LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2439

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 28 November 2019

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, G.B.S., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.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 CLAUDIA MO

2440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S.

THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S.

THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, S.B.S., J.P.

IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE JUNIUS HO KWAN-YIU, J.P.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2441

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

THE HONOURABLE AU NOK-HIN

THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG WING-SHUN, M.H., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN

MEMBERS ABSENT:

PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, S.B.S., J.P.

2442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

THE HONOURABLE JIMMY NG WING-KA, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2443

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE PATRICK NIP TAK-KUEN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

MR ANDY CHAN SHUI-FU, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

2444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Second Reading of Government Bills

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, this Council will continue with the Second Reading debate on the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019.

Ms Alice MAK, please speak.

Stand-over item: Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 (standing over from the meeting of 10 July 2019)

ELECTORAL LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 2019

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 20 March 2019

MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): Good morning, President. In recent years, when we proposed legislative amendments to improve governance, the Government usually told us that the introduction of a bill and its passage by the Legislative Council involved great difficulties and a long process. Now that the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") has been introduced into the Legislative Council, we hope that the legislation can be improved or substantially reviewed. In view of the difficulties, should more amendments be proposed to improve the legislation?

It is a pity that the Bill only makes some technical amendments, including the list of voters in functional constituencies, the ways in which nomination forms are submitted, the requirements on thickness and size of each letter that may be sent free of postage, limits prescribed for ratifying minor errors in various elections, and revising the threshold for the submission of invoices and receipts from $100 to $500. Honestly, Honourable colleagues who have handled the electoral work are well aware of these matters, but many members of the public may not be aware of the requirements. The Bill even prescribes thickness and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2445 size of each letter that may be sent free of postage. We understand that the purpose of standardizing the size of each letter is to enable the election to be held in a fair and just manner. The leaflet posted by a candidate will not be larger or thicker than the leaflet posted by another candidate.

In addition, how does the Bill ensure that elections will be conducted in a fair and just manner? The Bill only makes some technical amendments. In fact, the Registration and Electoral Office ("REO") and the Election Committee will publish reports after each election, highlighting matters to be reviewed and improved. However, the so-called improvements usually mean more cumbersome procedures and more traps for candidates or their teams. For example, as the amendments to the Bill are not explicit, the candidates will easily violate the law.

More importantly, even if the law is amended, it will not ensure that the election is fair and just. Why do we all want a fair and just election? A lot of people are dissatisfied after the just-concluded District Council ("DC") Election. Does the Government know that many people are dissatisfied as they thinking that the Election is unfair? Will the Government amend the relevant ordinance accordingly? I have voiced such views time and again.

Let me give some examples. In 2016, it was discovered that a register of electors of a polling station in a certain constituency was lost after the election, but the incident was only announced and investigated by the authorities a few years later. This has greatly dampened the confidence of members of the public because their information might be lost after voting. However, the current legislative amendment does not cover how ballot papers and the registers of electors should be properly handled after the election. In this Bill, the authorities require that thickness of each letter that may be sent free of postage shall not be more than 5 mm. I would also like to ask the authorities to study how the registers of electors should be handled at polling stations after the election. Regarding this example, how come the authorities have not made relevant amendments? Since the Government often talks about the difficulties related to the introduction of a bill and its passage by the Legislative Council, the authorities should deal with major issues but not trivial matters. What is the use of prescribing that thickness of a letter shall not exceed 5 mm? Can this ensure that the elections will be fair and impartial? What is REO doing?

2446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

In fact, apart from a register of electors being lost in the last DC election, something was also missing in the last Chief Executive election. REO frequently loses something. Does the Bill contain measures to ensure that REO or staff of the polling station will not lose things? Something has been lost every now and then; a computer was lost last time and a register of electors was lost this time. REO is simply a "black hole" for election information. Why did the Government not deal with this "black hole" when formulating legislative amendments? If it is argued that the loss of a register of electors happened after the introduction of the Bill, then the loss of a computer happened before the introduction of the Bill. How come the authorities do not deal with major issues but only attend to trivial matters such as thickness of a letter and technical amendments? REO is not seriously performing its tasks.

In this DC Election, many voters reflected to us that REO used stone-age technology to check their identity card at the polling station. The staff had to browse through heaps of information to verify their identity card number. According to a member of the public, his identity card prefix was "D", but the staff searched for his information in the register of electors with prefix "E" and almost crossed out his name to indicate that he had voted. He immediately stopped the staff, telling him that his identity card prefix was "D" but not "E". The staff then browsed through another register of electors. Should a review be conducted on these human errors? How can the authorities ensure that these human errors will not occur throughout the election process?

President, I certainly support the Bill but I am dissatisfied because the amendments are just too insignificant, such as prescribing that a letter should be how many mm in thickness or raising the threshold for the submission of invoices and receipts from $100 to $500. If a review is to be conducted to ensure that elections are conducted in a fair and just manner, REO could not only revise the requirement on the letter size; instead, it must review the entire election process as well as the work of REO staff and polling station staff. This should be done and special attention should be paid to the impartiality of polling station staff.

As reflected by many people, some polling station staff had, after counting the votes, indicated the result to the elected candidate and gave him a "like". Such brazen acts actually happened in the polling station, and some polling station staff applauded and cheered with the elected candidate after the result was announced. How come the authorities have not included the standard of conduct of polling station staff in the Bill, so as to ensure fairness and impartiality in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2447 polling stations and in the election? Even if the Secretary told the public that polling station staff were fair and strict and will not play tricks, would the public believe that the staff would be impartial when they saw them give the elected candidate a "like"? Therefore, the Bill should prescribe a code of conduct for staff at polling stations. Can revising the requirement on letter size ensure a fair election? What has REO done? Has REO identified these problems? Have inspections to polling stations been conducted?

Many polling station staff are not full-time employees; they are civil servants working part-time, has REO deployed staff to inspect polling stations? Have these problems been identified? When the Presiding Officer saw what happened, he just said "be quiet", nothing more. The staff concerned did not have to bear any responsibility and the authorities concerned had not ensured that similar situations would not happen again. I would like to ask the Secretary if the Presiding Officer has to report the situation to him. Has the Presiding Officer told the Secretary that polling station staff had, after counting the votes, cheered with the elected candidate and gave him a "like"? Has the Presiding Officer reported these situations to him? How can the authorities ensure that the election is fair? Will revising the requirements on letter size ensure a fair election? Will raising the threshold for the submission of election expenses from $100 to $500 ensure a fair election? We are asking for a fair and impartial election. Have the authorities dealt with these matters? How come these matters have not been included in the Bill?

On the polling day, many elderly wheelchair users had to queue up for 1 hour and 15 minutes under the scorching sun before they could enter the polling station. Is this arrangement acceptable from a humanitarian standpoint? Knowing that there were barrier-free access facilities at the polling station for wheelchair users, we asked if elderly wheelchair users could enter the polling station through the barrier-free access. However, the child of an elderly wheelchair user said to me that his mother would not use the access and she had to queue up. Is this a humanitarian approach? Arrangement should be made at polling stations to facilitate people with disabilities or people in need. How come the authorities have not reviewed the situation and include the relevant matters in the Bill? The authorities have only revised the requirements on letter size, can this amendment serve the purpose of encouraging members of the public to vote? The authorities have to encourage more voters to vote and at the same time ensure that the election is fair. Yet, the arrangement at the polling station offers no help to people in need, so how can the public be encouraged to vote? 2448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

Furthermore, the authorities have not included the codes of conduct of polling station staff in the Bill and hence fairness cannot be ensured. In addition, the issue concerning the frequent loss of election information has not been included in the Bill; thus failing to give confidence to the public. Numerous matters have not been covered by the Bill.

President, I will definitely support the Bill because those are technical amendments and I have to support them. Nevertheless, after the conclusion of an election cycle, the authorities have reviewed the entire legislation and various aspects of the election that were considered unfair and rectification was needed. Yet, the authorities have only proposed technical amendments; how can Members accept this approach?

I often call upon the Government to review certain legislation such as the Money Lenders Ordinance but the authorities always say, "No, it is difficult for legislative amendment proposals submitted to the Legislative Council to get passed". Since it is not easy for such proposals to get passed, why did the Bill not review the entire Ordinance in one go? The authorities have only revised the requirements on letter size. As I just said, for the sake of fairness, the authorities do not want the printed election materials of one candidate to be thicker than others; they also do not want the printed election materials of one candidate to be larger than others, thereby fairness in all aspects can be attained. In fact, the authorities should review every aspect of the election to ensure fairness and they should not only revise the requirements on letter size.

There are also some other oddities. A few days before the DC Election, a Facebook account was opened by―I did not know―the REO, the Electoral Affairs Commission or the Policy Bureau concerned to clarify some rumours. These rumours have been circulated in the community for a long time but the authorities only make clarifications on Facebook a few days before the Election. As the Government has often responded so slowly and failed to expeditiously clarify false rumours; how can the public have confidence in the authorities? DC elections have been held many times but there are still a lot of problems, as in the case of the just-concluded Election. Just now, I talked about the arrangements for voters to enter polling stations. Voters had to queue up for a long time and some people queued up repeatedly. Some people under the age of 18 with no voting right also stood in a queue, resulting in longer waiting time. Consequently, some voters who originally wanted to vote had to give up because they had to rush to work. The Presiding Officer told voters in wheelchairs that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2449 they also had to queue up, paying no attention that they had to wait for 1 hour and 15 minutes under the scorching sun. Have the authorities considered making relevant arrangements before the Election?

Before the Election, the Government said that adequate preparations had been made but I was not aware of that. When there were long queues at polling stations, had any polling staff maintained order? Did anyone know that some people queued up three times? I really saw many people queue up three times but they did not vote. I will not guess their objectives and I leave Honourable colleagues to think about that. In a word, these people queued up for the purpose of prolonging the waiting time, thus discouraging people who originally wanted to vote but did not want to wait too long. Before the Election, the authorities stated on Facebook that it was against the law to prevent people from voting. However, did anyone enforce the law? Some people queued up a few times to prevent other people from voting; did anyone enforce the law? The authorities said that they were fully prepared; did any staff enforce the law? Should these matters be included in the Bill? Should the unfairness situations be rectified this time?

President, I understand that the Election was concluded. We are not trying to find fault with the authorities, but I hope that when the authorities conduct a review on electoral arrangements in future, it will make practical amendments instead of patchy fixes. I hope the authorities will seriously make practical efforts to ensure that elections will be conducted in a fair and just manner.

President, I so submit.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): President Andrew LEUNG, good morning. Throughout the debate, I have taken note of the views of different Members. However, if we look at the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") carefully, we will find that most of their speeches have digressed far from the subject. Why did they digress far from the subject? In fact, the Bill mainly amends the lists of bodies comprising certain functional constituencies ("FCs"). It does not even change the eligibility of electors but only the names of bodies, just as crossing out the word "The", or changing a company to a limited company, and so on. Moreover, the Bill also provides for the handling of invoices and receipts, or setting the requirement on the size of 2450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 postage-free letters. These are of course … I think it is good for the Government to set the criteria for regulation but sometimes, excessive regulation is a nuisance. Some candidates in this District Council ("DC") Election also found it very hard at times to comply with the strict restriction on the opening of letter, i.e. no more than 90 mm, set by Hongkong Post. It is too strict? It is of course good to set a standard, but being too strict is not good.

Concerning certain remarks made by the pro-establishment colleagues, I must clearly state my position. First, some pro-establishment colleagues complained about repeated queuing of some electors or unfair handling of some Presiding Officers. Of course, I think Presiding Officers must be fair, but if Presiding Officers were unfair in handling certain matters, the beneficiary was not just restricted to a certain party or grouping. For instance, in past elections, certain candidate repeatedly winked at electors inside the polling station to send certain signals, did the Presiding Officer stop the candidate? I asked the Presiding Officer to stop the candidate, but he did not do so, perhaps to save the face of the incumbent DC member. The Presiding Officer might not necessarily tilt towards certain party or grouping. All in all, if the Registration and Electoral Office can strictly enforce the regulations, incidents of political bias will not occur.

As regards the issue of queuing, I could enter the polling station in my constituency after a short wait and cast the vote. Of course, I saw long queues outside some polling stations, but all electors suffered together. It is hard to prove whom these electors would vote for. Since the turnout rate of this DC Election was over 70%, I think the Government must consider how to deal with long queues resulted from high turnout rate. It is unreasonable to claim that long queues of electors lead to unfair elections.

On the whole, Mr LEUNG, "Five demands, not one less". The most important demand is people's earnest aspiration for democracy and universal suffrage. Why do I bring up the five demands in discussing the bill on election? That is because this agenda item was supposed to be discussed in October, but some Honourable Members spoke incessantly, I wonder if they did so to avoid the discussion of establishing an independent Commission of Inquiry. Consequently, the pro-establishment camp suffered a crushing defeat in this DC Election. This is really ironic.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2451

Concerning the Bill proposed by the Government, I do not consider the amendments to be purely technical in nature, because the purpose of the amendments is to maintain the injustice of FCs. If the Government does not carry out political reform, but only raises the question on whether certain bodies are qualified to be registered as electors of FCs, it condones certain constitutional problems. In early March this year, when the Government proposed the miscellaneous amendments, I also participated in the scrutiny of the amendments. At that time, neither the pro-establishment camp nor pan-democratic Members have ever thought that the general public today would have such strong aspirations. Members of the public find that the Government is rife with problems and they have to express their resentment against the injustice through their ballots. Even though many pro-democracy people won in this DC Election, I firmly believe that the people's earnest aspiration for democracy will not perish. After all, this political turmoil was caused by the amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and the problems cannot be solved just by calling the protesters rioters. If the Government does not address the injustice of FCs, the amendments proposed in the Bill can hardly meet the people's aspirations.

Let me discuss specifically why I said in the Bill Committee and reiterated today that the amendments of the Bill were not related to technical issues but political issues. It is known to all that I ran in the 2016 Wholesale and Retail FC Election against Mr SHIU Ka-fai and I was defeated by Mr SHIU. There were over 80 trade associations in the FC then and the number is about the same today. In this amendment exercise, the Government proposes to remove two trade associations, namely Hong Kong Silk Piece-Goods Merchants' Association and Hong Kong Stamp and Coin Dealers Association. Why are the two removed? According to the Government, these two trade associations no longer operate and hence should be removed. However, I wonder when the Government has contacted the two trade associations, who the chairmen of the associations are and why the two trade associations have to be removed.

Let me talk about how I canvassed for votes in 2016. My canvassing tactic was rather old-fashioned. I went to two shopping centres where there were many stamp and coin shops. One was Ho Mong Kok Shopping Center in Mong Kok and the other was in Shek Tong Tsui. There were many stamp and coin shops in both centres. I knew there were electors. I walked through every corner of the shopping centres. Some owners greeted me warmly and said they would vote for me while some others said they would vote for my rival. That was not a big deal. I went there to canvass votes, thinking that those owners 2452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 would most likely vote for me. Yet, the Government now plans to remove the two trade associations for no reason. Shouldn't there be someone representing the stamp and coin traders in the Wholesale and Retail FC? Is it that no one sells silk goods anymore? If the two trade associations are no longer on the list, who will represent the interests of the relevant traders? The authorities fail to explain to us the reason for removing these two trade associations. The removal of these two trade associations highlights the core problem of FCs, which is, the problem of tolerance and rejection. After all, if I was a candidate for the Wholesale and Retail FC, I should be an elector of that FC as well. Does anyone know how I was qualified for running in the Election? It all happened because Mr LUI Kit-ling of the Nominations Advisory Committee said to me, "Mr AU Nok-hin, you are qualified to run in the Election." I was qualified because someone in my family was a subcontractor of a certain department store. He operated a small stall. It was only a small business, not a big enterprise. The department store was a member of a certain trade association and an elector in the Wholesale and Retail FC; hence I was qualified to run in the Election. That was the story.

Nevertheless, why was I qualified to run as a candidate but ineligible to vote? The reason was that I was not a member of the trade association. As I also did not meet the requirement of continuous operation for 12 consecutive months, I could not register as a member immediately after joining the trade association. This has given rise to many problems. First, how come someone can run for the election but has no right to vote? Second, why is it that only certain trade associations are eligible to represent the interest of the Wholesale and Retail FC? As small enterprises, as in my case, are not even eligible to register, how can they represent the industry? There are many wholesale and retail enterprises over the territory, how can 6 000-odd electors represent them all? There are 6 000-odd votes only. Do not tell me there are only 6 000-odd enterprises in Hong Kong. Why do certain trade associations get special favours? These trade associations collect membership fees and claim that they represent the interest of their industry. I criticize the Government for accepting 80-odd trade associations only and suspect that the Government transfers benefits to these associations as they are allowed to collect membership fees and are eligible to become electors. Can I make such a criticism?

FCs are extremely secretive and operate in a black box. The Government only proposes to make miscellaneous amendments to the electoral legislation and remove two trade associations. We can see how unjust it is. I do not know LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2453 why the Government has to remove the two trade associations. It only tells us that doing so will represent the interest of the FC. I can only see one side of the picture. As other FCs also have similar problems, I do not understand why one trade association is qualified as a member of an FC, while the other trade association is not.

The problem is that FC is a historic product of the 1980s and 1990s. FCs were established to appease people with vested interests at that time but now FCs have no representativeness whatsoever. Take the Wholesale and Retail FC as an example. Has anyone heard of "liquid modernity" advocated by sociologist Zygmunt BAUMAN? Everything is highly liquid in modern society. For example, I can set up a stall today and leave tomorrow. One who engages in this kind of commercial activity needs not join a trade association, which is actually an obsolete practice. However, we have no choice as the prevailing political reality requires us to join a trade association, right?

The evil of FCs has sunk deeply into Hong Kong's political system, which I need not elaborate here. The vested interest of most people is to uphold this system. But I must remind the Secretary, Article 67 of the Basic Law provides that 20% of Legislative Council Members may have nationalities other than Chinese and the members of 12 FCs may have dual nationality. This is a very serious problem. Why does the Government which constantly tells people to pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") of the People's Republic of China allows the members of 12 FCs to have dual nationality? Does it mean that they do not have to pledge allegiance to the SAR? Will they be thus disqualified?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, please return to the subject of this debate.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I was not referring to you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU, whoever you were referring to, you have digressed from the subject. You clearly know what digression means. So, please return to the subject of this debate.

2454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Never mind. I was really not referring to you. As regards the proposed amendments discussed today, many people ask why the Government only makes miscellaneous amendments but not specific amendments. If the Government really loves the country and loves Hong Kong, it should amend all relevant provisions and disallow members of 12 FCs to have dual nationality, right? I really do not want to touch someone on the raw.

I really have to talk about the core issue of FCs now. I am not asking the Government to resolve all problems concerning FCs today, but at least it should relax the restriction on the eligibility of FC electors. Very simply, I will cite the example of the Wholesale and Retail FC again. As long as a company is engaged in the wholesale and retail business and can prove that it has substantial operation in the past 12 months, I think registration should be permitted. Why should 80-odd trade associations monopolize the membership of the entire FC? I can never contact certain trade associations by phone, no matter during the election period or on ordinary days. I wonder how the Government is able to reach those trade associations.

Therefore, FCs are operating in a black box. I never knew how heinous and how unjust FCs were before I ran for the election. The abolition of FCs is a problem that must be solved before democratic election by universal suffrage can be implemented in Hong Kong. After the development from the appointment system to FCs, some constituencies have corporate votes, some individual votes, while some others have both corporate and individual votes. After so many years of implementation, people will ask why some companies only have one vote and some individuals also have one vote. Actually, one can hardly be convinced that the entire system makes sense.

As for the Government's governance today, we can all refer to Article 68 of the Basic Law, which states, "The method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage." If we look at the Bill discussed today, can anyone see any hint of "gradual" progress? I can at most say that the status quo is maintained. There is no progress at all. Of the five demands, the most important one is definitely democratic election by universal suffrage, which is the mildest and the most fundamental demand. If the Government does not even attach importance to the request for merely expanding the scope of FCs, there is no way that the social problems will ever be resolved.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2455

"Five demands, not one less", I hope that all Members will acquit themselves well. I so submit.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, today, I speak to support the timely passage of the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). The Bill mainly seeks to introduce necessary technical amendments for the 2020 Legislative Council General Election and other public elections, including those concerning the electorate of functional constituencies, arrangements in the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, as well as various electoral procedures.

In fact, the proposed amendments of the Bill, such as technical amendments to the list of electors of functional constituencies ("FCs") are necessary; and others such as those relating to ways of submitting nomination forms, the thickness and size of each letter to be posted, upward adjustment of the limits prescribed for rectifying minor errors for different elections, and an increase in the threshold for the submission of invoices and receipts from $100 to $500 are also worthy supporting. The amendments regarding election returns, if implemented, will facilitate candidates and their teams in rectifying minor errors or omissions in election returns and thus greatly reduce the heavy workload in preparing these documents in the electoral process. In fact, these amendments have responded to the demands of the public, particularly some of the demands made by the stakeholders who have participated at various levels of elections. I believe Members will support the amendments.

While I support the amendments in this exercise, I have strong views or I am greatly dissatisfied with the Government's attitude of avoiding certain issues or evading serious matters and taking up trifles. I believe this view is shared by the majority of members of the Bills Committee who belong to different political parties and affiliation, particularly Members returned from FC. At meetings of the Bills Committee, some members pointed out with a bitter smile that every time the Government proposed amendments to the electoral legislation, members would express similar problems at meetings, but the Policy Bureau would invariably give unsatisfactory responses. Although what I said is a bit discouraging, I am afraid it is not far from the truth.

President, take Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication FC which I represent as an example. Many people in the industry and I are very disappointed that the Government has not properly handled the inclusion of the 2456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

Hong Kong Printers Association ("HKPA") as an elector of the Publication subsector. In fact, HKPA and I have requested the Policy Bureau to include HKPA in the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication FC for many years, but to no avail. In 1983, HKPA was approved as an association of underwriters under section 6(1)(c) of the Insurance Ordinance (Cap. 41) mainly for underwriting employees' compensation insurance business for its members. Since 2003, HKPA has been registered as an elector of the Insurance FC and it has all along expressed its view to the Government that it should not be included in that FC. The publication sector is totally unrelated to the insurance sector and their concerns and interests are very different. The Insurance FC of the Legislative Council cannot incorporate and reflect the views of the printing industry at all, and the single vote of HKPA can in no way represent the views of hundreds of practitioners of the printing industry. Thus the industry has been deprived of opportunities to express their views in the Legislative Council. Unfortunately, the Policy Bureau has failed to squarely face the problem and rectify it. The publication sector has put forward the same request in a number of Legislative Council elections in the past; and during this period, the position of the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs has been taken up by three or four different persons one after the other. Although I have repeated this request to the Policy Bureau, it has all along refused to rectify the problem through amendments to the electoral legislation.

In fact, HKPA, established in 1939, has a history of over a hundred years. It is the oldest and most representative association of the printing industry. HKPA has not only witnessed the development of the printing industry, but also developed with it. The printing industry and the publication industry are interdependent on and closely connected with each other. HKPA has liaised with overseas government departments and associations, published publications, established a website, hosted large-scale seminars and overseas visits, set up a training and research centre, provided concessionary services, etc. to strengthen the bond within the industry, promote its interests and increase its competitiveness. With the reform and opening up of our country, HKPA has established close ties with the Mainland and promoted the development of the printing industry of Hong Kong and the Mainland through investment. HKPA has made great contributions in terms of economic development and cultural exchange and interaction.

At meetings of the Bills Committee this year, I have raised the same issue with the Secretary. I also arranged to meet with public officers of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau and repeatedly explained to them LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2457 that HKPA ceased to be an association of underwriters approved by the Insurance Authority many years ago and thus lost the only vote it had. Since HKPA is closely connected with the publication sector, including it in the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication FC will, in practice, only involve a technical amendment to the relevant legislation, which will be completely consistent with the original intent of the amendment exercise. However, very unfortunately, the Policy Bureau responded that if HKPA was included as an elector of the Publication subsector, it would create a significant change to the electoral bases of the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication FC.

In fact, the electoral bases of the four subsectors that I represent are already very uneven. For example, there are 1 500 electors in the Culture subsector, 500-plus electors in the Publication subsector, 600-plus electors in the Sports subsector and only about 200 electors in the Performing Arts subsector. Thus, I think the explanation of the Government that the proposal may affect the current electoral bases is unjustified. If HKPA was included in the Publication subsector, it would result in a better balance which would actually be a change for the better. Thus, I think the explanation given by the Government for not accepting the proposal is totally unacceptable.

In fact, apart from the subsectors which I represent, Members representing the FCs of Information Technology, Agriculture and Fisheries, Tourism and Wholesale and Retail have similarly expressed to the Government the problem that some groups have not been included in certain FCs or have made requests for broadening their electoral bases. Regrettably, the Government has neither provided any satisfactory answer, nor incorporated the requests of the representatives and stakeholders of the above mentioned FCs in the Bill.

President, the Government has the due responsibility to include certain groups into the FC which really represent them so that their voices can be heard in the Legislative Council. If there is any negligence on the part of the Government or inadequacy in its policies, the Government should rectify the mistakes as soon as possible. The proposal will not create any problem of increasing the representativeness of FCs in practice. By responding to the voices of the groups, the Government can further enhance the function of representation of FCs and give a suitable account to the groups which have previously failed to cast their votes in the relevant FCs. Why has the Government not accepted the proposal?

2458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

I understand that the Bill only focuses on technical amendments, but I would like to take this opportunity to express my views on the approach of the Government in handling the Bill. For many years, the Government has owed FCs an explanation. On the one hand, the Government emphasizes that FCs are unique in that they can increase the representativeness of deliberations of the Legislative Council (I entirely agree with and support this view) and attract professionals of various sectors to engage in politics which will raise the standard of deliberations. On the other hand, the Government is unwilling to further enhance the function of representation of FCs or take forward any concrete improvement measures or proposals. This failure will create room for people with ulterior motives to use the imperfections to question the value of existence and the function of representation of FCs. The Government has made excuses on many occasions for not broadening the electoral bases of FCs, thinking that it will avoid creating more controversies. Besides, the Government is also worried that a small change will produce significant implications similar to those of a constitutional reform. Nevertheless, I hope the Government can review the matter. Even though a large-scale constitutional reform cannot be introduced due to various reasons, does it mean that the Government has to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the problem of electoral bases of FCs?

President, as the Member representing the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication FC, I support increasing the representativeness of FCs and I understand that this initiative will necessarily involve addressing some difficult issues. However, the Government should not choose the easier way out and avoid solving the difficult problems. Instead, it should squarely face the difficulties and strengthen the representativeness and legitimacy of FCs by introducing reasonable legislative amendments.

The amendments proposed this time do not meet all of my expectations and those of the stakeholders of the FC which I represent. However, as I said earlier, although the Bill has only made patchy fixes, the rectifications and improvements proposed are necessary. Thus, I will still support the passage of the Bill and will continue to ask the Government to make necessary improvements to the electoral system of FCs.

I so submit and support the passage of the Bill. Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2459

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), and Parts 4 and 5 in particular.

The Bill has revised the limits prescribed under the de minimis arrangement provided in section 37A of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, and I trust that Members who have stood for elections will definitely not oppose this amendment. In addition, it has also revised the threshold provided in section 37(2)(b) which requires candidates to submit invoices and receipts for all election expense items of $100 or more. While these are technical amendments which Members consider as patchy fixes, I believe it is after all desirable for those who have stood or are planning to stand for elections.

However, I would like to tell the Secretary, not only to Secretary Patrick NIP but also to former Secretary Raymond TAM as he had also heard my comments many times before, those problems are not long-standing and thorny. Hong Kong's electoral legislation, nicknamed "Not Electing Ordinance" because of its excessive cumbersome requirements, discourages people who have not previously stood for an election from running for elections after learning the relevant requirements. For those who have stood for elections and have tried hard to comply with the requirements, they would be very eager to see the relevant legislation abolished. Troubles, big or small, are involved in complying with the relevant requirements, but the general comment is that it is a waste of resources. For example, stringent requirements have been imposed by the Government on advertisements. Let me cite my case as an example. I did not belong to any political party when I first stood for an election, so I claimed myself an independent candidate and this term is still being used today. However, some people were so frivolous as to query whether independent meant political independence or something else. In the Chinese text of my election leaflet, I described myself as an independent candidate not belonging to any political party, but I did not state so in the English version. As a result, the Registration and Electoral Office ("REO") had, without carefully studying the leaflet or assessing the situation, referred my case to the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"). Two officers from ICAC later "entertained" me for a couple of hours. I subsequently asked them sarcastically: Did ICAC have excessive manpower but nothing to do? Was there a lack of corruption cases that ICAC had to dedicate all manpower resources to tackle both all problems, big or small, relating to elections?

2460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

Another example is a case handled by me concerning a candidate who made some administrative errors when running for District Council ("DC") election. Although the candidate had already obtained the verbal consent of certain people before putting their names in his election leaflet, he was late in submitting the relevant consent. As a result, the Department of Justice instituted prosecution against him. The case lasted for as long as two years and eventually, the Magistrate ruled that this was an unfortunate incident. The candidate, being a social worker, had spent nearly all his savings on the case, yet the pay for a DC member was only some $20,000 back then. I would like to point out, the electoral legislation only constrains law-abiding people, while law-breaking candidates or their teams can do whatever they want. This impression is particularly true this year. The proposed amendments are very minor, which include raising the threshold for submission of invoices from $100 to $500. Yesterday, I received three concrete cases seeking assistance and one of them is concerned with the distribution of 10 000 anonymous leaflets during the election period. The leaflet, containing insulting remarks to a particular candidate, is undoubtedly printed by his political opponents. Have the authorities followed up on the matter?

At present, there is widespread violence in society and as pointed out by many colleagues, the process of vote counting conducted by REO was no different from that of certain corporations, and the practice of some corporations might be more civilized. I have attended many elections conducted by corporations, and they all ended up with supporters of both sides gathering at the scene when the ballot boxes were about to open for vote counting. This is the case of this year's DC Election. As far as I understand it, this situation had happened in three polling stations. After the Returning Officers opened the ballot box and examined the invalid votes, about 20 to 30 black-clad men arrived at the scene, carrying umbrellas with them even though it was not raining outside. When the Returning Officer decided that the invalid votes should be counted as votes for the pro-establishment candidate, those black-clad men immediately surrounded him. The Returning Officer had no choice but to say that the votes were invalid. Even the candidates left the polling station in fear. No one knew how the Returning Officer dealt with those votes as he was surrounded by black-clad men. How come no one followed up on these cases? Why did REO allow the Returning Officer to open the ballot box and count the votes, knowing that some black-clad men had entered the polling stations? I really do not understand. In fact, at the meeting held last Wednesday, we had already predicted that this situation would happen.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2461

Secretary, being evasive is not a good approach and extreme unfairness had actually arisen. The Bureau said that the candidates might submit election petitions, but as in the example cited by me earlier on, individual candidate may not have the financial means to afford the cost incurred in lodging election petition. Under the shadow of violence, even though amendments have been proposed, I opine, I suggest, I request that so long as violence exists, no election should be conducted, even if there were one or two days of peace, which was rare to come by, before the election. How many violent incidents had occurred between 4 October and 24 November? How many unjust and unlawful leaflets had been displayed in places managed by the Government? And yet, the Government has paid no heed and turned a blind eye to these problems. What can we do then? Contrarily, the Government has instituted prosecutions against candidates who failed to submit invoices for election expenses exceeding $100 or $200.

Furthermore, the trial of a case concerning another candidate was concluded early this year. Although the election expenses incurred by the candidate far exceeded the amount of donation he received, he had likewise made a technical mistake of failing to declare that a certain sum of money had been donated to charity. As a result, the Government instituted prosecution against him. However, for cases where the omissions amounted to more than several hundred thousand dollars no criminal investigation had been conducted by the Government. Is this too unjust to a reasonable third party?

I have put forth proposals on these technical issues time and again, and have highlighted the importance of saving ICAC's manpower to combat corruption and investigate criminal cases that truly involve corruption or vote-rigging. Common law has made it clear that criminal liability should only be imposed on acts having the criminal intent and certain consequences, and supported with a lot of evidence. There are, however, some cases which only involve administrative errors, such as late submission of written consent and election expenses exceeding the limit. The Bill now proposes to raise the relevant limit, but how big is the increase? The increase is only negligible. I suggest that REO should be committed to recruiting its own team of lawyers instead of mechanically referring cases to ICAC for follow up as certain problems might be dealt with by administrative means. As such, candidates will be treated more fairly, and they will not be allowed to use frivolous matters to attack their opponents politically. It is wrong to refer all the cases to ICAC, and this is totally inconsistent with the intent of the electoral legislation.

2462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

REO should focus on dealing with electoral matters. If REO does not have the sufficient manpower and the ability to make judgments, lawyers should be hired. As in the example mentioned by me earlier on, no one should go near the counting zone as this would cause intimidation. The presence of outsiders would create an intimidating environment to the staff performing their duties and candidates waiting for vote counting, which is unacceptable.

Notwithstanding that, this situation has become too prevalent. Is it that when too many people break the law, no actions should be taken? Has the Administration taken an initiative to deal with the situation? I believe dozens of complaints have been lodged by us, including me, my friends or my camp. No matter how trivial the case is, follow-up action must be taken and this will probably take years. Will the Administration follow up on each and every case? In which districts did such cases of non-compliance occur?

The problems highlighted by me just now cannot be regarded as long-standing and thorny, and the Administration should be able to resolve them. By pointing out these problems time and again, I hope that REO will get more resources to implement a division of work such that administrative and criminal cases can be dealt with separately. I think this would be a reasonable relief to candidates who have the intent to stand for direct elections or functional constituency ("FC") elections in the future. By so doing, the candidates and their teams would not have to go to ICAC frequently or submit their election expenses incessantly. There are indeed too many receipts for signing. Improvements can be made in these respects, Secretary, it is now 2019.

President, I would like to spend some time to speak on the following issues. Just now, Mr AU Nok-hin repeatedly mentioned the five demands, and proposed to amend the legislation that allows foreigners to join FCs. While I am neutral on these issues, I hope that Mr AU Nok-hin will take a look at the Basic Law because Article 67 of the Basic Law has clear provisions. If he wants to amend the law to prohibit foreign permanent residents from becoming Members of the Legislative Council, he has to amend the Basic Law, which is not a decision that can be made by the Secretary on his own. What is more, amendment to the Basic Law must be passed by a two-thirds majority of all Members of the Legislative Council and the National People's Congress.

Today, we can only make changes to some trivial matters because just as I said earlier on, the Government cannot even do trivial things properly. Thus, I hope that the Secretary will seriously consider the issues raised by me earlier. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2463

Given that there is currently widespread resentment in society, he must take the initiative to investigate into the many incidents of unfairness relating to this year's DC Election.

However, when it comes to constitutional reform and FCs, despite the failures of the 2005 constitutional reform package and the 2015 universal suffrage package for selection of Chief Executive, many of us still want to expand the electorate base of FCs. And yet, this must be achieved on the premise that it is consistent with the Basic Law, which provides that it has to be achieved in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress and in the light of the actual situation in Hong Kong. We admit that we did make a blunder on that day and had not done a good job, but the biggest problem did not lie in us, but the refusal of some Members to accept the so-called mid-point package. I had predicted long ago that they would not "pocket" the package first. Under the principle of gradual and orderly progress, if they were willing to "pocket" the package first in 2015 and properly implemented the package to prove that it was desirable, gradual refinements could subsequently be made. However, they opted for "burning together"―this term has emerged only recently and did not exist back in 2015―and refused to accept the mid-point package. The pursuit of an ideal package is tantamount to "burning together". I once said that we would have to wait 10 more years at least, so has my prediction not come true today? How can we deal with the issue of constitutional reform within the current term? Why do Members not explain to the young people that it is downright impossible to achieve what they want right away? In practice, there is no way we can address the issue of enactment of legislation. The key is that Members should explain instead of blindly follow the thoughts of young people who have never participated in politics. I thought Members should at least be more sensible.

If Members had accepted the mid-point package in 2015―the case of the Basic Law and the "one country, two systems" principle is similar, do Members think that they are perfect? They are not perfect at all, but I agree that whether a cat is white or black is unimportant; any cat that catches mice is a good cat. Why didn't we exercise some political wisdom, but insisted on adopting an all-or-nothing approach, resulting in "burning together"? "Burning together" is very easy as Hong Kong has already been "burnt" …

2464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, please return to the subject of this debate. If you continue to elaborate on this, this debate will become a debate on constitutional reform, so please return to the subject of the current debate.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): I just want to respond to Mr AU Nok-hin, President, because I cannot bear his non-compliance with the Basic Law, thinking that amendments can be made at will. Therefore, I would like, on behalf of the Secretary …

(Mr AU Nok-hin indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, what is your point of order?

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I would like to ask Dr Priscilla LEUNG to clarify because she said I did not have a clear understanding of the Basic Law. The Basic Law tells us that the Legislative Council is responsible for enacting legislation and, in my opinion, the 31 August Decision provides for an election with screening which is not in the right direction, so I do not give my support.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU, there is no need for you to make elucidation of these matters.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Can she clarify what is meant by "gradual and orderly progress"? I bet my understanding about "gradual and orderly progress" is certainly different from hers.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, please stop speaking.

Dr Priscilla LEUNG, please continue to speak.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2465

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Okay, President, I am about to finish, so please give me one minute. Just now I only asked him to read Article 61 of the Basic Law because I think he is not clear about the 20% referred to in the Basic Law. This is why I think his remark is inappropriate and does not comply with the provisions of the Basic Law. I have finished. I just hope that …

(Mr AU Nok-hin indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, what is your point of order?

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I clarify that it should be Article 67.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Yes, it is Article 67. He is right and it should be Article 67. Members may read Article 67 carefully.

Finally, I would like to tell the Secretary that the proposal put forward by me just now is only a minor improvement. I hope that when this issue is discussed again next time, improvements will be made by the Secretary and no more trivial cases will be referred to ICAC for action.

President, I so submit.

MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, we support the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). However, the proposed amendments are insignificant, or trivial, as Dr Priscilla LEUNG said earlier. Many people hope that elections held in Hong Kong, be it the Election held last Sunday or future elections, are fair and just. The proposed amendments of the Bill only touch on the work of the candidates and their teams, but have not dealt with many problems regarding procedures and practices in the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance (Cap. 541) which have been identified by the public.

The current legislation regulates law-abiding people. If law-breakers are not worried about the criminal liability they have to face in future, and law enforcement officers are very lenient (law enforcement officers responsible for 2466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 this District Council ("DC") Election were particularly lenient), members of the public will doubt whether the election is fair. Holding an election involves not only the Electoral Affairs Commission and the Registration and Electoral Office ("REO"), but also the collaboration of many government departments to ensure fairness of the election. The Housing Department is responsible for vetting and approving candidates' applications for making home visits and using certain places for canvassing; the Hong Kong Police Force is responsible for ensuring safety in the entire election and providing assistance when Presiding Officers make complaints; the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") is responsible for investigating cases of dishonesty in elections regarding declaration of election expenses by candidates, etc.; the Lands Department and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department is responsible for vetting and approving applications for displaying canvassing materials on the streets; and the Home Affairs Department certainly also has a role to play.

On the polling day of the DC Election, we noticed that many government departments did not have the capability and manpower to ensure fairness in the Election within their terms of reference. Are there any inadequacies in the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance? I believe the Secretary should look further into this question. Let me give a very simple example. When a candidate who had been approved by the Housing Department to canvass in some residential units was harassed and prevented from conducting home visits or canvassing, was the Housing Department able to provide assistance? At the adjournment debate held last week, we mentioned that law-abiding people were restricted in the Election, but for those who overstepped the mark, manipulated grey areas and even continued to overstep the mark when police officers were not deployed, they could get what they wanted. Has the Housing Department performed its due responsibilities? Has it ensured that the candidate could go upstairs to canvass in the residential units without obstruction during the period applied for? No. Has the Housing Department deployed an additional security officer at the scene? No, there was only a female or male security officer sitting in the lobby. When the candidate was surrounded by others, what could these officers do?

President, I realized that the set-up of polling stations can be different under the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance. I noticed that the set-up of the polling station in my constituency was different from those of my colleagues. I do not know if REO has noticed the difference. For example, after voters presented their identity cards to the polling station staff to obtain their ballot LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2467 papers, not all of them could see what the staff did afterwards. People like me who are taller would see clearer. In some polling stations, a board was placed in front of the electoral register checking desk, indicating that photo taking was not allowed. If the voter was rather short or had not made a special effort to take a look, he would not be able to see what the staff did. In the polling station of my constituency, no board was placed at all. I and other colleagues noticed this difference. The board had prevented voters from seeing clearly whether the staff had crossed out their names from the register after issuing the ballot papers. That was also the reason why many people had to wait a long time on the election day. I also waited for one to two hours.

As we are now in the year of 2019, why do we still manually cross out the names of voters? Since smart identity cards can be used in many public services, e.g. application of library cards or immigration clearance, we can also smart identity cards in getting ballot papers. Why should names be manually crossed out in issuing ballot papers? I am not even suggesting electronic vote counting, because some people may have reservations about its fairness. However, smart identity cards can at least be used in obtaining ballot papers. After I have voiced my view to the Secretary, I do not know if he will only respond in next year's summer recess, as in the case of the Civil Service Bureau. I suspect that similar problems will also occur in the Legislative Council Election to be held next year. That is my first point which concerns whether the voting procedures under the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance are appropriate.

My second point concerns vote counting. Although not every voter would stay behind to watch the counting of votes, some circumstances unforeseen by many colleagues have occurred in vote counting. Being law abiding, we have never thought that others would overstep the mark. The Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance has provisions concerning counting areas; and a Presiding Officer can allow a certain number of people other than the counting agent, candidates and their election agents to enter the counting area to ensure that the counting process is open and fair. In one polling station, initially only 12 people were allowed to enter the counting area and 12 chairs were placed. Subsequently, 50 to 60 people gathered outside the area. Eventually, the Presiding Officer allowed all of them to enter the counting area so that the counting process could be carried out without further ado. During the process of vote counting, a member of the public who suspected that there were problems with the ballot box bent over to check the box and subsequently touched some ballot papers. Secretary, how could this situation be allowed?

2468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

A Presiding Officer said to me that even counting officers had to avoid touching the ballot papers as far as possible when they were not literally counting. How could we allow members of the public at the polling station to touch the ballot papers? From the DC Election, we noticed that the Government regulated the law-abiding people, but could not take any action against those who did not obey the law or deliberately overstepped the mark. I raised this point last week. Deploying two police officers at the scene was all that could be done by the Government. I have to thank the police officers for their hard work, but how could two police officers stop 50 to 60 people holding certain views from entering the counting area to watch vote counting? I have not mentioned the case in which anti-riot police officers had to be deployed at a polling station where arguments occurred and vote counting could only resume after the people had calmed down. My colleagues could only leave that polling station after 10-odd hours.

For many colleagues, I believe the process of vote counting at polling stations is a very good experience, and I hope the Government will learn from the experience too. Obviously, many people have deliberately stepped into grey areas in the Election, which was unprecedented. I understand that polling staff are civil servants who undertake the work for some extra pay; and how many duties should be imposed on them? We understand that their work was tough, but their performance would affect the fairness and credibility of the Election.

President, we understand that some proposed amendments of the Bill are really good, e.g. increasing the threshold for the submission of invoices and receipts from $100 to $500, or changing the size requirements of each letter that may be sent. However, more people are concerned about the processes of voting or vote counting. Has the Government really done a good job on the election day to ensure a fair election? The Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance provides that the Presiding Officer can order anyone causing nuisance in the vicinity of the entire polling station to leave. I did not enter the polling station on that day, but a colleague told me that at least two persons caused nuisance at the polling station. Had any action been taken against these people? They deliberately interfered with the operation of the polling station, what should be done to deal with the situation? We noticed that on that day, the Presiding Officer had, for the smooth conduct of the Election, merely ordered those people to leave, and then he acted it as if nothing had happened.

At present, the entire operation is to ensure a smooth conduct of an election, but can we be sure that the election is conducted in a fair manner? Winning or losing is not a big deal to me; the result represents public opinion and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2469 we respect the decisions of the people. However, if even members of the public have noticed so many unfair phenomena in the Election, yet this legislative amendment exercise only deals with certain operations of the election which are unnoticeable by the public, how then can we ensure that the people will have confidence in the 2020 Election and the many elections thereafter? If people have no confidence in the staff working in the polling station for some extra pay, can we use electronic means as soon as possible to expedite the process of voting? I believe the Secretary has to consider amending many other provisions in the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance and to follow up the matter as soon as possible. If the Secretary does not do so, after one election and another have been held, the confidence of the people in elections will be undermined. Besides, how much efforts have various departments made in facilitating coordination to ensure that the Election is fair? We have not actually noticed any efforts made.

There are provisions in the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance regulating the process of the Legislative Council election, DC election and even the Chief Executive election. Should we, in consideration of the good experience gained this time, inject more resources in every election to ensure fairness? Should more designated staff and fewer part-time staff be recruited and should more electronic facilities be utilized? Certainly, considering the current capacity of REO, it will not be able to manage electronic facilities, but should better ways be employed to ensure that the entire electoral process can be conducted in a fair manner and that provisions in the electoral legislation can be implemented?

Members of the public are aware of the political views expressed by the public in this Election, but they really fail to see fairness in election and members of the public are greatly dissatisfied. We have electoral legislation which regulates law-abiding people; but how can we prevent candidates from deliberately stepping into grey areas and even continue to do so at times without police intervention, so as to ensure that elections are conducted in a fair manner? I hope that the Secretary will propose more amendments to the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance to restore people's confidence in elections.

President, I so submit.

2470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): President, the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") under discussion today seeks to amend a few election-related laws, including the Legislative Council Ordinance, the Chief Executive Election Ordinance, the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Legislative Council) Regulation, the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (District Councils) Regulation and the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Election Committee) Regulation. In my view, the technical amendments proposed by Secretary Patrick NIP to the above laws have not only kept abreast of the times but also responded to the actual needs, given that some trade associations have ceased operation and some of their members have been out of contact.

Mr AU Nok-hin particularly expressed his views on the Wholesale and Retail Functional Constituency ("FC") just now. He and I were both running for the Wholesale and Retail FC Election in 2016. He subsequently became a Member through a geographical constituency by-election. He asked just now why the Bill proposed the deletion of groups like the Hong Kong Stamp and Coin Dealers Association and the Hong Kong Silk Piece-Goods Merchants' Association, and who would represent these groups and be responsible for liaison in future.

Let me first explain the actual situation. The Wholesale and Retail FC is composed of 85 trade associations. The Bill proposes to delete the two aforesaid trade associations and the Kowloon Fresh Meat Retailers' Association Ltd and change the names of two other trade associations. I have been in touch with these trade associations. The following two trade associations are slated for a name change: The Hong Kong & Kowloon Vermicelli & Noodle Manufacturing Industry Merchants' General Association will have a new name, i.e. the Hong Kong & Kowloon Vermicelli & Noodle Manufacturing Industry Merchants' General Association Limited; as for the Hong Kong Food Council Limited, the English name will remain unchanged but the Chinese name will be changed from"香港食品業總會有限公司" to "香港食品委員會有限公司". As I understand it, these trade associations have proposed the name change to the Government on their own initiative because their members think that it is necessary to update the name and facilitate the operation of their trade association; and the Government has approved their proposals.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2471

Mr AU Nok-hin mentioned just now the two trade associations proposed for deletion, namely the Hong Kong Stamp and Coin Dealers Association and the Hong Kong Silk Piece-Goods Merchants' Association. I happened to know a member of the former association. The members of these two Associations told me that they requested on their own initiative the removal of their organization from the Legislative Council Ordinance because their members hoped to gradually reduce political engagement amid shrinking and ageing membership. In my position, I certainly strive to convince them to stay. However, after careful consideration, they still request the deletion of their trade association.

Mr AU Nok-hin also said just now that he had failed to contact the Hong Kong Silk Piece-Goods Merchants' Association and the Kowloon Fresh Meat Retailers' Association Ltd. This is certainly expected. I myself have also tried in vain to get in touch with the two organizations, and so have the Government, I believe. It is precisely due to this reason that the two organizations should be deleted from the laws. I must point out that these trade associations were not established yesterday, but might have operated for decades, and some of them might even be nearly century-old. How can these trade associations sustain their operation in Hong Kong? Apart from their hard work, it also depends on whether there is still a demand for their products in the community.

The Hong Kong Silk Piece-Goods Merchants' Association I mentioned just now represents the local fabrics and other industries. While fabrics are still available for sale in the market, members of the industries traditionally dealing in fabrics are getting older and their offspring are unwilling to take over their businesses. As a result, the number of these companies keeps declining and the industry will inevitably shrink.

The Kowloon Fresh Meat Retailers' Association Ltd is another organization proposed for deletion. The proposal does not entail the disappearance of fresh meat retailers. Rather, those retailers might have switched to the trade association for pork, beef, etc. in order to play a bigger role. The membership of old trade associations will inevitably keep declining. For example, it may go down from 50 to 10 and then from 10 to 5, and eventually there may be only one member left. If the member responsible for member registration is unexpectedly admitted to hospital or retires, the association will then become out of contact. In view of this, I do not object to the Government's proposal to delete the three trade associations.

2472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

Mr AU Nok-hin mentioned just now that he and I were both candidates of the Wholesale and Retail FC Election back in 2016. Despite his long-time opposition to FC, even to this day, he still ran for the election back then. Trade associations cannot be established simply by licensees lodging an application. Some people have questioned the need for establishing separate trade associations for different industries, arguing that this might make it difficult for members to join. In my opinion, this arrangement is a result of the modes of business operation. All business owners should understand that all industries have their respective requirements and products for sale.

For example, business owners dealing in tobacco and alcoholic products and those dealing in fashion have completely different requirements, and they are confronted with respective difficulties. Therefore, it is impossible for a single trade association to represent all industries, and it is necessary to set up separate trade associations for different industries. Here is another example. A few years ago, after the introduction of the restriction on powdered milk, we may still remember the attitudes of all industries toward powdered milk traders. The industries unanimously sided with the general public and echoed the views of breastfeeding advocates, whereas powdered milk traders had been attacked by many populist Members. In the Legislative Council, who had the courage to stand up against the overwhelming public opinions and continued to represent the views of the powdered milk industry? Without FC, I believe that very few Members would have the courage to represent their views. I would like to cite tobacco and alcoholic products as an example again. In fact, 90% of the public are non-smokers. To express the views of the tobacco industry in defiance of the general public opinions, I believe that only directly elected Members who have extraordinary courage will represent the views in support of the industry, which make up only 10% of the people, in defiance of the 90% majority. The majority of people do not endorse such products. Does it follow that we cannot elect a representative to express the views of this industry in future? If so, I believe many industries would have vanished long time ago.

What I have cited were just a few examples. Secretary, while many industries are currently represented at the Legislative Council, some other industries, such as those involved in mini-storages, cleansing services and the recycling of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment ("WEEE"), are still not represented. President, I have been serving as a Member for nearly four years. Whenever members of the industries I just mentioned encountered problems with government legislations, they would find themselves in an awkward situation because no one is responsible for informing them. Take the WEEE policy as an example. In response to the Government's call for collecting second-hand televisions, refrigerators, etc., I would certainly discuss with the trade LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2473 associations for electrical appliances, which fell within the scope of my industry. Following communication with the Government, the trade would understand the workflow of processing WEEE products, and everything would work out under bilateral agreement. However, the recycling industry includes not only upstream but also downstream businesses. Previously, the downstream recycling companies would collect abandoned electrical appliances, the disassembled parts of which would be resold in Hong Kong. However, under the current legislation, all products are required to be delivered to the WEEE‧PARK recycling facility. Hundreds of companies previously engaging in downstream businesses will have to close down due to non-compliance with the legislation. When members of these trades previously consulted me, I did not know what to do either in the absence of any representative relaying their views. All people will remain silent out of fear when it comes to the discussion on environmental issues.

Following the recent fire at mini-storages, many people unanimously called for stepping up regulation. While regulation is important, some proposed regulations would make it impossible for mini-storages to continue operation. As told by some members of the industry, had the initial proposal put forward by the Fire Services Department ("FSD") been implemented, over 80% of mini-storages would have already closed down due to non-compliance. In the absence of any representative of their industry, owners of mini-storages have turned to me for advice. As the representative of an FC, I certainly understand their situation. This is yet another example of the minority view of an industry confronting the majority views of the general public. Ultimately, fortunately, after communication with the industry arranged by us, FSD realized the need to adopt appropriate and sound measures to sustain the survival of the industry.

Who will represent the cleansing sector? Earlier on, the Hong Kong Housing Authority suddenly considered amending its tendering methods. Many cleansing service providers would have closed down in no time had the proposal been really implemented back then. There are actually many other examples. Hong Kong people often focus their attention on fairness only. If fairness is the sole factor for consideration in all matters, there is basically no need for Members to exist. Every member of the public may simply carry one voting device in future, which has a green button for yes and a red button for no. All matters can then be decided by referendum. However, this is actually infeasible because Hong Kong people have to make a living and simply do not have the time to study the implications of each law, and they may actually be uninterested. As such, they need to elect Members under the representative government to represent their views in the legislature …

2474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-fai, please return to the subject under debate.

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): Okay. It is therefore worthwhile to keep FCs. I am returning to the question of the Bill and will briefly talk about the election methods now. Mr AU Nok-hin indicated just now that he considered it unnecessary to have laws and regulations in the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Legislative Council) Regulation on FCs. If so, who will represent the views of individual sector in future?

I cite another example. Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, a former legislator representing the Medical FC, had previously adopted his own way of filibustering. He was the representative of medical practitioners. Although I do not see eye to eye with him, I respect him for representing the views of the Medical FC. Otherwise, how can the general public know the views of medical practitioners? This also shows that keeping FCs is significant for Hong Kong in terms of striking a balance among the views of various people in the community. As I said just now, members of the public have to make a living and are unlikely to use up 24 hours of every day to study the relevant laws, even in the case of a very simple motion. It is therefore necessary for them to elect Members to represent their views under the representative government.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that FC members are certainly not serving employers exclusively. In fact, many experienced wage earners should know for a fact that employers who fail to treat their employees well will basically find it impossible to sustain the operation of their companies in the long run. A company's success hinges on its ability to retain talents. With the free flow of information in the present world, would it be possible for a company to operate successfully without relying on the services and efforts of its employees? A truly successful business owner will fully understand this point without doubt. Hence, it is certainly impossible for FC elections to be biased towards the employers. As the representative of the wholesale and retail sector, I have been representing the views of employees at various Legislative Council meetings. For example, I have made a recommendation on employees' occupational safety and health. Since retail workers have to stand for a long time at work, they should be allowed to sit down and rest for 15 minutes after standing for every two hours. Helping employees is tantamount to helping employers.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2475

Another example concerns the laws ongoing to work during typhoons. In my opinion, it is necessary to review whether employers should be required to go to work when the typhoon signal No. 10 typhoon is in effect. The safety of employees should be safeguarded, and employers should not mandatorily require employees to go to work by taking a treacherous route. When employees are taking risks, so are their companies. As representatives of our sector, we must strive to balance the interests of employees and companies so as to ensure smooth operation of companies, thereby boosting the development of the Hong Kong economy.

President, I believe that there are certainly some justifications for keeping FCs in Legislation Council elections. With these remarks, I support the Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I remind Members that the Bill only covers technical and miscellaneous amendments. Therefore, Members are advised to avoid elaborating on the electoral system as a whole or the general merits of the relevant legislations. Nevertheless, I will adopt a lenient approach if the situation so warrants, but Members are still advised to refrain from making excessive arguments on matters unrelated to the Bill.

Dr CHENG Chung-tai, please speak.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Secretary, today is Thanksgiving Day and it also marks the signing of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act and the Protect Hong Kong Act by President TRUMP of the United States. The people of Hong Kong would like to express their gratitude. As far as my understanding goes, some provisions of the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 now under discussion are in fact closely related to the global changes we are facing. In order not to stray from the subject, I will begin my speech by focusing on some details before explaining why I have placed an emphasis on gratitude in my opening remarks.

First, on the miscellaneous amendments, many Members mentioned the retention or otherwise of functional constituencies ("FC") and their make-up earlier on. I will discuss this specifically in the middle part of my speech. In fact, the retention or otherwise of FC may become part of the so-called "political turmoil" that Hong Kong will be facing in the next 5, 10 or even 20 years. Secretary, the issue of FC will be the biggest challenge you will have to face, and I will explain to you …

2476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, you should address your remarks to the President, not to the Secretary.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): I understand. President, give me some time. Just now Mr SHIU Ka-fai mentioned subdivided units and mini-storages, and he also talked about household appliances and the three types of industrial wastes, and I have just begun my speech. There is no reason for you to disturb my flow, right? Just give me some leeway.

There are certainly grievances among pro-establishment colleagues regarding this District Council ("DC") Election and in fact, I feel the same. The turmoil in Hong Kong over the past few months should not stop with a landslide victory of the pro-democracy camp in the DC Election. Our goal is not to win seats in the Election, but to set up a system that can bring about long-term peace and stability to Hong Kong, so that Hong Kong people will be able to cope with the second handover in 2047 successfully in accordance with the Basic Law. However, I would like to bring Members' attention to certain details in the DC Election. First, many pro-establishment colleagues said that the Election was not fair and just. I would like to make one point clear, and this echoes the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, i.e. fairness should not be the only criteria in an election, and the prerequisite for fairness in nomination and voting is freedom. However, the DC Election has been manipulated such that it has not only jeopardized the transparency of the Election and infringed people's access to information on candidates, but also led to electors' registration information being concealed. I am referring to the injunction order granted by the court before the Election, barring public inspection of the electoral register. We must face squarely this kind of political move, as it has impeded the only assurance of openness and transparency as well as public access to the electoral register.

Secondly, concerning the electoral process, just now many pro-establishment Members mentioned some issues which I agree are trivial in nature. Yet, these trivial issues have accumulated to the detriment of our election freedom. Examples include prohibiting home visits and display of publicity materials in housing estates; and challenging candidates, through administrative procedures, whether they have applied to the Lands Department in respect of the locations of their street booths. Such incidents should not occur under an electoral system that is moving towards becoming more open and liberal. However, in the case of my political party, Civic Passion, members were barred from making door-to-door home visits in housing estates in their LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2477 constituencies due to prolonged monopolization of the owners' committees. This is utterly absurd. This has resulted in candidates having vested interests or monopolizing benefits over extended period getting an upper hand in publicity within the community when compared to other candidates. In my eyes, these are just trivial issues. The fact that candidates were unable to make themselves known to electors because of the positions for displaying their leaflets and posters is a problem related to the electoral process. I also agree that Lennon Walls in all places over the territory have a canvassing effect, and this is relevant to the above mentioned problem. Candidates should be able to post their election leaflets on the streets; otherwise, why should they run for the election? How can candidates publicize themselves? How can we hold political debates and conduct political education? Election is the only remaining outlet for political education in Hong Kong. Of course, whether election is important or not is another matter. If even such kind of publicity is not allowed, candidates might as well say nothing for their appearance will be regarded as a kind of publicity.

Secretary, there is something even more trivial. During the DC Election, many candidates stood in the non-canvassing zone in front of a polling station. By not saying a word and making no response or greetings, they claimed that they were not canvassing votes, hence the Returning Officer could not ask them to leave. My question is: If I stand at the entrance of a polling station and canvass votes with my look, will the Returning Officer allow me to stand there? I am not saying I look handsome, I am just saying that electors would recognize my face. Considering all these trivial issues, the Secretary should be thankful to God if Hong Kong people still have confidence in Hong Kong's electoral system. Does the Secretary understand the point I am trying to put across?

After listening to the debate for two days, I found that both pan-democratic and pro-establishment colleagues have placed unrealistic expectations on the election, which I find very surreal. More than 6 000 people have been arrested and thousands were charged with the offence of riot. What has actually happened? What are we discussing now? Never mind, but before putting this aside … I still want to say a few words. Some electors voted for a candidate whose election platform simply contains the words "five demands" written in pencil. I am not chiding the electors. I only wish to say to Members that someday Hong Kong might really have direct elections for the Legislative Council and the so-called universal suffrage. I hope we can make progress together and do not resort to trickery. We should not think that the people of Hong Kong have already made history, or that the winning of over 300 DC seats by the pan-democratic camp would bring changes to the legislative assembly. The pro-establishment camp would accuse the pan-democratic camp of this and 2478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 that, and the pan-democratic camp would accuse the pro-establishment camp of being a bad loser. I hope our colleagues can set their vision farther. Do Members understand the trivial issues that I am talking about? I have spent seven minutes elaborating on this.

Today, the President of the United States signed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act which naturally mentions the progress of democratic development in Hong Kong. President, while I will not go into details on the matter, I only wish to point out that the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act has specifically stated that Hong Kong must provide options for establishing genuine democracy, and that electors in Hong Kong can freely and fairly …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, you have digressed from the subject. Please return to the question of the debate.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): President, how can the electoral system be unrelated to the election? How have I digressed from the subject?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG, the question of this debate is not on the electoral system, but the miscellaneous technical amendments in the Bill. You have spoken for seven minutes, but your speech has all along digressed from the subject. I have all along been tolerating you. Please return to the question of the debate.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): President, I only hope Members can broaden their vision. The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act has been enacted but yet to be in force. The implementation of the Act is related to a point mentioned earlier, that is, FCs. Buddy, just now Mr AU Nok-hin spent five minutes to talk about FCs, and Mr SHIU Ka-fai spent more than 10 minutes to talk about environmental policy. Assuming the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act will really be implemented … the response from the Hong Kong Government is quite odd, and I fail to understand what kind of person would write something like that. It is pointed out in the Government's statement that the Act is unreasonable, though its title has the terms human rights and democracy, in reality, some provisions are actually about export control and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2479 enforcement of the sanctions imposed by the United Nations in Hong Kong, which are totally unrelated to human rights and democracy in Hong Kong. President, I only wish to raise one point …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin …

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): President, Mr AU Nok-hin has left the meeting.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, this is my last warning to you. If you continue to digress from the subject, I will stop you from speaking.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Stop being so long-winded. I got it, I got it.

If retaining FCs will result in the erosion of human rights, then FCs may be placed on the sanction list of the United States. President, do you know what this means? Unlike the past sanctions of the United States against Iran, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act is a form of targeted sanction. Certainly FC Members are not corrupt or oppressive officials … if Administrative Officers can become a target of sanction without a cause, does the Government think FCs will not face sanctions? If the existence of FCs is driving Hong Kong's system towards injustice, then FCs deserve to be on the sanction list. President, do you understand what I mean? The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act is a reason for us to …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG, I understand your point. However, you are still digressing from the subject, so please stop speaking.

Mr Martin LIAO, please speak.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Mr Martin LIAO, please give me a reply. As an FC Member, you must be more knowledgeable than I am. President, please rest assured that I will speak again in the future.

2480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") seeks to introduce technical amendments for the 2020 Legislative Council General Election and other public elections, mainly amendments concerning the electorate of functional constituencies ("FCs") and other amendments to improve electoral arrangements, including revisions concerning election returns, revising the way of submitting the nomination forms, requirements concerning the size of letters that may be sent free of postage by candidates, and the limits prescribed for rectifying minor errors or omissions in election returns. There are no substantial amendments.

President, technical amendments concerning FCs refer to updating the names of corporates specified under relevant sections of the existing legislation that have had their names changed since the last updating exercise, namely revising the names of 13 corporates within eight FCs to reflect their name changes; removing corporates which have ceased operation since the last updating exercise, namely removing 12 corporates which have ceased operation from six FCs; and adding new electors in the light of the prevailing situation of the FCs concerned, namely adding 10 corporates for four FCs.

President, the amendments are proposed on the basis of the existing electorate of FCs of the Legislative Council, in consultation with relevant bureaux/departments, and after considering requests received from individual organizations. There are no amendments that will give rise to substantial changes to existing corporates of FCs. For example, for the Information Technology FC where electors account for only around 10% of practitioners, no discussion will be held as the amendments are technical amendments. The relevant exploration and the formulation of unified standards are another task of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, and the information technology sector will be consulted in the second half of this year following the conclusion of studies. Similarly, regarding the review on the system of corporate votes in the Tourism FC, and whether the inclusion of the Hong Kong Printers Association in the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication FC should be considered, substantial changes to the existing electorate of the relevant FCs will be involved. The relevant revisions are not technical amendments and go beyond the scope and policy intent of the Bill.

In addition, in considering whether individual organizations or bodies should be added to an FC, apart from seeking the advice of the relevant bureaux/departments, various factors also have to be considered, such as whether LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2481 the applying organization or body is representative in the sector, its contribution to the sector and its degree of activity. A decision will be made on the application under the premise of basically maintaining the original delineation of the electorate of FC. For example, the inclusion of organizations representing newly emerged industries, such as organic farming and small boat fishing operations, in the Agriculture and Fisheries FC, is a move that adapts to changing times and enhances the representativeness of the FC concerned. Regarding other organizations proposed to be added, such as Members of Board of Governors of Yew Chung College of Early Childhood Education in the Education FC and Chung Shing Taxi Limited and Hong Kong Air Cargo Carrier Limited in the Transport FC, they all comply with the principle of adding new listed organizations to FCs. As for the registration as electors of FCs, the body concerned is duty-bound to, under the Legislative Council Ordinance, provide the Registration and Electoral Office with information of eligible persons falling within the relevant definitions for the purpose of voter registration. A person who has failed to register as an elector in an FC can lodge claims, which will be handled by an independent Revising Officer according to the statutory procedures.

President, in order to improve and facilitate electoral arrangements, the Bill also proposes other technical amendments, including allowing candidates in candidate lists for a Geographical Constituency or the District Council (second) FC of the Legislative Council general election or by-election to submit the nomination form in a way authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, so as to align the arrangement with that for candidates in the traditional FCs and other public elections; refining the requirement on thickness and size of each letter that may be sent free of postage by candidates, so as to align the requirement with the size limit of "small letters" according to Hongkong Post's definition; and amending the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance to raise the limits prescribed for rectifying minor errors under the de minimis arrangement, so that the existing limits as a percentage of the respective election expense limits will increase from the range of 0.04% to 1.54% to the range of 0.3% to 5%, thus reflecting the increases in election expense limits since 2011. In addition, in order to help alleviate the workload of candidates when preparing their election returns, the Bill proposes to revise the threshold for the submission of invoices and receipts from $100 to $500, and, based on past experience, proposes to extend the deadline for submitting election returns for Chief Executive elections from 30 days to 60 days.

2482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

President, the technical amendments covered in the Bill not only involve issues concerning various FCs, but also include facilitation measures for improving electoral arrangements, which concern the right to participate in politics. Such technical amendments, which are not controversial in general and tally with the actual circumstances surrounding Hong Kong elections, are timely, practical and necessary technical amendments for the smoother conduct of the 2020 Legislative Council Election and other public elections. The amendments proposed in the Bill are not related to the reform of our overall political system, and have nothing to do with the proposal for universal suffrage. However, since some pan-democratic Members raised criticisms against FC elections and proposed abolishing FCs and implementing universal suffrage in their speeches just now, I would like to respond in passing.

Let me for the time being put aside the fact that FCs originated from the White Paper: The Further Development of Representative Government in Hong Kong issued in 1984 by the British Hong Kong Government, which announced that an indirect election of the Legislative Council would be held in 1985 to return 12 FC Members; later in 1995 before the reunification, the number of FC Members was raised to 30; and the package passed in 2010 confirmed the existing 35 FC seats, accounting for half of the entire 70 seats. Let me also for the time being put aside the argument over whether the FC system is transitional, or whether FC Members can really utilize their professional expertise.

When pan-democratic Members spoke on universal suffrage just now, they have essentially disregarded the policy intent of proposing the technical amendments of the Bill. As the drinker's heart is not in the cup, they intend to make an issue of it. The idea of universal suffrage that they advocate has not been discussed, and given the polarized public opinion in society, even if such ideas are introduced, their feasibility will be in doubt. The pan-democratic Members bite off more than they can chew. Not only do they ignore the past achievements and professional expertise of FC Members, but they have also demonstrated inadequate sincerity when compared with how some other pan-democratic Members dealt with the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) 2015, which likewise made technical amendments. At that time, while some pan-democratic Members criticized FCs and championed dual universal suffrage, they also requested broadening the electorate of FCs by way of proposing amendments. By solely advocating universal suffrage without proposing feasible initiatives, these Members are actually bundling public opinion LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2483 for future elections and seeking their own political salvation. They describe the FC system as heinous, as if the abolition of FCs and the implementation of dual universal suffrage could solve all the problems faced by Hong Kong.

President, I understand that as far as the political system, particularly electoral system, of Hong Kong is concerned, many Hong Kong people have issues with it. Some are even dissatisfied with the FC system, and query why the FC system is not abolished and dual universal suffrage, which many pan-democratic Members mentioned just now, is not implemented. First, Article 45 of the Basic Law stipulates that "The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures". Article 68 stipulates that "The method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage". In 2015, the Legislative Council vetoed the 2017 constitutional reform package and hence, FCs continued to exist.

Second, given the present increasingly divided public opinion and polarized society, why do we not, before commencing the study on universal suffrage, make use of Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bills implemented in 2014, 2015 and 2018 and the present Bill to improve our electoral system and arrangements in a gradual and orderly manner, so as to ensure that elections will be held in a fair, just and open manner?

As for broadening the electorate of FCs, particularly the Information Technology FC, I think it is indeed necessary to do so. The relevant study is being conducted, and the sector concerned will be consulted. Regarding the feasibility study on alternatives to broaden the electorate, including reviewing the composition of other FCs, making choices between corporate votes and individual votes, and regulating vote-rigging, studies can certainly be carried out. A dual-track approach can be adopted. The key is whether the Government can make reference to the Innovation and Technology Bureau's reform on the criteria for the composition of the Information Technology FC, formulate a specific timetable, consult the sector concerned, and implement the proposal, so as to enhance the recognition and representativeness of the sector concerned.

2484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

Not many amendments are proposed in the Bill, and when compared with the reform of the overall political system of Hong Kong, namely implementing dual universal suffrage in a gradual and orderly manner, we can even say that the amendments are patchy fixes. Yet, we are certainly not at a standstill. When it comes to the reform of the electoral system of Hong Kong, these are even the first step of a thousand-mile journey. Furthermore, even if universal suffrage goes beyond the policy intent of the Bill, there is essentially no conflict to conduct studies, put forward a feasible proposal at an appropriate time and conduct extensive discussions in society. All such tasks will not run counter to the technical amendments proposed in the Bill.

President, with these remarks, I support the Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 11:30 am.

10:52 am

Meeting suspended.

11:30 am

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Tommy CHEUNG, please speak.

MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the District Council ("DC") Election was on the whole conducted smoothly last Sunday and the next Legislative Council General Election will be held within one year. The Liberal Party hopes that the authorities will be more open to good advice and further improve its electoral arrangements by reviewing the relevant legislation and introducing technical amendments in view of the actual circumstances and needs.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2485

The Liberal Party generally endorses the necessary technical amendments proposed in the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), including those concerning the arrangements in the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (Cap. 554), the electorate of functional constituencies ("FCs"), as well as various electoral procedures.

While the election expense limits ("EELs") provided under the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance have been increased a few times to take account of inflation, the limits prescribed for rectifying minor errors or omissions for different elections have not been revised since the de minimis arrangement provided in section 37A was introduced in 2011. Currently, the limits for different elections as a percentage of the respective EELs range from 0.04% to 1.54%, but these limits seem to be too low for open elections involving huge expenses, such as the Chief Executive, Legislative Council geographical constituency ("GC") and DC (second) FC elections, failing to do real help to candidates.

The Liberal Party therefore agrees to the authorities' proposal that the prescribed limits as a percentage of the respective EELs should be adjusted upwards to range from 0.3% to 5% to allow candidates more room to rectify their minor errors or omissions, so that they will not be caught by the law inadvertently. The Liberal Party urges the authorities to regularly review the prescribed limits in conjunction with EELs to ensure that the prescribed limits will be maintained at a specific percentage to facilitate candidates.

In addition, section 37(2)(b) specifies that candidates must ensure that their election returns are accompanied by an invoice and a receipt giving particulars of the expenditure in the case of each election expense of $100 or more. However, this threshold has not been amended since the enactment of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance in 2000 despite a 33% increase in the Composite Consumer Price Index between 2000 and 2017. The authorities finally conduct a review many years later and propose to revise the threshold for submitting invoices and receipts from $100 to $500 to alleviate the workload of candidates in preparing election returns. Although this amendment has come late, it is better late than never. The Liberal Party therefore supports this amendment.

The Liberal Party also welcomes the amendment to extend the deadline for submitting election return for the Chief Executive election from 30 days to 60 days, in line with that for the Legislative Council election. Since the Chief 2486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

Executive election is a major election involving a considerable amount of expenses, it is a practical suggestion to allow candidates with more time to prepare and verify their election returns. Given that the prescribed limits for the Chief Executive and Legislative Council DC (second) FC elections are set at the same level under the de minimis arrangement provided in section 37A, it is fair and reasonable for the deadline for submitting election return for the Chief Executive election to be extended in line with that for the Legislative Council election.

President, I will now turn to discuss the electorate of FCs, which is a more important part of this amendment exercise. It has been more than three years since the last Legislative Council General Election; therefore, the electorate of FCs may no longer be the same. For example, while some corporates may have ceased operation, some new eligible corporate electors may have come up. The old list of corporate electors may have failed to reflect the latest situation and hence undermine the fairness of election. In view of this, the Liberal Party welcomes that the authorities update the names of corporates specified under relevant sections of the existing legislation that have had their names changed, remove corporates which have ceased operation and add new electors in the light of the prevailing situation of the FCs concerned so as to further update the delineation of the electorate of FCs.

President, the catering sector always holds that FCs of the Legislative Council have their contributions and values. Not only that they can promote the development of different industries and boost economic development, they can also embody the principle of balanced participation, act as the bridge between the Government and the trade, enhance the objectivity and comprehensiveness of policies, and balance the interests and demands of different social sectors. By seeking common ground amid different views, FCs can help maintain social stability.

In fact, Hong Kong is a society which emphasizes professional development. Whilst professional associations, as well as commerce and industrial sectors, strongly drove the development of economy, FCs arose accordingly in the Legislative Council. The catering sector recognizes the importance of the Catering FC in the Legislative Council. As we all know, issues concerning the catering industry, such as licensing policies, operation modes and development needs of restaurants, are highly professional and complicated. Only trade members with strong expertise can have a full LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2487 understanding of these issues to give appropriate advice and perform the monitory function in the Council. The catering sector does not want to lose its voice in the Council as that will upset the balance in the Council. If policies are subject to populism without taking into account the reality, not only will they hinder the development of the catering industry but will also bring negative impacts on society. We support the idea of expanding and enhancing the electorate of FCs to increase the representativeness of FCs and comply with the principles of "universality" and "equality". Yet, the quality of FCs' electors must be guaranteed. They should have representativeness in their own sector rather than being put on the list to simply make up the number of electors.

The catering sector welcomes discussion on how to enhance the credibility and representativeness of electors. For example, we may consider including directors and senior executives as electors or adopting the "one shop, one manager" approach to allow each restaurant to nominate one of its managers to become an elector so as to broaden the electorate. The issue of electorate has not been touched on in this amendment exercise, probably because it is a bit complicated. Anyway, both the Liberal Party and I believe that good social atmosphere is necessary for the reactivation of constitutional reform. We therefore hope that constitutional reform will be reactivated step by step when calm is restored in society. However, in the reactivation of constitutional reform, there are two elements that must not be overlooked, i.e. "the actual situation" and "gradual and orderly progress". The two of them are interrelated …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Tommy CHEUNG, I remind you that this Council is not discussing constitutional reform. Please return to the subject of this debate.

MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I know but I have not digressed too far. I am talking about the practice of the Legislative Council election and I will wrap it up quickly.

Of course, the Central Government has the constitutional duty and power to determine the pace of Hong Kong's constitutional reform in accordance with the actual situation to ensure that Hong Kong will remain stable and continue to prosper. However, the actual situation is not under the complete control of the 2488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

Central Government. Hong Kong people can influence this actual situation. When situations differ, our constitutional reform may either progress steadily or remain standstill. It may even regress for a while. Yet, it can never go against the broad direction of "gradual and orderly progress".

Regarding the framework of the "831 Decision" adopted in 2014, the Liberal Party and I understand the views of a sector of society. However, we should understand that constitutional reform is to be discussed within the framework of the Basic Law and based on the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. Having said that, we believe there is room for us to amend local electoral legislation, seek changes and create favourable conditions to achieve "gradual and orderly progress" under the framework of the "831 Decision". When creating these conditions, we should act in accordance with the principle of "one country, two systems" and the legal status of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, take into account the interests of the different sectors of society, realize the principle of balanced participation and facilitate the development of the capitalist economy to gradually develop a democratic system which can fit in the actual situation of Hong Kong. Constitutional reform should not remain standstill. The Liberal Party hopes that the authorities will have the courage and resolution to overcome all obstacles even if it is difficult to reactivate the constitutional reform.

President, in the last part of my speech, I would like to speak on two other relatively simple amendments in the Bill that the Liberal Party supports. The first amendment is to allow candidates in candidate lists for a GC or the DC (second) FC of the Legislative Council general election or by-election to submit the nomination form in a way authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer. In fact, it is not a new arrangement but has already been adopted in the Chief Executive, Election Committee subsector, DC and Rural Representatives elections. Under the law, a candidate is allowed to submit the nomination form to the Returning Officer in person or in any other manner authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer or the Returning Officer. As for the Legislative Council election, such arrangement is applicable only to candidates of the traditional FCs but not to candidate lists of GCs or DC (second) FC. This is where the problem lies.

Given that it is not uncommon for a candidate list to consist of only one candidate in a GC or DC (second) FC of the Legislative Council, the existing arrangement would be inconvenient to candidates who are unable to submit nomination forms in person for any justifiable reasons during the nomination LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2489 period (e.g. hospitalization or out of town). The authorities thus propose to align the arrangements of submission of nomination form for candidates in candidate lists of GCs or DC (second) FC with that for candidates in the traditional FCs, as well as other public elections, such that candidates will be allowed to submit their nomination forms in a way authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer in the future. The Liberal Party will certainly not object to this amendment.

The Liberal Party also supports refining the requirement on thickness and size of each letter that may be sent free of postage by candidates. At present, a letter may be sent free of postage by a candidate or a list of candidates in the Chief Executive, Election Committee subsector, Legislative Council and DC elections, but each letter must not exceed 50 grams in weight and must not be larger than 175 mm x 245 mm and not smaller than 90 mm x 140 mm in size. However, since 1 January 2016, Hongkong Post has introduced changes to its postage structure with reference to the Universal Postal Union Letter Post Manual, such that only letters not exceeding 165 mm x 245 mm in size and 5 mm in thickness would be treated as "small letters" and subject to the lower postage fee. The authorities thus propose to follow Hongkong Post's new requirement and establish an objective yardstick on the size of postage-free letters in the future elections for the requirement on size of postage-free letters to be aligned with the size limit of "small letters" according to Hongkong Post's definition. The Liberal Party considers this amendment reasonable to avoid confusion.

President, to conclude, the Liberal Party will vote in favour of the Bill as it can further enhance the electoral arrangements to ensure the elections will be conducted in an open, fair and honest manner. Besides, I would like to respond to Mr AU Nok-hin in the remaining 25 seconds of speaking time. Mr AU has queried why he is eligible to run for the Wholesale and Retail FC Election while he is ineligible to vote in that FC. I have to remind him that in the case of GCs, many candidates are also ineligible to vote in the GC that they stand for election either. Can you eat your cake and have it too? Should we stop a person who is ineligible to vote to run for election? He should think twice before launching another attack on FCs. Thank you, President.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, today's discussion is on the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") and I speak in support of the Bill, which is related to voting.

2490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

First of all, I am very grateful to the people who voted in the District Council ("DC") Election last Sunday. This is a manifestation of taking action to practise democracy. It does not matter whether people voted for the Federation of Trade Unions, the pro-establishment camp, or other political parties, we still thank them whole-heartedly.

Speaking of gratitude, some colleagues mentioned that today is Thanksgiving Day. Thanksgiving Day is not very popular in Hong Kong as it is a festival celebrated in the United States. When Dr CHENG Chung-tai mentioned Thanksgiving Day, he seemed to be very grateful that the United States passed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act for the good of Hong Kong. Honestly, this shows that Dr CHENG Chung-tai is either a history illiterate or a traitor to usher the enemy into the country. Why do I say he is a history illiterate?

As a matter of fact, President, I wonder if you know, Thanksgiving Day originated in 1621. Back then, a group of immigrants from Europe, mainly from Great Britain, started their new lives in the American continent. After they had arrived by boat, they were unaccustomed to the environment there. They could not adapt to the life and climate and they might not even know how to hunt. Some Indians, the indigenous people, came to their rescue and helped them …

(Some Members indicated that Mr LUK Chung-hung had digressed)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I know. I was about to remind Mr LUK Chung-hung to return to the subject of the debate.

Mr LUK, please return to the subject of this debate.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): … President, there is meaning in my exposition. They are totally related. I am only talking about the history.

To show gratitude to the Indians, the immigrants held a feast for celebration. However, what happened later? President, do you know? The European immigrants robbed the Indians of their resources, killed them in large numbers, and even committed genocide, killing 98% of the Indians. Hence, there are many in history …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2491

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK, please point out the relation between what you said and the Bill.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): … There were many people in history who did evil things wearing a smiling face. Many people said pleasing words, but they meant to harm and kill. Honestly, the recent … Hence, I always think that Thanksgiving Day is extremely hypocritical. The European immigrants who held Thanksgiving Day then are today's Americans …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK, you have spent three minutes talking about Thanksgiving Day but the subject of this debate is the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): … Alright, I will return to the theme. Actually, I have to ask whether the Syrians and Iraqis today are thankful to the United States for bringing them the so-called "democracy and human rights".

Alright, back to the subject …

(Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung stood up)

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, actually you always digress in your speech but I respect you. I did not digress; I was using history as foreword.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, what is your point of order?

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr LUK was not speaking on the subject of this debate.

2492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have reminded him twice.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): But he has not followed your instruction but continued to digress.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If Mr LUK continues to ignore my instruction, I will ask him to stop speaking.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): But you did not warn him and only asked him not to digress.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already warned Mr LUK twice and asked him to return to the subject.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Did you tell him clearly that if he digressed the third time, you would ask him to stop speaking?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will ask him to stop speaking if so requires, but he has not digressed the third time yet.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): You did not treat Dr CHENG Chung-tai the same way just now.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I do not need you to teach me how to chair a meeting.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): I am not teaching you how to chair a meeting. I only point out the unfairness.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2493

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I am rather lenient when chairing the meetings and I normally give Members three chances to return to the subject. I have given Mr LUK two warnings so far.

Mr LUK Chung-hung, please continue with your speech.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, perhaps because I talked about the dark history of the United States, some colleagues are quite sensitive.

Alright, let me return to the subject. As a matter of fact, our electoral system should keep abreast of the times, continue to manifest a democratic and fair system, and allow the Government to gain recognition and mandate from the people through credible and fair elections.

The Bill is mainly concerned with some technical amendments, namely revising the names of corporates that have had their names changed, removing corporates which have ceased operation and adding new electors in the light of the prevailing situation of the functional constituencies ("FCs") concerned. It is concerned with FCs.

On the other hand, the Bill allows candidates in candidate lists for a Geographical Constituency or the District Council (second) FC of the Legislative Council general election or by-election to submit the nomination form in a way authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, and it also amends the requirement on the thickness and size of letters sent free of postage by candidates. The requirement is necessary because we have to send printed materials to tell our voters our political platform or past achievements. As the original size of letter was small, the leaflet could easily exceed the limits, and at one time, I had to reprint the leaflet which was indeed troublesome. The amendment has addressed some of our operational problems.

Besides, the Bill also amends certain arrangements in the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (Cap. 554). Of course, these amendments are technical in nature, and can be considered as trivial and insignificant. I also support the amendments.

However, why do I still have to speak today? That is because I wish to talk about the entire electoral system. President, I am going to speak on technical issues and hence they are absolutely related to the Bill. Actually, 2494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 concerning the DC Election, we have received many views from voters. They have expressed strong views and even dissatisfaction with the electoral process. What are their views? I have to declare interest first. I also ran in the DC Election last Sunday and I lost. But I fully recognize and respect voters' decisions and the election result. I express the following my views to be put on record.

Many voters complained about the Presiding Officers at the polling stations, and I believe this was related to the current legislation. Earlier, we asked the Secretary whether certain arrangements could be changed and he said that changes would involve the amendment of legislation. I now put forward a few points to the Secretary for serious consideration in future. First, when a voter enters a polling station, he has to queue up in a line according to the alphabet of his identity card. Staff in the polling station will check the voter's name against the register of voters, and then use a ruler to place a line in the register and cross out the name of the voter. I found that a standard procedure has not been set in the DC Election. Some staff asked the voters to stand further away and not to look at him. Some voters opined that if they did not look closely, they would not know if the staff had actually crossed out their names and if their names were not crossed out, someone might assume their identity and vote. In some polling stations, a paper board was placed between the staff and the voters; in other polling stations, nothing was placed in between and voters could see clearly whether the staff had crossed out their names correctly. Many voters were sceptical about this arrangement.

In one complaint that I received, a voter found that his name had already been crossed out, hence he could not vote. In another complaint, a voter also found that his name had been crossed out, but upon reasoning with the polling station staff, he was allowed to cast his vote. What exactly had happened? Actually these problems could be solved by technology. The proposal supported by most people was to adopt the practice of immigration clearance, that is, to verify one's identity by inserting an identity card into a card reader followed by fingerprint checking. Honestly, very often, other than twins, siblings may look very much alike. For example, many handsome gentlemen in suits look like the President. Also, the President and I look quite alike as we both have big mouths. It is nothing strange for people to look alike, right, President? Hence, the practice of checking one's identity cards and crossing out names can easily give rise to problems.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2495

We suggest that we adopt the practice of immigration clearance. Voters can use his smart identity cards and fingerprints to verify their identity, and then a ballot paper will be printed out at the scene. All the information will be recorded in the server of the central computer system. This can avoid mistakes in issuing ballot papers, and then greatly allay the worries of unfairness.

The second problem involves vote counting. As far as I know, the Government plans to put on trial the counting of votes by electronic scanner in next year's FC election. If so, why can't we use electronic scanner to count votes in all elections? President, as regards vote counting, I have certain observation. Secretary, the practices of certain staff during the vote counting process have aroused suspicion, why? Some staff read aloud the number of the candidate chosen on each ballot paper, number 1, number 2, number 2 and number 1, allowing the counting agent to see easily. In other cases, some staff laid all ballot papers on the table and sorted them into piles with four or five ballot papers in one pile. Counting agents might not be able to see the ballot papers clearly as they stood about 10 ft away from the table where the ballot papers were laid. If the counting staff had certain personal preference, no matter whose side he took, and if he had ethical problems, he might purposely misplace one ballot paper out of 10. That would have a significant impact on the result of the election. Vote counting by hand would have such a problem.

Moreover, after working over 10 hours from morning till night, the staff might be very tired. With blurry eyes, they might misplace or mess up some ballot papers on the table by mistake. As the vote counting methods are not standardized, the accuracy might be affected. I have heard that in some cases, as far as I know, the counting agents in at least one constituency …

(Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, what is your point of order?

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, could you ask Mr LUK Chung-hung how the vote counting procedure he was talking about was related to the Bill?

2496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, this is not the time for you to ask questions and Mr LUK does not need to clarify any point in his speech. Please sit down.

Mr LUK, please return to the subject of this debate.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, the two are related …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK, you should explain how the counting of votes that you described is related to the Bill.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I will support the Bill. However, I think there are a number of inadequacies in the relevant ordinance. I have expressed this view to the Secretary and he said amendments were needed in many aspects of the ordinance. Hence, I hope that through this debate, I can convey the following message, i.e. even though I support the Bill, I think society should make advancement and elections should be held in a democratic and fair manner with improvements made. Hence, I should be allowed to express these views.

In another case, the candidate and the counting agent were barred from entering the polling station by some unknown people. Hence they could not monitor the vote counting process. Of course, it was rather chaotic on that day. President, the Secretary should also know that someone queued up for a malicious purpose. They queued up repeatedly, and finally the Registration and Electoral Office had to make a clarification. Actually there is legislation regulating such behaviour but how come no notice was posted outside the polling station to inform the public? Also, there is another problem that no standard was set for certain arrangements, as sometimes …

(Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, what is your point of order?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2497

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, can you stop Mr LUK Chung-hung from digressing?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I clearly hear Mr LUK say that he wanted to tell the Secretary something and he supported the Bill. Earlier, I have said time and again that the content of the Bill is highly technical and I will exercise discretion by allowing Members to talk about the recent election but Members should not digress too far.

Mr LUK Chung-hung, please continue with your speech.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, some matters may be related to the future legislative amendments and the present amendments are too trivial. Secretary, in fact, I am a little disappointed. President, we have earlier mentioned the problems with vote counting and the arrangements in polling stations. Do we have legislation to safeguard people with disabilities by giving them priority to vote? This involves the issue of fairness. For example, people with physical disabilities or people in poor health should not queue up for a long time. How can we safeguard these people's right to vote? Can they be given priority to vote upon the production of their Registration Card for People with Disabilities? We may have to stipulate in the legislation that the voting right of these people should be safeguarded. On that day, in some polling stations, the staff at one time allowed wheelchair-users or holders of the Registration Card for People with Disabilities to enter the station directly to vote, but later the staff did not give the permission. Permission was given at one time and then retracted. Finally, permission was not given, leading to uproars and disputes among people with different views at the polling station. No one wished to see this happen.

In this connection, with regard to the future voting and vote counting procedures, as well as the special arrangements for people with special needs, I think further reviews of the relevant legislation should be conducted and amendments should be proposed, so that more people can vote, the election will be fairer with higher credibility and at the same time, disputes and distrust will be minimized.

Given that rumours are now flying around, we have kept making clarifications to persuade people to accept the voting results. For serious problems, we will consider lodging election petitions. We hope that a good 2498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 system will be put in place to reduce conflicts and at the same time, technical improvements should be made to promote democratic elections.

Thank you, President. (The buzzer sounded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK, please stop speaking.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, since you can be lenient to Mr LUK Chung-hung, I hope you will also treat other Members leniently.

Regarding the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), as stated by the Secretary, only some technical but not substantial amendments are proposed and no changes in principle are involved. The amendments are mainly divided into three categories, one of which is to revise the threshold for the submission of invoices and receipts for each election item from $100 to $500. As pointed out by the Government, this change can alleviate the workload of candidates throughout the election. In fact, it is sometimes very difficult to obtain expenditure receipts. For instance, if a candidate wants to show appreciation to his election volunteers, he will buy snacks or drinks from a small shop and the amount will not be big. Yet, it will be very difficult to keep all such expenditure receipts, and the receipts can be lost easily. Hence, the amendment will bring convenience to candidates.

Another amendment concerns the requirements of election letter that may be sent free of postage. The main purpose is to revise the existing requirement to tally with the definition of small letters. I have reservation about this amendment because I think it lacks flexibility for candidates. Given the many problems now present in society, candidates need more space to write their opinions on various social problems. Changing the size requirement for letters will thus limit the content, which is undesirable. I think it is better to maintain the current arrangement.

Another significant amendment is related to functional constituencies ("FCs"). While the delineation of FC electorate remains unchanged; changes are only made to update the names of corporates that have had their names changed and remove corporates which have ceased operation since the last update, and to add new electors in the light of the prevailing situation of FCs. There is no amendment in other aspects. Certainly, it is reasonable for the Government to propose the above amendments. Given that the current electorates of FCs are mostly corporates or institutions, changes are inevitable after four years, and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2499 hence updates or revisions are required. However, to our greatest regret, the Government has not reviewed the most important issue of whether FCs should continue to exist. FCs should not exist because it violates the most important spirit of election, i.e. the principle of fairness.

President, apart from the five Members returned by the District Council (second) FC (commonly known as "Super District Council"), the other 30 Members returned by FCs only have an electorate of some 230 000 electors. The lack of broad representativeness in the composition of electors and the fact that many candidates are returned uncontested have long been the subjects of criticism. In short, the election is not fair and just and hence FCs should not exist. However, the Government has not conducted any review.

Actually, in respect of the weight of ballots, the political rights are highly unequal between FC electors and geographical constituency electors. In geographical constituency elections, 4.13 million registered electors may return 35 geographical constituency seats, i.e. about 130 000 electors return one Member on average. However, the 30 seats of the traditional FCs are returned by 230 000 registered electors, i.e. some 7 000 electors return one Member on average. One vote from a FC elector is equal to … one vote in geographical constituency election means 18.6 times in FC election. This is so unequal.

More serious still, among traditional FCs, some only have no more than 20 electors, including Finance, Agriculture and Fisheries, Insurance, and Transport. A small number of electors can return one Member. In this amendment exercise, the Government has totally ignored the situation and allowed the continuous existence of this seriously unequal situation. How can fairness be attained? Even in the Education FC with some 88 000 electors, there is a difference of 1.5 times when compared to one Member to be returned by 130 000 electors in geographical constituencies. How can this be fair? Even if we do not compare the Education FC with geographical constituencies but with other FCs, there is still the situation of unfairness. If we compare the Insurance FC and the Education FC, there is a stunning difference of some 80 000 electors. How can this be fair at all?

In the direct election of geographical constituencies, even under the current system of proportional representation, a candidate has to get at least 20 000 or 30 000 votes before he can be elected and become a Legislative Council Member. The difference is big when compared to Members currently returned by FCs. Why did the Government not review this unfair and unreasonable phenomenon in this legislative amendment exercise? Why did the Government not seize the opportunity to rectify the situation in this exercise?

2500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

On the other hand, the electorate of many FCs are not individuals but corporates or organizations. Amongst the 28 traditional FCs, 10 of them only have corporate votes while eight of them have both corporate votes and individual votes. However, the threshold for registration as company or corporate electors is very high. For instance, electors of the Commercial (First) FC and the Commercial (Second) FC must be members of The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce or The Chinese General Chamber of Commerce, whereas electors of the Industrial (First) FC and the Industrial (Second) FC must likewise be members of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries or The Chinese Manufacturers' Association of Hong Kong. Even in the Labour FC that I am most concerned about, only trade unions are eligible to vote. Individual wage earners are not eligible to vote.

Actually in early May, the Legislative Council held a public hearing on the Bill. At that time, Members and members of the public demanded the broadening of the electorate base of traditional FCs. However, the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs reiterated that the Government would only deal with technical amendments in the current exercise, and given that any substantial changes in the composition of FC would be highly controversial, the issue would be examined very carefully and seriously in future. We thus have to ask the Government: When will a serious review be conducted? When will the problem of unfairness in election brought about by FCs be addressed?

All along, under the system of corporate votes, large enterprises and syndicates can, through subsidiary companies or by holding shares in other companies, acquire in a justifiable way the eligibility of electors in an FC or different FCs, thereby holding more votes and exerting greater political influence. Hence a large company engaging in different businesses may have corporate votes in different FCs. As such, the purpose of FC election is not to elect a representative of the constituency but to elect a representative who is favourable to the company's business.

For instance, if a company engages concurrently in the businesses of real estate, finance, tourism, culture and entertainment, it can have voting right in different FCs through setting up different companies. Is this fair to the general public? As a matter of fact, people have the impression that electors of these corporates may in fact involve in the serious problem of de facto vote-rigging. If an enterprise sets up different companies and registers as an elector in an FC or different FCs, the fair principle of "one person, one vote" or "one elector, one vote" is definitely violated.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2501

Let me cite another example. In the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication FC, the Performing Arts and Publication subsectors may have individual electors; but the Sports and Culture subsectors only have corporate electors. Moreover, many practitioners belonging to the Sports, Performing Arts and Publication subsectors are subject to the requirement of eligibility for registration as personal electors and are thus illegible to register as electors. As for the Culture subsector, only those arts bodies both subsidized by the Government and designated under the Hong Kong Arts Development Council Ordinance, or the 16 district arts and culture associations designated by the Registration and Electoral Office, can register as electors. Therefore, only arts bodies, but not individuals, which have been subsidized by the Hong Kong Arts Development Council are eligible to register as electors. As one must have corporate background in order to become an elector of this FC, this kind of registration arrangement is very unfair to independent artists and creators.

According to the 2017 Population Census, a total of more than 210 000 people were engaged in the cultural and creative industry in Hong Kong; but there are only some 3 100 electors in the FC concerned. Many practitioners, such as musicians, singers and actors, have been working in the industry for years, yet they have neither the eligibility nor the right to vote. This is indeed perplexing. In 2016, a media exposed, upon checking the register for electors, that almost 200 member associations under the Association of Chinese Culture of Hong Kong ("ACCHK"), an organization with pro-establishment background, were electors of the Cultural subsector. However, nearly 10% of these member associations were newly registered. In 2016, ACCHK had at least 7% of the votes, and 10 member associations even used ACCHK's address for registration. As such, how could people not doubt that ACCHK used "vampire bodies", which had not been in operation, as electors? How could people not doubt the possibility of vote-rigging?

Furthermore, under the current separate voting system of the Legislative Council, FC Members representing the minority interests of sectors have the privilege to veto motions proposed by geographical constituency Members who represent the majority interests of the people, thereby giving rise to the unfair situation of the minority vetoing the majority, and even the situation of many motions concerning the constitutional matters and core values of Hong Kong being vetoed. Hence, I find it regrettable that this issue of principle is not reviewed in the Bill. Anyhow, I think constitutional reform must be conducted expeditiously as the unfair and unjust FCs should no longer exist.

2502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

Actually, in the past, due to the presence of FCs, some inappropriate, unreasonable and unfair motions could be passed in the Legislative Council. This is rather regrettable. Even when we wanted to impeach the Chief Executive, we could not propose the motion owing to the presence of FCs, thus we could not reflect the opinion of the general public.

Lastly, to conclude, the system FCs is widely questioned mainly because the system is unfair, the electorate base is confined to a small circle of the sector and the fact that there are only corporate votes in many FCs. As such, how will Members elected by small circles have a public opinion basis? In certain FCs, the subdivision method has ignored some relatively smaller sectors in the industry, or there are simply no rules for compliance. Thus, I think many problems are involved. For instance, many practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine and chiropractors are excluded from the Medical FC; the electors of the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication FC are restricted to certain institutions and organizations. All such practices have given us the feeling of unfair and imbalanced participation.

Therefore, I consider FCs in the Legislative Council a structural defect which totally fails to manifest public opinion and facilitates the pro-establishment camp's further manipulation of the legislature to support the Government. At the beginning of this year, when Chief Executive Carrie LAM forced through the draconian" China extradition bill", she thought she could control more than half of the seats in this Council, hence she ignored public opinions and did whatever she wanted in this Council. Yet, the introduction of the "China extradition bill" has triggered the largest pro-democracy movement ever in Hong Kong, lasting for nearly six months up till now, but public grievances and resentment have still not been allayed. The Carrie LAM's Government thought that it could, with a sufficient number of votes from the royalist, force through the unjust "China extradition bill", resulting in public grievances getting out of control.

In the District Council Election which has just concluded, the pro-establishment camp has almost been totally crushed. A royalist political party could not even get one single seat. People in various districts have waited in polling stations until the early hours for the vote counting results. They wanted to witness at the scene the failure of the pro-establishment camp which used to curry favour with the public by offering freebies. After all, Hong Kong needs reform, especially reforms in the electoral system. We must abolish FCs and bring universal suffrage to the Legislative Council.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2503

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the objective of the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") is to introduce the necessary technical legislative amendments for the 2020 Legislative Council General Election and other public elections, including technical amendments concerning the electorate of the functional constituencies ("FCs"), arrangements in the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") (Cap. 554), as well as various electoral procedures.

Although the amendments proposed in the Bill are technical in nature, it has not diminished the importance of the Bill as the amendments are concerned with how to ensure that various elections can be conducted in a fair, just and orderly manner. Thus, the community has attached great importance to the Bill. On 21 January this year, the Administration consulted the Panel on Constitutional Affairs on the relevant amendment proposals and members generally expressed their support. On 20 March, the Bill was introduced into the Legislative Council and a Bills Committee was then set up for scrutiny. I am both a member of the Panel on Constitutional Affairs and a member of the Bills Committee, and have participated in the relevant discussions. I believe Members should have noticed that the Bills Committee submitted a report to the House Committee on 14 June, indicating its awareness that the Administration would adopt the recommendation of the Legal Adviser to the Bills Committee and propose an amendment to the long title of the Bill by deleting "s" in the word "legislation" in the English text, so as to align with the usage of the word "legislation" in the long title of other ordinances concerning miscellaneous amendments to various electoral legislation. On this premise, the Bills Committee raised no objection to the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill at the Council meeting, nor will it propose any amendment.

President, what are the major amendments of the Bill? First, there are technical amendments concerning FCs. The electorate of FCs in the Legislative Council is provided for under the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap. 542). Following the established practice, before each Legislative Council General Election, the Administration will conduct a review of the delineation of the electorate of FCs in consultation with the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments. The review was conducted on the basis of the existing electorate and all relevant requests received from individual bodies or persons since the last review in 2015.

2504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

The Administration has completed the review and, on the premise of maintaining the original delineation of the electorate of FCs, come up with a series of technical amendments. Clauses 3 to 12 of the Bill seek to update the lists of persons comprising certain Legislative Council FCs and the Higher Education subsector of the Election Committee. During the deliberation of the Bills Committee, some pro-establishment Members suggested that as a result of an increase in the number of practitioners in certain FCs in recent years, the Administration should introduce measure to broaden the electorate of FCs. A member even proposed to replace corporate electors with individual electors.

However, as pointed out by the Administration, the purpose of the Bill is only to make the necessary technical amendments to the electorate of FCs, and does not include making substantive change to the electorate of FCs. In fact, in the midst of the current socio-political environment, any major adjustments to the electorate of FCs would only lead to more controversies. It is therefore inappropriate to act rashly in the absence of clear consensus and sufficient support in the community. What is more, we cannot ignore the various constitutional requirements, including Article 68 of the Basic Law, which stipulates that the method for forming the Legislative Council should be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong SAR and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress, as well as Annex II which sets out the method for forming the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. Therefore, this extremely controversial subject must be handled cautiously.

Secondly, the Bill also proposes other technical amendments to improve the electoral arrangements. Clause 18 of the Bill allows candidates in candidate lists for a Geographical Constituency or the District Council ("DC") (second) FC of the Legislative Council general election or by-election to submit the nomination form in a way authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, so as to facilitate candidates who are unable to submit nomination forms in person for any justifiable reasons, such as hospitalization or out of town, to submit nomination forms through their appointed representatives. Members have no objection to this proposal.

Furthermore, in view of the changes introduced by Hongkong Post to its postage structure since January 2016 with reference to the Universal Postal Union Letter Post Manual, the Bill has provided new requirement for "small letters". Clauses 20 to 23 of the Bill propose technical amendments to the size and thickness of each letters that may be sent free of postage by candidates, so as to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2505 align with the new size limit of "small letters". As I have highlighted during the discussions of the Bills Committee, although this is a minor amendment, I believe it would still cause a certain degree of inconvenience to candidates. It is not about money, but probably about time. I therefore urge the Administration to improve its notification and publicity, and particularly to brief the candidates of the upcoming election on the new requirement. I am pleased to hear that the Administration has undertaken to take follow-up actions.

President, there is another type of amendment to the Bill, that is, clauses 14 to 16, which seek to revise the relevant arrangements in the Ordinance. Under the de minimis arrangement provided in section 37A of the Ordinance, minor errors or omissions in election returns may be rectified. As pointed out by the Administration, since the de minimis arrangement was introduced in 2011, the limits prescribed for different elections have not been revised despite increases in the election expense limits. The existing limits for different elections as a percentage of the respective election expense limits range from 0.04% to 1.54%, whereas the proposed limits would range from 0.3% to 5%. This is a more appropriate arrangement for candidates to rectify the minor errors or omissions in their election returns under the de minimis arrangement.

Furthermore, section 37(2)(b) of the Ordinance specifies that candidates must ensure that their election returns are accompanied by an invoice and a receipt giving particulars of the expenditure in the case of each election expense of $100 or more. However, since the enactment of the Ordinance in 2000, despite increases in the maximum amount of election expenses, the threshold for the submission of invoices and receipts has not been amended. The Bill provides for an increase of the threshold from $100 to $500, which will help alleviate the workload of candidates throughout the election and when preparing their election returns.

On the other hand, there is an amendment concerning the deadline for submitting election returns. In view of the considerable amount of election expenses involved in the Chief Executive election, candidates often need more time to properly prepare and verify their election returns. Therefore, in the Bill, the Administration extends the deadline for submitting election returns by candidates of the Chief Executive election from the present 30 days after the results of the election is published in the Gazette to 60 days, so as to align with the deadline for submitting election returns by candidates of the Legislative Council election.

2506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

President, in the light of the above, the Bill does propose some amendments that are purely technical in nature based on certain practical needs. Of course, in order to ensure that various elections in Hong Kong can be conducted in a fair, just and smooth manner, there are still a lot of work to be followed up by the Administration. For example, although complaints concerning breaches of the Ordinance are not covered by the Bill, many members of the public reflected that all complaints about breaches of the Ordinance, regardless of how trivial they are, are currently referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") for investigation. According to the briefing submitted to the Legislative Council Panel on Security by the Commissioner of ICAC, ICAC received 858 complaints of breaches of the Ordinance in 2016 and most of them were related to the 2015 DC Election and 2016 Legislative Council Election. Two persons were prosecuted for election offences, one person was formally cautioned and 86 persons received warnings.

Although the majority of complaints are minor, ICAC has to deploy a considerable amount of manpower and resources to handle the cases. On the other hand, the candidates are often greatly distressed, having to spend considerable time, efforts and resources, such as lawyers' fees, to respond. Undoubtedly, the candidates have to pay a high price for the election, thereby dampening the interest of people from all walks of life to participate in the election. Therefore, there are suggestions in the community that in future, the Administration should consider setting up a task force or recruiting lawyers under the Registration and Electoral Office to deal with complaints involving apparently inadvertent or minor errors in the course of various elections. Only election complaints that are more serious or complex in nature should be formally referred to ICAC for follow up. I think the concerns and suggestions of members of the public are worthy of serious consideration by the Administration, and should be reflected in the next round of amendments to the electoral legislation.

President, I must stress that it is the unshirkable responsibility of the SAR Government to ensure that all elections in Hong Kong are conducted in a fair, just and smooth manner. However, those extremely careful amendments to the electoral legislation introduced by the Government appear as a strong sarcastic contrast to the unjust and violent challenges in this DC Election. The 2019 DC Election has just concluded and different sectors of the community are still reviewing the election results, but the myriads of problems emerged in the course of election are very worthy of attention by people from all walks of life.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2507

This DC Election was held in the midst of disturbances when Hong Kong is imbued with violence and political hype. People belonging to the pro-establishment camp, be they candidates, volunteers or supporters, are under the threat of black terror. Many of their District Offices suffered various degrees of damages and had even been hit by petrol bombs. Worse still, some candidates were injured in attacks and election campaign could not be properly launched, thus placing them in very unfavourable conditions. In the face of these unprecedented difficulties, the pro-establishment camp still faced up to the challenges. Take the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong ("BPA") as an example. Our District Offices had also suffered various degrees of damages and none was spared. The most serious attack was arson, whereby the entire office was burnt down. Also, our publicity materials were destroyed. Some people of my constituency indicated that they wanted to support candidates from the pro-establishment camp, but as they could not learn about the particulars of pro-establishment candidates from the publicity materials in the streets, they could not tell which candidate was from the pro-establishment camp. Candidates from BPA could only place small tables in front of their burned-out offices to maintain contact with the kaifongs and electors. Our team, including candidates, supporters and volunteers, continued to make our best effort to prepare for the DC Election without being threatened by black violence. Although BPA has not got satisfactory results in this DC Election, which is disappointing, the number of votes obtained by most candidates has exceeded 40%, and one of our candidates lost despite getting as high as 49.9% of the votes. An increase in the number of votes obtained represents people's recognition of the work of BPA in the districts.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to every elector and volunteer for their support, as well as my deep regret at the serious violence, vandalism and disturbances emerged in this DC Election, consequently the Election could not be held in a fair, just and safe manner. I urge the Administration to reflect deeply on these issues. The injustice and violent threats the emerged during the DC Election are unacceptable, so I hope that the Government will take practical measures to ensure that all future election activities will be conducted in a fair, just and safe environment.

President, with these remarks, I support the passage of the Bill.

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, the latest District Council ("DC") Election has just been concluded and the Legislative Council General Election will soon be held in the third quarter next year. The 2508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") and I strongly support the Government's legislative amendment exercise to prepare for the Legislative Council Election.

The amendments proposed in the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill'') are mainly technical in nature, but since many Members have mentioned the issue concerning the election of functional constituencies ("FC"), I would like to talk about my experience in and views of FCs.

At present, the interests of different sectors of Hong Kong are highly complicated. Geographical constituencies ("GCs") represent the interests of residents in GCs while FCs represent the interests of different sectors. It is like a criss-cross network, a representative government system under mutual supervision. If all seats are returned by GCs through direct election, it will certainly represent the different interests of each district. For example, if the Government wants to construct a landfill or an incinerator, I think all Members present or all people of Hong Kong may find it necessary to have this facility, but the Member representing the district where the selected site is located would say: Do not construct the said facility in my district, construct it in the district nearby or a better option is to construct the facility in the district further away. This fully manifests that a directly elected Member will strive for the benefits of electors in his constituency. However, FC Members will think differently because they do not have the pressure of getting votes, hence they can look at the issue from an impartial and comprehensive point of view.

Let me cite another example …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, please return to the subject of this debate.

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, just now some Members talked about FCs from this and that perspective …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, undoubtedly many Members talked about other issues and I have also allowed you to make some response, but you should not spend too much time discussing other issues.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2509

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, I have not spent too much time discussing other issues. I only spent a little more than a minute out of my 15-minute speaking time to respond to other Members.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am only reminding you to return to the subject of this debate.

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): Alright, thank you. I will return to the subject of the debate and will speak on the subject.

I also have similar experience. In the last term, I visited the site of the former Sha Tin Police Married Quarters, located between Wo Che and Lek Yuen, which had returned to the Government for the construction of public rental housing ("PRH"). At that time, members of the Sha Tin DC proposed to move some of the residents of Wo Che Estate to the newly constructed PRH estates and then rebuild the entire Wo Che Estate. That was the reason for our visit. In my view, as several hundred thousand people have been waiting several years for PRH, and as the environment of Wo Che Estate was not too bad, why should residents of Wo Che Estate be relocated? Should those on the Waiting List for PRH be given the priority to move in first? After I raised this question, even pro-establishment DC members hinted that I should stop making such comments for fear that the election result would be affected. I understood their concern, but as I did not have that kind of pressure, I could look at the whole picture in a more comprehensive way. Hence, I think FCs and GCs should complement each other, each making their own unique contributions to society.

Just now some Members asked whether consideration could be given to expanding the electorate base of FCs. That is another issue. I think there is nothing wrong with the entire electoral system but is there room for improvement? Improvement can certainly be made. Hence, I hope that Secretary Patrick NIP and the Government will consider how to make appropriate improvements and adjustments under this major principle.

President, the Bill mainly aims at making technical amendments on the basis of the existing electorate and all relevant requests received from individual bodies/persons since the last review in 2015. The amendments include updating the names of corporates specified, removing corporates which have ceased operation and adding new electors. I find the technical amendments necessary 2510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 to keep abreast of the times. With the passage of time, it is necessary to amend the relevant legislation to take into account new developments.

The fact that the Bills Committee had held two meetings after its establishment indicates that the Bill is not too complicated. At the meetings, some members criticized the Government and queried the criteria for including bodies in FCs and the identity of new electors. They pointed out that the present mechanism lacked transparency and demanded the expansion of the electorate of FCs to enhance their representativeness. In fact, the authorities have explained clearly that before each Legislative Council general election, a review of the delineation of the electorate of FCs would be conducted, taking into account the demands of relevant bodies and persons, and relevant government departments will be consulted in the process.

As regards which body can be included in the relevant FC, the body should be a representative one, active in supporting the development of the sector concerned and should also actively put forward constructive proposals to the government departments concerned. I endorse the above longstanding practices of the authorities. They have established a set of clear, stringent and reasonable procedure as the basis for determining if a body is to be included in a certain FC. This practice is necessary.

As regards the request for expansion of the electorate of FCs by, for example, replacing corporate electors with individual electors, I do not believe this will definitely enhance the representativeness of the relevant FC; the representativeness may even be reduced on the contrary. The Government believes that major adjustments such as significantly expanding the electorate of FCs would substantially change the mechanism and arouse great controversy. So, before a comprehensive discussion is conducted and a consensus reached, I am worried that making such a move will have a great backlash in society. On the other hand, expanding the electorate of FCs may not necessary enhance the representativeness or recognition of FCs. For example, certain societies or bodies may have rather relaxed requirements or low threshold for admission of members. Anyone, even students, may become members with the introduction of incumbent members. I am afraid that such organizations will end up having members with diverse and complicated backgrounds. These organizations not only lack representativeness but also run contrary to the original intent of establishing FCs.

More importantly, the Bill does not cover any substantial changes to the electorate of FCs. At the meetings of the Bills Committee, members of the opposition camp wilfully criticized the Government for making no progress in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2511 election of all Legislative Council Members by universal suffrage. They requested the authorities to take active measures to expand the electorate of FCs and enhance the so-called degree of democracy in elections. This was not their real intent. Their actual intent was to have a de facto universal suffrage. I must point out that according to the 31 August Decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC"), only after the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage will all Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") be returned by universal suffrage. Therefore, before the Chief Executive is selected by universal suffrage, we should not change the present election model and conduct a de facto election by universal suffrage.

In accordance with the Basic Law, NPCSC has the statutory power to approve the ultimate universal suffrage package of the SAR. Hence, NPCSC's view on universal suffrage is decisive and highly important. If the Government could formulate a set of specific and clear principles as well as a legal framework in respect of the decision of NPCSC, it would be conducive to promoting and implementing the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. NPCSC's 31 August Decision could have allowed Hong Kong to select the Chief Executive by universal suffrage before 2017 and it was an important constitutional decision that facilitated the forward development of Hong Kong's constitutional system. However, owing to the obstinate objection of the opposition camp, the constitutional reform package formulated by the SAR Government according to the 31 August Decision was negatived, thereby depriving us of the opportunity to select the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 and subsequently the opportunity of returning all Legislative Council Members by universal suffrage. All people of Hong Kong were disappointed by the ultimate veto of the constitutional reform package. The opposition camp paid no heed to the wish of the general public and the mutual trust between the Central Government and the SAR Government, bundling …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, please return to the subject of this debate.

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): I am now discussing electoral matters.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): At present, this Council is not debating the matters on constitutional reform. Please return to the subject of the debate.

2512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): I am also discussing electoral matters. I have never digressed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You are discussing constitutional reform matters but this Council is debating the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019.

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): … Yes, we are discussing elections. I will continue.

… It proves that the opposition camp is deliberately ruining Hong Kong society. In fact, over the past period of time, the opposition camp has kept engaging in political hype, stirring up conflicts and confrontations through filibustering and uncooperative acts, and encouraging violent charging acts, thereby causing unrest in society. Recently, the subject of constitutional reform has been raised again.

President, DAB has always supported the continuous improvement of the electoral system. Here I would like to talk about the reports on elections. Let me first relate my experience. In the 2018 Legislative Council Election, as I was returned uncontested, I had to submit the election returns to the Election Committee earlier than others who had to compete with their rivals. I submitted my election returns well before the deadline. Later DAB transferred the costs of collective actions and publicity, totally over $1,600, to my account. As I had already submitted my election returns, the some $1,600 could not be reported afterwards, so what should I do? I had to lodge a petition with the court. Consequently, I spent over $25,000 on legal fees, just to report the sum of $1,600-odd in expenses. I would break the law if I did not report the expenses. Is this a situation of the tail wagging the dog? I have to pay such a high price for obeying the law. I did not breach the regulation intentionally; it was only an inadvertent mistake owing to the time gap. Even if I wanted to report afterwards, I could not do so and could only rectify my election returns by lodging a petition with the court. In order to lodge the petition, I had to hire a lawyer. Hence, I think the Bureau is duty-bound to address these problems.

President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2513

MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). I will divide my following speech into two main parts: firstly, the proposed amendments in the Bill; and secondly, how to ensure a fair and just election.

President, the title of the Bill is "Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019". This Bill is introduced according to the Government's past practice under which practical and technical amendments would be proposed to the electoral legislation before a major election so as to ensure that the election will be held smoothly and fairly.

In this exercise, the technical amendments are divided into several major parts. First of all, the amendments relating to the composition of certain functional constituencies ("FCs") and an Election Committee subsector seek to, among others, update the names of 13 corporates in eight FCs to reflect their name change; remove 12 corporates which have ceased operation from six FCs; and add ten new corporates to four FCs. The removal of corporates having ceased operation, the update on corporate names and the addition of eligible corporates are, in my view, necessary for the relevant legislation to keep abreast with the times. Although I am no expert of FCs, I trust that the Government's decision is supported by widespread consensus.

Under the Bill, it is proposed that the deadline for submitting election returns for the Chief Executive election be extended from 30 days to 60 days and the threshold for submission of invoice and receipt of each election expense be raised from $100 to $500. The Bill also proposes to raise the prescribed limits under the de minimis arrangement for handling election returns with minor errors or omissions in different elections. I consider these amendments appropriate as they can alleviate the workload of candidates in preparing election returns. Yet, in my view, the authorities should review the said threshold after the current election cycle to seek further improvement in the next cycle.

Refining the requirement on thickness and size of each letter that may be sent free of postage by candidates is another major amendment proposed in the Bill. At present, a candidate or a list of candidates may send letters free of postage in the Chief Executive, Election Committee Subsector, Legislative Council and District Council ("DC") elections. Under the Bill, the requirement on the size of postage-free letters will be amended from not smaller than 90 mm x 140 mm to not exceeding 165 mm x 245 mm to align with the size limit of "small letters" according to Hongkong Post's definition.

2514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

President, we support this amendment in principle. Yet, we have learnt from the past election experience that it was the rigidity of Hongkong Post rather than the size of letters that troubled the candidates. Many Honourable colleagues have touched on this point on these two days. At present, Hongkong Post precisely requires all openings of letters not to be smaller than 90 mm. When I ran for the past few elections, I often wondered why my volunteer helpers had to measure the size of letters with a ruler. They would then tell me that any discrepancy in letter size would lead to the return of mail, and this problem was found in different districts. As a matter of fact, this requirement has put pressure on candidates and campaigners, wasting their time and resources. Candidates and their volunteer helpers would rather make use of their time to explain their election platforms in the community than to measure the letter size to identify an insignificant difference of 1 or 2 mm. This rigid requirement is impractical and will only add burden to candidates.

President, after speaking on the aforesaid amendments, I would like to turn to discuss the fairness issue of election. This legislative amendment exercise, if viewed from a particular perspective, is technical in nature, involving only minor amendments or updates on the election methods. Many people may consider these amendments insignificant. Given that the Bill is meant to enhance the fairness of election, I believe it will be passed by the Legislative Council. However, as many unfair practices were revealed in the latest DC Election, I do not think the passage of the Bill is sufficient to answer the key question in people's mind. Recently, I have received lots of messages asking me why the electoral system is full of puzzling issues. To me, this topic is worth discussing in order to improve public perception of election fairness. Just now, some Honourable colleagues also pointed out that the Bill had failed to cover many of the problematic or unfair practices revealed in the DC Election on 24 November. I call on the Government to face and study these problems, including the time and procedure for making complaints.

President, I was one of the candidates in the latest DC Election, and I have heard many of my colleagues complaining about the unfair phenomena. Therefore, I urge the Bureau to be more open to opinions and provide clearer guidelines and better arrangements for the 2020 Legislative Council General Election in the hope that improvements will be made in every election.

I would like to share a few points with the Secretary. Firstly, on the polling day―I will not go into detail as this point has been mentioned by many of my Honourable colleagues―long queues were formed as people queued up repeatedly, hence lowering electors' propensity to vote. We would love to have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2515 a high voter turnout. Yet, if the waiting time is as long as one to three hours, electors, particularly elderly electors, will be exhausted. Last Sunday, the weather was hot and electors had to wait one hour or so under the scorching sun before they could enter the polling station. At first, elders were given priority to cast their ballots as stipulated in the guidelines. But later there were complaints about the elderly jumping the queue, creating conflicts on the election day. How can the Government improve this arrangement in future? While it is important to safeguard the right to vote for everyone, there should also be clearer guidelines and statutory safeguards to ensure easy access to vote.

On the other hand, as mentioned by some Honourable colleagues, an elector is required to present his identity card for verification of personal data in the polling station. After checking, the polling staff will cross out the elector's name and give him a ballot paper. However, when some electors arrived at the polling stations, they found that their names had already been crossed out and though they had filed a complaint, they still could not get a ballot paper. Was the elector's name wrongly crossed out by the polling staff or were there some other problems? The Government should actually consider adopting new voting methods, especially electronic voting. This morning, a number of Honourable colleagues criticized that our current voting method was outdated and backward. Hong Kong has spent lots of money and resources on innovation and technology; yet, we are still using pen and paper for voting. To be honest, when electronic payment is adopted by fast food shops and the automated immigration clearance (e-Channel) service has been in use for years, should we switch to a more efficient voting method? Many overseas countries should have the experience of ensuring fairness and at the same time efficiency of election.

My second point is about election complaints and petitions. The authorities are really slow in handling election complaints. As I know, many people have reflected to us that they called the complaint hotline on the polling day to complain to the Electoral Officers about the offending display of election advertisements, such as roll-up banners, by candidates of different political parties; yet, their complaints were not addressed. According to some experienced complainants, the more you call, the higher the probability of your complaint being addressed. However, non-compliance is non-compliance, it is unreasonable to require a complainant to make frequent calls before his complaint can be addressed. The authorities should deal with electoral offences in a more efficient and fairer manner.

Election petitions have also created much hassle. This morning, some reporters asked us if we would lodge election petitions. In fact, it is time-consuming and costly to lodge an election petition, but even if one spends a 2516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 colossal amount of money, fairness may not be attained. For those young candidates who wish to serve the community but have been unfairly treated, election petitions may not always be able to do justice to them. How will the Government enhance this mechanism?

There is another case that I consider extremely unfair. On the election day, a candidate set up street booths in the district. A group of people then came by and distributed rice and oil near his street booths. They videotaped the whole process and uploaded the video on the Internet on the same day. The candidate was later alleged of handing out favours. Unfortunately, he had no evidence to prove his innocence and was forced to remain silent. He was deeply hurt by this trumped-up accusation. Character assassination of this kind is a breach of law, on top of undermining election fairness. However, these cases are not easy to handle.

This morning, we have cited a lot of similar unfair cases which involved threats, personal attacks, hindering electors from voting, and so on. I do hope that the Government will improve its arrangements before the upcoming Legislative Council General Election. The election period of the DC Election was relatively short, and the Legislative Council election will soon be held. The many problems and phenomenon that occurred in the DC Election may come up again. I really hope that the system will be improved to boost public confidence to vote.

I also want to talk about the vote counting arrangement on the election day. Although in the words of the Chief Executive, the election was completed smoothly and we were glad that no serious incidents had occurred during the election process, yet there should be clearer guidelines in future to protect the safety of candidates. On that day, the vote counting process was held between 2:00 am to 3:00 am. Dozens of people were mobilized online to come to my counting station after a huge gap in votes had been noted. I only had two or three colleagues in the counting station, and they were all terrified. After the counting of votes, my colleagues took an elevator to leave the counting station. A crowd appeared in front of the elevator. They kept pressing the door open button and did not let my colleagues go. They even kicked the elevator door and spoke lots of offensive languages.

Were there sufficient security officers to ensure safety on 24 November? There should be security officers around but I did not see them. I was one of the candidates but few security officers had caught my eyes. I only saw the counting officers. Can vote counting be done in a more professional way? I vividly remember that when the vote counting process was close to an end, some LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2517 officers looked for calculators from heaps of papers to do the calculation in the most traditional way. This gives me the impression that no improvements have been made to the election arrangement. Some 10 years ago, calculators were used to calculate the number of votes; today, this same method still applies. I look forward to having better practice.

Lastly, President, there are always winners and losers in an election. While we should review our failings in this Election to seek improvement, we look forward to having a level playing field in election. In fact, many phenomena in the Election on 24 November were unprecedented and they might adversely affect the future elections of Hong Kong. No candidates should be threatened not to stand for election. Personally, I hope the Government will do better in its future legislative amendments to ensure fairness in election.

President, I so submit.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") seeks to introduce certain technical amendments. On the face of it, there is not much controversy.

I notice that some corporates will be removed from the functional constituencies ("FCs") under the current amendment exercise, and I think this is open to question. The Peak Tramways Company Limited will be removed from the Transport FC, possibly because the peak tramway had been placed under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau instead of the Transport and Housing Bureau, and hence the Company is no longer eligible to be an elector of the Transport FC.

The issue of changing the regulatory authority of the peak tramway was first raised by me. I proposed at a meeting of the Bills Committee on the Peak Tramway (Amendment) Bill 2013 that the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau should replace the Transport and Housing Bureau as the Policy Bureau in charge of the peak tramway. The Government accepted my proposal and the peak tramway was moved from the ambit of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau in the Peak Tramway (Amendment) Bill 2015.

The reason for my proposed change was that the peak tramway had changed from being a mode of transport to an ancillary facility at the tourist attraction spot. When the peak tramway was built over a century ago, it was intended to be a mode of transport for residents travelling up and down the Peak. 2518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

Following the improvement in road and transportation networks, today the residents usually travel by private cars, buses and minibuses instead of the peak trams. Nowadays, very few residents still use the peak tramway as a daily means of transport; nearly all passengers who take peak trams are tourists.

According to a survey conducted by the Hong Kong Tourism Board, the Peak ranks the second in terms of popularity among all tourist attractions in Hong Kong. The famous peak tram ride is popular among tourists, and the peak tramway has therefore been widely recognized as an ancillary facility essential to the tourism activities at the Peak. If the Transport and Housing Bureau still regulated the peak tramway purely as a mode of transport, this approach would absolutely be outdated. Putting the peak tramway under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau as a tourist project would facilitate the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau's coordinating work, as it could consider all tourist facilities in the Peak area as a whole, including tourist attractions, entertainment venues, restaurants, eateries, shopping facilities and the peak tramway. When planning tourism development or conducting publicity and promotion activities, the Government or the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau should give play to maximum synergy from the peak tramway and its associated facilities from the perspectives of tourists and local people. This will help lift the overall image of the Peak. Ngong Ping 360 is currently regulated as a tourist facility. Similarly, if the peak tramway is regulated as a tourist attraction, the Policy Bureau concerned can then focus on its work and develop the potential of the peak tramway to a fuller extent.

As the peak tramway of Hong Kong is a notable attraction with a century-old history, its development calls for a multi-perspective approach that combines tourism development, conservation and planning, and makes reference to advanced management experiences. This is to ensure that the facilities and services of the peak tramway is effectively monitored and improved, so that better experiences can be provided to tourists and members of the public.

There should be no dispute that the regulation of the peak tramway as a tourist attraction instead of a mode of transport can bring a lot of advantages. However, I have not expected that the peak tramway would hence lose its elector status in the Transport FC. I find this regrettable. The change in the positioning or responsible bureau for the peak tramway does not make it ineligible as an elector of the constituency. Suppose an elderly person has settled in the Mainland and seldom returns to Hong Kong, he should not be deprived of his elector status in Hong Kong. Did the Government deprive the peak tramway of its elector status due to the change in its responsible bureau? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2519

The peak tramway still maintains the characteristics of being a means of transport. I do not know how the Government would explain its measure, but I hope the Government can allay my doubts.

President, Mr Vincent CHENG also mentioned that the Electoral Affairs Commission ("EAC") has received 6 540 complaints in the just-concluded District Council ("DC") Election, which is a 1.7-fold increase over the 2 429 complaints received on the polling day in 2015. This reveals that a number of problems have surfaced during the Election. Many of my counterparts in the sector hope that I can take this opportunity to reflect the situation to the Government. While the Bill intends to make only technical amendments, the Government is duty-bound to address the glaring problems that have arisen during the DC Election. This will help me make a decision on whether I would support the Bill.

Regarding the first problem, as mentioned by Members earlier, when some electors arrived at the polling station, they found that their identity card numbers had been registered by someone else. As a result, their ballot papers were regarded as invalid. According to the Presiding Officer, the records indicated that ballot papers had already been issued under their identity card numbers. Was this a human error? Or did the polling station staff make a mistake in verifying the identity, hence the identity had been fraudulently taken up by some other people? Although these electors could still be issued a ballot paper by the Presiding Officer, the ballot paper was stamped with the word "tendered", meaning that the vote would not be counted. These electors hence lost their voting rights to the impersonators. The EAC Chairman Barnabas FUNG admitted that the problem could not be resolved at the scene, and EAC could only refer the problem to the law enforcement agency for follow-up action.

Votes are kept confidential under our electoral system to ensure electors' anonymity. Once an elector's name has been crossed out by the polling station staff, there is no way to trace the impersonator. This problem has become quite serious, and we have no idea the number of cases involved. Obviously, the electors concerned have been deprived of their right to vote. Is this problem attributed to human errors or deliberate rigging? I think the Government should address this problem seriously.

Mr CHENG said earlier that the voting system in Hong Kong was very backward and there were various ways to rig an election. If the polling station staff did not check the identity card, an impersonator could give a false name and returned the identity card to its genuine holder, who could then obtain another ballot paper to vote again. The situation could get worse in the last half hour of 2520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 voting. By then, the polling station staff would know how many electors have not yet voted, and who might not show up. If one wanted to rig an election, he could arrange certain electors to go to the polling stations and issue ballot papers to them.

It could be said that this deceptive act was a success. While it was a serious crime to deceive, verification was not easy. The main difficulty was a shortage of manpower, and this problem also revealed a loophole in the current system. As the operation of the voting process was based on papers and manual work, it was prone to errors even when no deliberate fraud has actually taken place. This loophole was unfair to the unsuccessful candidate, particularly when the election result was very close, with a difference of a few votes.

The second problem that my counterparts in the sector are relatively concerned with and have asked me to voice their view is related to the triage arrangements at polling stations. This Election has an unprecedented high turnout rate. Long queues of electors were formed at polling stations since early morning, many of whom queued up one to three hours to enter the polling station. As Members have pointed out, some elderly electors who made a special trip to the polling station had to give up voting reluctantly when they saw the long queue. People who were in a hurry to get to work were also turned away by the long queue and might not be able cast their vote that day. Few Members have mentioned the situation of those who had to leave Hong Kong on that day. They might have made plans to arrive at the airport at 11:00 am, and expected that they would be able to vote before heading off to the airport; yet, they decided not to vote at the sight of the long queue. Consequently, many electors could not cast their votes and no priority passage was arranged. So, what could be done? Some people on the Internet came up with a smart idea. They got people to queue up repeatedly to create an illusion. This has been reported in the media. Their purpose was to keep people who really wanted to vote from voting. These problems have disrupted the normal functioning of the election process.

It was stated on the Internet that at first the Government intended to arrange priority passage for some electors, but when electors arrived at the polling stations, they were told that there was no priority passage. The Government has turned a blind eye to the difficulties faced by some electors, restricting their voting rights in disguised form.

The third problem is the nuisance during the counting of votes. In the Yau Tong West constituency, a Presiding Officer was chided by a crowd after his decisions were challenged by a candidate. He clarified repeatedly that the candidate could file a petition if he was dissatisfied; nevertheless, the chiding LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2521 would inevitably affect the Presiding Officer's decision. Should he serve as a Presiding Officer again, he would undoubtedly feel the pressure. In the Tai Wai constituency, a polling station was surrounded by people during the counting of votes, blocking candidates and their supporters from entering the polling station. As candidates and their supporters had no idea what was happening in the polling station, what could they do? I think the Government should face up to these problems as they are related to unfairness in election.

President, while candidates may lodge election petitions to raise issues that occurred during the election, the process is extremely long. Members would remember that the election petition for the Legislative Council Election took two years to obtain a decision in the first instance. The process could drag on for three to four years if an appeal was lodged, and by the time the trials were concluded we would be approaching the end of the current term. I do not think election petitions can achieve results. Even if a by-election was held following a successful petition, it would cost huge sums of money from the public coffers. The Government should, of course, expect people to abide by the rules, but it must also make efforts to close the loopholes. I hope the Government will reflect on the experience gained from this complicated matter.

With less than one year to go, the Legislative Council Election will be held in September next year, which will be a tougher battle as more electors will be involved when compared to the DC Election. If the loopholes of this DC Election are not plugged, the consequences will be irremediable. I hope the Government will carry out a specific review and learn from the experience, so as to ensure these loopholes will not affect the Legislative Council Election in 2020. Will the Government consider improving the existing manual-based process by making reference to overseas experience and digitizing part of the process to minimize human error? Will it be possible to set up priority passage in the light of the actual circumstances for the elderly, people with disabilities and other people with proof of special needs, such as those having air tickets to prove that they are in a hurry to the airport, or people in a hurry to work? This will eliminate unfairness in the election process by ensuring that everyone can cast their votes in a fair, reasonable and lawful manner.

Of course, I hope the Government will conduct a review on the harassment faced by Presiding Officers during the counting of votes, in order to prevent any misjudgment made under pressure by the polling station staff.

President, I so submit.

2522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 2:30 pm.

1:18 pm

Meeting suspended.

2:30 pm

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Wilson OR, please speak.

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): President, the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") introduced by the Government to the Council only involves some general technical amendments without proposing any major changes. I will support the Bill as I have learnt from its content that the legislative intent is to simplify the electoral provisions for the Legislative Council election and facilitate candidates. However, during the discussions of the Panel on Constitutional Affairs and the Bills Committee on Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bills Committee"), the issue of voter registration for functional constituencies ("FCs") had aroused much concern among Members. I therefore implore the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau to study this issue seriously and improve the relevant arrangements.

President, as we all know, the original intent of establishing FCs in the Legislative Council was to ensure that different industries could voice their views for the consideration of the Government in formulating policies. Therefore, 30 seats in the Legislative Council have been returned from FCs since the reunification to represent different industries and professional sectors. Yet, not only should Members representing these industries and professional sectors maintain good communication with the trade, the authorities should also do their best to liaise with all stakeholders in the trade and consult them about different issues and legislations, so as to make sure that all their views are fully reflected.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2523

In order to listen to views of stakeholders and communicate with them, the authorities should first know how many stakeholders are involved. During the scrutiny of the Bill by the Bills Committee, many Honourable colleagues were gravely concerned about voter registration for individual constituencies. Taking the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication FC represented by Mr MA Fung-kwok as an example, the Hong Kong Printers Association ("HKPA"), which belongs to the publication sector, was automatically registered as an elector of the Insurance FC owing to its capacity as an association of underwriters under the Insurance Ordinance. Yet, HKPA mainly engages in the publication business. I would like to ask the Secretary: What is the capacity of HKPA when the Government consults or communicates with it? The Secretary is duty-bound to address and follow up on this unreasonable phenomenon.

President, with the principles of fairness and stringency on the one hand and the right to vote and the right to stand for election on the other, I think the authorities should strike a balance to protect the voting rights of eligible electors as far as possible. The current guidelines on the application for voter registration are unclear for individual bodies/persons. For example, there is a guideline requiring that "[a body] should be a representative one and is active in supporting the development of the sector concerned". But what does it mean by "representative"? As for the requirement of "[being] active in supporting the development of the sector concerned", will a body focusing only on its own business development be regarded as supporting the development of the sector concerned?

President, if an application for FC voter registration is rejected, will the applicant be informed of the reasons for rejection? Was it because the status of the applicant is irrelevant to the FC concerned? For example an organization applicant which belongs to the Catering FC has mistakenly applied for voter registration in the Publication FC. Hence, there must be clear guidelines on the eligibility of voter registration to tie in with the latest development, so that all electors will have a clear picture of their eligibility. It is better for the authorities to be loose than rigid so that the views of electors in individual FCs will be taken seriously.

The Government has also pointed out to the Bills Committee that the Bill does not intend to make any substantial change to the electorate of FCs. I can understand this point. Yet, the Bureau should try its best to cover all stakeholders in its future reviews.

2524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

President, the Bill only seeks to make minor amendments, but half a loaf is better than none. We hope every amendment exercise is conducive to perfecting the electoral system upon which Hong Kong's success has all along been hinged. Despite the fact that elections in Hong Kong are renowned for being civilized and modern, lots of mistakes had actually been found in each of the past elections, thereby affecting members of the public and arousing the concerns of Members of different political affiliations about the Government's efforts in conducting elections.

President, I support the proposal contained in the Bill to raise the threshold for the submission of invoices and receipts to keep abreast with the times. As regards the requirement on the size of letters that may be sent free of postage by candidates and the upward adjustment of the limits prescribed for rectifying minor errors, I do not think they are the major concerns of Hong Kong people today. Candidates and their political parties hope that the Government will address some long-standing problems which have caused confusion. President, I would like to take this opportunity to share with the Secretary some election problems or areas of improvement perceived by Hong Kong people.

I often tell myself that "what is good can always be better". President, this is also our hope for government departments, including the Registration and Electoral Office and the Electoral Affairs Commission, in each election. I found that some huge loopholes, which we had kept telling the Government in the past, have emerged in the latest District Council Election. Unfortunately, we fail to see that the Government has the resolution, commitment or ideas in plugging these loopholes in the Bill. Hong Kong people have hence seriously doubted whether the Election was fair and just. I hope the following points will remind the Secretary and relevant officials how to uphold the aforesaid belief of "what is good can always be better".

My first point concerns the procedure for issuing ballot papers. As mentioned by many Honourable colleagues, an elector is required to present his identity card at the polling station in order to obtain a ballot paper. President, as you had voted before, you should know the procedure for verifying the identity of electors, which has remained unchanged for years. The staff at the polling station will check against a large register and cross out the names of the electors accordingly. If your name is Tom, the name "Tom" will be crossed out. If your name is Dick, the name "Dick" will be crossed out. Frankly speaking, if the public have trust in the Government, they will not have doubts about the names being crossed out. However, in the latest or past elections, many people LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2525 criticized that when Tom showed up, the name "Dick" was crossed out; and when "Dick" did not show up, the name "Harry" was crossed out. President, I hold that the Government must plug the loopholes in issuing ballot papers.

President, as you know, the Government has spent a fortune to introduce smart identity cards. Why can't the issuance of ballot papers be computerized to minimize the problems arising during the process of manual operation? In this Election, the collection of ballot papers has become a laughingstock, with different practices adopted in different polling stations. In some polling stations, a cardboard was erected at the ballot paper collection desk to prevent electors from seeing the names being crossed out. What was the rationale for doing so? The answer given was to protect personal privacy. President, I fully understand the need to protect personal privacy. However, this explanation could not dispel public doubts. When electors collected the ballot papers, they naturally suspected if some sort of fraudulent acts were taking place. I hope the Secretary will propose a better practice in the legislative amendment exercise.

The second point is about polling station staff. President, I believe you should know that a ragtag team was formed to work in a polling station. Civil servants of different ranks from different departments have been recruited to take up different positions on the election day. While some may act as Presiding Officers, some may assist in the counting of votes, and so on. Secretary, to be frank, have you ever thought of the voting right of polling officers? Yesterday, a civil servant told me, "Wilson, being a polling staff, I have to go through cumbersome procedures before I can cast my vote." May I ask the Secretary if he has ever thought about this?

I do not mean to criticize this ragtag team but it is true that these officers are deployed from different departments. Secretary, I therefore think that training is very important. I know that the authorities had provided training, but very often half-baked efforts were made. Consequently, what should be done had not been done, and what should not be done had been done. The authorities should, during training, teach polling staff how to make decisive judgment in different situations. Secretary, some of my friends in the civil service told me that there were many grey areas in the duty guidelines of polling staff, hence they did not know how to handle various problems.

For example, early in the morning on the polling day, polling stations were bustling with people owing to the "queue with you" movement and some people had queued up repeatedly. I reflected this problem to the Presiding Officer but 2526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 he told me, "We cannot handle this problem as I am only responsible for matters that happen inside the polling station." Secretary, having learnt this, shouldn't you consider how to improve your colleagues' handling of contingencies? I only ask him to act fairly and justly without showing partiality to either side.

Thirdly, I think the duty list of polling agents should be revised. Secretary, as you know, polling agents are responsible for observing the conduct of the poll to detect irregularity or confusion. Although it is the practice of political parties to appoint polling agents, how could these agents make observation when they were more than 10 ft away from where ballot papers were issued? They could never see the "Tom, Dick and Harry" problem just said. Secretary, do you understand? Polling agents could not perform their function. Secretary, do you think you should explain the functions of polling agents in this legislative amendment exercise?

Another problem is the queuing problem that I have just said. Hong Kong people always support the elections held by the SAR Government. Their strong support also indicates that Hong Kong people cherish their rights more than before. Yet, I have to remind the Secretary to take care of the disadvantaged such as wheelchair users and the elderly. Here is an example. On 24 November, in the long queues formed by people participating in the "queue with you" movement, some elderly people in their eighties and nineties, having to hold sticks or being wheelchair-bound, had to queue up in the sun for one or two hours. Secretary, even the Mass Transit Railway has provided the old and weak with priority seats. I am not asking you to do favour to any sector but you should consider the actual needs of people rather than turn a blind eye to them.

In addition, I would like to share with the Secretary my personal experience. To my surprise, some polling staff had, after issuing the ballot papers, reminded electors which candidate to vote for. This incident was absolutely true and I lodged a complaint immediately. Secretary, how would you, through training, ensure that an election is conducted in a fair and just manner? You must consider this point.

Moreover, the Bureau's effort in making clarification is inadequate. In this Election, I was quite happy to see some improvement in this respect. I find that the Bureau often acts like a mute victim who is unable to complain or a woman who feels grievously wronged by her mother-in-law. This time, the Bureau had improved slightly as it had finally made clarifications, though its response was extremely slow. I urge the Secretary to remember this saying: LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2527

"Build a better environment with greater concern, faster response and smarter services". A faster response from the Bureau could give people an impression that the Government has worked hard to ensure fairness of elections.

The last point is about vote counting. While some technical amendments should be made on this score, I fail to see the Secretary proposing any amendments to the vote counting arrangement in the Bill. Secretary, banks are using banknote counters these days. How come you are so backward and count the votes manually? Even if it is right to count the votes manually, vote counting officers should be aided by machines. Otherwise, in case a sleepy officer puts a ballot paper into the wrong box, the vote counting process will have to start all over again. Can you introduce electronic counting to enhance efficiency? The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has advocated electronic counting for years but manual counting is still being adopted. Besides, I think the authorities should no longer require members of the public to register as voters because the right to vote is the civil right of all citizens. The Secretary should be aware of this right.

President, all the aforesaid problems are issues of public concern in respect of the Bill. After an election is held, the Government should not adopt the attitude that it would not be under check and could simply sweep all the problems under the carpet. To be honest, whether we win or lose in the election, we will accept the results and the choice of the people. However, the election must be fair, just and open. (The buzzer sounded) … I urge the Secretary to ponder on my words after the meeting. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr OR, please stop speaking.

MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): President, we are discussing the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") today. The Bill introduces several technical amendments, including updating the lists of persons comprising certain functional constituencies of the Legislative Council and one subsector of the Election Committee; extending the deadline for submitting election returns for the Chief Executive election from 30 days to 60 days to align with that for the Legislative Council election; and refining the requirement on the size of letters to be sent free of postage by candidates to align with the requirement of Hongkong Post, etc.

2528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

I originally do not have a strong opinion about these technical amendments. On the whole, I think that these technical amendments seek to enable election regulations to keep pace with the times, or to prevent electoral regulations from being lagging too far behind the actual situation, thereby ensuring fairness in elections at all levels. However, I also have to point out that these proposed amendments have aptly reflected that the authorities are really lagging far behind the actual situation when it comes to the refinement of the electoral laws and regulations concerned. This shortcoming has been fully exposed at the just-concluded Election, momentarily shaking my support for the Bill.

I think all Members, irrespective of their political affiliations, agree that it is extremely important for elections to be conducted in a just, fair and open manner. Among these qualities, fairness is the most important. However, at present, it is in the cyber world where problems with fairness of elections are most noticeable. In the past, we dealt with problems with election advertisements under the declaration and complaint mechanisms, while the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance clearly defined election advertisement as any of our action taken for the purpose of "promoting or prejudicing the election of a candidate or candidates at the election". Therefore, it is necessary for us to make declaration for election advertisement, which also covers online advertisement. Currently, online declaration is also available to make it more convenient for candidates. These arrangements are desirable. However, given the rapid development of the cyber world and the unlimited creativity of netizens, the relevant regulations appeared to be unable to keep pace with the development. Let me cite an example. A few days before the Election, many people circulated a few photos online showing the candidate of a certain constituency giving away rice; some even alleged certain candidates and political parties of giving away supplies. These photos and allegations had the objective effect of portraying the candidates in question as apparently bribing the voters. Of course, viewed from another perspective, the photos might have also drawn public attention to certain candidates. Anyway, in either case, the photos can also be regarded as election advertisements published for the purpose of "promoting or prejudicing the election of a candidate or candidates at the election". How will the authorities handle this kind of situation?

More importantly, are the photos showing the real situation? I am not quite sure myself, but I noticed on the Internet yesterday that some people who had offered to verify the widely circulated photos clarified that the photos were not taken on the day of the Election. While such a clarification is desirable, I would like to point out that these intentional or unintentional advertisements, or smearing as I would put it, had already influenced the election results, given that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2529 the public had cast their ballot and the election results had been finalized. Of course, I think that the authorities would again advise the public to raise their questions under the existing mechanism, such as filing complaints or election petitions, etc. for the authorities to follow up. Despite the current mechanism for follow-up, I wonder why the authorities would not draw up clearer laws or guidelines to deter netizens from breaking the laws. Had they done so, some candidates would not have to make additional efforts to take up responsibilities which should not belong to them, would they? Can the authorities play a more active role in upholding fairness in elections? The problem was observed not only in this District Council Election but also in previous elections. Why did the authorities not rectify these problems together when proposing these technical amendments? The numerous news on the Internet were actually not released by a certain candidate but were widely circulated by netizens. Secretary, has the Bureau missed the situation?

Will the few technical amendments under discussion today, such as increasing the size of letters to be sent free of postage by candidates, be useful for upholding fairness in elections? In fact, given the changes in social development and political atmosphere, future elections will be confronted with various challenges and difficulties. I am quite sure about this. If the actual situation has changed or is unexpected, the authorities should be more proactive in taking the initiative to review the need to further amend the existing electoral laws and rules. In fact, the authorities have noticed and are aware of such needs but have yet to make consequential amendments.

The Bill proposes, among other things, to extend the deadline for submitting election returns for the Chief Executive election from 30 days to 60 days in order to align with that for the Legislative Council election. In my view, the substantial election expenses involved in the Chief Executive election is certainly the reason for the authorities to make the proposal. Based on our understanding, in general, expenses for the Chief Executive election are actually higher and more complicated than those for the Legislative Council election, and thus candidates for the Chief Executive election need more time to complete the declaration of relevant expenses. In view of the actual needs, the authorities have proposed the amendments in a more proactive manner. However, will the authorities extend the scope of the amendments to cover more scenarios?

Let me cite a scene at the just-concluded District Council Election as an example. As mentioned by many Honourable colleagues just now, long queues started to form shortly after polling stations were opened at 7:30 am in the early 2530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 morning. That was my personal observation. I started queuing before 7:30 am, only to find many people having been queuing for a few hours. People who have previously voted should be aware of the diversion policy in place at every polling station, under which voters are diverted to various queues based on the first English letter of their identity card number. From what I observed that day, however, long queues had formed even outside polling stations, and snaking queues were even found outside some polling stations. It took voters in the snaking queues over an hour or even longer to enter the polling station, where they could then be diverted to various queues based on their identity card number.

A high turnout of voters is certainly desirable. As we all know, voters can fulfil their civic responsibility and exercise their right by casting their ballot. I believe that the majority of voters would not mind queuing to vote. However, different polling stations have adopted different crowd management policy, resulting in many chaotic situations. As to whether polling staff should direct people with disabilities and impaired mobility to a separate, shorter queue, a Member just suggested that Returning Officers might consider what happened outside polling stations to be irrelevant to them and thus simply turn a blind eye. Numerous rumours floating around in the community on the District Council Election day have led to chaos. Some people will certainly question whether the elderly and people with disabilities should be treated in a different way. I think that the authorities should facilitate their voting process in a more humane manner.

In my opinion, diverting voters to different queues based on their physical needs is a humane treatment. I disagree with some people who likened this arrangement to queue-jumping. It is beyond the physical ability of the elderly, people with disabilities and chronic patients to wait outside polling stations for one to two hours. As the areas outside some polling stations are not sheltered at all, voters waiting in queues have to be exposed to the sun and rain. While it was not raining during this year's District Council Election, it poured with rain on the polling day last year. Given the possibility of getting sick while waiting, voters themselves may simply give up voting; their family may also forbid them from voting out of concern about their physical condition. This will objectively lead to deprivation of their right to vote.

As we often say, it is everyone's hope to be treated fairly, and fairness is what we have been striving for. However, is it fair to have all voters waiting in the same queue? If people with special physical needs are required to wait in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2531 the same queue as other people, they will be, to a certain extent, deprived of their right to vote. In my opinion, the authorities should seriously consider helping these people in order to truly uphold fairness in elections.

To achieve this objective, the authorities should formulate guidelines and laws instead of shifting the responsibility onto Presiding Officers of various polling stations and allowing them to make decisions on their own. As suggested by a number of Members just now, it was precisely this approach which led to the chaotic situation during the Election a few days ago. Since different polling stations were allowed to handle their situation respectively, the Presiding Officers adopted different approaches. I do not understand why the Government had not issued any clear guidelines to them. The authorities may defend themselves by saying that what happened at the just-concluded Election was unprecedented and exceptional, and that the turnout was exceptionally high due to the record number of voters waiting in long queues to cast their ballot.

Admittedly, the higher-than-expected turnout of the Election has given rise to an unpredictable situation. However, I wish to remind the authorities that they should not be so slow in response every time. Long queues at polling stations are absolutely nothing new. According to records, if our memory still serves us, long queues at polling stations lasted several hours at night during the 2016 Legislative Council Election, with queues of voters still waiting inside polling stations to cast their ballot even after the close of poll at 10:30 pm.

That is what actually worries me. Although the authorities had come across similar situations before, they never considered how to deal with a higher turnout under a more critical situation. The amendments to the Bill have not taken these scenarios into account at all. After drawing a lesson from this Election, I hope that the authorities will squarely face the issue and refine the relevant laws or issue guidelines accordingly.

Lastly, I would like to talk about election expenses. In the light of the actual situation, the Bill proposes to extend the deadline for submitting election returns for the Chief Executive election from 30 days to 60 days. With the same way of thinking, I hope that the authorities will review the arrangement for declaration of expenses, election expenses in particular, in the light of the actual situation.

2532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

Let me cite a specific example. Similar to the just-concluded Election, future elections will possibly be held under highly-charged atmosphere. In fact, we are aware of the extreme difficulties for candidates in electioneering under such an atmosphere.

There is a ceiling on election expenses for every election. During the just-concluded Election, candidates of different political affiliations should have similarly suffered damages to their publicity materials, such as their posters being torn down, banners slashed and even flags stolen. Many candidates spent half of their canvassing period fixing the damaged publicity materials. Given the cap on election expenses, they cannot re-order posters and banners to avoid overruns.

Will the authorities consider adopting an alternative approach to handling the aforesaid situation? Otherwise, in future elections, the authorities will in effect continually encourage troublemakers to damage the publicity materials of their opponents, who will find it impossible to promote themselves to local residents via these publicity materials. Since no one will be held liable, they will scramble to damage the publicity materials of their opponents. However, the costs of damaged publicity materials will still be included as the election expenses of the victims. Will it be a fair election that we are happy to see? I am deeply impressed by the following story. After a candidate in Shek Kip Mei suffered an arson attack to his office, all of his materials were burnt and all of his publicity materials destroyed. The candidate sat on a chair outside his burnt office to continue his electioneering. Secretary, should the costs on all of his burnt publicity materials still count as his election expenses?

As we understand it, as in the case of other laws, election-related regulations should not be too rigidly worded and must allow for some flexibility and leeway. However, the social atmosphere has changed under the current situation. The practical operation of elections is no longer the same. In view of these changes, I think it is necessary for the authorities to be more proactive in reviewing the existing relevant laws and guidance to ensure that all elections can be conducted in a just, fair and open manner.

In my opinion, apart from the few amendments proposed under the Bill, the authorities should expeditiously consult Members on new amendments not covered under the Bill to avoid recurrence of similar situations (The buzzer sounded) … Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms CHAN, please stop speaking immediately.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2533

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") which proposes to introduce technical amendments for the 2020 Legislative Council General Election and other public elections. Whilst these amendments amount to only small patch-ups, they are conducive to ensuring that the elections are smoothly conducted in a fair and just manner. Some of the amendments are quite down-to-earth and they will facilitate candidates in handling such tasks as electoral declaration, so I support the Bill.

To start with, I would like to talk about the technical amendments in relation to functional constituencies ("FCs") set out in the Bill. The major amendments proposed in this Bill include: to update the names of corporates specified under relevant sections of the existing legislation that have had their names changed since the last updating exercise; to remove some corporates which have ceased operation; and to add new electors in the light of the prevailing situation of the FCs concerned.

These amendments are necessary for the elections although it appears that they amount to only small patch-ups and are rather trivial. After all, different FCs have different electorates covering different sectors and fields, and with different professional qualifications. The authorities' review of the eligibility of electors in respect of FCs, as well as the removal of some ineligible electors and the addition of eligible electors prior to the elections can ensure that the elections will be conducted in a fair and just manner.

The Bill has not proposed any amendment in regard to the electorate of FCs which is an issue of widespread concern. Nevertheless, I noticed that at the meetings of the relevant Bills Committee, Members of the pan-democratic camp, as always, focused on discussing the issue of expanding the electorate of FCs. They generally held that the Government should not delay the expansion of the electorate of FCs. Mr IP Kin-yuen pointed out at yesterday's meeting that the disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO") have illustrated that members of the public are discontented with the existing electoral system, and that the Government should no longer resort to the excuse that there is a lack of consensus in society, but it should reactivate political reform and implement dual universal suffrage instead. This morning, Mr AU Nok-hin also criticized the FC elections as "extremely dark", utter "black-box operations".

2534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

In this regard, I would like to say that I do not approve of such views held by the pan-democratic Members. I believe that there is nothing wrong with the existing system of FCs, which has operating for a period of time, and the electors are also sufficiently representative in their relevant constituencies. If the Government intends to expand the electorate, it must conduct thorough consultations, secure sufficient public support in society, and reach a consensus with various FCs before it can make changes to the electorate of FCs. Any hasty expansion of the electorate without careful consideration will only serve to stir up unnecessary disputes, or even bring forth exactly opposite effects.

What is more, we all know that the consultation on political reform in 2014 had induced considerable controversies, which eventually developed into the illegal occupation movement leading to social unrest. Now that the disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments to FOO have not yet subsided, the first and foremost task is to stop violence and curb disorder in order to restore calm in society. If the political reform is hastily reactivated now to blindly expand the electorate of FCs without going through any discussions, I am afraid it will only create more chaos in Hong Kong and further push Hong Kong into an abyss in the end. Therefore, I have no objection to the Bill making no amendments in relation to the electorate of FCs.

As regards whether the electorate of FCs should be expanded in the future, I and the Financial Services Constituency to which I belong both hold an open attitude towards it. During the consultation on political reform conducted from 2014 to 2015, we in the sector held a number of meetings to discuss the issue. We support the gradual and progressive expansion of the electorate of FCs. In particular, the rapid development of asset management companies in recent years has promoted the financial industry to flourish, and we are of the opinion that the authorities should consider proactively whether these companies should be included as electors of the Financial Services Constituency to further expand its electorate.

President, I have all along been most dissatisfied with the pan-democratic Members always discrediting FCs deliberately, referring to FC elections as "small-circle elections", and they also play down on purpose the popular representativeness of Members returned by FCs. I must emphasize here that the Members returned by FCs do not come out of the blue, but are elected by eligible electors in their respective constituencies. In addition to being broadly representative, they also possess the professional qualifications in their respective LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2535 sectors. Therefore, the professionalism and representativeness of those Members returned by FCs should never be downplayed. Besides, FCs have all along been playing a professional role in, on the one hand, providing guiding directions to the Government on economic development with a view to enhancing Hong Kong's competitiveness and putting forward suggestions for improvement of people's livelihood, they would also monitor the Government's administration on the other. Our contribution to Hong Kong should in no way be dismissed.

Next, I would like to talk about the amendments in the Bill relating to certain arrangements under the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance ("the Ordinance"), especially the amendments to sections 37A and 37(2)(b) of the Ordinance. The amendments to section 37A mainly seek to raise the upper limits prescribed for rectifying minor errors or omissions in election expenses under the de minimis arrangement, among which the proposed limits prescribed for Chief Executive elections, Legislative Council elections and Election Committee Subsector elections are even 10 times of the limits currently prescribed. The amendments to section 37(2)(b) seek to relax the requirements for the submission of receipts of election expenses by candidates. It is proposed that the threshold for the submission of invoices and receipts be increased from $100 to $500 in all public elections.

Whilst the proposed amendments do not involve a large amount of money, I regard these proposals as most down-to-earth. As we all know, the declaration of election expenses is a very tedious task, especially for invoices involving a small amount, which may not be provided by all shops, and it is also easy to lose them. This amendment can exactly spare candidates of the troubles in this aspect and greatly facilitate their declaration of election expenses, rendering it a most essential amendment. Having said that, we must also ensure at the same time that the elections are conducted in a fair and just manner. Therefore, we hope that the authorities can, upon passage of the Bill, strike a balance between facilitating candidates' work and preventing corrupt conduct in elections.

President, while I support the Bill, I think the Bill smacks of having elected the expedient approach. As we all know, there were some issues of great concern and controversies in the previous Legislative Council election and the subsequent Legislative Council by-election, such as the deliberate violation of the Basic Law, those people who implicitly support "Hong Kong independence" being eligible to run in the elections; some candidates strategically announced their withdrawal of candidature on the day before the polling day. There have 2536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 been misgivings about whether such acts intended to affect the outcome of elections are in breach of the electoral laws. Another example is that, in the previous Legislative Council Election, some voters uploaded video clips in which they claimed that they had attempted to prove their identity with a copy of their identity card and successfully cast votes.

To the various aforesaid problems, the Administration has not given any response in the Bill. I consider such an evasive attitude extremely unsatisfactory, since all of them are important issues of principle. The authorities should prescribe requirements with more lucid provisions so as to dispel doubts and pre-empt disputes, which is conducive to the smooth conduct of elections.

President, the problems arisen from the previous Legislative Council Election have yet to be accorded clear responses and improvement, let alone all the instances of injustice witnessed in the District Council Election held recently. As many Honourable colleagues have pointed out, there have been a lot of unreasonable and peculiar phenomena during the District Council Election held recently. For instance, quite a lot of elderly people had to wait in line for a long time to cast votes, but the polling staff did not make appropriate arrangements in the light of the circumstances and give priority to the elderly people to cast votes or adopt streaming arrangements. Another example is that some candidates were subjected to violent oppression immediately after they had announced their candidature, such that they were virtually unable to carry out their electioneering activities and were even harassed when canvassing votes on the polling day. These acts have apparently undermined the fairness of the election. I hope that the Government will cease to turn a blind eye to all this, and it should attach great importance to these issues. When reviewing its work in respect of elections in future, it should not merely introduce amendments which amount to only small patch-ups, just like those in the Bill. Rather it should conduct a comprehensive review to make improvement in a bold and resolute manner, so as to prevent the recurrence of instances of injustice in elections.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, in the past, when Bills were put through scrutiny, Members would raise many views. In giving responses, the Government often adopted an attitude that considered us Members, being legislators, were not necessarily more well versed in the subject matters than LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2537 officials of the Policy Bureaux. However, the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 is definitely a different case, because we are both the legislators and very important stakeholders. Therefore, the suggestions made by many Members today are very important and practical.

The electoral legislation in Hong Kong can be considered very comprehensive and yet very bad. Why is it comprehensive? Because very few places in the world would have electoral legislation that sets out such stringent and meticulous regulations on the management of elections, in particular election expenses. Of course, the merit of this is to ensure that elections in Hong Kong would not be games exclusive to the rich.

However, many Honourable colleagues have just now pointed out problems possibly arising from such stringent management. For example, a mere difference of $1, $2, $100 or several dozens of dollars in election expenses―even as suggested by some Honourable colleagues, to declare again about $1,000 or some hundreds of election expenses, $20,000 or $30,000 had to be spent on filing an election petition. Such a situation is most unreasonable. Of course, we can see that the Government has made adjustments by proposing an amendment. It is a merit.

However, when it comes to demerits, I find it a must to mention the District Council Election held last Sunday. President, what does election legislation do? To ensure that an election is fair and just. Nevertheless, in the District Council Election just held, did we see fairness and justice? I will not comment on the election results but only look at the election process. I believe the Under Secretary or the Secretary must have heard me repeatedly point out that many violent incidents had occurred since the commencement of the nomination period of the District Council Election. Offices of members from both the pro-establishment and pan-democratic camps were subjected to criminal damage and arson attacks, and relevant personnel fell victim to assaults. Of course, the pro-establishment camp suffered the most. My office had been set on fire for five times. How could it be a fair election? Given such "black terror", the publicity work of our candidates was affected, our promotional materials damaged and our electioneering teams were threatened. How would it be a fair and just election? If electoral legislation, though enacted, still fails to guarantee that elections would be fair and just, what functions does it serve? Of course, there is the Electoral Affairs Commission ("EAC"), but it cannot do anything either. I want to recount my experience again to complain to the Government the inadequacies of the existing electoral system and EAC. 2538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

President, I was not a candidate in this past election. But my office was damaged, my political party defamed and the materials of some of our candidates were destroyed. I have written altogether 10 complaint letters to EAC. It replied that, to this effect, "Mr CHAN, we can refer the criminal damage you mentioned to the Police for handling; we can refer the intimidation of your electioneering teams to the Independent Commission Against Corruption ('ICAC') for handling". EAC enclosed a reply slip in the reply letter, on which I should tick the relevant items. In my view, criminal damage should be handled by the Police and intimidation should be followed up on by ICAC, but the crux of the problem is the unfairness of the election. In this connection, what exactly did EAC need to do?

Therefore, I disregarded the reply slip provided by EAC and wrote another letter to the EAC Chairman, in which I stated EAC ought to deal with the unfairness of the election, in addition to the criminal damage and intimidation I referred to previously. Today, I received the reply from the Registration and Electoral Office, which states, to this effect, "Mr CHAN, you did not return a filled in form so we did not receive your complaint and your case will thus close and not be dealt with". How could that be? Could EAC be so bureaucratic to such an extent? If EAC did not handle my complaints about my political party being affected because I was not a candidate, then why did it require me to declare some promotional expenses incurred by my political party? Ridiculous! If, after we have lodged the complaints, the Police arrive at the scene and say it is just an ordinary case of criminal damage, which is not related to the election, and they will not handle it; and if ICAC arrives at the scene and says, "Mr CHAN, you are not a candidate so we will not handle it", then who will? EAC passes the buck to ICAC and the Police, and the Police likewise pass the buck to EAC, then how would there be a fair election? Secretary, then for what purposes is the electoral legislation enacted? It is most preposterous indeed.

As suggested by some Honourable colleagues, a "queue with you" action took place on the polling day, rendering a lot of elderly persons and persons with disabilities unsuccessful in casting their votes in the morning, as many people waited for long periods of time in line. I remember that in past elections, Presiding Officers would handle the situations flexibly, such as allowing persons with disabilities to enter the polling stations earlier than scheduled to wait in line. If some counters for registration of identity cards were not yet opened for service, they would still give priority to persons with disabilities and elderly persons. But in this past election such a practice was not allowed and every person had to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2539 queue up. Such arrangements were not humane enough. Of course, some people would ask why priority should be given to elderly persons and persons with disabilities, considering it not fair. But the fairness in an election refers to "one man, one vote", not the sequence in which the votes are cast. Hence, discretion can be exercised. It was the case in the past, but not now.

In the District Council Election held on Sunday, some Presiding Officers were relatively humane in their handling. When they saw elderly persons standing in line outside the polling stations or no one waiting in line in front of some registration counters, they would allow elderly persons to enter first. But later on the EAC Chairman publicly stated that there was no special arrangement of priority queuing. In this way, the priority or discretionary handling which could have been made became impossible eventually. And the dissemination of relevant information was rather confusing. I do not know why an election in which many side issues arose is referred to as fairly smooth by the Chief Executive. In particular the problem of fairness in elections was not dealt with, as I have just mentioned. If the fairness problem was not dealt with, how could it be regarded as a smooth election? Was it alright as long as all voters could enter the polling stations and cast their votes? If it is the case, then why are so many pieces of subsidiary legislation, requirements and regulations enacted under the relevant electoral law? It is considered in order when people can queue up and vote. But we ask for more than these.

President, coming back to the amendments to the Bill, I have some views on one of them and wish to especially raise them to the Under Secretary. They concern the requirements for letters sent free of postage by candidates, i.e. election manifestoes candidates allowed to send to voters free of charge once. The Government lowered the required width of such letters from 175 mm to 165 mm. It does not mean much of a difference to us but presents a problem in operation. The reason is that, at present, candidates who want to send election circulars to voters have to submit the circular design in advance to Hongkong Post for approval. Of course, I understand the grounds for such a requirement, but it is difficult for the candidates to submit the circular design in advance for approval because they cannot complete the production of the election circulars and finish the printing of their manifestoes before nomination or commencement of election activities. However, the Government requires the candidates to submit the circular design for approval. For example, an election circular the same size as the one I am now holding actually takes a long time to produce. Yet, candidates only have a few days of time after nomination to submit the 2540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 circular design for approval. If the authorities find some wording questionable, the candidates will have to re-print the entire batch of circulars, but they may not have enough time for this. These are the technical problems arising in operation. Therefore, in view of such problems in handling and posting postage-free election circulars, can the Government give each candidate ample time to do so?

Another issue is environmental protection. In each election, candidates will all print and produce a large quantity of publicity materials. It is indeed not environmentally-friendly. EAC will make very good arrangements to print labels of voters' addresses for candidates in each election. But in a family, the father, mother and children may all be voters, and they actually only need to receive one election circular, and so one address label will suffice. But the current practice is not so. For a family of altogether four or five people―the father, mother and children―a candidate will then get four or five address labels carrying the same address. Affixing the four or five labels all on the election circular will cover up the contents entirely. However, the authorities are unwilling to take one step further and print the names of voters at the same address on the same address label. Otherwise, for a family whose voters have registered the same address, if a candidate chooses to affix the address label carrying the name of only one of them, perhaps the father will see his name on the label and know that the circular is meant for him; but the mother would then think that Mr CHAN Hak-kan has not sent her an election circular, only to the father, so she will not vote for him. Such a situation may arise. For this reason, as EAC will provide address labels, can it go one step further to make it convenient for candidates? This approach is also more humane and environmentally-friendly.

In fact, there are many areas that warrant improvement in the entire electoral legislation. But more importantly, as I have said, while fair and just electoral legislation has been enacted, can fairness and justice be achieved in the course of enforcement? If not, such legislation indeed means nothing. If the department in charge of the enforcement of electoral legislation acts in a bureaucratic manner and shuffles off the complaints received without handling them at all, is it still suitable to be in charge of managing elections? And should not personnel changes be made? I hope the Government will make considerations along those lines.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2541

Of course, the circumstances surrounding this past election were rather unusual and unprecedentedly difficult. However, the authorities could not refrain from enforcing the electoral legislation by reason of such difficulties. Precisely because of the difficulties and many problems that arose in the course of this, we should all the more learn the lesson this time around to perfect the District Council Election, Legislative Council Election and Chief Executive Election in Hong Kong, so as to make future elections better meet the principles of fairness and impartiality.

President, I so submit.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, it is really an eye-opener today. Has the Under Secretary ever seen that a Bill could draw criticisms from so many pro-Government and pro-establishment Members? They are here to vent their spleen, do you not get it?

What happened today? United States President Donald TRUMP signed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Looking back, why is there such an Act? The thanks must go to Carrie LAM and the Government who introduced the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 which plunged the whole city into chaos. They are upset because they were dragged into all of these troubles. So, it serves the Government right to be subjected to these criticisms. They should have known better.

If the Council truly represents public opinion, if there are no functional constituencies ("FCs"), the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 introduced by Carrie LAM would not be passed as she claimed. One million people took to the streets that day, yet she still insisted on its passage that evening. The culprit is this system. When have they ever represented public opinion? So many Members supported her. Twelve FC Members were returned with zero votes. President, excuse me, I mentioned you.

They did not need to stand in election …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, excuse me too, for I have to remind you …

2542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I am speaking. Many pro-establishment Members were allowed to ramble on …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): … Council is now debating the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019.

Dr KWOK, please come back to the question of this debate.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I am discussing the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") which I support. President, please let me finish my points first. The President is upset because I mentioned him. He gets upset once an allusion is made to him.

The pro-establishment camp is right. There are so few amendments in the Bill, why did the Government even propose it? Please abolish the FCs. What are FCs? They cannot be found anywhere except a small number of seats in the Upper House of the Irish legislature and the Italian parliament before the Second World War. What a shame. If the Government continues in this course, there will be more "car crashes" resulting in fatalities.

The whole Government has not made any attempt to make progress. What is stipulated in the Basic Law? The hell with dual universal suffrage in 2017-2018. They put up an excuse that it was not possible, then sought an interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress ("NPC"), so that there will never be any universal suffrage. But do not be so happy yet. The only result of perpetual denial of universal suffrage is that all the policies of the Government cannot win popular support. The Government assumed that it would succeed no matter what under the protection of FCs and the pro-establishment camp, and hence troubles have emerged now. I find it laughable that they kept saying the election was unfair. Why did they not mention all the "snake banquets, vegan feasts, moon cakes and rice dumplings", giveaways, free or discounted trips and marking of candidate numbers on voters' palms? Now that they have lost, and they blame it on the electoral legislation. They even criticized the arrangement of queuing to cast votes. What is wrong with them? Do they have any common sense?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2543

The elections in Hong Kong are controlled by the pro-establishment, pro-Government camps who exhaust all dirty tricks. The opposition did not have so much money to buy giveaways and offer free "snake banquets, vegan feasts, moon cakes and rice dumplings", so voters had to use their bodies and get up early in the morning to line up for polling. In a polling station in Tseung Kwan O, some voters pitched tents there the night before, fearing that the Government would play tricks by cancelling polling stations after securing enough votes in the morning. Nobody trusts the Government because it colludes with the pro-establishment, pro-Government camp. This is the cause of the current situation. Have they thought about it?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I remind you once again to please come back to the question of this debate.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Okay, thank you for your reminder. I support the Second Reading of the Bill. Please listen up until the end of my speech. This Second Reading debate is very important as the Bill aligns the envelope size with the requirements of Hongkong Post and extends the deadline for submitting election returns for the Chief Executive Election from 30 days to 60 days after publication in the Gazette. I certainly support these amendments. If the Chief Executive Election were not a small-circle election which caused a mess and elected "689" and "777", would Hong Kong have come to such a situation? If Hong Kong people could elect our Chief Executive by "one person, one vote" and the candidates had to face all Hong Kong voters, such kind of people would not have been elected! How dare they criticize the Bill? The Government is definitely very wrong and complacent. If it continues this way …

(Mr Steven HO indicated an intention to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, what is your point of order?

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki mentioned the thickness of envelopes just now, but his subsequent arguments seemed irrelevant to that. I wish to seek the President's ruling.

2544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have reminded Dr KWOK Ka-ki twice that he has strayed from the question.

Dr KWOK, please come back to the question of this debate.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Okay, I would do so. So many people are so happy. Do not be so petty! He will have plenty of time to speak later on.

The Government has to face people's distrust of it and of the electoral system. It has to take drastic measures to deal with the situation. If the dual universal suffrage stipulated in the Basic Law is not implemented, the Government will have no luck and so will Hong Kong. The pro-establishment and pro-Government camps were right in that the minor patch-ups in the Bill are meaningless, but contrary to their point, it should do Hong Kong people justice by abolishing the FCs and letting Hong Kong citizens elect all Legislative Council Members and the Chief Executive on a "one person, one vote" basis. What are they afraid of actually? They got 40% of the votes. The pro-establishment camp got 40% of the votes after making their best efforts, which is actually not bad. They also said that the number of votes they received has increased. This reflects that Hong Kong people have the maturity to realize the importance of this election. However, I agree that winning this District Council Election does not mean a dynastic change. If the Government continues to hold this attitude, the situation will not change, basically. Hence, although we support this Bill which proposes only minor patch-ups, we have to tell all Hong Kong people that the Government must present a timetable and a roadmap for constitutional reform, instead of beating about the bush and using the 31 August Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") as an excuse because it will only hurt Hong Kong. Hong Kong reached the current situation where offices were vandalized, if the system is fair …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I am reminding you for the last time. If you do not come back to the question of this debate, I will ask you to stop speaking.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2545

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I am coming back to the question of the debate. I am talking about the Bill. I support the Bill. Please keep listening to me. The Bill proposes to raise the threshold for submission of invoices and receipts from $100 to $500. I support this amendment because I support clean elections, but what happened to the cleanliness now? Phone calls from clansmen associations, shuttle buses and meal gatherings are common practices. The same has happened this year, too, although the pro-establishment camp did not get enough votes even with all this, so now they blame it on something else. Therefore, the Government deserves to be criticized by them. It serves the Government right and it has only itself to blame. The Government should come forth and, instead of the piecemeal amendments in the Bill, it should make real changes in order to let Hong Kong people have true democracy, true "one person, on vote" and abolish the FCs.

Duel universal suffrage is not a scourge. It was stipulated in the Basic Law, before the reunification. Yet, the Government moved the goalposts over and over again. It even said NPCSC could move the goalposts again. Do not think that they will not. They are moving the goalposts every day. Let us wait and see how foreign countries will "treat" Hong Kong. We have to depend on foreign countries, instead of our Motherland, to help Hong Kong achieve democracy, do they not feel ashamed? If the Government could handle it properly, do foreign countries need to take action? They are downright shameless. How dare they point their fingers at others? Patch-up amendments to FCs are not necessary if there is democracy in Hong Kong. Instead, open and aboveboard elections should be held just like in any other advanced cities in the world. The fact that 70% of the voters came out to vote despite the hardships and difficulties is a clear indication of voters' maturity, is it not? A few decades ago, it was said that Hong Kong voters were not mature and did not know how to vote, hence, FCs were necessary to cultivate voters. Now than more than 70% of the people know how to vote, are they not mature enough? Are they mature enough only when they rebel? The Government is so rigid, useless and rubbish.

Just now, some pro-establishment Members kept talking about the situations in polling stations. Let me also talk about that. We can see the case in which a polling station officer in Ma Tau Chung Government Primary School disclosed a voter's voting preference in the Legislative Council By-election for Kowloon West. The investigation took one year and three months while prosecution must be instituted within six months. Hence, prosecution could not be brought against the relevant person. We all know this capricious trick is 2546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 ugly. It was merely for protecting an incapable Returning Officer, who I do not blame, actually. Everyone said the Returning Officer should not take charge of this task. This shows that the Government is incompetent and unfair.

Some Members also mentioned the unsatisfactory performance of some polling station officers. Right. In a polling station in Tsing Yi, only 12 people were allowed to watch a supposedly open vote-counting process. Moreover, in the Wai Ying Constituency, 10-odd Mainlanders or suspected Mainlanders in the polling station scared the voters. These unidentified persons took pictures arbitrarily and returned after the Police had asked them to leave. If they were young people of Hong Kong, they would have been assaulted or sent to Sun Uk Ling. Would the Police ask them to leave so kindly? Would they be allowed to stay there? The public can see what the Government does, that the Government treats people differently and confounds black and white, hence so many grievances. In addition, a pro-democracy camp candidate should have won in Shing Hong Constituency, but the Presiding Officer suddenly ruled that 500 questionable ballots were valid. As a result, a pro-establishment candidate won. These practices are very ugly. The Government deserves criticisms.

But these are unimportant trivial matters. Be it Carrie LAM, Patrick NIP or XI Jinping, if the Government thinks Hong Kong people will remain obedient under this high-pressure and deceitful approach, the facts have told them now that they are wrong. Now, even teenage junior secondary school students know that the Government is incapable; and the Central Government has not really implemented "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy". Have they not woken up yet? They should wake up and give Hong Kong a normal electoral system. Hong Kong people have waited for 22 years, how much longer do they have to wait? How many controversial incidents does the Government have to trigger? How many young people have to be arrested, how many people have to be assaulted and blinded before they will wake up? The Government is useless and disappointing.

I so submit.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, we wasted 11 minutes just now. No matter how, we have to deal with the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") today.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2547

President, many Honourable colleagues have pointed out that the amendments to the Bill are trivial and piecemeal, insignificant amendments. Honestly, for this reason, Members do not think that it is a matter of great import whether or not they support the Bill, just that they will not oppose it. Yet, President, this reveals a problem. Regarding the process and arrangement of the election on the whole, given that many colleagues from both the opposition camp and the pro-establishment camp have put forth a lot of views, yet the Government has merely proposed these trivial and piecemeal amendments, then there are two possibilities. First, the authorities do not consider those issues a cause for concern or they do not notice any problem in actuality. Another possibility is that the authorities have found the problems but they do not or are unable to deal with them and consider doing so troublesome. These are the two reasons after all. As to which is actually the case, I will leave it to the Bureau to reply.

President, frankly, after hearing so many speeches, I notice that the electoral system is an area where changes are badly needed. Currently, in each polling station, a copy of the register of electors will be divided and placed on six tables. Electors will be issued a ballot paper after the polling officers have verified and crossed out his or her identity card number in the register. In fact, the discussion about developing Hong Kong into a "smart city" has gone on for 10 to 20 years, is the current practice a "smart" arrangement then?

Frankly, this practice is not "smart" in any way, which is comparable to elections held in villages. Actually, such arrangements will only be found in elections held in remote villages. The authorities have not utilized any of the fundamental functions available, such as the Smart Identity Card and face recognition. This is embarrassing actually. Though elections are held at intervals of four years, where the District Council Election and the Legislative Council Election are both held every four years, elections are held every two years in actuality because the said elections are held at an alternate interval. Is it not necessary for the Government to make an investment in this connection? Is the Government short of money? If not, why does it not allocate resources for this purpose?

Another issue is about the locations. President, I went voting this time. The polling station located in the community centre is small and crowded. This polling station in the youth community centre merely occupies an area of 1 000 ft. It is most surprising that the site is only accessible by the lift, and there is only one lift there. 2548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

As for the constituency which I stand for election, the polling station is located in the Municipal Services Building where electors have to go upstairs to the basketball court to cast their votes, yet there are only two lifts. In the morning, the queue was very long, because the two lifts could not cope with the people flow. In fact, the basketball court is large and spacious, only that the two lifts in the lobby cannot cope with the people flow.

Another situation is about the polling station in the district I live. I have to spend 1.5 hour to vote in that district, which is just adjacent to my constituency. The situation of that polling station is even worse. The youth centre there is only accessible by one lift and the staircase beside the lift. Yet, most people will not take the stairs, which is also a problem. In other words, the location of polling stations is a problem and makes voting difficult. The site where the polling station is located does not have adequate space for the long queues of electors. The Government has given no regard to these situations. It is doing its job perfunctorily simply to muddle through.

President, there is yet another situation. There is a serious problem with the place where I have to line up to vote. I had to wait for the lift in the lobby. Though there is a staircase beside the lift, using the staircase was prohibited, for people using the staircase would be regarded as jumping the queue. Eventually, over 100 people had to queue up outside the youth centre of the Hong Kong Playground Association at Island Place in North Point, waiting endlessly to take the lift to the polling station. Then, a staff member made the most "interesting" remark, when he said that people whose identity card numbers start with the letters "H" and "K" had to line up again on the other side, but for holders whose identity card numbers start with other letters, they could go to the polling station straight to cast their vote. In other words, I have to queue up twice. I do not mind this. Yet, at issue is that electors with identity card numbers starting with letters other than "H" and "K" should have been spared of queuing for entry into the polling station, yet they had been waiting for an hour downstairs in actuality. This is the problem.

I do not know whether or not this is fair. Yet, the entire process is "offending", "discouraging" and "unfriendly". This is the case. When I was waiting in the queue, I heard some families swearing, complaining and vowing to leave. They did not expect they had to queue up again when they reached the polling station after waiting for an hour downstairs. I did see some people leave LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2549 because they did not want to queue up again. This is the result of ill-conceived arrangements. I do not know whom they would have voted for, and I mention this to Members because the incident happened beside me.

President, why would so many colleagues mention the electronic voting system, it is because the current procedures are all carried out manually, including the register of electors, the crossing out of electors' names, the distribution of ballot papers and the collection of ballot papers. All of these procedures are done manually. In the midst of the current impasse in the political arena, any human involvement will arouse doubts, as no one knows the identity of the persons involved. To which side do they belong? Will they greet the victory of a certain candidate and the defeat of another with applauses? These doubts are inevitable. It is true that the more human input is involved in the procedure, the easier it will be to arouse doubts. Currently, many different messages are circulating on the Internet, referring to scenarios where cheating might have taken place and the relevance to the final results.

Frankly, all doubts have to be substantiated by facts and evidence. Yet, if the authorities could enhance the existing polling arrangements to minimize human input, it will remove these doubts in future elections. I think this will be helpful to the overall situation, and there is no question of favouritism to any side. Hence, in my view, if resources are not a concern, the authorities should allocate resources for this purpose.

Moreover, upon the completion of the election, the Registration and Electoral Office has received over 6 000 complaints. Of course, I have not yet seen the distribution of these 6 000-odd complaints in terms of districts and category, and I have lodged my own complaints, too. I have stood in elections four times. In the elections in the past, apart from the locations designated by the Government for display of banners, other election publicity can only be placed at publicity booths in principle and should be removed immediately if there is no publicity booth. This practice has been adopted for 10 to 20 years, yet it is different this year. This year, my opponent hoisted his flags on Friday, as he reckoned that the Government would not work on Saturdays and Sundays. As a result, his flags had been able to fly for 72 hours undisrupted. I made a complaint to the Returning Officer via email and the Returning Officer said that the case would be followed up. My opponent in the election eventually removed the flags on Monday, yet it was not due to the follow-up by any government department.

2550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

I dare say bluntly that the situation reflects that the performance of government departments in handling complaints is degrading, and they are lazier and sloppier now than in the past. My assistant drafting this script for me has reminded me that there is no regulation prohibiting the display of election publicity in places other than the locations designated for banners. Yet, according to our understanding in the past, if the display of election publicity is not subject to regulation and candidates may place such publicity anywhere at any time, candidates do not have to draw lots for the allocation of locations for banners. This is the rationale underlying the arrangement. President, I think there is a reason for the Government being regarded as not united.

Moreover, many colleagues have mentioned FCs earlier. If we look at the issue purely from the perspective of reflecting political positions, the opposition camp will definitely consider FCs a hurdle preventing them from winning additional seats and pressurizing the Government. However, the composition of the legislature includes Members returned by FCs and geographical constituencies through direct elections, which is designed to represent the pluralism of the society of Hong Kong as a whole but not for dissolution of their disputes. In fact, FCs will in some measure reflect the economic structure of Hong Kong. Does it mean that the seats returned by FCs are allocated one hundred percent according to the Gross Domestic Product ("GDP")? It is not the case. Yet, it represents the presence of certain groups like fishermen―my great grandfather's generation was fishermen but not my generation―as well as the participation and influence of these groups in society.

Yet, if FCs were to be abolished altogether for political consideration as suggested by the opposition camp, everyone will merely discuss politics but no other concern with the Government in future. By then, who will talk about the economy? In the absence of representatives of various trades and industries, with whom can the Government discuss economic issues? By then, Hong Kong will be facing a situation similar to the results of the District Council Election this time, where politics overrides people's livelihood. In future, our discussion will only focus on politics but nothing about people's livelihood and the economy. Everyone will be pressurizing the Government. I believe this is definitely unfavourable to Hong Kong.

Another point which I must mention is the frequent nuisances I encounter at booths on the streets―I have to correct it now, it is not nuisances but discussions. I have a very good experience. On one occasion, a resident came LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2551 to me and heaped swear words on me. Yet, I told him it did not matter and he could discuss with me whatever he desired. Eventually, we did have a discussion and he made a few points. First, he asked whether the 31 August Decision was immovable, for the young people were most concerned about this. I told him honestly that according to the Constitution and the Basic Law, the 31 August Decision has been included in the Annex to the Basic Law and is basically part of the Constitution, so no amendment can be made at will.

He also pointed out that upon the announcement of the 31 August Decision, a number of State leaders have stated that Hong Kong must be governed by the people of Hong Kong, with patriots who love the country and Hong Kong as the mainstay, and he asked me about the interpretation of patriots who love the country and Hong Kong and whether it means absolute support for the Communist Party of China ("CPC"). I answered him that …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK Wai-keung, please come back to the question of this debate.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I am presenting my experience in the election and this may provide some information for the Secretary to consider areas to which improvement should be made when he proposes amendments next time.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK, please point out to the Government direct the areas which require amendment and stop giving a detailed account of your personal experience.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I will complete this in two sentences.

He asked me about the interpretation of "patriots who love the country and Hong Kong as the mainstay" and whether they must support CPC. I told him that I could not say his remark was wrong and yet my understanding was that they should not provoke opposition at the very least. If they provoke opposition, they cannot join the administration framework, for no ruling regime would allow 2552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 people who are unwilling to communicate and cooperate to assume leading or administrative roles. It is just common sense. If the opposition camp have to stand in the Chief Executive election and they are elected, what will happen to Hong Kong? The people of Hong Kong have to think about it.

Moreover, President, many colleagues mentioned just now outside the Chamber that the President of the United States has signed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Since the Act will have great impact on Hong Kong, particularly on the economy, I must mention it here. President, according to my understanding of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, I would like to draw an interesting analogy here. In the past, if people wanted to draw you in, theoretically, you would consider the side which could offer more and better reward or more attractive terms. Yet, in the current situation of Hong Kong, it seems that the United States is trying to draw us in to help it to achieve certain purposes. Of course, some people are saying that the opposition camp is in collusion with the United States Government, yet this is not the question. On the contrary, I notice that if China and the United States both treasure Hong Kong, they should be offering some favarouble terms to us, and we should weight which terms are better …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK Wai-keung, I have to remind you once again that you have strayed from the question. Please come back to the question on the Second Reading of the Election Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, honestly, the United States is not offering favourable terms to Hong Kong now, and it is stabbing Hong Kong repeatedly whenever Hong Kong does not side with them. When will Hong Kong be stabbed to death? Honestly, Members may really have a chance to see that day.

Now, President, coming back to the Bill, I would like to make a point which I have mentioned in the Bills Committee on the current time frame for the submission of expenses return for the Chief Executive Election―the deadline for submitting election returns―to be extended from 30 days to 60 days, in line with that for the Legislative Council Election. Theoretically, it seems to be good. Yet the maximum election expense limit for the "Super District Council" FC of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2553 the Legislative Council is only $7 million and the election expense limit for the Chief Executive Election is as high as $16 million, which is almost double. I have asked the authorities why the period for submitting the return for election expenses after the Chief Executive Election cannot be extended, as the amount involved is enormous and may cause confusion. Why can the authorities not extend the deadline proportionately? Regrettably, the Secretary has not provided a reasonable and positive reply. No matter how, the trivial and piecemeal amendments proposed this time will not have much impact and hence I have no objection to these amendments.

Thank you, President.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Thank you, President. My thanks also go to Mr KWOK Wai-keung. Having heard Dr KWOK Ka-ki's speech earlier on, I think his job is actually quite easy for he does not need to rewrite the script of his speech over the years. All he needs to do is to keep repeating his points and he can work in the Legislative Council for eight years. I dare not say that he is wrong, but this is a characteristic of our electoral system.

President, please allow me to spend two minutes on the preamble before I proceed to my discussion on the amendment of the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). I recall that around a decade or so ago when I was still an undergraduate, I wrote a dissertation on railways. It was about the Train Schedule Diagram. I recall that my teacher told me that there were three most lucrative railways in the world whereas the others were all suffering a loss. Of these three railways, one is in Japan, one in Australia, and the last one in Hong Kong. But insofar as the Mass Transit Railway ("MTR") of Hong Kong is concerned, despite strong commendations and praises sung by a professor of the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom, the MTR of Hong Kong, as we all know, can be completely ruined by people in the recent incidents.

In fact, our current electoral system is just the same. A system may not always achieve perfection, but the quality of people is the most crucial indicator of the quality of an electoral system. Certainly, any system has its historical reasons, be it the system of returning all seats by direct elections of "one person, one vote" or abolition of Functional Constituencies ("FCs") as championed by the opposition camp or the existing system, and the kernel of it is how we can, 2554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 through this system, elect Members who can represent Hong Kong and who can do Hong Kong good. This is the essence of using this system to give play to the spirit of Hongkongers. But most regrettably, from the many speeches made yesterday and today, most Members suggested to fix it altogether; they said that Carrie LAM is doing a bad job and that FCs must be abolished. This Bill concerning the miscellaneous amendments of electoral legislation is precisely an avenue for discussions on FCs and therefore, they who are like sharks having smelt blood will definitely take this opportunity to attack.

What I said just now is the preamble. Like what happened to MTR as I talked about just now, actually it is people who can destroy a system. The same goes for the District Council ("DC") Election just passed. I will not repeat the points made by Mr KWOK Wai-keung and even Mr CHAN Hak-kan earlier on. For example, when many people queued up, that could create a false picture; or the unfair phenomena that Ms CHAN Hoi-yan particularly mentioned earlier, such as all the banners being ripped apart. But I would like the public to join me in thinking about it. Actually, the electoral system of DCs is, to a certain extent, considered relatively agreeable to both the opposition camp and the pro-establishment camp; they will not say that the DC system is shady and yet, its quality can be taken down to a very low standard by these people and worse still, even the most fundamental spirit originally underpinning the election has been suppressed, namely every person enjoying full freedom of speech, of expression and to vote. But obviously, all of these may not have been upheld in this election. Disregarding whether there is any breach of the electoral legislation, nobody dares say the freedom of speech of some people has not been affected.

Therefore, I wish to say to the Secretary that the legislation is rigid but human beings are not. If some people are to a certain extent disrespectful towards a system, then on the legislative front, the Government must not allow itself to be hamstrung. Rather, it must proactively introduce initiatives to plug the loopholes. When a system is brought under increasingly more legislative regulation or control, there are always people who feel unfree. Therefore, to both the opposition camp and ordinary citizens, it is necessary to consider the need to respect each other. This would obviate the need to enact regulations and rules excessively, and we could even practise the Athenian democracy back in the ancient times when whoever spoke more loudly on a prairie could make major decisions for the state or society. Therefore, people must respect each other. This is a major point that I wish to make in the beginning of my speech today.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2555

Second, coming back to the Bill, a most important point of it is the election expenses. Actually the amount of election expenses varies from one FC to another, and I find it rather regrettable that the Government has not said much on the election expenses of certain FCs in the Bill.

Let me make a declaration first. I have not yet decided whether to run in the election next year. But from my past experience in contesting the election of the Agriculture and Fisheries FC, the expense limit for a candidate is only about $100,000. The Government explained that as corporate voting is adopted in this FC with only some 100 or 200 electors, which is a small number, the amount of election expenses is, therefore, smaller, with a limit of only $100,000. However, the election expenses for the Chief Executive Election are different. Even though the Election Committee is made up of 1 200 members only, the limit of election expenses for a candidate is more than $7 million. I do not understand how the Government calculates the expenses. If, in the future election of the Agriculture and Fisheries FC, the banners are ripped apart or the publicity letters are taken away, I would not have too much money at my disposal. Even a candidate in the DC Election can spend up to some $60,000 and they can reprint the banners but of course, they still complained about not having enough. So, in this respect, the attention of the SAR Government is warranted.

There is another point which also concerns a problem in the Agriculture and Fisheries FC, which, I think, is also faced by other incumbent Members of the Legislative Council. For the expenses incurred by Members for opening Members' offices or employing staff, 5% of the amount has to be accounted as election expenses. To other bigger FCs or those made up of individual electors, this percentage may not be a big problem as they may spend up to several hundred thousand dollars or a million dollars in election expenses. But I have to reiterate that my limit is only $100,000. My office costs me $200,000 monthly; 5% of $200,000 is around $10,000, and it would be $20,000 for two months. But my expenses are subject to a limit of only $100,000 and the expenses for my office already take up 20%. In other words, my office would take up 20% of my election expenses even before it has done anything. On this point, the SAR Government or the Legislative Council Secretariat must address the problems that the expense limit is too low and there are too many restrictions.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan also pointed out just now that the restrictions are too fossilized and the calculation method unfair. After I was elected in the last term, I got a refund of only some $1,000 because the calculation was based on the 2556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 number of votes won. However, the cost incurred by me for each vote won was not equivalent to that for a vote by an ordinary elector in other constituencies. The election of the Agriculture and Fisheries FC covers a diversity of cultures, backgrounds, industries, and even regions. In a visit to Tung Lung Chau I may be able to meet only two or three people and even if they would vote for me, I can recoup only some $10. So, the cost is different. But in this Bill, I have not seen the SAR Government say much about this.

Just now I particularly mentioned that the election of the Agriculture and Fisheries FC covers a diversity of cultures, regions and industries, and this Bill under discussion today also involves the removal or addition of certain organizations. The opposition camp has, of course, vigorously attacked certain FCs. Actually, in the Agriculture and Fisheries FC which I represent, we also consider it necessary to make changes to the existing electoral system. As time changes, we have seen in the agriculture and fisheries industries that there are more emerging sectors whereas the proportion of certain sectors has become less, but it is very, very difficult to be added as electors, not to mention the lack of a unified standard, and it is impossible to adopt the practice of the Information Technology FC of allowing members of major organizations to become electors. While there are now eight bodies on the list, one of them has already ceased operation, whereas the others are called cooperative societies, and it is very difficult to add new electors. Therefore, stagnation has led to uneven distribution. We hope to perfect the election of this FC.

However, any issue brought to this Council will surely become a political struggle. The opposition camp said right in the outset that they demand the abolition of FCs, come what may; they also refused fine-tuning them because if there were improvement after fine-tuning, it would be proof of the worth of FCs. Therefore, they certainly do not agree to fine-tuning them, and disregarding what we said, they invariably said "No". These proposals put forward now, which only concern the addition or removal of electors or some small patch-up amendments, may not be a strong motivation for them to strike. I hope the SAR Government can pay attention to this issue because problems do exist, and there is not a very clear decision on the way forward for FCs in the future. The Government can tell the opposition camp that needless to say, FCs will develop according to the timetable for universal suffrage or the principle of gradual and orderly progress as stated in the Basic Law and there will not be any change in the next few years. This way, Members will not continuously engage in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2557 discussion on political issues but will focus their energy on issues relating to the people's lot. Even for us FC Members, it is still difficult not to engage in a debate with them, and on the question of the justifications for the existence of FCs, actually we have wasted plenty of time on the relevant discussion. Therefore, the SAR Government should communicate with the Central Government on how FCs should move on.

Besides, every organization in the agriculture and fisheries industries is a reflection of historical problems, and I believe this is also the case for some other FCs. These organizations in the agricultural and fisheries industries that I am talking about actually reflect the history of the fight put up by us in the past against the British rule and oppression, which was full of blood and tears. Before the reunification we were oppressed by the British-Hong Kong Government to the extent that we were deprived of even the freedom of association, let alone other freedoms. We did not even have the freedom of association. In this connection, Members can take a look at the list of our electors. Some of the organizations are limited companies, not societies. Why did fishermen's organizations have to go through all the complications and register as limited companies and hence have to pay for the registration and accountancy fees annually? Why do we have to bear these expenses? It is precisely because the Government back then did not allow us to set up associations. To submit an application, we had to go to the Police, and in order to set up an association, an applicant as well as his parents and even grandparents would be subject to checks, and if the applicant supported the People's Republic of China, the application would set to be rejected. This is why most organizations on this list of 80 or 90 electors are limited companies. It is because in the face of the British oppression of us, we must make our voices heard in the establishment back then, and this explains why so many organizations registered in such a manner.

Yet, operation in the agriculture or fisheries industries is sometimes quite difficult and back then the operators only knew to press ahead without taking into consideration the persistent consequences in the long term. A few thousand dollars or even $10,000 or $20,000 of accountancy fees per annum can really add up to big amounts in time, and some people may not know the electoral system very well. For example, an organization originally called Sai Kung Fishermen's Association Limited wanted to avoid the accountancy fee, so it planned to change its name into a society, so that it would not need to pay the accountancy fee for its membership would, after all, remain the same. Therefore, it was renamed Sai 2558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

Kung Fishermen's Association―I made up this name, and sorry, as I do not have the list up my sleeves. After an application was submitted, the Registration and Electoral Office said that the name of the organization was incorrect and hence, it was disqualified and ultimately it was stripped of the right to vote. This was what happened in the last term. Why? Because the name registered at the time was Sai Kung Fishermen's Association Limited and it was later changed to be Sai Kung Fishermen's Association. Even though they were the same organization, sorry, no changes could be made to the list as set out in the relevant schedule, of which part one stated the fishermen's associations under the eight bodies and part two stated the fishermen's associations one by one, and there was not any liaison with the Government in this respect. Honestly, we may not change our voter registration address after we have moved homes and some people are hence disqualified from voting, and this actually points to the same problem. Therefore, I hope that the SAR Government can realize the problems with the existing system which has, among others, caused some people to lose their right to vote in their industry. As a result, some people who are reputable and who have long years of experience in the industry are not even qualified for voting and they are stripped of the chance to vote forever because of some loopholes or mistakes in the existing system. An example is that fishermen's association in Sai Kung which eventually lost its right as an elector. This is the second point I wish to make today.

Lastly, as I have said repeatedly in the Bills Committee, I hope the SAR Government can change the voting method for the Agriculture and Fisheries FC. During this DC Election, I occasionally heard criticisms, guesses and misgivings about dishonest conduct in the polling stations. But the election of the Agriculture and Fisheries FC is even more difficult, and it is even easier for "race rigging" to happen because in the election of the Agriculture and Fisheries FC, an elector does not mark the ballot paper using a chop. In the geographical constituency direct elections, the voters will mark the ballot paper using a chop. The election of the "Super District Council" FC is the same as voters also mark the ballot paper with a chop. In the election of the Agriculture and Fisheries FC, however, an elector is given a pen to write in the circles on the ballot paper his first, second and third choices, and then the authorities will do the counting.

However, there was a case in which an elector, when obtaining a ballot paper, was not given a pen by the Returning Officer or the staff distributing the ballot papers. But as the elector was still given a chop, he, therefore, marked the ballot paper using the chop. Finally when the votes were counted, even though LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2559 he used the chop to mark at the place against the name of candidate No. 1, sorry, this vote was considered invalid. Even though he had very clearly chosen candidate No. 1, sorry, that was still an invalid vote. Why? Because he did not write on the ballot paper with a pen. I think the Agriculture and Fisheries FC is not the only FC that requires its electors to write down their choices with a pen. But I hope the Government will understand that both the electors of the Agriculture and Fisheries FC and other electors who vote in a similar way are all ordinary citizens who may not know a lot about the political system. That elector whom I mentioned just now rang me up after he had voted. He said that nobody gave him a ball pen and asked what he could do. All I could say was that since he had handed in the ballot paper, what else could he do? Then I asked him whether he said anything about it when he voted and he told me that he dared not say anything, thinking that it would be fine just to mark the ballot paper with a chop. In fact, I already conveyed this matter to the Government the first year when I took office as a Member but the result has remained utterly disappointing. The Secretary can look into it if he has time. The percentage of invalid votes in the Agriculture and Fisheries FC is very high, which I estimate to be 5% to 10%. In this connection, has the Government proactively made any commitment to address this problem? This is a major indicator of whether the public has confidence in the Government.

President, I so submit.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, yesterday, I proposed on the online social media holding a seminar in response to the recent situation of elections, since I have indeed received many complaints. Today we are considering the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), which mainly concerns allowing candidates on candidate lists of geographical constituencies or the District Council (Second) Functional Constituency in the Legislative Council general election or by-election to submit the nomination form in a way authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, and refining the requirement on thickness and size of each letter that may be sent free of postage by candidates. This time the contents of the amendments are not related to the voting or electoral procedures, but I wish to take this opportunity to point out in my speech some technical issues which warrant the authorities' attention.

2560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

First of all, the Bill introduces necessary technical legislative amendments for the 2020 Legislative Council General Election and other public elections, including technical amendments concerning the electorate of functional constituencies ("FCs"), arrangements under the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (Cap. 554), as well as various electoral procedures. Such amendments include refining the requirement on thickness and size of each letter that may be sent free of postage by candidates. Regarding free postage, I support revising the requirement on size, which is the right thing to do. However, there are currently two postage rates charged by weight for small letters. The rate for 20 g is $2.6 and 50 g, $4.1. There is a difference of $1.5 between the two. No limit is imposed on the maximum weight of a small letter. I propose stipulating that the weight cannot be heavier than certain grams or heavier than 20 g so as to alleviate the burden of postage, such that candidates will make the contents more concise or use less paper. This can better meet the principle of environmental protection.

As regards mail exceeding the prescribed weight or size, I do not know whether the existing practice is to request the candidate or the elector receiving the mail to pay the difference, or return the mail to the candidate, or the mail will go missing in the end. In fact, candidates also had queries about this. On receipt of information about the candidates, some electors found that the letter was quite heavy. They queried whether it was fair if the postage was the same, regardless of the weight of the mail. In my view, the authorities should review this in future.

Speaking of the electoral legislation, amendments are actually necessary in many aspects. Back to my opening remark about holding a meeting for airing grievances about electoral issues or electoral laws, with a view to discussing what needs to be amended or improved in the electoral legislation. Shortly after my announcement, over 1 000 people had enrolled. The response was enthusiastic. Many questions were raised. I asked my colleagues whether there were young people making trouble or bogus enrolment, but it turned out that many middle-aged or elderly people had enrolled. All of them had provided their identity card numbers. Not only this. Friends I know or friends of my friends called me, asking me to call back. They wanted to personally talk to me because they had found a lot of problems. However, since I had been held up in a meeting in the afternoon, I could not reply to them. Eventually, they each left a message on the recorder. I will play it to the Secretary later. Among them, there are people he knows. Even the wife of a certain former official called to say that she thought there were problems. How serious this is! LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2561

In fact, right from the very beginning of this election, we already found that there were problems. Come to think about it. A Returning Officer dared not continue to work because she had been intimidated. Another Returning Officer came forward to say that she had been intimidated. After completing the verification of the eligibility of a candidate, she even disappeared. It turned out that she had moved to a safe house. So far I still cannot get in touch with her. She is a close friend of mine. Is she actually safe? Now I still have no idea, President. I am very worried because I have lost touch with her. She has turned off her phone. If we apply the previous logic of thinking of the rioters or opposition camp in Hong Kong, how terrible, this person must have been murdered …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please come back to the question of this debate.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): … Therefore, we hold that right from the beginning of the election, problems such as that of the Returning Officer had already emerged. I believe Donald TRUMP does not know this. Did such a case ever happen in the United States? It is really miserable.

Hence, seeing this Bill, how could I not rise to convey the public views? Certainly, President, every candidate will send publicity leaflets by post. There are requirements on size and postage. But frankly, if they really wish to stand in the election, even if there is no government subsidy, they will pay it out of their own pocket, right? However, now the greatest problem lies in fairness. In the whole Kowloon West, we had originally posted information on candidates at many locations allotted to us in streets. All went missing. Yet today they smear us in the other way round. Frankly, I, CHIANG Lai-wan, had been smeared all the way. Finally, perhaps they could not think of anything to write, so they defaced my photos, smearing my eyes and tarring my face. They wanted to make me look ugly anyhow. In this way, they would feel happy. Of course, I was not a candidate in this election, but given my connections with many candidates, I was not spared either. So this was the case. All the banners were damaged. As such, how would it be fair? We should put ourselves in the other's shoes, right? But never mind. Despite the fact that we had been surrounded by thousands of petrol bombs in all the districts across the territory, 2562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 particularly the Yau Tsim Mong and Kowloon districts, this election was conducted all the same. The Chief Executive thus feels very contented because the election has come to a close. She has made it.

However, a kaifong told me that the pro-establishment camp had really become martyrs this time, since many kaifongs knew the pro-establishment camp could do solid work. But let us take a look. Even the Government was unable to stop violence and curb disorder. What could they do? Hence, they were helpless. Feeling frightened, they supported the other party, offering them the seats in the District Councils in the hope that they would stop making trouble. Such was the situation. They only wished for calm.

In this regard, I recall that when I was a child, there were a lot of triad members collecting protection fees in the street. They would placed a pot of mandarin oranges at the doorway of a shop. If the shop owner refused to pay money, they would break the glass panes of the shop. That was what happened …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, let me remind you again to come back to the question of the Second Reading debate on the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): There are indeed flaws in our electoral legislation. Today the Secretary has proposed amendments relating to such matters as the requirement on thickness and size of each letter that may be sent free of postage, but there are still many other items which warrant amendments in future. As I have pointed out, some villains act in such a way that if you do not accede to their wishes, they will break your glass panes; if you do not vote for the people they support, they will beat you up, and so on and so forth. Come to think about it. Our offices were vandalized, too. Dr Priscilla LEUNG's office was even worse, having been set on fire. And once was not enough. Fires had been set on it time and again. It was set ablaze three times in total.

Hence, at present, from the electoral legislation to the voting procedures, are there not grave problems? I hope the Government will propose more amendments to the electoral legislation in the near future. Yesterday, I learnt that many problems relating to the electoral legislation have now emerged. Can LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2563 the Government propose amendments as soon as possible? Apart from the relevant provisions on the requirement on thickness and size of each letter that may be sent free of postage, can other provisions be also amended?

Some officials told me that it can hardly be achieved now. I asked why. It is because we have yet to elect the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the House Committee. Even if a Bill has been presented, we just cannot deal with it, right? Why do these people act in this way? The President has also been dragged in. I see the President doing a great job, having to sit here all day from morning till night to chair the meeting. We will exert our best efforts to uphold the stability of Hong Kong. But there are really too many people with ulterior motives in society. Too many people with ill intentions keep pushing the Legislative Council into a total mess.

Therefore, in respect of such matters as the electoral legislation, voting procedures and polling date, as well as the e-voting arrangement mentioned in the past by the pan-democratic Members who pointed out that the current means of voting was old and outdated, the Government needs to consider these matters and see how to make improvement. This should be a significant reform. It is not the first time that Hong Kong has conducted an election. We need not grope for stones to cross the river. We have already practised this procedure for decades. It is by no means easy to achieve something, but I do not think there is anything easy in the world. The only reason for failure to achieve anything is fear. Therefore, so long as there is determination, I do not believe there is anything which cannot be achieved.

I hope the Secretary will seriously examine the existing electoral legislation which is indeed punctuated by flaws. I know the Secretary assumed office in this term, prior to which a lot of things had already been determined. It is difficult to make too many changes all at once. However, he is a young man. Compared with me, he is still young. I believe young people should have a greater spirit of reform and innovation. Secretary, keep it up! I so submit.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I am very pleased to see that the DC Election was held peacefully and smoothly on 24 November. This time around, public opinion is overwhelming like a tsunami, telling the Government and the pro-Government camp very clearly that this is a warning, also a very serious signal issued to the Government, telling it to rein in police brutality and establish an independent commission of inquiry in response to the five demands.

2564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

This tsunami of public opinion may have caught many people off-guard and the results of the District Council elections in the 18 districts, with the exception of those in the Islands District, have turned the tide completely and their colour has changed from blue to yellow. This is a historical breakthrough in Hong Kong's electoral history. I believe it is due to the fact that many members of the public have gone through nearly five or six months of the "anti-extradition to China" movement and witnessed the brutality of the Police and the ineptitude of the Government that, despite having to wait in long queues for many hours, they still wanted to cast their votes. Public opinion is very clear, so I hope the Government can address it seriously.

However, it is a shame that after the election, I heard many Honourable colleagues who spoke just now level criticisms, claiming that such and such a matter was unfair to them or this and that was unfair to them. I believe that after the election results are known, all parties have made gains or suffered losses but no matter what the results are, we have to face the choices made by voters. The question is: If we in the Democratic Party were asked if we were very happy with the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), in fact, we are not but we also think there is no cause for blocking the passage of the Bill.

I am a member of the Bills Committee on the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bills Committee") and played a part in scrutinizing the Bill. In fact, the Bill mainly seeks to introduce necessary technical amendments for the 2020 Legislative Council General Election ("Legislative Council Election") and other public elections, including technical amendments concerning the electorate of the functional constituencies ("FCs"), arrangements in the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (Cap. 554), as well as various electoral procedures, which we have looked at during deliberations on the Bill. However, since the Government only makes technical amendments that amount to small patch-ups, naturally, the Democratic Party is very much dissatisfied.

The so-called technical amendments in the Bill this time around are just the usual amendments made by the Government as a matter of routine, including past practices that have all along been followed, so what was done in the past is continued this time around. The practice is that normally, before each Legislative Council Election, the Government will conduct a review of the delineation of the electorates of FCs in consultation with the relevant departments LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2565 under various Policy Bureaux. However, in actuality, no large-scale public consultation is conducted, including on such questions as whether or not the public hopes to see piecemeal patch-ups by the Government in the form of technical amendments to FCs? Should the electorates be expanded significantly? In fact, the Government has not conducted any consultation in earnest again, so basically, the amendments concerned are all patch-ups made behind closed doors.

We can see that the Government has updated the names of some FC corporates, including deleting corporates which have ceased operation and adding relevant new corporates. All of these are utterly technical amendments and generally speaking, they have little bearing on the current political situation, nor can they respond to the keen expectation of the public presently or in the past few years, or after the Umbrella Movement, for the implementation of genuine dual universal suffrage, including the selection of the Chief Executive and election of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. If we want to elect the Legislative Council by universal suffrage, we have to deal with the problem of FCs.

In fact, in the political history and development of Hong Kong, FCs began to appear in the 1980s. At that time, FCs were introduced through indirect elections but three decades have passed since. Looking ahead, in fact, we know that eventually, they will cease to exist but the question is: When? Because Article 68 of the Basic Law stipulates that the ultimate goal of political development in Hong Kong―in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress―is to elect all Legislative Council Members by universal suffrage, that is, FCs should be abolished. The Basic Law was promulgated in 1990 and at that time, FCs were allowed to exist for a period of time but according to the principle of gradual and orderly, they should eventually be phased out. However, this matter has dragged on for 22 years after the reunification. The Basic Law talks about gradual and orderly progress and ultimately, Members will be elected by universal suffrage but why will this not happen in the Legislative Council Election of 2020? In fact, had the Government been more proactive and responded to the demand of "genuine universal suffrage" made by so many people during the Umbrella Movement at an early date; had the constitutional system really moved forward in a gradual and orderly manner, such that the Legislative Council could be fully elected by universal suffrage and the Chief Executive can be selected by election of "one person, one vote", I believe the political crisis triggered by the "China extradition law" in the past few months perhaps would not have arisen.

2566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

Unfortunately, our Government lacks foresight and both the Government and Members from the pro-establishment camp have never exerted their utmost to lobby the SAR Government and the Central Government concerning the issue of how best Article 68 of the Basic Law can be implemented. Yesterday and today, I heard Members from FCs and the pro-Government camp speak and they all said that since there is now the 31 August Decision of NPCSC, it is not possible to implement universal suffrage but as regards the 31 August Decision, as he said, that was made several years ago …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, I have allowed you to expound on other matters for several minutes. Please come back to the question of the Second Reading debate of the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Thank you, President. In fact, what we are saying is that the Bill proposes technical amendments related to FCs and my remarks just now pointed out that the Democratic Party believes the technical amendments alone are inadequate in responding to the current tsunami of public opinion, that is, the unequivocal demand for genuine dual universal suffrage. I believe the Government lacks foresight and is also much too conservative. If the authorities seek only to make technical amendments, any Administrative Officer can do the job actually, so there is no need for such a handsomely paid Bureau Director to undertake it.

Article 68 of the Basic Law stipulates clearly that there will be universal suffrage, so now must we stop and proceed no further because the 31 August Decision of NPCSC has ruled out all alternatives? If we cannot inspire confidence in the young people or Hong Kong people, so that they know when there will be universal suffrage in Hong Kong … at present, basically, we have no timetable or roadmap for universal suffrage, all because the 31 August Decision has rendered Hong Kong straitjacketed. I believe it is not just the pro-democracy camp that has the responsibility to promote the realization of genuine universal suffrage, should the pro-Government camp not work even harder and have a greater sense of urgency in doing so? Some of us Legislative Council Members are members of the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, some are members of NPCSC and some are Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2567

Consultative Conference. For the sake of the future of democracy in Hong Kong, have they ever attempted to convince the Central Government and the SAR Government, so that Hong Kong people can implement genuine dual universal suffrage? In fact, democracy is nothing terrible …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, I remind you once again that you have strayed from the question.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, just now, the speeches of some Members were nonsensical and even strayed way off the question. Please do not interfere with me anymore and I will be done very soon.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, if Members stray from the question, I have the responsibility to remind them. Today, I have reminded not just you alone, rather, I have reminded many Members that they have strayed from the question. I request you to come back to the question of this debate.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, in fact, I have never strayed from the question, so I do not quite agree with your point. Nevertheless, I am grateful to you for your kind reminder.

That Hong Kong will implement genuine dual universal suffrage, abolish FCs in the Legislative Council and have universal and equal elections is stipulated clearly in the Basic Law. We cannot just muddle along and pretend that this has not happened, then continue to tolerate the existing unfair political structure. Many Members of the pro-establishment camp criticized the elections, claiming how unfair they are to them. Perhaps let us put it in this way instead. In fact, the elections have always been unfair to us. When was there ever a fair election in Hong Kong? Members can ask Dr Priscilla LEUNG how much resources support her at her back. How much funds does the Kowloon Federation of Associations use to support her in her district work?

(Dr Priscilla LEUNG indicated an intention to raise a point of order)

2568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, what is your point?

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Talking about relevance, I think what I said yesterday in my capacity as Chairman of the Bills Committee was more relevant than what Dr Helena WONG is talking about now, so I hope you will enforce the Rules of Procedure.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, please continue.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, therefore, I think the most important thing is … I will come back to the question of the debate because the Secretary is present today and has listened to the speeches of so many Members, so I hope very much that he can seriously respond to the demands of the public, rather than stop at making the technical amendments to the Bill today. We all hope that FCs will disappear from Hong Kong, so that Legislative Council Members can be elected through universal suffrage of "one person, one vote" and there will be a fairer, more democratic and more reasonable political system. This is a critical step if the Government hopes to resolve the present political conflicts and street violence in Hong Kong. The Government cannot possibly sit and wait here and let this 31 August Decision bind Hong Kong tightly …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, I am warning you for the last time, that if you do not come back to the question of the debate, I will ask you to stop speaking.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, in fact, all along I have never strayed from the question. We are now discussing the amendments to FCs, so I told the Secretary that this kind of patch-up is useless. We must be bold and ambitious and slice off the entire system of FCs. I still cannot see why the President thinks my speech has strayed from the question.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not found in the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019. If you continue to stray from the question, I will stop you from speaking.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2569

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I do not agree with your judgment. I am now talking about the pace and scope of amendment in this reform, which I consider to be too narrow. If one makes only technical …

(Dr Priscilla LEUNG indicated an intention to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, what is your point?

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I heard it very clearly. Just now, Dr Helena WONG mentioned my name. First, I am not a Member of any FC; second, I think she has continued to use the speaking platform today to pave the way for her personal political ends …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LEUNG, please raise your point direct.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): … so I think her speech is really irrelevant to the question. What have FCs that she talked about got to do with me?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, do you wish to make a clarification?

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I have never said that Dr Priscilla LEUNG was returned by FC elections; I was only talking about whether or not there is fair election in Hong Kong. FC elections are surely unfair. As regards whether or not Members returned by direct elections all along have additional resources to support their work in various districts without the public being aware of it, the Members in question should know this full well. President, my speech …

(Dr Priscilla LEUNG indicated an intention to raise a point of order)

2570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, what is your point?

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I think when Dr Helena WONG spoke just now, on the first occasion when she referred to similar matters, she mentioned my name. If there is no relevance, regarding any person, for example, Dr Helena WONG, we can also say, "I also do not know if she has received any foreign funding and only she herself knows.". Such a statement is practically unfair. She is the one making unfair and arbitrary allegations.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LEUNG, please sit down.

Dr Helena WONG, please clarify.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): I believe no one in Hong Kong does not know the relationship between Dr Priscilla LEUNG and the Kowloon Federation of Associations but I do not wish to wrangle with her over this matter as the public are very discerning. President, I hope the Secretary …

(Dr Priscilla LEUNG indicated an intention to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, what is your point?

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): I believe no one in Hong Kong does not know the relationship between the Democratic Party, the opposition camp and foreign forces, so the relevance of Dr Helena WONG's speech today is actually very distant from the question of the debate today …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, this is not the time for you to speak. Please sit down.

Dr Helena WONG, if you still do not come back to the question of the debate, I will ask you to stop speaking.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2571

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, concerning my speech in the debate, I have reiterated clearly that we support the Bill. However, I think the Secretary should try his best to make representations on the pace of reform and reforming FCs to the Central Authorities according to Article 68 of the Basic Law and request that FCs be abolished as soon as possible, so that Hong Kong can have a timetable and roadmap for striding towards genuine dual universal suffrage. He must not think that by making technical amendments, he has done his job and can resolve the core conflicts in Hong Kong. In fact, our greatest concern is the absence of a democratic and just political system in Hong Kong and this is the reason for so many people taking to the streets in the past few months. Apart from opposition to police brutality, they want to campaign for the implementation of the five demands and one of them is genuine dual universal suffrage …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Meeting is now suspended until 5.15 pm.

4:39 pm

Meeting suspended.

5:15 pm

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kin-por, please speak.

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") under consideration today originally only concerned miscellaneous amendments, including amendments to the lists of persons comprising functional constituencies ("FCs"), the relief of minor errors or omissions in election returns and the way nomination forms are to be submitted by candidates. Given that some matters of principle are involved, I feel it incumbent on me to speak. Certainly, I will decide whether to lend it my support after listening to the views or responses of the Government in the end. I 2572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 thank the President for giving Honourable colleagues much time to have discussions today, and they like to attack FCs. Dr KWOK Ka-ki has spoken for 10-odd minutes earlier. I will surely not do the same, but I hope the President will give me proper speaking time.

In fact, having been a Member for 10-odd years, I have personally witnessed a good many government policies. Pro-establishment Members are often smeared by the opposition camp. They confound right and wrong, calling black white and vice versa. To some degree, the elections this time around have actually reflected dissatisfaction with the Government. Why is there dissatisfaction? It is certainly because of the unsatisfactory performance or even inaction of the Government in the past. But to a large extent, the Government actually has not had the opportunity to clearly explain a number of its policies to the public. It is widely known that its propaganda effort is lousy, while that of others is world-class. But the worst part is that there has so far been no sign that the Government will change its way of communication with the public, such as using the latest method or data to assist their efforts at giving explanations to the public. I hope the Government can really turn over a new leaf and exert its very best, or else it can expect more smearing campaigns to come, and all of its efforts will just end in vain with nil achievement.

Why did I make this point? Because FCs have been incessantly smeared and defamed with such simple slogans as "zero votes" over the years. In fact, how would uncontested seats get "zero votes"? But in the world nowadays, it works best when something is simple and seditious. It is useless to talk to them logic or facts. Such a phenomenon is absolutely pitiful, yet it is the current state of affairs in Hong Kong. When emotions overwhelm everything else, they simply have no regard for how long those Members have served and how much contribution they have made to the local community, for they are blinded by hatred. The greatest pity now is that a multitude of people are affected. But they are not to blame as they really believe the notion. No matter how long those Members have served, those people are keen to unseat and replace them by virtually anyone else, totally leaving the quality and qualifications of candidates out of their consideration.

Hence, some candidates do actually arouse concerns. Their competence has been called into question, and the pervasiveness of the situation has undermined people's perception of the Government. Even worse, despite having maintained the 60:40 split of votes, the pro-establishment camp has managed to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2573 secure some 10% of seats only. I find it a fairly important issue that warrants a comprehensive review by the Government. Certainly, I appreciate the point made by a number of Honourable colleagues, and as seen from the social media, many people have reflected the situation relating to the spate of rumours surrounding the polling process of some joining the queues repeatedly in an attempt to obstruct others from casting votes, some observing in pairs whether the names in the electoral registers had been crossed out, ballots papers being handed out to those without identity cards, and so on. I have relayed the foregoing to Secretary Patrick NIP, and I believe he will also seriously examine the existing system. Elections held under such an unfair system do not mean much, and even if he finds solutions to such problems, it will not change the unfair nature of the elections this time around.

Now think about this. Seeing that dozens of or even a hundred ward offices had been devastated, people simply dared not affix publicity materials or campaign on the streets for fear that they would be assaulted. How could there be fair elections then? Those in the pro-establishment camp in Hong Kong always grin and bear it, working strenuously as supporters of the Government. But the other party knows nothing but to oppose. If we also engage in opposition, Hong Kong will accomplish nothing. But in reality, what do people like us, who have been working quietly and assiduously to serve the local community, get in return? Sometimes I really feel disheartened seeing that.

I believe it was the organized actions coupled with vote allocation assisted by the latest technologies that won the other party the victory. As to the way forward for the pro-establishment camp, I believe the system should be improved, such as requiring fingerprint authentication before admission into the polling stations, so as to increase the fairness, effectiveness and reliability of the system with the help of new technologies. The Government should give it consideration.

FCs have often been subjected to incessant smearing by Dr KWOK Ka-ki and his like. Their contribution has also been dismissed, without being given a fair deal. The Hong Kong economy has recently been showing signs of recession, and every time the Hong Kong economy has got into trouble, the importance and contribution of FCs will be brought into the limelight. Take the current disturbances as an example. The tourism, catering and retail industries have respectively been hard hit, throwing a large number of workers out of job. We see that Members representing the tourism, catering, labour and wholesale 2574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 and retail sectors have been going around to solicit assistance from the Government and various quarters of society, so as to save the industries and assist the affected workers. In recent years, I have seen that FC Members have actually made marked progress with continuous improvement. They have done more and more, and their commitment, devotion and contribution to Hong Kong have also increased over time with assiduous efforts made in a low profile. People may not clearly know what they are doing, but in times of economic crises, we will particularly see that they have really made an enormous contribution, which is an indisputable fact.

Insofar as financial, professional and economic issues are concerned, FCs are real experts. In response to the risk of economic recession currently in sight, Members representing such sectors as finance, business and insurance have been striving to tide the industries over, offering advice and suggestions to the Government and assist the Government in rescuing the Hong Kong economy.

We know that the Finance Committee will consider the relief measures tomorrow, which include a wide range of schemes to support small and medium enterprises. Such measures are primarily initiated by FCs which put forth to make them better meet the needs of the business sector or the general public. When Hong Kong encounters difficulties, how should we save the financial industry? In fact, FC Members have offered plenty of advice and made a significant contribution. Certainly, when the economy went full steam ahead, we also contributed enormously in mapping out the future. Yet we would not openly claim credit for it. Sometimes my heart aches with sadness. No matter how much solid work we have done, some people will influence members of the public with some sort of sentiments through the media. Even if we have done a hundred good things, they may pick a couple of things to defame us, and we will be doomed 

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kin-por, I remind you to please come back to the question of this debate

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Okay. Just now, I have been speaking on the Bill as to the amendments introduced to FCs. A number of Members have expressed their views earlier on. I would also like to talk further about my views on the amendments to FCs, with your indulgence, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2575

Let me pick up where I left off. Apart from the financial sector, the Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape sector, as one of the professional sectors, has actually put in a great deal of efforts, and the untiring and conscientious work of Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok in the Public Works Subcommittee is seen by all.

I appreciate the contribution of directly elected Members in monitoring the Government and reflecting public opinion. But given the slow development of political parties, they may be well versed in political affairs with a total lack of experience and interest in financial and economic affairs. Hence, the balance in the Council largely hinges on the participation of FCs. Regrettably, for political reasons, the opposition camp will only keep attacking FCs, unwilling to give them a fair deal.

President, I notice that at a meeting of the Bills Committee, some Members have stated that no changes can be made to FC seats as the existing method for forming the Legislative Council as prescribed in the Annex to the Basic Law cannot be amended at present. But the Government can still broaden the electorate of FCs by way of legislation to enhance representativeness. I actually suggested in the last Legislative Council a review of the composition of FCs. Regrettably, as the opposition camp called for complete abolition instead of a patchy fix, the Government did not take on board my view.

I concur that as a prerequisite, the broadening of the electorate must be premised on genuine FCs, with functional sectors rather than employees or practitioners as the core. For instance, the nine new functional constituencies introduced by Christopher PATTEN back in those days were basically occupation specific, and I think they were merely nominal. I hope the Government will also understand that. Certainly, in this last year of the term, I know that there is not much room left to deal with this issue now. But Members should understand that FCs function as an avenue for the business sector to express views on government policies, thereby facilitating the introduction of effective and practical measures by the Government to bring about appropriate economic development for Hong Kong.

Moreover, the current Bill proposes to raise the limits prescribed for minor errors or omissions in election returns under the de minimis arrangement from $3,000 to $30,000 for geographical constituencies, and from $500 to $5,000 for traditional FCs, so as to facilitate candidates in rectifying election returns with 2576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 minor errors or omissions. I think the increases, insignificant though, are relevant. In fact, a number of Honourable colleagues and me have been investigated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") due to some minor errors or omissions. But no action would be taken after investigation, and the cases would be disposed only with a warning issued. As far as I know, such cases have occurred from time to time.

Take the 2012 Legislative Council Election as an example. ICAC investigated a total of 140 candidates whose election returns contained errors or false statements (including suspected false statements). Consequently, no one was prosecuted or cautioned after investigation, and the cases were disposed with a warning issued in accordance with procedures, with a reminder against recurrence. Such cases were even more common in District Council elections. Some 560 candidates in total were investigated under similar circumstances, and consequently, no one was prosecuted either. I think the Government can put its time to better use. But certainly, I consider it a great leap forward from the past practice. It is entirely appropriate to introduce a tenfold increase to the relevant limits.

Nevertheless, I hope the Bill introduced by the Government will not just deal with minor issues. Instead, it should focus on the broad principles and deal with situations that will lead to distorted elections with, among others, the help of technologies, as stated by me just now, to enhance the accuracy of voting and reduce corrupt and illegal conduct in the election process. Those are significant matters. I hope the Government can commit resources to enhancing the credibility of the results of direct elections and FC elections of the Legislative Council to be held next year, so that people will feel better assured. This time around, many people told me that while they clearly saw a high turnout supporting certain candidates, the outcome was contrary to expectation. I also hope the Government will gather information about various allegations, suspicions and rumours in the community surrounding the elections this time around, then clarify them one by one, and make improvements. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2577

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, before all else, I wish to thank the Chairman, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, and members of the Bills Committee on Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bills Committee") for the smooth completion of the scrutiny of the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). I will first speak briefly on the content of the Bill and give some explanations and responses to the views expressed by Members during the scrutiny by the Bills Committee and the debate just now. Finally, I will briefly explain the Committee stage amendment to be proposed by the Government.

Thirty-five Members in total have spoken during the resumed Second Reading debate on the Bill. Some Members talked about the Bill. Quite a few Members also commented on the electoral arrangements, in particular those for the District Council Ordinary Election just passed. I thank all of them for their views.

First of all, in respect of the content of the Bill, we propose, by means of the Bill, to introduce the necessary technical legislative amendments for the 2020 Legislative Council General Election and other public elections, including technical amendments concerning the electorate of the functional constituencies ("FCs"), the arrangements in the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (Cap. 554) ("ECICO"), as well as various electoral procedures. These proposed amendments are set out in detail in paragraphs 3 to 9 of the Legislative Council Brief.

In respect of the electorate of the FCs, in pursuance of the established practice and having consulted the relevant bureaux/departments, we propose in the Bill to make a series of necessary technical amendments in relation to the delineation of the electorate of the FCs under the Legislative Council Ordinance ("LCO") while maintaining the original delineation of the FCs. The proposed amendments include: first, updating the names of corporates that have had their names changed; second, removing corporates which have ceased operation; and third, adding new electors to bring the FCs up to date to the prevailing situation. In the light of the aforementioned technical changes, we also propose that consequential amendments be made to the Schedule to the Chief Executive Election Ordinance (Cap. 569) to reflect the corresponding changes to the electorate of the relevant Election Committee ("EC") subsector.

2578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

On the other hand, we hope to take this opportunity to make some technical amendments in respect of the Legislative Council Election and other public elections with a view to improving the electoral arrangements. First, we propose to improve the method for submitting nomination forms for the candidates for geographical constituencies or the District Council (Second) Functional Constituency of the Legislative Council Election by allowing them to submit the nomination form in a way authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer. Moreover, we propose to follow the new requirement of Hongkong Post ("HKPost") in respect of its postage structure adopted since 2016 and update the requirement on the size of postage-free letters in future elections.

Last, having reviewed certain arrangements under ECICO, we set out three proposals: first, raising the limits for minor errors for different elections so as to facilitate candidates in rectifying the minor errors or omissions in their election returns; second, raising the threshold for submission of invoices and receipts from $100 to $500 for all public elections; third, extending the deadline for submitting election return for the Chief Executive Election from 30 days to 60 days, in line with that for the Legislative Council Election.

President, in the course of scrutiny by the Bills Committee and also during the debate yesterday and today, Members have given many views on the Bill itself. I will now give my responses to them.

For starters, this legislative amendment exercise is technical in nature and was undertaken after a review. As some Members pointed out, after assuming office, I lost no time in taking the initiative to meet with some corporates which had participated in elections, learning about their experience as end-users as well as participants and identifying areas for want of improvement, with a view to making the relevant legislative amendments that would address their concerns and improve the electoral arrangements to, hopefully, facilitate the relevant work of candidates or agents. Hence, while on the face of it, no major policy changes are proposed in the Bill―for the amendment is indeed technical in nature―the proposals are helpful in the practical sense.

Meanwhile, some improvement proposals can be implemented through administrative measures or other approaches, rather than by way of legislative amendment alone. Hence, there are far more improvement measures in practice than a cursory look at the Bill, which has only a few items, would have presented. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2579

Our attitude is to offer as much facilitation to candidates or agents as possible while upholding the principle of making sure that elections would be carried out in a fair and honest manner.

Besides, we also pay close attention to changes in circumstances and make timely responses. For example, in the last election or over the last few months, the issues of personal privacy or doxxing have emerged as a concern. According to past practices, we would state the residential addresses of candidates in the relevant Gazette. In the light of the concerns of some candidates about such a practice, we have made timely adjustments by amending the relevant subsidiary legislation through the Legislative Council and replacing the requirement of disclosing the "principal residential address" with "address" in the gazette notice, so as to respond to their concerns. It is thus evident that we have made timely responses in this respect.

Moreover, in the course of this legislative exercise, we paid attention not just to the content of the legislative amendment, but most certainly to the enforcement situation as well. I heard Members mention today as well as yesterday that the improvements made to the legislation notwithstanding, we should be mindful of the aspect of enforcement. For instance, in respect of letter sizes, it seemed both logical and reasonable to make amendments that seek to comply with the new postage structure adopted by HKPost since 2016. Yet, it is certainly necessary to pay attention to the implementation details when letters are actually posted, or the position of letter openings. I thank Members for sharing their personal experience. We will most certainly be more mindful about the enforcement.

Furthermore, in respect of electoral arrangements, some Members suggested a wider adoption of electronic means to reduce human processing. It is in fact the direction in which we are making endeavours. We have looked into electronic counting and the electronization of the handling of various procedures. For instance, will it be speedier and more effective to disseminate information electronically? Yet, when consulted about the use of electronic methods or technologies, Members of different political parties and groupings expressed concern about the trustworthiness and reliability of such technologies, to where the data would be transmitted, and various other issues such a change would engender. At the end of the day, it boils down to the issue of trust. It is certainly necessary for us to put in place checks in the system and the arrangements so as to provide a degree of assurance to the public. All in all, it is 2580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 most certainly our direction to speed up and improve the procedures through electronization and technologies. That said, even in the case of human processing, there will hopefully be appropriate checks put in place―for example, the procedure of "marking" following the verification of identity must be undertaken by two polling staff on site simultaneously―to minimize errors. We will take into account all these issues in making arrangements in future.

In respect of the content of the Bill, some Members asked which bodies should be included in an FC and what was the mechanism involved. Our established practice is that, before each Legislative Council general election, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau would conduct a review of the delineation of the electorate of all FCs under LCO in consultation with the relevant bureaux/departments. In the same vein, this review was conducted on the basis of the existing electorate and with regard to all relevant requests, including those for inclusion in FCs as umbrella organizations or specified bodies, submitted since the last review in 2015.

In considering a request for inclusion into an FC made by an individual body, we will consult the relevant bureaux/departments and draw reference from various applicable factors, such as the representativeness as well as the degree of contribution and activity of the body in the sector concerned. On the premise of basically maintaining the original delineation of the electorate of the FCs, we will add new electors in the light of the prevailing situation of the FCs concerned.

Individual bodies/persons who wish to join an FC as umbrella organizations or specified bodies or make suggestions on expanding the electorate of FCs may do so in writing to the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. We will, in accordance with the established practice, consult the relevant bureaux/departments about such requests before each Legislative Council general election.

Moreover, some Members raised the issue of "substantial connection". The eligibility criteria for a person being nominated as a candidate in an election for a Legislative Council FC has been clearly set out in LCO. The relevant provision stipulates that a person intending to stand in the election should be registered and eligible to be registered as an elector for the FC concerned (with the exception of District Council (Second) Functional Constituency), or satisfies the Returning Officer for the FC concerned that he/she has substantial connection with that FC. Besides, the provision also stipulates that in order for a person to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2581 become a candidate in an election for an FC, he/she, in addition to being a registered geographical constituency elector, must satisfy the restrictions on age, nationality and year of residence in Hong Kong for candidates as laid down in the provision. Section 3(2)(b) of LCO has elaborated on the circumstances in which a person has a "substantial connection" with an FC, including but not limited to being a member, partner, officer or employee of a corporate elector of the FC, or a corporate member of such a corporate elector; or belonging to a class of persons specified as being electors of the FC.

As for whether a person running in the election has a substantial connection with the FC concerned, it would depend on the actual circumstances of each case. In accordance with section 42A of LCO and section 16 of the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Legislative Council) Regulation, whether a candidate's nomination is valid or not is determined by the Returning Officer according to the legal requirements and relevant procedures. Depending on the actual circumstances of each case, the Returning Officer may seek legal advice from the Nomination Advisory Committee and may, where necessary, require the candidate to furnish additional information that he/she considers appropriate, so as to satisfy himself/herself as to the eligibility of the candidate or the validity of the nomination. The Returning Officer shall, in accordance with the law and having considered the relevant information, decide whether or not a person is validly nominated as a candidate.

Some Members queried why some individual bodies were not included in their FCs despite having submitted their applications for quite a while. The policy purpose of the Bill we introduced this time around does not include making substantive changes to the electorate of FCs. As set out clearly in its long title, the Bill seeks to make technical amendments concerning the lists of persons comprising certain Legislative Council FCs and an EC subsector.

The inclusion of a certain trade association in a particular FC as an umbrella organization would involve a significant change to the electorate of the FC concerned and fall outside the scope of the Bill. When the need to deal with non-technical amendments arises in the future, we will consult the relevant policy bureaux/departments in accordance with the established procedures.

In the meanwhile, we have taken on board some suggestions by making adjustments to the limits for minor errors or omissions and the threshold for receipts. ECICO provides for a simplified relief mechanism, i.e., de minimis 2582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 arrangement, for handling election returns with minor errors or omissions. Given that the limits prescribed for rectifying minor errors have not been revised since the de minimis arrangement was introduced in 2011 despite upward adjustments of the election expense limits in the interim, we propose to raise the limits for various elections to provide convenience for candidates. This time around, we also revise the threshold for submission of invoices and receipts from $100 to $500 for all public elections. Subject to the Bill being passed in the meeting today, gazettal can be made next Friday, on 6 December. The relevant amendments will then be applicable to the election returns for the 2019 District Council General Election ("the DC Election")―the submission deadline of which is 29 December―that are submitted after the gazette date.

Some Members mentioned that the amendments in this Bill are purely technical in nature, with no references being made to either any substantial changes in the electorate of FCs or the election of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. As Members all know, the selection of the Chief Executive and the election of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage is enshrined as an ultimate aim in the Basic Law. As a matter of fact, according to the relevant decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC"), after the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, the election of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may also be implemented by universal suffrage. Hence, at an appropriate time prior to the election of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage, the Chief Executive elected by universal suffrage shall submit a report to NPCSC in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Basic Law and the relevant interpretation made by NPCSC as regards the issue of amending the method for forming the Legislative Council. A determination thereon shall be made by NPCSC. In other words, we shall first implement the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage before the Chief Executive selected by universal suffrage and the Special Administrative Region Government under his/her leadership can take forward the method for electing all the Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. Given the clear provisions made in the Basic Law and by NPCSC, we must deal with such an issue in accordance with the constitutional arrangement.

As a matter of fact, in 2015, the Government took the initiative to proactively introduce a proposal on the method of selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, which was presented to the Legislative Council after extensive consultation. Unfortunately, the proposal fell through in not obtaining the support and endorsement by a two-thirds majority of all Members. The proposal was ultimately not enacted into law and implemented. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2583

There was once a time when we were getting very close to selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. Yet, with the events that have occurred since 2015 and the strife and conflicts that have emerged in society, are we now getting closer or farther away from selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage? I believe Members will pass their own judgments. But what remains unchanged is that the selection of the Chief Executive, and subsequently the election of the Legislative Council, by universal suffrage is enshrined as an ultimate aim in the Basic Law, an aim for which we should strive together. The success of achieving such a goal is certainly contingent upon a return to the most fundamental aspect of our constitutional order―"one country, two systems" in which the implementation of "two systems" is founded and premised on "one country". Hence, there must be adequate understanding, awareness and consensus on such key constitutional order and bases in society. Without such bases, it would be extremely difficult for a discussion on such a controversial topic as constitutional reform packages. On the other hand, the issue can only be worked out with the support of two thirds of the Members of the Legislative Council. Given that the issue of constitutional reform is so very controversial and entails NPCSC endorsement, it is indeed not hard to imagine the difficulties of achieving the aim if Members discuss the matter in the Legislative Council while maintaining no bases of communication with the Mainland and the officials of the Central Government. I believe it is only by first focusing on the most fundamental and basic issue that we can move towards the goal of selecting the Chief Executive and electing all Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage as enshrined in the Basic Law.

President, at the meetings of the Bills Committee, some Members suggested broadening the electorate of individual FCs. As I said just now, following the established practice, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau would, before each Legislative Council general election, conduct a review of the delineation of the electorate of the FCs under LCO in consultation with the relevant bureaux/departments. This time was no different. We already explained to the Bills Committee that, in the absence of adequate support in society and before a clear consensus is reached within the various FCs, the purpose of the Bill is limited to making technical amendments to the existing electorate of FCs. As in the past, we would notify the relevant individual bodies of the results upon conclusion of the relevant legislative exercise.

2584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

President, in the past two days, some Members talked about electoral arrangements, particularly those concerning the Election just held on 24 November. As I said just now, this DC Election was in fact an extraordinary election, as we were confronted with challenges of an unprecedented scale. We also fully appreciated that the DC Election was conducted amid great social upheavals and a profusion of violent acts, with the offices of DC members vandalized and candidates and their supporters intimidated. Despite such difficult times, the DC Election was held more or less successfully on 24 November. The Electoral Affairs Commission ("EAC") will certainly pay special heed to the actual problems observed by Members during the DC Election and the views given by them. According to section 8(1) of the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance, EAC shall, within three months of the conclusion of the DC Election, submit a report to the Chief Executive to review the electoral arrangements, including its preparatory work, polling and counting arrangements, publicity, and make recommendations with a view to enhancing the electoral arrangements of future elections.

In the course of making preparations for the DC Election, we had to set up more than 600 polling stations and mobilize over 20 000 polling staff. There was room for improvement in such respects as identifying venues, overcoming the limitations of the venues, recruitment and training of polling staff and formulation of operational guidelines. The DC Election was particularly remarkable for its extremely high turnout rate. The number of electors processed in the morning of the polling day more than doubled compared to the same period of the previous-term election held in 2015, bearing testimony to the enormous workload. Members mentioned the issue of queuing, questioning why elderly electors and electors with disabilities or mobility difficulties were not processed separately or afforded other special arrangements. In the polling stations that day, electors were sorted by the letters of their identification card numbers. If a line designated for a particular batch of electors stood empty, electors with the relevant identity card letters could be arranged to proceed straight to the issuing desks, as a way of maximizing the usage and efficiency of issuing desks. Where the situation of venues permitted, arrangements could be made, when necessary, for elderly electors and electors with disabilities to rest inside polling stations and wait for their turn before proceeding to the issuing tables to obtain ballots. In any case, EAC will conduct a review of the relevant arrangements to see if there is room for improvement. Meanwhile, EAC will also look into the allegation of repeated queuing, the prevalence and ramifications LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2585 of such actions, and the vote counting arrangements. In organizing the DC Election, we had strengthened security and stepped up the deployment of manpower from the Police, the Civil Aid Service and outside security companies. After all, the DC Election, held in the midst of considerable upheavals and strife in society, had faced enormous challenges.

Moreover, we will keep up our effort in disseminating information and clarifying rumours more proactively and speedily in future so as to prevent false information from spreading and affecting the reception of information by other people.

Some Members raised the issues relating to the total number of electors who had cast their votes and the number of invalid votes, while others highlighted instances of election results being reversed once some votes had been recounted. That may have something to do with the procedures. Presiding Officers would deal with questionable ballot papers separately during vote counting. It was only after those questionable ballot papers were dealt with by Presiding Officers that the number of votes obtained can be finalized. Hence, there might be misunderstandings arising in the process, which led to a poor grasp of the situation. Let us take a look at the relevant figures. Some 2.94 million electors in total cast votes in the DC Election. There were around 12 000 ballot papers not to be counted, accounting for 0.41% of the total. Whereas in the case of the 2015 District Council General Election, there were over 21 400 ballot papers not to be counted, representing 1.49% of a total of some 1.46 million electors who had cast votes. It can thus be seen that the circumstances of the two elections were different.

As I said just now, in respect of the various arrangements pertaining to the DC Election, the Election Affair Office and EAC will take follow-up actions as follows: first, handling the complaints received; second, in accordance with the statutory requirement, submitting a report to the Chief Executive within three months to review the electoral arrangements, including its preparatory work, polling and accounting arrangements, publicity, and make recommendations to enhance the electoral arrangements of future elections. We will review in earnest the electoral arrangements of the DC Election and consolidate the experience gained from various aspects so that proper preparations can be made for the Legislative Council General Election next year.

2586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

President, about the Committee stage amendment, in the light of the recommendation made by the Legal Adviser to the Bills Committee, we will shortly move a slight textual amendment to the long title of the Bill.

President, I move the Second Reading of the Bill and hope Members will support its passage.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 be read the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019.

Council became committee of the whole Council.

Consideration by Committee of the Whole Council

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council now becomes committee of the whole Council to consider the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2587

ELECTORAL LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 2019

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs will move a textual amendment to the English text of the long title.

Committee will conduct a joint debate on the clauses and the amendment.

I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 to 23.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members may now proceed to a joint debate on the clauses and the amendment to the long title.

I will first call upon the Secretary to speak, but he is not required to move his amendment at this stage. Then I will call upon other Members to speak.

Upon the conclusion of the joint debate, committee will first vote on the clauses standing part of the Bill, and then deal with the Secretary's amendment to the long title.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Chairman, taking into account of the suggestion of the Assistant Legal Adviser to the Bills Committee, we propose to make a slight textual amendment to the long title of the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 in the English text, such that the wording of the long title aligns with that of other ordinances making miscellaneous amendments to the electoral legislation.

We have submitted the said amendment to the Bills Committee earlier. I implore Members to support the said amendment.

Thank you, Chairman.

2588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): Chairman, I now speak on the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), and I will talk about the factors which I have considered in determining whether I will support the various provisions standing part of the Bill.

The Government will introduce some technical amendments to the relevant existing legislation, including the Legislative Council Ordinance ("LCO"), the District Councils Ordinance, the Rural Representative Election Ordinance, etc., before each large-scale election. The Bill under debate today seeks to amend the existing LCO, the Chief Executive Election Ordinance and a number of regulations in relation to Election Committee ("EC") elections in respect of the Legislative Council General Election to be held in September next year, as well as the EC Subsector Elections and the Chief Executive Election to be held in 2021 and 2022 respectively. I believe the rationale behind these amendments is to ensure that the elections will be smoothly and effectively conducted in a fairer and more just manner.

As a number of Honourable Members have pointed out during the Second Reading debate, there have been many acts defeating the fairness and justice of an election, or even seriously unlawful acts of election violence during the District Council Election held recently. It is understandable that the provisions in the Bill have not dealt with the relevant issues since, when the Bill was drafted and presented to the Legislative Council for scrutiny, the relevant unlawful violent acts had not yet taken place, or had not escalated to such a serious level in that people were less unscrupulous.

Notwithstanding this, when deciding whether I will support the individual provisions standing part of the Bill, apart from considering the content of the relevant provisions and the pros and cons of their drafting and wording, I also have to examine if the Government has addressed squarely and followed up on the various problems that have come to light in the recent District Council Election, and to see if the Secretary has responded positively to the concerns voiced by Members, and whether he has undertaken to expeditiously implement effective remedial and improvement measures in future legislative amendment exercises, administrative arrangements, law enforcement actions, etc.

The Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs spoke for almost 30 minutes in the Second Reading debate just now, during which he mainly explained that this legislative amendment exercise involves technical amendments. In the past two days, Honourable Members have put forward LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2589 views on the problems brought to light in the recent District Council Election, and the Secretary has also given his response positively. I welcome this, and it also reflects that the Secretary has adopted a pragmatic approach in dealing with the relevant issues.

Chairman, now I would like to discuss clauses 3 to 12 of the Bill which are all related to the updating of the list of corporates of some functional constituencies ("FCs") in the Legislative Council and EC subsectors, including the modification of the Chinese and English names of a number of corporates, removal of some corporates which have ceased operation, etc.

The electorate composition of the Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape FC that I represent, despite its comparatively long and complicated name, is relatively simple, clear and strict. Only eight categories of persons are eligible to register as voters, and they include architects, landscape architects, professional surveyors and professional planners registered under the relevant legislation, as well as members entitled to vote at general meetings of the four professional institutes of the architectural, surveying, planning and landscape fields.

Yet, the electorate composition of some FCs is quite complicated, and there have long been some obviously unreasonable problems that might undermine the representativeness and legitimacy of the relevant FCs. For instance, the FC represented by Mr MA Fung-kwok, my colleague in G6 (the "Group of Six"), is known as the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication Constituency, the length of its name is comparable to that of the FC to which I belong. He pointed out during the Second Reading debate that it turns out that individual chambers of commerce and associations with a long history and profound importance in the sectors are ineligible to register as electors of the constituency in Legislative Council and EC elections. Whilst clause 9 of the Bill introduces amendments to the electorate composition of the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication Constituency, all such amendments only involve modification to the Chinese and English names of the existing corporates, and they have not addressed issues of the greatest concern shared by Mr MA Fung-kwok and his sectors.

In addition, clause 8 of the Bill introduces amendments to the electorate composition of the Transport Constituency to add five corporates to the shipping and transport sectors and delete five existing corporates at the same time, as if it is a "one-for-one replacement". I wonder if it is the principle on which the 2590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 authorities deal with the addition or removal of corporates in respect of FCs? The Peak Tramways Company Limited ("PTC") is one of the corporates being removed. It is learnt that the authorities consider that the Peak Tram is not a public transportation service, but a tourism infrastructure instead. Yet, as PTC is not a licensed tourist guide or travel agent, it is ineligible to register as an elector of the Tourism Constituency. Nevertheless, actually not only travellers would take the Peak Tram, but some residents living on the Peak would also use the Peak Tram as a daily means of transport. Is such a change fair and reasonable? I hope the Secretary will do some explaining later on.

Another point is that some FCs do not vote on a "one-organization, one-vote" basis, but individual members or members of the branches of the relevant corporates in the sectors are eligible to register as voters and electors of FCs. Take the Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape Constituency that I represent as an example again, the membership of this FC is very stringent, and basically only those holding a licence and the professional qualifications, or those retired senior members who have held a licence before are entitled to vote at general meetings of the four professional institutes and are thus eligible to register as voters of the FC. Notwithstanding this, the requirements are relatively less stringent in some FCs and, therefore, it has given rise to misgivings about vote-rigging.

We are well aware that some of these problems have arisen in the Information Technology Constituency, including the indiscriminate admission of members, modifications to the constitution of associations near the deadline for voter registration, substantial reduction or even exemption of membership fees to purposefully admit a large number of new members, with a view to increasing the number of individuals eligible to register as voters of the FC. Legal proceedings in relation to some of these cases have already been set in motion. It is much easier to influence the election results through such practices than introducing amendments to the principal legislation to add or remove specified corporates of FCs, and there are also higher chances of unfair elections happening.

Do the authorities have any mechanism in place to monitor and examine these suspected acts of vote-rigging by modifying wantonly the constitution of associations and admitting members indiscriminately? Have they required all corporates of FCs to take the initiative to report the relevant changes and modifications? Or they have to wait until the election is over and would only deal with them when people have questioned unjust situations and made complaints as well as election petitions? I hope to hear the Secretary's response on this. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2591

In the meanwhile, clauses 14 to 16 of the Bill amend the deadline for candidates to lodge election returns and the limits for reporting election expenses, including raising the statutory upper limits prescribed for rectifying minor errors or omissions in election expenses under the de minimis arrangement from $200 to $5,000 at present to $600 to $50 000, as well as raising the threshold for candidates to submit invoices and receipts of election expenses from $100 presently to $500. I will support the relevant amendments.

Many Honourable colleagues have also shared their experience of committing omissions or errors when reporting election expenses, the mistakes of which might merely involve a few dollars, dozens of cents or even a few cents. But it would then require the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") to take the trouble of making enquiries and requesting the candidates to spend a vast amount of manpower, resources and time to rectify such mistakes. I have also once spent a good deal of time on writing to the Registration and Electoral Office ("REO") and explaining my case specifically for I could not find a receipt for purchase of some stamps worthing less than $3. Chairman, I think the amendments in this respect are pragmatic and necessary. In view of this, as I have pointed out just now, I will support the relevant amendments.

In addition to the reporting of election expenses, it is even more complicated to report on election advertisements, as it must be processed every day. The candidates have to report to REO within 24 hours on such matters as where they have set up street booths every day, how many election leaflets they have distributed, even whether they have worn outerwear with the name and number of the candidates printed on them, etc. These tasks are very tedious and complicated. As expressed in my earlier remarks, I hope the Secretary can take our views into consideration, since all of us hold that it might not be worthwhile to expend resources on such tasks.

In addition to reviewing and raising from time to time the thresholds for reporting election expenses, should the authorities not undertake a more thorough reform of the system to fully relax the restrictions on election expenses and election advertisements as well as the vetting procedures of the returns, so that ICAC and REO can focus their manpower on dealing with other issues that stand a high chance of undermining the fairness and justice of an election? I think all of these are worth considering.

2592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

Chairman, clauses 20 to 23 of the Bill introduce amendments to the size and dimension of the publicity materials for which free postage service is offered to the candidates, from not larger than 175 mm x 245 mm in the past to not larger than 165 mm x 245 mm, thereby amounting to a reduction of 2 450 sq mm in terms of area. Among such clauses, the thickness of the publicity materials is prescribed for the very first time that they must not exceed 5 mm in thickness. Otherwise, the Hongkong Post will not deliver such publicity materials for the candidates for free.

Chairman, we would know how thick 1 mm is if we take a look at a ruler, it is actually very tiny. Now that we are also required to calculate the thickness of the publicity materials, I believe the work in this respect will be quite complicated and tedious. I reckon that the staff of the post offices should have some methods or they will use some sort of instrument for measurement, since 1 mm is very tiny, whilst 5 mm is a little bit thicker. In regard to measurement, I wonder if there will be any complementary measures in the future; I believe there should be some. Honourable Members also mentioned at an earlier time that they were forced to throw away all the printed publicity materials due to a minor discrepancy of 1 mm or 2 mm in size compared with the dimensions specified by the authorities. In addition, we all know that mail delivery is time-bound and this might even render the candidates missing the opportunity of having their publicity materials posted free of charge.

Chairman, being a professional, I understand that we must deal with matters in accordance with rules and regulations and in compliance with the standards. Despite this, can the authorities apply some flexibility when enforcing the requirements in this aspect? Under the principle of not compromising the fairness and justice of an election, the relevant officers can be given a certain degree of discretionary power, so that they can minimize unnecessary disputes when dealing with this issue, so as to avoid wasting a great deal of resources. In this way, candidates will feel less indignation as well. I hope that the Secretary will bring these messages back to his office. As the Secretary said just now, it does not warrant legislative amendments to deal with some of the problems, for we can do better simply through administrative measures.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2593

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): In the Committee stage, I only wish to ask the Secretary a question. If it is said that we should look ahead, what we have seen is the Government having time and again refused to implement democratic elections of universal suffrage. Even for the proposal on the abolition of functional constituencies ("FCs") that has been put forward over the years, the Government has repeatedly dismissed it on the excuse that there has yet been a consensus in society and refused to do anything to this end. However, the public opinions cannot be clearer. What I mean is not only the results of the DC Election. The fact is that the results of opinion polls conducted over the years have shown that the abolition of FCs is a must and yet, the Secretary has told us that this is not the opportune time as a consensus has not been forged.

Regarding this Bill today, as far as I understand it, the Government will introduce amendments to it on a regular basis. It will propose amendments almost in every term. I have talked to FC Members in the pro-democracy camp, and they said that it was very difficult whenever they requested the Secretary to add just one more meeting, and even the pro-establishment Members had asked the Secretary to add just one more meeting. But why was it so difficult? As such, we will ask: Is the Government unwilling to make even a tiny change? When an FC has only a few thousand electors and the Government is eventually unwilling even to slightly increase the number of electors, then I would consider this hardly convincing.

Take the Wholesale and Retail FC with which I am more familiar as an example. Members can see that currently there are a total of 80-odd trade associations, and many of them are actually uncontactable because some people have already retired. Since Mr SHIU Ka-fai has spoken quite a lot on the situation of the tobacco and wine industries, let me also talk about cigarettes and wine with him, as I have recently developed an interest in conducting discussions with people who bear relevance to the subject matter in question.

Insofar as the tobacco trade is concerned, many people have been talking about electronic cigarettes. The Legislative Council is also scrutinizing a Bill on electronic cigarettes because the current-term Government very much wishes to impose a ban on electronic cigarettes. To us directly-elected Members, or even to many parents or members of the education sector―I can be taken as a member of the education sector―we have all pointed out that smoking is hazardous to health. I myself will also say that smoking is hazardous to health but I think we must not go so far as to drive people out of business.

2594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

I oppose banning electronic cigarettes. An organization known as the Hong Kong VAPE Association has been set up now. Even for conventional tobacco companies, their mainstream operation is not conducted through the specified trade association in the respective FC. Rather, they now use another platform to carry out advocacy work in the industry. Members of the public who are now watching the live broadcast of this meeting may now know that in this FC, it is specified that members of the tobacco trade join the FC through the Tobacco Association of Hong Kong Limited. But as far as I understand it, even if conventional tobacco companies wish to put forward some advocacies, they do it not through this association but through other platforms. Then how can this FC be representative of the industry? Should the Government not conduct a review to find out what trade associations are actually active in the industry now before introducing amendments?

Let me turn to the wine trade. Of the 80-odd organizations, there is only the Hong Kong & Kowloon General Association of Liquor Dealers. If Members have been to various wine exhibitions, they will find many retailers and individual exhibitors there, and none of them belongs to this association. The situation is like "looking at the leopard through the tube" as one can only see its spots without having a full view of it. Added to this is that many members of the retail sector have not joined the trade associations. So how can it be representative of the trade?

Therefore, I have only one simple question. Can the Government give an undertaking to the people of Hong Kong that it will review the representativeness of the existing FCs and broaden the composition of their electorates for the next term? I am not talking about the abolition of FCs now. I am only asking whether the composition of their electorates can be broadened.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): Chairman, on the question of the clauses standing part of the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), I have the following views.

First, regarding the relaxation on the size requirements of letters to be sent free of postage proposed in the clause, as I stated in the beginning, it is acceptable to relax the size requirement. Yet, it is worth mentioning that certain Honourable colleagues, like Mr Tony TSE, have said earlier that even the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2595 measurement of 1 mm should be handled cautiously. Nonetheless, as it may have been mentioned in the Bill, the authorities should not spend too much time on enforcement in future and should avoid paying excessive attention to and focus on certain details. Otherwise, the enforcement will incur a lot of manpower and resources, which will not be cost-effective. Hence, I will surely support the relaxation of the size requirements of letters to be sent by mail, yet I hope that the enforcement will be handled appropriately.

Moreover, Chairman, the Bill also carries an amendment to the composition of certain FC electorates. I notice that there are some problems with this amendment. For instance, I notice that Mr MA Fung-kwok has requested the Administration at the meeting of the Bills Committee on the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 to reconsider including The Hong Kong Printers Association ("HKPA") in the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication Functional Constituency. His request seems to be reasonable. All along, HKPA has been regarded as not belonging to the Insurance Functional Constituency even though it had been registered as an elector of the Insurance Functional Constituency before 2016. In 2016, the Insurance Authority stopped granting HKPA the status of an authorized insurer, which means HKPA has since ceased being an elector of the Insurance Functional Constituency. Though HKPA represents a number of printing companies in Hong Kong …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW, I remind you that the committee of the whole Council is now examining an amendment to amend the English text of the long title and whether or not clauses 1 to 23 should stand part of the Bill. Members should focus on the discussion about that amendment and whether or not he or she supports the inclusion of the said clauses and refrain from discussing issues relating to the Second Reading or other matters. Please come back to the question of this debate.

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have to explain that since the clause makes particular mention that the inclusion of HKPA cannot be addressed, I raise the issue here to see if the Government will respond to it later on. If the Government does not do so, it may make me or certain members consider it rather difficult to support the inclusion of the clause in the absence of an undertaking. Hence, I would like to make my point first and listen to the response of the Government shortly. Yet, I will make it brief.

2596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

HKPA represents many printing companies in Hong Kong and it has been supporting the development of the cultural and creative industries all along. Yet, it is ineligible to be an elector in any FC now. I notice that Mr MA Fung-kwok has repeatedly requested the authorities to consider the request made by HKPA in the past couple of years to include it into the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication Functional Constituency. Hence, I hope the SAR Government and the Secretary will respond shortly and tell us whether it will undertake to consider this opinion in the context of future provisions. This approach also involves the electorate of the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication Functional Constituency, to which suitable changes should be introduced. I think it is unreasonable that they are excluded. Hence, I wish to express this opinion here.

Moreover, among the clauses to be included, I particularly note the relaxation on the declaration of expenses mentioned this time around, where the threshold for the submission of invoices and receipts increase from $100 to $500. Regarding this clause standing part of the Bill, I certainly consider it reasonable. Yet, I would like to say that apart from the raise in threshold for election returns on expenses, that is, in the handling of minor changes involving an amount as trivial as a few dollars to dozens of dollars, the Bureau should heed Mr Tony TSE's remarks by avoiding too many lengthy follow-up processes and the involvement of law enforcement agencies in cases involving just several dollars or dozens of dollars. Frankly, in such an event, it will be extremely unreasonable and not cost-effective. I hope the Secretary will tell Members shortly in his reply that apart from raising the threshold for declaration of election expenses, whether or not suitable flexibility will be applied in handling election expense declarations in future, so that the authorities will not involve excessive resources and complicated and lengthy processes for trivial errors or mistakes merely involving several dollars. This will only be a waste of money, manpower and resources.

Lastly, Chairman, I wish to point out that the inclusion of clauses 1 to 23 as part of the Bill this time around has failed to examine the fairness of the voting arrangement or the election as a whole and offer targeted measures. We do not see the SAR Government giving any regard to this aspect. We hope that the SAR Government and the Secretary will make some undertakings to Members in a more definite manner shortly, addressing all the unsuitable and unfair arrangements we have seen in the election just taken place, including the queuing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2597 up, the lack of special arrangements for the elderly who have to stand in a queue for over an hour, for we consider such arrangements most uncaring. Will the Secretary promise Members that these issues will be addressed in the future review?

I so submit.

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, now we have proceeded to the Committee stage. I actually support clauses 1 to 23 and the amendment to the long title. However, since I heard Mr AU Nok-hin mention issues relating to tobacco and wine just now, I would like to make a brief response.

Just now Mr AU Nok-him cited the example that tobacco traders may not necessarily raise their requests via CTA, one of the 85 trade associations. For example, certain large tobacco traders may approach Members direct for discussions without going through the trade association. There are such cases. What he said was not fabrication. In fact, individual tobacco traders may take the initiative to approach Members for discussions. Being the representative of the sector, I have experienced similar situations of individual tobacco traders and relevant trade associations approaching me for discussions.

However, I wish to point out that regarding the views I heard from an individual trader in the sector who approached me for discussions and those from a trade association representing the sector, I would actually handle them differently because the former was a company. It came to present its corporate views and interests―some might be the views of the sector. Comparing the former with the views raised by a tobacco trade association for the sector as a whole, my acceptance and consideration would be different. Therefore, simply put, in the example cited by me just now, if two different organizations approach me, I will actually take the views of the trade association as my ultimate arguments in lobbying the Government.

Mr AU also mentioned wine trade associations. Mr AU has put it right …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-fai, although I allowed Mr AU Nok-hin to talk about issues of tobacco and wine, he did stray from the question because such matters are not the subject of consideration in committee. Similarly, I allow you to speak on the issues of tobacco and wine, but please try 2598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 to be brief. I do not wish this debate to become one about tobacco and wine. Please come back to the question under debate in committee.

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): Right, thank you, Chairman. After responding to this point, I will end my speech and go back upstairs shortly. Regarding wine, Mr AU has also put it right. I know that among those 85 trade associations, the number of people from wine trade associations is in fact small, and there are only a couple of large trade associations out there. Nevertheless, wine traders from that couple of large trade associations have approached me too. I told them … A couple of large wine traders made such requests as reduction of duty on liquor. In fact, I would assist them in lobbying the Government upon the request of the trade associations. However, if individual wine traders approach me, frankly, I will make certain consideration because the interest considerations of individual companies are actually different from those of the sector as a whole.

Hence, I wish to particularly emphasize that Members returned by FCs represent trade associations in different sectors. For this reason, they have their value of existence. Thank you, Chairman.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I wish to add a couple of words. Our honourable friend Ka-fai is most correct in saying that when we enact an ordinance, it is most important to keep abreast of the times. This is not an era of having a single "main platform". Instead, it may be one with many "small platforms". The contents of legislation should also cater to the emergence of many different "small platforms". In other words, there are many different trade associations, and there may also be many different individual traders. How can the legislation be kept abreast of the times? It can be done by enlarging its representation.

I so submit.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2599

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary to speak again.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Chairman, I thank Members for their speeches at this stage. As pointed out by the Chairman, some contents of the speeches may not be closely related to the Committee stage amendment. Nevertheless, please let me make a brief response.

First, Mr Tony TSE mentioned the Peak Tramways Company Limited. As a matter of fact, in this exercise the company will be deleted from the Transport Functional Constituency at its own request because it wished to register as an elector in the Commercial (First) Functional Constituency. This request was supported by the relevant Policy Bureau, and therefore such a change is made.

Second, Mr TSE also mentioned that we should as far as possible avoid making the prescribed arrangements too cumbersome and complicated. In fact, I have to point out that the relevant arrangements in the electoral legislation often seem tedious. Such arrangements were described by some Members as "discouraging participation in election". Usually, a review was conducted after something had happened. It was considered necessary to tighten the relevant arrangements, so some rules were devised. Subsequently, the number of rules kept increasing. The screw became increasingly tight. Stringent and cumbersome procedures thus arose to prevent recurrence of the past problems.

Hence, where appropriate, we also need to slightly loosen the tightened screw to strike a balance. We certainly wish to exert every effort to ensure that elections are fair and honest with no malpractices or illegal activities. Yet on the other hand, we need to strike a balance. The arrangements cannot be too complicated and cumbersome to an extent of leading to disproportion between input and regulation. We reviewed the relevant arrangements based on this principle, listened to the views of stakeholders, especially candidates with experience in standing in elections, and came up with the amendment. For this reason, we propose adjusting the limits for minor errors or omissions.

Regarding the size of mail, just now Members mentioned that we may need to pay attention to certain details in implementation to avoid giving rise to greater problems, and whether there is room for further streamlining the procedures for 2600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 lodging or processing election returns. We will also handle it in accordance with the principle mentioned by me just now. When making technical amendments in future, we will follow the same principle. For example, relaxation of or adjustment to arrangements for election advertisements is also handled in accordance with this principle.

Besides, Mr Holden CHOW mentioned the Hong Kong Printers Association. As stated in my earlier speech, this Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 concerns technical amendments made on the premise that the electorate of FCs remains unchanged. For this reason, if an organization requests to join a certain constituency to become its elector, it will involve a substantial change which cannot be handled by the pure technical amendments on this occasion. In dealing with non-technical amendments in the future, we will consult the Policy Bureaux and departments concerned in accordance with the established procedures and then follow up on the relevant work.

Moreover, Mr AU mentioned FCs. As pointed out in my speech just now, first of all, the composition of the Legislative Council is a decision passed by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on 31 August 2014. According to this decision, the existing formation method for the Legislative Council as prescribed in Annex II to the Basic Law will not be amended. Hence, it is only after the Chief Executive is selected by universal suffrage that the Legislative Council election may be implemented by the method of electing all the Members by universal suffrage. We have all along worked in this direction. If any substantial change in the electorate of FCs is involved, we believe there will be a great controversy in society. We need to take stock of the situation. Given the serious disagreement and conflicts in society, is this actually a feasible approach? This warrants our careful examination.

Thank you, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee now first votes on the clauses standing part of the Bill. I now put the question to you and that is: That clauses 1 to 23 stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2601

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Long title.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee now votes on the amendment proposed by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs to the long title. Secretary, you may move your amendment.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my amendment to amend the long title.

Proposed amendment

Long title (See Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs be passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

2602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the amendment passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): All the proceedings on the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 have been concluded in committee of the whole Council. Council now resumes.

Council then resumed.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I now report to the Council: That the

Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 has been passed by committee of the whole Council with amendment. I move the motion that "This Council adopts the report".

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs be passed.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, this motion shall be voted on without amendment or debate.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2603

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.

Third Reading of Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill: Third Reading.

ELECTORAL LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 2019

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I move that the

Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 be read the Third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 be read the Third time and do pass.

Does any Member wish to speak?

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, we are now conducting the Third Reading debate on the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). Just now we already had a detailed discussion on the amendment concerning the electorate of certain functional constituencies ("FCs") in the Bill and expressed no objection. In my view, these are only piecemeal patch-ups. However, there are several technical issues which are also "miscellaneous" as mentioned in the title of the Bill. Members have untiringly raised them in two terms of the Legislative Council, but the authorities have not address them at all. Yet these are also technical issues relating to elections.

2604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

Regarding the first issue, we have repeatedly relayed that nowadays many elderly people are still strong and healthy. Even though some are already aged 80 to 90, they are still clear-headed and able to go polling by themselves. Yet they have dimmer eyesight. On each occasion, the authorities would send them a letter printed in very small fonts, requiring them to reply, or else they would lose the right to vote. We had raised this issue every year, but this year, there were still many such cases. Some elderly people realized only after arriving at the polling station that they could not vote because they did not read the letter carefully and reply to the letter. In this connection, we have all along queried whether it is necessary to require them to take the initiative to give a reply. In fact, the Government should already have a lot of information in hand. My greatest worry is that the Government is not the only one keeping a lot of information on hand because it has lost a large body of information on members of the public earlier. I have also proposed a motion debate on this before. It is impossible that the Government does not have such information and thus requires the elderly to give a reply, or else they will lose the right to vote. I consider it unfair.

There are many elderly people living alone in Hong Kong. If no volunteers or other people had contacted them, they would not know that they had to reply to this letter. Some elderly people told us that they actually did not know they had to give a reply. They just wished to go and cast votes. This year, there was still quite a number of such cases. How many votes of the elderly were lost on each occasion? They amounted to hundreds of thousands. For this reason, I think the Government must make improvement in this regard. This is a technical issue.

Secondly, such a situation was particularly common this year. Some children or relatives told the elderly that they did not want them to vote and even made them feel intimidated. They were well aware that the elderly would vote for candidates of the pro-establishment camp. They knew which candidate the elderly preferred because the candidate concerned had been serving in their district. Some elderly people even aired their grievances to us, saying that if they voted for this candidate, their children would not contribute family expenses. What could they do? Some elderly people said their children …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2605

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, let me remind you that Council is now having the Third Reading debate. Members should only state whether they support the Bill or not. Other matters irrelevant to the Bill should be followed up with the Government on other occasions. The general merits of the Bill should be discussed in the Second Reading debate, whereas individual clauses of and amendments to the Bill should be discussed at the Committee stage. Please come back to the question of this debate.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, actually, I have considered not supporting this Bill which I really find unsatisfactory. We have untiringly raised the relevant issues, talking about them from the last term to this term. Now this term is drawing to a close. Without considering our views at all, the authorities have stuck to the usual practice.

Come to think about it. Even the issues of the sector to which Mr MA Fung-kwok belongs have not been addressed by the authorities either. President, please allow me to speak briefly. What makes us feel dissatisfied is that we thought the Government had finally made an improvement, but it turned out that it had not. The problems remain not addressed. Hence, I hope that after listening to the debate over these two days, the Secretary will go back to his office and practically deal with this matter which is also a miscellaneous item.

President, please let me make two more points because they are very important. At present, we―today, it is all the more obvious―perhaps we are intervened not only by local forces. I have a personal experience. During the election period, every candidate should be able to send emails to promote themselves, but our account was blocked. The reply received after our complaint was that we had to wait for two weeks before we could send emails again. As such, we could not contact electors who would only receive mail in electronic form. Later, we learnt that some electors did not want to receive emails, but it was unfair because the electors themselves had provided the Registration and Electoral Office with their email addresses to enable candidates to send them campaign materials. There was no reason for them to complain. In this connection, I wish to ask the Government whether it can develop or acquire a system by itself. We really cannot do anything …

2606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, please come back to the question of this debate.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): I am finishing my speech very soon. Then, there is another point. In my geographical constituency in this election, it took me 10 minutes to drive to the polling station. This is an issue the authorities need to address. The Secretary has really got to improve it.

President, I can only speak briefly on the various changes during the Third Reading debate today. Please let me continue. I will only speak for a couple of minutes more. As mentioned by many Members today, some organizations have been included in the FCs, thereby expanding their electorate. But the problem is that many people, especially Members of the opposition camp, often find faults with FCs. I only wish to give the matter a fair deal. When Members of the opposition camp demonize FCs, I being a directly elected Member hold that we should reasonably look at the current structure of the Legislative Council. Should we completely negate the value of existence of FCs? In my opinion, in the present political situation in Hong Kong, if FCs are abolished, I am afraid Hong Kong will immediately be forced to "burn together". It has already been commented in foreign newspapers that the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act is "the beginning of death of Hong Kong".

In my opinion, there are many Members who have professional knowledge in FCs. We need to give them some time. In this regard, I wish to tell the opposition camp that if we are willing to prove that a certain middle-of-the-road proposal, that means the progressive proposal, so to speak, is feasible and superb, leading to top-notch democracy, no one will request that it be stopped. However, if, like what has happened now, a so-called direction of democracy which I consider villainous will emerge during times of election, given the present political situation in Hong Kong, I feel gravely concerned. That is why I wish to raise this point. I understand it. I myself also support the expeditious implementation of the ultimate aim prescribed in the Basic Law, i.e. universal suffrage for election of the Legislative Council. However, can we prove that we can achieve three major points, namely, mutual trust, empathy and mutual respect? It is only then that will we have the opportunity of making a breakthrough. Every step ahead will be practical proof of progress in our system and culture. We will not move backward and become an uncivilized society or one which even arbitrarily deprives us of freedom of speech. Members know LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2607 that I am exactly talking about the current worrying circumstances. Therefore, if the opposition camp still talks about constitutional reform, will they please call on members of the public to sever ties with violence, restore the rule of law, abide by the Basic Law and achieve their purpose through making legislative amendments relating to the electoral system.

President, I so submit.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, "five demands, not one less", and of these demands, the most important one is democratic universal suffrage. I do not understand why Dr Priscilla LEUNG would deny her own worth as a directly-elected Member. She considers that FCs are valuable and that they can provide professional opinions. Could it be that directly-elected Members have no professional opinions? Could it be that directly-elected Members do not have professional opinions and do not have the right ones?

(Dr Priscilla LEUNG indicated her wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, what is your point of order?

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I wish to make an elucidation.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LEUNG, please let Mr AU Nok-hin finish his speech and you can make a clarification later.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin said that I had denied my …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LEUNG, you cannot make a clarification now. Please sit down.

2608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Perhaps she is desperate to make an elucidation. Never mind. However, I only wish to say a few words. The problem with FCs is that if, in the world, there is a system which is adopted only by you, then you are either very smart or very outdated, and FCs in Hong Kong are exactly a case in point. This was what my teacher, MA Ngok, told me. He said that there was only one place in the world where one could find a system very similar to FCs, and it was Fascist Italy. That system was known as corporatism whereby specific interest groups would return their representatives to the parliamentary assembly and as a result, they would only fight for the insular interests of their groups, having no regard to the people in the whole country or people in the whole area …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, please come back to the question of this debate.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Alright. It is easy to come back to the question under debate. I have kept putting this question to the Secretary. He might as well tell us that he would kick-start the constitutional reform towards universal suffrage and we would move forward in this direction because this is all enshrined in the Basic Law. Even if we do not move forward in this direction, the broadening of the composition of FCs is what should be done. I do not think that Members are divided on this issue, and I have no objection to Mr MA Fung-kwok's proposal for adding members of the printing industry to the FC. If the Secretary is unwilling even to include more people in an FC, how can you convince us that this is gradual and orderly progress?

I so submit.

(Dr Priscilla LEUNG stood up and attempted to make an elucidation)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, what do you wish to clarify?

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): I make an elucidation under Rule 38(3) of the Rules of Procedure because Mr AU Nok-hin said just now that I had denied my own worth as a directly-elected Member. I wish to make it clear LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2609 that I have not denied my worth as a directly-elected Member. Had he listened to my speech carefully, he would have known that I was saying that given the present political landscape in Hong Kong, if we do not adopt the approach of gradual and orderly progress, the political stability in Hong Kong would probably be upset but if you can …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, you have made an elucidation already. Please do not extend the previous debate. Please sit down.

Mr Tony TSE, please speak.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 (" the Bill") has finally come to the stage of Third Reading. In the following, I would like to talk about my overall views on the Bill after the various clauses are incorporated into it and the amendment proposed by the Government is passed.

As I pointed out in my speeches in the Second Reading and committee, in deciding whether or not to support the Bill, the most important principle is whether the amendment can enhance fairness and impartiality in the coming Legislative Council Election, Election Committee Election and Chief Executive Election, and also whether, in respect of publicity and canvassing activities of candidates, registration and voting by voters, distribution and counting of votes by polling staff, and even candidates' declaration of election expenses after the election, the amendments will enable the process to be conducted more smoothly and efficiently.

A number of Members have pointed out that the Bill has proposed a number of technical amendments, and given that they are technical in nature, some people may think that they are just trivial patch-ups which cannot address the concerns of many Members, and I am, of course, not happy about this. Having said that, despite the view that the amendments are no more than trivial patch-ups, it is still better than turning a blind eye to the problems and doing nothing to deal with them. Certainly, President, in considering whether to support the Third Reading of the Bill, I will also consider the response made by the Secretary to Members' opinions, which may involve the details of the Bill or views put forward by some Members on other problems arising from it.

2610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

In fact, in his response today the Secretary has spent quite a long time making explanations and responded to most of the issues raised by Members. Meanwhile, the Secretary has also explained that it may not necessarily require legislative amendments to solve some problems and that it may be better to deal with them by administrative measures, for this may allow greater flexibility. As I said earlier on, some of the provisions, after being amended many times, have become very cumbersome or unrealistic. But as the Secretary has said, this can be compared to a screw; if the screw is driven too tightly, sometimes it has to be loosened a bit, and it is only pragmatic to do so.

But President, in my consideration, I think there is a point that concerns my sector and that is, in respect of the professional bodies in functional constituencies ("FCs"), when the Secretary gave a response to the requirement of having a "substantial connection", actually he only recited the existing legal provisions and copied them word for word without positively responding to the problem at all. I am not asking the authorities to abolish the "substantial connection" requirement for it is essential for many FCs, especially those with company or corporate votes. However, I think there is a problem mainly because some professional bodies in FCs have only individual votes and if a person cannot become an elector in an FC, how can he be allowed to become a candidate? If he were elected, he could then represent our sector and sit on the Legislative Council as our representative and cast votes. I think the Secretary has not addressed this problem positively. President, I raised this point because it is very important. I think a major principle of the amendment should be upholding fairness and impartiality, and my sector has strong opinions about this. In this connection, I hope that the Secretary will, as he just said, adopt a pragmatic attitude and consider giving effect to some of the suggestions and also study whether it is possible to make a greater effort in this respect. I hope that the authorities will review the "substantial connection" requirement and in particular, when the professional bodies in the FCs concerned have only individual votes, is this requirement appropriate? I hope the Secretary will look into these issues.

President, generally speaking, I support the Third Reading of the Bill. President, I so submit.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") has been passed by committee of the whole Council with amendment. I speak in support of the Third Reading. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2611

The purpose of the Bill is to introduce necessary technical amendments for the 2020 Legislative Council General Election and other public elections, with one of them being technical amendments concerning the electorate of the functional cconstituencies ("FCs"). Despite their nature as technical amendments, they will undoubtedly help ensure the conduct of elections in a fair, equitable and orderly manner. I believe various sectors of the community will basically agree to that.

President, the relevant amendments in the Bill have essentially reflected the status and functions of FCs in the existing constitutional system of Hong Kong, which are also issues of considerable concern to various sectors of the community, including members of the engineering sector and me. To give the matter its fair deal, FCs are vitally important to the economic development and social stability of Hong Kong. But regrettably, some in the community, including non-establishment Members of this Council, tend to mislead the public and malevolently belittle FC Members, opining that they, returned by small-circle elections, will only care for the interests of the industrial and commercial sectors, and so on. Such remarks are obviously unfair to the Members concerned and their respective constituencies, and will improperly affect how the general public perceive the relevant legislation of Hong Kong and the Bill.

Take for instance the engineering sector in which I serve. Any person who is a professional engineer registered under the Engineers Registration Ordinance, or is a member of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers with a voting right in the Institution's general meeting can apply to register as an elector in that FC. Those individual electors must possess statutory registered professional qualifications. In addition to engineers employed by large, medium or small enterprises in Hong Kong, they also include engineering professionals among professional grade civil servants in various government departments of the SAR Government. Their service targets are all Hong Kong people. Their functions, contribution and importance to society are unquestionable. Any views that arbitrarily play down or even discredit FCs are undesirable.

President, while the specific composition of any FC should surely remain stringent, it is not necessarily rigid. The relevant amendments in the Bill have precisely illustrated that under the existing mechanism, some timely technical amendments can be made on the premise of maintaining the original delineation of the FCs. The electorate of FCs in the Legislative Council is provided for under the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap. 542), and following the 2612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 established practice, before each Legislative Council General Election, the Administration will conduct a review of the delineation of the electorate of FCs in consultation with the relevant bureaux and departments, while giving consideration to requests received from individual bodies or persons since the last review. Clauses 3 to 12 of the Bill precisely seek to update the lists of persons comprising certain FCs of the Legislative Council and the higher education subsector of the Election Committee. I consider the existing mechanism effective as long as the Administration ensures the openness and transparency of the relevant mechanism, and is mindful of maintaining close communication with the associated industries.

The appropriate broadening of the electorate of FCs is an issue worthy of an objective examination by various sectors of the community. But it should be stressed that any substantive discussions must be conducted with reference to the Basic Law of Hong Kong and the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Issues Relating to the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by Universal Suffrage and on the Method for Forming the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, which are the constitutional constraints that Hong Kong must properly address under "one country, two systems".

Lastly, I must stress that the District Council Election this time around has seen incidents of pro-establishment candidates being subjected to threats of violence and harassment detrimental to the fairness, equity and safety of elections, yet the Government is at its wits' end. I find it deeply regrettable, and urge the Government to put forth concrete measures to prevent recurrence of such incidents. Otherwise how can elections be held in Hong Kong in future?

With these remarks, President, I support the passage of the Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you wish to speak again?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2613

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I will briefly respond to three points. First, I thank all Honourable Members for lending their support to the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). Second, we will seriously study the suggestions made by Members who have spoken just now on the technical amendments not covered by the Bill. Third, I will seriously follow up on the views and some specific proposals given by Members in their speeches over these two days about the arrangements for the last District Council Ordinary Election. In fact, as I have stated previously, the Electoral Affairs Commission will submit a report to the Chief Executive within three months, in accordance with the statutory requirements, on the overall arrangements of the entire election, such as organization, voting and vote counting, and make recommendations accordingly.

Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 be read the Third time and do pass. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019.

2614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As it is now past 7:00 pm, I think that the remaining meeting time today will not be sufficient for completion of the next item of business. To enable completeness of the debate, Council will deal with the next item of business in the next meeting.

I now adjourn the meeting until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 4 December 2019.

Adjourned accordingly at 7:02 pm.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 November 2019 2615

Annex I