsibility system, anyone who joined the Executive Council can no longer speak like human beings, and he must speak to defend the Government. Let me give some simple examples of remarks made by Mr LAM Woon-kwong. When he was asked to comment on LEUNG Chun-ying's unauthorized building works ― of course, it was inappropriate for him as Convenor of the Executive Council to make harsh criticisms, he said, "Considering the level of the Chief Executive-elect, this is a rather major fault." He added that, "He is striving to handle the case." LAM should be referring to LEUNG Chun-ying. I think his comments were neither impartial nor objective.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9109
Furthermore, regarding the universal values enshrined in the UN human rights treaties, he stated, while he was still the head of an NHRI, that they should be upheld. But he is no longer the EOC Chairperson now. When asked to comment on universal suffrage and the remarks made by QIAO Xiaoyang earlier this year, Mr LAM Woon-kwong's response was disappointing. He said, "Regarding the concluding observation made by the UN Human Rights Committee in its report that all future elections in Hong Kong should be implemented in conformity with the principles enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)," ― LAM Woon-kwong's stand has obviously changed ― "the ICCPR was just a standard for reference" ― it was just a standard for reference ― "to be implemented according to the local constitution and legislation, and Hong Kong's constitutional reform should be implemented in accordance with the Basic Law." Obviously, the ICCPR which LAM had embraced and practised as the head of an NHRI has now been downgraded as a standard for reference, implying that there is conflict between the Basic Law and the ICCPR. I totally disagree with this point.
Just now, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung also raised the question about universal retirement protection. On the question of universal retirement protection, LAM Woon-kwong and the SAR Government also have different views. Universal retirement protection is one of the demands of this filibustering war. LAM Woon-kwong once said publicly that given the Government's ample fiscal reserves, it would be sufficient to provide protection for the elderly by allocating 3% of interest income from the reserves annually or by establishing a land fund to allocate part of the proceeds from land sales for the purpose. When he made this suggestion during his term with the EOC, he had been criticized as a socialist, yet he still said that he wanted to take it forward within the institution through his personal efforts. He said, "Protesting loudly is not enough by itself, and we must combine force to achieve the most attainable target."
In fact, that statement more or less summarizes the objective of Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's filibustering war today, that is, the hope that society will come together to strive for universal retirement protection. As pointed out by LAM Woon-kwong, the Government's fiscal reserves together with the Exchange Fund has amounted to $900-odd billion, and it would be enough to provide protection for the elderly just by allocating 3% of interest income from the reserves annually or by establishing a land fund to allocate part of the proceeds from land sales for the purpose. He made those statements after he became the 9110 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
Convenor of the Executive Council. It is clear that the incumbent Convenor of the Executive Council has actually failed to uphold the principles of collective responsibility and confidentiality, and like LEUNG Chun-ying, his predecessor, he would express his own opinions even if they are poles apart from the Government's policies. In that case, how much value is left for the continued existence of the Executive Council or the Convenor of the Executive Council?
Therefore, we might as well propose to deduct all the relevant expenditure. Government officials should ask LEUNG Chun-ying directly for salary payment because they dance to his tune and carry out his formulated policies. Notwithstanding the confidentiality system of the Executive Council, I know from some informal sources that many policies have actually not been discussed in the Executive Council, for example, sexual orientation discrimination; if LEUNG Chun-ying has not raised the policy for discussion by the Executive Council, Members of the Executive Council cannot make their stands known.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Just now, I talked about the declaration of interests by Arthur LI, but since a number of Members have successively mentioned LAM Woon-kwong, I only want to say a few words before moving on to explain my amendments. The issues relating to LAM Woon-kwong are related to quite a number of amendments in the second joint debate. I support the amendments proposed by other Members in relation to LAM Woon-kwong in his capacity as the Convenor of the Executive Council, including reducing his pay or honorarium. In principle, I support these amendments. Of course, my grounds are slightly different from those of other Members.
I have known Mr LAM Woon-kwong for more than two decades and in fact, when he was a civil servant, he served in various posts and basically, his performance could be described as excellent. He was an official who was willing to listen to the voices of various parties and when handling policies ― of course, when implementing the Government's decisions, he was not allowed to change the Government's policy directions or decisions ― when dealing with issues, he would consider or accommodate the views and demands of other people as far as possible and in implementation, he would assuage the feeling that the Government was dominating and totally disregarded the views of various LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9111 parties when it had the right to do certain things. Therefore, when implementing various government policies, of course, a certain amount of resistance would be encountered but compared with other officials, fewer instances of fierce resistance and opposition occurred. This is related to some extent to his attitude in dealing with matters and relatively speaking, his abilities in dealing with various matters and understanding policies were also greater. Therefore, as a Member and the Convenor of the Executive Council, in respect of understanding policies, his ability is far superior to that of many incumbent Executive Council Members. I believe that his ability in understanding, grasping and formulating policies is definitely greater than that of "689".
However, why do I still consider it inappropriate for him to hold such an office? First, it may be better for him to serve as Chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission than as a Member of the Executive Council as he may be able to give greater play to his special abilities and influence. Second, this can be described as a kind of original sin because as a Convenor of the Executive Council, he must be able to lead or influence the behaviour or comments of other Executive Council Members. Chairman, if we look at the entire framework in the British-Hong Kong era ― many people have gradually forgotten the fact that the entire political framework of Hong Kong actually originated from the British-Hong Kong colonial era ― the role played by the Executive Council nowadays is basically identical to that of the preceding Governor-in-Council. The Basic Law promises that Hong Kong will remain unchanged for 50 years but Hong Kong is changing all the time. However, in terms of the framework, principles, organizations, concepts and operations, we should still adhere to them.
If you look back at the past, that is, not long before the reunification, in the Executive Council that we are familiar with, the person known as the Senior Unofficial Member back then still exercised a certain amount of leadership and influence in leading Executive Council Members in dealing with social issues and government policies. In particular, I remember that in the Legislative Council and Executive Council of the British-Hong Kong era ― in those years, we still had the Office of Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils ― the Senior Unofficial Member of the Executive Council back then was able to lead various parties in dealing with major issues and the issues back then were the future of Hong Kong and the Sino-British negotiations. The performance of the Senior Unofficial Member could often make the public feel that the relevant organizations, in particular, members of various representative councils, including Executive Council Members, cared about and could deal with major 9112 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 issues on behalf of Hong Kong people, as well as would lobby for the rights of Hong Kong people. However, of late, such a feeling is gradually fading.
That such a feeling is fading is not just about the absence of such a feeling, rather, we can actually see for ourselves that the performance of the Convenor of the Executive Council, including that of LEUNG Chun-ying in the era of "Greedy TSANG" ― the LEUNG Chun-ying in the era of "Greedy TSANG" practically delivered nothing, or did he? For one thing, he was in total discord with Donald TSANG. The two of them lived in different circles and in dealing with problems, Donald TSANG just turned a blind eye to LEUNG Chun-ying and LEUNG Chun-ying did not respect Donald TSANG in any way either because throughout, LEUNG Chun-ying only cared about Beijing and establishing ties with the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR. (LOCPG) and the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office. He had neither the intention of doing his best for the governance by Donald TSANG, nor did he have any sincerity to do so. Rather, instances of gaining advantages arose frequently and instances of trying to gain benefits could often be seen. He even used his capacity as the Convenor of the Executive Council to develop in other areas. Therefore, in the minds of the public, the role of the Convenor of the Executive Council has gradually become irrelevant. However, this is definitely not the performance or behaviour that is expected of the Convenor of the Executive Council. Then, LAM Woon-kwong became the Convenor and why do I say that this is an original sin? First, I have made an analysis earlier to point out that under the governance by LEUNG Chun-ying, the Executive Council was made up of four components, including pro-communist people, incumbent officials from the three Secretaries of Departments and 12 Directors of Bureaux, some professionals and some members of the business sector. This is in sharp contrast with the eras of TUNG Chee-hwa and Donald TSANG. It can be said that LAM Woon-kwong, in leading ― since he is the Convenor, he should lead ― in leading Executive Council Members, does not actually assume any leadership or a leading role. Frankly speaking, if the LOCPG or people close to the LOCPG can hold sway over something, how would they possibly listen to LAM Woon-kwong? Even the five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux have their own systems. Of course, some of them were his former colleagues, so his communication with them may be better but there are also quite a number of "LEUNG's fans" among the five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux with practically no working relationships with LAM Woon-kwong, so still less would they be influenced by him.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9113
As to the business sector, the influence of LAM Woon-kwong in this regard is weaker. How possibly would the spokesmen for plutocrats be influenced by him? Therefore, in actual operation, he does not have the ability to lead and guide the numerous Executive Council Members. If he wants to influence their comments, it can be said that this would be tantamount to milking the bull and is totally impossible. If LAM Woon-kwong asks CHEUNG Chi-kong, whom I described as the "political hatchet man" just now, not to be so biased when writing articles, not to adopt such strong stances and not to adopt a confrontational stance against the public on the issue of national education, the latter would not pay any heed at all because he is dancing to the tune of the LOCPG and he has his own political tasks.
Therefore, as the Convenor of the Executive Council, he has actually failed to perform his proper role and function as a Convenor in actual operation …… this is not his own subjective wish but there is definitely a relationship with the composition of the Executive Council. If Members look in retrospection at the composition of the Executive Council in the past, in particular, in the British-Hong Kong era, Executive Council Members in general enjoyed some status and played certain roles in their own social circles. Therefore, the Senior Unofficial Member of the Executive Council would often nominate some people to the Government, so that the Government could appoint these people with whom he was familiar and could co-operate. Naturally, this would enhance the influence and leadership of the Senior Unofficial Member because if he could place some people in his own organization, when he led the organization in its work, the work could be done more smoothly and he could also be more influential.
Due to the innate defects of the existing Executive Council, that is, the alienated relationships and the lack of consensus on the working relationships between the Convenor and existing Members, naturally, his influence is greatly compromised, so it can be said that the capacity of the Convenor of the Executive Council exists in name only. To some extent, it no longer exists in reality. If Members look at the actual operation at present, it can be said that the functions of the Convenor of the Executive Council in exerting his influence and co-ordinating all Executive Council Members in working together no longer exist. As far as I remember, I have never seen LAM Woon-kwong meet the mass media together with other Executive Council Members to declare their common stance on certain major issues. I have really never seen anything like that, am I right? If Members think about the past, such scenes could be seen on 9114 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 a number of occasions but in this Executive Council, under the leadership of "689", the failure and slackness in the overall operation of the Executive Council has hardly ever been seen before.
Chairman, I have a cough, so may I trouble you to make a headcount, so that I can rest a little and drink a glass of water? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the summoning bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please continue.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I mentioned Mr LAM Woon-kwong just now. To some extent, I think it can be said that in his existing post, he has the talents of a general that are not put to good use. He cannot give play to his potentials or the functions that he should perform, so this is indeed a great shame. However, the responsibility does not lie in him, rather, the problem lies in the framework. Therefore, I do not support the amendments proposed by other Members in relation to his post on the ground that this is actually an "original sin".
Chairman, let me elaborate on the scope of my own amendments. Earlier, I talked about Arthur LI. Among the Executive Council Members whose honorarium I propose to deduct, why do I put him in the sixth place? Apart from his "invisibility", I believe he has two major problems that make me accord such high priority to him. First, he holds a number of posts, yet these posts are not public ones but those involving private interests.
The Register of Members' Interests for Executive Council Members indicate that ― of course, the number of posts held by him is a far cry from that of Bernard CHAN and I will explain further when dealing with the amendment relating to Bernard CHAN later on ― Mr Arthur LI holds many posts involving personal interests in private companies, and large companies for that matter. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9115
These posts include the Independent Non-executive Director and Deputy Chairman of The Bank of East Asia, Limited ― this is a big business run by his family ― the Independent Non-executive Director of the Shangri-La Asia Limited, as well as posts in The Wharf (Holdings) Limited ― this is a big company and one of the five major property developers in Hong Kong the businesses of which are not just confined to property development ― the China Flooring Holding Company Limited, Hing Wai Investment Company Limited, Nam Wo Hong Limited, Wo Fat Sing Limited, AFFIN Holdings Berhad, a Malaysian company, and BioDiem Limited, an Australian company.
Of course, there is also the Digital Broadcasting Corporation Hong Kong Limited (DBC), which Members are all familiar with. As far as I know, at that time, he supported the re-organization of the DBC, thus leading to the closure of the DBC. As a Member of the Executive Council, he had to perform a political task at that time and this eventually led to the closure of the DBC for some time. The DBC (The buzzer sounded) ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, many people are now saying that Mr LAM Woon-kwong seemed to be a totally different person under this system. According to the Basic Law, he shall tender advice to the Chief Executive because the Executive Council is constitutionally tasked to be an organ of consultation for the Chief Executive. I was quite surprised to hear the speeches made by Honourable Members, particularly the issue on declaration mentioned by Mr Albert CHAN. In fact, at a particular meeting of this Council, I asked the Chief Executive a question about the state of business as well as the current operation of his company registered in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). Of course, the Chief Executive had replied my question. He said that he had explicitly stated that the company would not engage in any business in Hong Kong, and that he intended to appoint a trustee to hold the shares on his behalf, it was just that he had yet to identify the right person. In that case, has he identified a right person to be the trustee now? Honestly, if he has not come to the Legislative Council to answer my question, I would never know the answer because he has all along given no reply.
9116 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
In a nutshell, the head of all officials shall listen to the king, but if even the king fails to set a good example himself, how can a standard be set? This matter about the BVI company has long clouded over Hong Kong people …… Under the established rules of the Executive Council, when a Member of the Executive Council holds or ceases to hold a particular business, he must make a declaration including the state of business concerned. But, if even the Chief Executive has failed to do so, what is the purpose for declarations made by people he consulted?
Hence, it is crystal clear that a major problem has indeed arisen under this system. Just now, Mr Albert CHAN said something about the talent of a commander. I think his comments can be summarized as "A good bird chooses the branch that it perches upon", said by former Secretary Stephen LAM when the constitutional reform proposal was passed. Obviously, the Executive Council is the ideal branch for good birds, but if after a good bird has chosen to perch upon the Executive Council, other birds perching on the same branch are sick, it will be inflected with bird flu.
Let us consider another Member of the Executive Council ― enough has been said about Mr LAM Woon-kwong just now ― I would like to talk about Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, a veteran who has sat on the Executive Council in three terms of Government. There is an English saying, "Last but not least", but actually, the first is not necessarily the most vicious. Nonetheless, I must say something about him. First, given that it is provided in the Basic Law that the Executive Council must tender advice to the Chief Executive, it is clear that on the issue of universal retirement protection, "Brother Tong" has yet to give his best, or he has failed even at his best. I dare not guess whether the former or latter is the case because everything he said at the meetings should be kept confidential, but it is apparent that everything he said has become increasingly insignificant. Unlike Mr TAM Yiu-chung of this Council, "Brother Tong" has not worn two hats at the same time, and he remains the patriarch and the kingpin of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU). As Mr TAM Yiu-chung has already transferred to another club ― it is now called the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ― I no longer mention him when discussing various labour issues.
The three Chief Executives all consider that CHENG Yiu-tong has a certain value, that is, he can represent the views of workers or employees. It cannot be otherwise for he has no other identity. Okay, let us see, CHENG Yiu-tong …… Let us leave the right of collective bargaining aside first. It has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9117 been 15 years and no improvement has been made so far, that is why I will say no more. I will only concentrate on universal retirement protection. I do not want to repeat what I have said before. Simply put, the proposal previously made by Mr TAM Yiu-chung has yet to be implemented to date, whether as a two-tier system, or as my most humble request now ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, this is the fifth time you speak, please do not repeat what you or other Members have said previously.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I get it. Some members of the public might have not watched the live broadcast of Council meetings these two days, and they may have no idea what I am talking about.
Simply put, the FTU had then clenched its teeth in discussing with Chris PATTEN the so-called two-tier retirement protection system comprising old age pension and provident fund. But instead of establishing the said system with those two elements, the Government implemented the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) system. To the FTU, the MPF system is a "rotten orange". I do not make this up. When explaining why the FTU had resignedly accepted the MPF proposal in the former Legislative Council, a certain Member of the FTU called it a "rotten orange". Of course, he would not give his union members a "rotten orange", and he said, "I will turn this 'rotten orange' …… Today, having an orange is better than having nothing at all, eating a 'rotten orange' is better than having no orange to eat at all; today, let us eat this 'rotten orange' first." Now, this "rotten orange" should have rotten completely to become marmalade for bread.
As we can see, the FTU is an organization representing the working class with a large membership. Many Members of the Legislative Council also come from the FTU. But as a veteran who has sat on the Executive Council in three terms of Government, he cannot turn this "rotten orange" into a good orange. Is that not a dereliction of duty? This is not just any common dereliction of duty because among the many Members of the Executive Council ― I have checked the membership list at the time of his appointment ― no community leader has the same background as CHENG Yiu-tong ……
9118 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you are repeating the views mentioned by Mr Albert CHAN previously.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Has he mentioned the same thing? Has he mentioned CHENG Yiu-tong?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please do not repeat.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Okay. What did he say? Was it about his incompetency?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You are responsible for noting the points raised by other Members in their speeches. I have advised you before that you should not leave the Chamber when other Members speak. It is better for you to stay in the Chamber and listen to their speeches.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I still watch the live broadcast of the meeting even when I am upstairs. His account was obviously not as detailed as mine because he does not know the whole story ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has spent more than 15 minutes on these matters.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Did he mention the "rotten orange"?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As you just said, he had talked about it already. If you repeat the points made by other Members, I will not allow you to continue with your speech.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9119
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Okay, it is alright. That is really a matter of degree. I speak with reference to history in order to prove my point, but if I am not allowed to talk about history, there is nothing I can do. I will take heed of the Chairman's advice and stop talking about history. But, Chairman, as I recall ― perhaps we need to review the recording ― Mr Albert CHAN has said nothing about CHENG Yiu-tong being a veteran who has sat on the Executive Council in three terms of Government. But if you say CHENG Yiu-tong is not worth mentioning, I will say no more.
Going back to universal retirement protection, CHENG Yiu-tong has not strived for it with his best efforts. Just now, I was saying that he is the only person appointed to sit on the Executive Council with this hat on. If we consider the matter from another perspective, universal retirement protection ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, which amendment are you talking about now?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): The one which seeks to deduct his honorarium.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Which amendment is that?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am now speaking about Amendment No 84. Under Amendment No 84 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, it is resolved that head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office be reduced by $808,680 in respect of subhead 000 ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You have talked so much about universal retirement protection, how does it relate to this subject matter?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): People who have failed to perform their duties should have their honoraria deducted. If a person appointed to sit on the Executive Council has dutifully tendered his advice to represent the 9120 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 employees over the years, but with no success at all, he has erred, albeit in a minor, but not a major way ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has already explained the same viewpoint as yours in detail. Please do not repeat.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I see. Okay, I will talk about another person. In that case, I must briefly touch on the BVI matter. Chairman, as I just said, no reform has ever been introduced to the declaration system, but the Chief Executive has taken the lead to destroy it. When he appeared before this Council which is responsible for overseeing his work, he had not told the truth even under the public's watchful eye. As such, how can he lead his team? In fact, regarding this matter, suggestions had been made in the past ……
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Are you still discussing Amendment No 84?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes, so what?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please continue.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Let me think of an example. If I mention Franklin LAM, the Chairman will say that I have talked about him before, right? Of course, that is not what I am going to do. Next, I will talk about Ms Anna WU, a Member of the Executive Council with wide participation in charitable organizations. Actually, should Members of the Executive Council be responsible for suggesting a more comprehensive declaration system to the Chief Executive, so as to enhance the credibility of their participation in organizations exercising public powers? I think it is what they should do because they have extensive experience in this regard.
Take the example of BVI companies. Of course, many businessmen have set up BVI companies for the purpose of tax evasion or bypassing supervision. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9121
But I consider that persons accepting the appointment to sit on the Executive Council should have a higher moral standard. As such, either this channel used by businessmen to cover up their covert business activities such as tax evasion should be regulated, or any person who has ever held any shares in a BVI company should not be appointed to the Executive Council. Has this question been discussed before?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): What is the relationship between the contents of your speech and Amendment No 84?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): It is because persons with this kind of experience, for example, Ms Anna WU, had raised this question before. But such a system cannot be established in the Executive Council. By the same token, if the Chief Executive has not made this declaration, can we expect other Executive Council Members would make the declaration? Of course, I have no idea what is the existing requirement because they have always kept it a secret.
Moreover, when all the principal officials, that is, the three Secretaries of Departments and 11 Directors of Bureaux, were included in the membership of the Executive Council ― the Chairman should recall that development because I think you were also a Member of the Executive Council then ― some people had suggested that official Members (but not the non-official Members because they are the untouchables) should be required to declare their interests if their families or themselves hold more than 1% of shares in any company. Had this requirement been implemented at that time? No, because it would create a lot of problems. Okay, today …… I recall that the time was 2002. Chairman, you know about that too, right?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I still cannot see the relationship between what you have just said and Amendment No 84.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): If a person ……
9122 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This is the fifth time you speak. Please stop talking about matters unrelated to the subject under discussion.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am talking about Anna WU. Why can't Anna WU's honorarium be deducted? Chairman, do you know her? Known for her meticulous oversight, Anna WU was once appointed as the Chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission. Later, she dealt a heavy blow to Michael WONG. But after what she did to Michael WONG, she made the same mistakes herself. Had she not suggested some improvement measures to the system? But now I have no way to know how wealthy she is? Isn't that a dereliction of duty? Before her appointment to the Executive Council, she was fearlessly righteous. But she has changed completely after she was appointed to the Executive Council. People wonder whether this system has turned her into bird flu …… a bird inflected with the virus. I find it very strange to hear that I am wrong to deduct her honorarium.
She had made the suggestion in the first place, but nothing has been done so far or after her appointment to the Executive Council. So why is it wrong for me to deduct her honorarium? I have not accused her unjustly. Under the relevant suggestion, an interest of even 1% shareholding must be declared to avoid any criticisms on the Executive Council. The suggestion was made 10 years ago. Nothing has been achieved after 10 years. Even though she is now a Member of the Executive Council, she has done nothing about it. How come I cannot punish her for that? How come I cannot deduct her …… I only propose to deduct her honorarium, buddy, how come I cannot even deduct her honorarium? Actually, I know that the Chief Executive's unwillingness to take the matter forward has put her in a difficult position. But she should insist on her suggestion.
Moreover, when the proposal was first made to appoint the three Secretaries of Departments and 11 Directors of Bureaux ― or 12 Directors of Bureaux, I have forgotten now ― some had suggested that the appointees should resign from any position they held as a director of a company, in order to allay public concern. Has it been put into practice now? No. There are so many names on the list that I would feel ashamed and too time-consuming if I were to read them out one by one. Even ordinary members of the public have asked me to do something about it. What I am saying today is that, it is wrong for an educated person with integrity and morality to join an organization and then, not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 26 April 2013 9123 do the things he should. That is why his honorarium should be deducted. If there is problem even with this proposal, I think …… Or perhaps the problem is with me?
I repeat, my rationale is very simple. For a person who had made exceptional achievements before he joined the Executive Council, it is a dereliction of duty if he has done nothing after he joined the Executive Council. That is why his honorarium should be deducted. The logic is simply whether value-for-money results have been achieved.
SUSPENSION OF MEETING
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9 am next Monday, 29 April.
Suspended accordingly at two minutes to One o'clock.