LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2111

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 7 November 2013

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN

THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.

2112 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.

PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KA-WAH, S.C.

THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN

THE HONOURABLE WAI-KING, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.

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

DR THE HONOURABLE MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE

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

THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MRS LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WAI-CHUN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2113

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP

THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN

THE HONOURABLE

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN

THE HONOURABLE CHI-MING

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN

DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG 2114 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

THE HONOURABLE MEI-KUEN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK

THE HONOURABLE WAH-FUNG, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

DR THE HONOURABLE , J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WAI-CHUEN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2115

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE KAM-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

THE HONOURABLE LAI TUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

MR GODFREY LEUNG KING-KWOK UNDER SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL

MR ANDY LAU KWOK-CHEONG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MRS PERCY MA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

2116 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in ): Meeting now resumes.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, pursuant to Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure, I request a headcount.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Meeting now resumes. This Council will continue with the joint debate on the motion and amendment moved under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

MOTION UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ORDINANCE

Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 6 November 2013

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, over the past three weeks and with respect to the problems caused by the decision to issue additional free TV licences, the Government has been using practices which can be described as bad and offering explanations in the manner of squeezing a tube of toothpaste. It has also been using those so-called informed sources to try to fly balloons to the newspapers and explain the decision made by the Executive Council. I have no idea whether these informed sources are disseminating true or false news. On the other hand, certain Members of the Executive Council have been making their own remarks, the contents of which are not the same. We can see therefore a contest, if not a feud, between the Government and the parties concerned. There is no way that the community can tell who is telling the truth. The incident is becoming more and more confusing and it was only until yesterday afternoon when the Government issued a written statement that we began to gain some idea LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2117 of the head and tail of the matter. I also received a written reply from the Television Network Limited (HKTVN) yesterday morning.

I wish to make use of this opportunity to remind the Government that the papers of the Executive Council and contents of the discussions held should all be kept confidential. The reason is to ensure that Members of the Executive Council can say what they want in the meetings. I believe Members will all agree to this point. But after the Executive Council has made a decision, irrespective of whether it is a matter of principle or a decision of a specific nature, the Government has the essential obligation of explaining in public the justifications for the decision and the rationale of the policy behind it. The Government cannot hide itself behind the confidentiality system of the Executive Council. This is not the raison d'être of this confidentiality system and the system should not be used in this way. I am sure there is still much space between confidentiality and accountability to the public. The question is whether there is any determination and wisdom on the part of the Government. For if not, the Government will never need to explain its policies and administrative decisions.

President, the question of this motion has caused a great public concern. Now many groups have gathered in front of this Council and in a rally. I have learnt from the newspapers that certain Members of this Council encouraged the participants of this rally to encircle the Legislative Council Complex, resorting to the means of posing obstruction to personal liberty and trying to exert pressure on Members of this Council such that they will vote according to the wish of the rally participants. I am greatly deplored. Our society stresses pluralism and tolerance and if we cannot respect and tolerate other people's views and their voices which may be different from ours, how can we expect others to respect and tolerate our views and voices, and how are we qualified to talk both inside and outside this Council that we should defend the freedom of thinking and speech?

President, with respect to the controversial issues this time around, I have been trying to listen to the public opinions expressed and I have read many of the commentaries made. Like many members of the public, I am very unhappy with the way the Government handled this case and I am also very disappointed. But if we are to rashly1 invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges)

1 The original test is "動輒" (dung6 zip3) and Mr Martin LIAO pronounced it as "動 軌 "(dung6 gwai2). 2118 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) every time when we are unhappy with the way the Government handles things or when we want to make our demands known, I am afraid I cannot agree to it. I do not wish to become an enemy of the people. But I think we must have reasons and justifications in everything we do.

I have the following views on the motion. First, on the many kinds of special powers vested in this Council by the P&P Ordinance, we must exercise these powers in a solemn and prudent manner. It is only when major interest of Hong Kong society is at stake and for important issues like protection of the properties and life of the people, that we should invoke it. We must not invoke it simply because of public demand or to satisfy the people in the rally, or because of the right of a private company to run its business, or because of the dissatisfaction with the Government that this power is rashly invoked to teach the Government a lesson. When deliberating on every issue and matter, each Member of this Council all has a yardstick in their minds. There are variations as to the stringence or lenience of the standards found in the P&P Ordinance. I respect difference in opinion, but I will not accept arbitrary exercise of this power when there is a difference in opinion.

Second, under the present constitutional system in Hong Kong, the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government all have their respective roles to play. The Legislative Council does not have executive powers or judicial powers. Even if the P&P Ordinance is invoked, the Legislative Council cannot accede to public demand and issue the third free TV licence to HKTVN. It cannot rule the decision made by the Executive Council as unlawful or irrational and hence quash or change it. It would not really help things and satisfy the needs of those in the rally even if the motion is passed and enforced. Since Mr Ricky WONG Wai-kay has made it clear that he wants to file a judicial review, why do we not allow the Court to handle the case in accordance with the principle of equity and law?

Some people say that the power of the Court in judicial review is very limited. But even if this power is limited, it is much greater than the power vested in this Council by the P&P Ordinance. I wish to emphasize that there is no agency in this world which has boundless and supreme powers. If this case cannot be handled by the Court, I do not think this Council can ever handle it either. The Court cannot replace any administrative decision. And this Council cannot do so either. But at least the Court can decide that the case LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2119 should be returned to the executive authorities again for examination and decision later. The Legislative Council does not even have this power. On disclosure, ordinary procedures in disclosure are not applicable to a judicial review. I agree to that. But provided that a party in an action demands and is able to provide enough grounds, the Court has the power to issue a specific discovery order to order the authorities concerned to make the disclosure. Some people say that the minutes of meetings of the Executive Council cannot be disclosed in a court of law. But the motion is not asking that the minutes of meeting of the Executive Council be disclosed in this Council. Then what is the difference between the Court and this Council in this respect? Some people are worried that even if the Court orders that the case be returned for re-examination, the same decision can be made by the Government. Such things could happen, and they may not. But irrespective of whether they happen, this shows exactly that such powers are those of the executive authorities and not of the Legislative Council or the Courts. We often say that in Hong Kong, the three branches of government should be separate. Then we should all the more not invoke the P&P Ordinance and encroach on those powers that should belong to the executive authorities and the Judiciary. In fact, Mr Dennis KWOK in his speech made yesterday has given us some free legal advice. He said that the decision made by the executive authorities in issuing licences does not comply with procedural justice, which is called irregularity in judicial review cases. It does not comply with the requirements under the Broadcasting Ordinance, and that is called illegality in judicial review. If the leave of the Court is granted, then it can be said that of the three "I"s in judicial review, two of them have been obtained. This is something which I think HKTVN can make reference of.

Third, I like watching the TV and I hope that there can be more programmes for me to choose. But the situation now is not that the Government refuses to issue licences. The Government has in fact decided to issue licences to a number of operators doubling that of the present, that is, from two to four.

Fourth, irrespective of whether it is the papers of Executive Council meetings which the original motion seeks to obtain or the meeting papers of the Executive Council the scope which Mr Dennis KWOK has narrowed down in his amendment, even if the motions are passed, I am afraid what we get is only part of the truth instead of the full picture. In the end, it is easy to have misleading or distorted facts. We will be like blind persons feeling an elephant, so to speak. This will only cause more endless arguments. In addition, as I have pointed out 2120 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 in the House Committee, documents are inanimate and there must be questions asked about them and when the parties involved have given their explanations that we can gain a full picture of the case. This is exactly the blind spot or even the Achilles heel of the original motion and the amendment. Hence everything seems to be unreal and fluid. There is not much significance and will not help things. According to the written statement from the Government the day before yesterday, I would think that the most crucial thing about the licensing decision is precisely the internal discussions of the Executive Council. And according to the amendment, the meeting papers for internal use by the Executive Council will be exempted and they do not have to be disclosed. So even if the motion is passed and even if the P&P Ordinance is invoked to exercise the special powers given to this Council by the Ordinance, I do not think we can achieve the real aim of the motion, that is, at least the real aim as we see it on the surface, in other words, the truth of the entire licensing decision.

Fifth, problems cannot be solved by passing the motion, nor can the demand be satisfied. The only effect is that the authorities will be embarrassed and they would have to spend some time to cope with the situation. Moreover, it will prepare the way for this Council to form a select committee by invoking the P&P Ordinance.

Sixth, according to reports, Mr Ricky WONG is not satisfied with the licensing decision and he thinks that this decision by the Government is not compliant with the law and is not rational. He said that he would consider filing a judicial review. These remarks were made by Mr WONG a very long time ago and heard by all the people of Hong Kong. There is no question of encouragement or otherwise by Members. When controversies over this administrative decision do not stand any chance of settlement or compromise, then the Court is the place to solve the problems. And regardless of disclosure or protection of secrets or in reviewing the powers and decisions made by the executive authorities, the power of the Courts will be sounder and more integrated than that of the Legislative Council. A judgment by the Court is purer than that by the Legislative Council in the sense that it is free of political stands or political motives. About this dispute between Mr Ricky WONG and the Executive Council, I do not think we can judge which side is in the right and which side is in the wrong. Therefore, it is best and most proper to leave the case to the Court.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2121

Mr Alan LEONG cited an interesting example last night. He said that in the course of a judicial review, what the Court will do is like seeing whether anything has gone wrong in the process of making a cake, so to speak. That is, whether you have added sugar or flour first, and so on. Actually, the Court will also examine whether or not the kitchen where you make the cake can meet the requirements of sanitation and whether most of the chefs think that the method you use to make a cake is reasonable. If this example of "Ah Mon" making a cake is used, if a limited number of papers is obtained by passing the motion to invoke the P&P Ordinance, we can only see sugar and flour, and we can never see all the ingredients used to make the cake, such as butter, jam and eggs. Still less will we see the method used to make the cake, so how can we know how the cake is made?

Owing to these reasons, I oppose the two motions. I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Member pronounced the words "動輒" (dung6zip3) as "動 軌 " (dung6 gwai2), but the correct pronunciation should be "dung6 zip3" or "dung6 zit3".

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, this motion was debated for five hours yesterday and the meeting has to resume this morning to continue with the debate. Yesterday Members from the opposition were speaking with all their emotions and in an agitated manner. Some Members even said that votes would be repaid by votes and blood for blood. I do not understand why in this society which upholds the rule of law, people should speak in such an agitated way and shout for blood for blood? Where does the blood come from?

Mr Charles Peter MOK, the mover of this motion, has told the media that if these people do not vote according to the will of the people, they should not be allowed to leave. About this motion under debate in this Council, are there Members who incite the masses to intimidate other Members as they express their opinions? I am concerned that some people talked the other day about civil arrest. I do not really know what it means. Is this a kind of threat? Yesterday, some Members said that they were accused of being traitors by the masses outside.

2122 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

President, during these few days when I entered or left this Council or as I walked on the streets or passed by here, there would be a group of people dressed in black and they would give me a vulgar sign and shout obscenities at me. Just what kind of behaviour is that? Even when I used the elevator in this Council, when they saw me they would use a loudspeaker to shout obscenities at me and call my name. What kind of behaviour is that? I do not understand why Members sitting here will incite the people of Hong Kong to purge each other. Are we not supposed to engage in reasonable discussions here? These acts really chill my spine.

I do not know if Members still recall that during the 1970s, apart from TVB and ATV ― at that time it was called Rediffusion, then there was also Television (CTV). But CTV closed down soon after it had begun operation. It shows that it is never easy to operation a TV station. Apart from capital, there should be proper methods of operation and the programmes should be able to cater for the taste of the public. I think the decision was made by the Government and the Executive Council after considering various aspects. I would also think that Mr Ricky WONG has the heart and determination, but does he run his business properly? Speaking from my own business experience, when there is over-expansion at the beginning, there may be failure in the end. Then things like capital will not be able to cover all the expenses. Then nothing can be done. Should a safe approach be adopted? I do not know much about what Mr WONG has got in his mind. I only learn from media reports that he wants to run 30 channels. Now the two existing TV stations do not apparently have many channels, but the costs they incur are huge. So even if we leave aside the Executive Council, speaking from my experience in doing business, I would be a bit worried about him.

Also, Members from the opposition camp have always liked the idea of filing a judicial review. We should remember the old lady surnamed CHU in the case of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge who filed a judicial review for no justifiable reason. On this occasion, I do not know why they are taking the opposite way, thinking that judicial review is useless and so they want to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) and demand information from the Executive Council. I think that when the Executive Council holds internal discussions, each Member of the Executive Council will certainly express opinions. We should respect them and they should be protected by confidentiality laws in order that they can fully express their views. I am sure that when Members of this Council talk about their LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2123 family affairs, or give their opinions to certain groups, political parties or organizations, or when they chat with friends, they would all speak differently. It is because they are talking to people from inside or outside. There are matters which will not help things or even cause damage if they are disclosed. I would think that the Government may disclose more in certain aspects and since the information disclosed now is not enough, I hope the Government can make things clear and dispel the misapprehensions of the people. But this motion calls for the invoking of the P&P Ordinance and requests the Government to hand over information concerning the Executive Council. I would think that this move will only cause harm to the whole society of Hong Kong.

In the recent spate of incidents ranging from the Wave Media radio, the national education incident, and even the row arising from the vetting of competition entries with respect to the West Kowloon Cultural District, they are all made instruments of attacks on the SAR Government. Why should these incidents be used to engage in destruction of the SAR Government and Hong Kong our home? When we are to talk about democracy and freedom, do we have to act like the group of people outside the Legislative Council Complex dressed in black and shouting obscenities? This group of people call themselves by a name which sounds like Cantonese foul language. Just what are they trying to do? What will this produce on the subconscious of the young people? We are heartbroken when we see such things. This group of people produces very bad influence on the young people. Should they use this method to fight for freedom and democracy? I can say that if they come to power one day, both you and I will be subjects and they will be the masters. There can never be any democracy. I therefore do not support the motion today and I will oppose it. Thank you, President.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak today to oppose Mr Charles Peter MOK's motion and Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment.

In this row concerning the rejection of the licence application by HKTVN, we in the DAB are actually placed in a dilemma. On the one hand, we think that the methods used by the Government in handling this case are very bad and it cannot respond to public aspirations appropriately. On the other hand, we do not agree that the P&P should be misused to obtain confidential information on licensing. It is because this will destroy the confidentiality system implemented all along by the Executive Council, hence affecting the operation of the Executive 2124 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Council. So during the period of time earlier, we have been using all sorts of ways and means to urge the Government to explain its licensing decision without doing any damage to the confidentiality system of the Executive Council and prejudice to the judicial review. And during the past few days although the Government has responded to demands from various political parties and made more information public, the result is not satisfactory.

The issue of free TV licences will affect the daily life of the people and so the people are very concerned about it. Mr Ricky WONG founded HKTVN and ever since an application was made for a licence, all the people in HKTVN have been working very hard and proactively engaging in publicity efforts. This really makes many people hold an ardent expectation for Mr WONG in getting a free TV licence. Therefore, when in the end HKTVN cannot be granted a licence, many people are very disappointed and this result is a far cry from public aspiration. This is understandable.

In my opinion, the controversial row caused by the rejection of licence application by HKTVN can be attributed two major reasons. First, the performance of the two existing free TV stations in Hong Kong is poor. Their programmes lack diversity and their quality fail to meet the demands of Hong Kong people. This is why people long for the entrance of new competitors to the market and these new entrants should have both sincerity and creativity. This will enable viewers to have more good programmes to watch and the right to choose. All these are not possible at present.

The second reason is the very poor manner in which the Government has handled the case. It has not explained clearly enough the reasons why HKTVN is not granted a licence. Sometimes the Government says that the decision is based on a host of policies. This makes people feel baffled. Then at other times the Government says that HKTVN does not rank the last among all applicants. Then why is it rejected? No concrete reasons are given for public reference. At the beginning, it was said that there was no ceiling on the number of licences granted, then the report said later that if too many licences were issued, one or more TV stations might close down due to vicious competition. So in the end the Government decided to issue only two licences. This should have been a reason which is objective and has regard for the macro situation, and the Government should have announced it a long time ago. But the Government had all along shown a nonchalant air and it was only on last Sunday that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2125 reason was announced belatedly. Hence the golden opportunity to gain the confidence of the people was missed.

Although the issue of two TV licences is based on commercial and economic reasons, regarding the Government's handling of the matter, I would think that it is a great deviation from the public aspiration. It overlooks the fact that the people have the right to choose more TV stations. In the end, speculative elements from the opposition seized this opportunity and added fuel to fire, and an incident which is otherwise only related to the people's living was turned into a political row.

I agree that the Government has not been handling the matter regarding TV licences in a satisfactory manner, but I think the Government should disclose more information so that the public can know more. At this stage, we do not agree that the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) should be invoked to compel the Government to make confidential information of the Executive Council public. This is because in so doing the confidentiality principle of the Executive Council is violated. It will also affect the future operation of the Executive Council and the credibility of the Government.

In the amendment proposed by Mr Dennis KWOK, although it is proposed to exclude "the deliberations and relevant records of the Executive Council and any confidential commercial information involving the licence applicants", there is bound to be disputes over what is meant by the papers of the Executive Council. Moreover, once the motion to invoke the P&P Ordinance is passed, they will then say that certain papers should be produced. Then how can a stop be put to this? The most important point is that the amendment only says that the production of certain papers is excluded. Nothing is said on what the papers are to be produced. So this is purely a conjecture and speculation. We cannot therefore support Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment.

Here I have to stress once again that with respect to the issue of free TV licences, the DAB has never made any stand on what number of licences should be issued or that these licences should be granted to which persons and not to which persons. In fact, in October 2012 when the Government had not yet reached any decision on the issue of TV licences, I had met with Mr Ricky WONG to listen to his ambitious plan. Afterwards, the DAB asked the Government to give an account to the public as soon as a decision was reached. 2126 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

In addition, regarding the building of a production plant, members of the District Council concerned from the DAB also lent their full support to Mr Ricky WONG building a plant and starting the operation of a TV station.

Although we have made it clear that we do not agree that the P&P Ordinance should be invoked to obtain more information, it does not mean that we will not request the Government to produce more details on the matter. Last Friday when I had lunch with the Secretary, I made it clear to the Secretary that we hoped that the Government could make public more information concerning the issue of TV licences through different channels. This will prevent the Council from using the method of invoking the P&P, hence the opposition will not have a chance to stir up trouble and cause damage to both the executive and the legislative.

We understand that the public wants to have more choices in TV programmes. Mr Ricky WONG and the staff of HKTVN have put much effort in their fight for the granting of a TV licence. The Government cannot ignore these demands. It is regrettable that on this occasion the Government puts up the ground that the present market cannot accommodate five TV stations to reject the application by HKTVN. However, as the Government said a few days ago that "a gradual and orderly approach should be adopted in introducing competition", "but not precluding the possibility of granting more free TV licence(s) in light of market" demand. Regarding these two points, I would think that the Government should consider them carefully and see whether more specific explanations can be given. For example, it can say clearly that after the issue of these two licences, when a review of the market of free TV can be made at the soonest and when a study on a second round of licence applications can be completed. This can give a chance to HKTVN to make another application and enable members of the public to have a better expectation.

Now the licences of the two existing free TV stations will expire in 2015, should the Government not consider the terms and conditions for licence renewal? It is only when more diversified and high-quality programmes are introduced and when more local productions are available and even new competitors are introduced that something can be done to address the public aspiration for change.

In the licensing saga this time, it is true that the performance of the Government should be improved and reviewed. However, the behaviour of the opposition is even more despicable. Earlier on a large group of people wanted LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2127 to express their aspirations through a march and rally. They hoped that one more TV licence could be granted so that they could have more options. This is understandable. The opposition party saw the public uproar, resorted to hijacking the public aspiration and tried to play the political game of invoking the P&P Ordinance again. In fact, ever since the resumption of the Council this year, almost every week the opposition would propose motions on invoking the P&P Ordinance. This is annoying to the extreme. Some people from the radical faction will go to the extreme and earlier on Mr WONG Ting-kwong has talked about their mention of civil arrest, inciting citizens in the Facebook to make non-stop telephone calls to the offices of what they call traitors of Hong Kong and causing disruption to the operation of the offices of those Members whom they dislike. These are political intimidation and what they call "repay votes with votes". I am afraid these acts will only bring very serious political consequences.

These members from the opposition camp incite the citizens to block the Members of this Council from entering the Legislative Council Complex. They threatened the Members for their stand at the vote. This is a most deplorable kind of political intimidation that will land members of the public in criminal offences. On the one hand the opposition camp say that they respect the P&P Ordinance and regard it as the "imperial sword" in their resistance against the Government. On the other hand, they call upon the people to ignore the requirements of the same Ordinance and obstruct Members of this Council from entering and leaving the Complex and engaging in voting. It can be said that they are hypocrites.

Now the opposition only knows to reap political advantages from the incident and this will not help solve the problems at all. I am sure the people with their discerning eyes will know which Members of this Council are really working hard to solve the problems. With these remarks, President, I oppose the motions from Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr Dennis KWOK.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I have to declare that I am the managing director of Major Trend Entertainment Limited. But the company did not carry on any business related to TV and film for the past five years. Also, I am a non-executive director of A Stars Entertainment Group and have been so for half a year. But I have never obtained any material interest from the operation of that company, nor have I been involved in any decision-making regarding the business operation of that company.

2128 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

In the consultation exercise on licensing held by the Broadcasting Authority three years ago, viewers expressed strong dissatisfaction with the two operators of free TV. They took issue with the dominance of one TV station and the resulting great disparity between the strong and weak TV stations, hence the lack of choices available to viewers. They also found a lack of novelty in the TV drama series and monotony in programming. This market situation which is almost like a monopoly results in those members of the same trade who aspire to excellence and creativity find it hard to give play to their talents. The TV industry in Hong Kong becomes a pool of stagnant water and lags behind other neighbouring regions.

Both people in the industry and members of the public all cherished great hopes for the issue of new TV licences on this occasion. They hoped that with the granting of new licences, there could be more competition and hence a change for the better in the industry. For the viewers, they can have more quality programmes to choose from. Such ardent aspirations are reasonable and understandable. It is unfortunate that the greater the expectation is, the greater the disappointment will be.

The liecensing decision made this time around is a far cry from public expectations. First, the Government only issues two new licences. This is regarded as running counter to the 's policy of imposing no ceiling on the number of licences. Second, HKTVN which has shown to be positive and aggressive throughout the application process and which has made prior planning and injection of funds finds its application rejected in the end.

In the face of such a tremendous shortfall between expectation and result, I have asked the Government repeatedly that a detailed explanation on the licensing decision should be offered on the premise of not violating the confidentiality principle of the Executive Council. Most unfortunately, despite repeated urgings, it was only in the afternoon of the day before yesterday that the Government made an explanation. It was only a very small step. But it is still far from satisfactory. On the first issue, the Government pointed out in quite a detailed way that the factor of market sustainability was considered and it was in a bid to prevent the occurrence of cut-throat competition which would lead to a decline in programme quality that led the Government to act with prudence and issue only two licences.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2129

As for the second issue, that is, the causes of death for HKTVN, the Government only gave a detailed explanation based on four criteria, that is, financial capability, programming investment, programming strategy and capability, and technical soundness. But what was the performance of the three operators under these four criteria and why did HKTVN become a loser? No satisfactory answer has been given despite efforts made repeatedly by Members including me on many occasions to persuade the Government to do so. This is most disappointing.

In my opinion, the Government has handled this matter in a most undesirable way. This has led to strong dissatisfaction in society and the staff of HKTVN therefore took to the streets. And Government's popularity ratings plunged. In act, in face of such tremendous pressure from the people, the Government still refuses to disclose more information to the public. Just what are the factors considered? Is it because under the confidentiality system of the Executive Council, the Government really does not have any room for explanation? Or is it like what the newspapers have pointed out, that the Government cannot rule out the possibility that someone would file a judicial review and so in view of this potential risk, the Government is acting in a very prudent manner, and it does not want to disclose anything in the official capacity lest the chances of winning a judicial review are undermined? Regardless of what the Government's considerations are, the public does not find these reasons easy to understand and people working in the trade find these grounds unacceptable.

President, with respect to the widespread public concern caused by this incident, I have pondered over it during the past three weeks and listened to voices from representatives of the trade. And I have also liaised with the staff association of HKTVN and also HKTVN itself. I understand of course that their hope is to find out the truth of this incident as soon as possible and do justice to HKTVN.

It is the common wish of this Council that the Government should be urged to give a full account of the incident. But how is this aim going to be achieved? We have only three options before us. First, and this is the option which I have always been fighting for and which I think it is the best and most direct. And it is for the Government to take the initiative to offer a detailed explanation. For example, in the special meeting of the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting to be held tomorrow, the Government can take a few more steps and 2130 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 disclose more information about which Members are concerned. This can give a reasonable explanation to the public and practitioners of the trade, hence allaying their misapprehensions.

However, if this option dose not work, then the next step is to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to compel the Government to make the relevant papers public for follow-up action by this Council, or that the avenue of a judicial review can be taken such that the stringent proceedings of the Court can then be used to do HKTVN justice.

Up to this moment I still have great reservations about invoking the P&P Ordinance. In fact, on the numerous occasions in the past when the P&P Ordinance was invoked in this Council to conduct a public inquiry, a massive amount of manpower, resources and time was spent. As to the question of whether a fair and equitable answer can be obtained, I would think that the public would pass their judgment. But I wish to point out that the incident of the issue of additional free TV licences on this occasion is markedly different in nature from the inquiries conducted in the past. The aim of this motion is related to the decision made by the Executive Council and it demands disclosure of papers of the Executive Council. This will impact direct the confidentiality system of the Executive Council.

The confidentiality system of the Executive Council is a core link in the entire policymaking process of the Government. It enables Members of the Executive Council to speak their mind behind closed doors on major policies or sensitive issues. If the confidential papers of the Executive Council were disclosed, I am afraid it would set a dangerous precedent. Not only would the proven confidentiality system of the Executive Council be destroyed, but the adoption of divergent views in policymaking by the Government would also be seriously affected. It would also do serious and far-reaching harm to the highest policymaking framework in the Government. I therefore find it difficult to support the motion proposed by Mr Charles Peter MOK today.

In order to minimize the negative impacts on the confidentiality system, Mr Dennis KWOK proposes in his amendment not to obtain the records of the Executive Council and any confidential commercial information. This scope of papers demanded is narrower than that of the original motion. But who is to decide on the papers to be disclosed? In addition, even if the information LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2131 obtained under the P&P Ordinance is cited, will the information be sufficient to enable this Council to make a judgment and find out the full picture? In fact, with respect to the amendment by Mr Dennis KWOK, even Mr Ricky WONG thinks that it is really daft because the kinds of papers that can be obtained will only be piecemeal and fragmentary. In the end, we can only act like blind persons groping for the body of an elephant and it is likely that we will take the part as the whole. It is therefore not easy to find out the truth. So I cannot lend my support to Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment.

Actually, people differ in their views as to why HKTVN fails in its application. President, I do not agree with the view held by Mr Dennis KWOK. He thinks that this incident is a political incident and hence should be solved by political means. So he advocates that the Legislative Council should invoke the P&P Ordinance and demand the production of relevant papers for conducting an enquiry. But even the person concerned in this incident, Mr Ricky WONG, denies that it is a political decision. On what grounds does Mr KWOK think that this is a political decision? The purpose of invoking the P&P Ordinance is to find out the truth objectively. Just how can Members have confidence in an inquiry conducted by the Legislative Council and trust that it can do so in an impartial and fair manner? When power is given to the Legislative Council to conduct an inquiry, who can ensure that in this Council which is full of political factions and distinct camps the inquiry will not be relegated into another political struggle? Based on this analysis of the invocation of the P&P Ordinance, I am convinced that I should not lend my support to the original motion from Mr Charles Peter MOK and the amendment by Mr Dennis KWOK.

President, it is never too late to make amends. I hope that in the next few days, the Government can make another public explanation and give a clear account of this decision to the community. If the Government remains stubborn and refuses to give a full account of the incident, I would think that a judicial review would be a good choice as the last resort. It is because at least when the Court is to determine the reasons and criteria for granting a licence and rejecting an application, it will not cause any direct damage to the confidentiality system of the Executive Council. It can also avoid politicizing the issues. It is even more effective, independent, fair and reasonable than leaving the matters to this Council.

2132 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Yesterday, Mr Dennis KWOK passed me an essay written by him and it was entitled to this effect: "What can a judicial review disclose?" He queries my sincerity and courage in stating in public that I would consider filing a judicial review. He points out the various limitations of a judicial review. With respect to the arguments advanced by Mr KWOK, I am afraid I cannot agree to them. In fact, his views really surprise me. I do not understand why a barrister from the Civic Party who has all along been upholding the rule of law and encouraging citizens to resort to legal avenues to see justice done can query all of a sudden the use of a judicial review. Has he lost his confidence in the judicial system in Hong Kong?

I do not agree with Mr KWOK's view that a judicial review can only handle the issue of procedural justice. Mr KWOK is worried that if the Government can give a satisfactory explanation and prove to the Court that in making the decision, it has followed all statutory procedures and the principle of natural justice, then it would be easy for the Government to win the case. I do not have any professional background in law. But as I am considering applying for a judicial review, I have looked up a number of books on law and I can say I understand the definition of judicial review. A court of law can act on the following three grounds and grant leave for an application for judicial review. These include whether or not the administrative decision is unlawful, unreasonable or non-compliant with procedural justice. The queries caused by this incident are precisely what are included in the second and third grounds, that is, being unreasonable and non-compliant with procedural justice. The Court is to examine whether or not the Government has made a decision which is unreasonable and non-compliant with procedural justice. Is this not the goal which we have always been pursuing?

Mr KWOK also queries that when the Court is to hear a judicial review case, the Government can act on the ground of public interest and apply for exemption, thus excluding the minutes of meeting of the Executive Council from the list of papers to be disclosed. In fact, if the Legislative Council is to invoke the P&P Ordinance, the Government can act on the same ground of public interest and refuse to disclose the relevant papers or part of such papers to the Legislative Council. Given this, why should we not leave the matter to the Court which is more independent, impartial and detached from politics? Mr Ronny TONG said with much feeling evoked yesterday that in this Council, people who reason would never win. It is only in a court of law that reason shall prevail. Then why do they insist on seeing justice done in a place where they LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2133 think reason will never win and strive to get justice done for the staff of HKTVN, instead of solving the problems in a court of law in which reason prevails?

Admittedly, this decision by the Government falls short of public expectation and the number of operators of free TV service will only increase from two to four, but for the industry, it will create more room for development and more jobs. I would expect that the operators of the two new free TV stations can engage in sustainable development and enhance healthy competition among free TVs while raising the quality and quantity of TV programmes. The public should keep a close watch on whether these operators can fulfil the pledge they made in their licence applications. I also hope that Secretary Gregory SO can issue the licences to the new operators soon and that he can urge them to honour the pledges they have made in their applications. They should also be required to purchase more locally produced programmes.

I have urged the Government repeatedly to take active steps to find jobs for those hundreds of former employees of HKTVN in the performing, writing, directing and production fields. The Government should take the approach of retaining talents and assisting in the development of the industry. It should care about these former employees of HKTVN who are full of zeal as well as their employment needs. When possible, they should be helped in looking for new jobs.

In fact, the employees of HKTVN in insisting on their dreams and striving for breakthroughs are preious assets of the cultural and creative industries of Hong Kong. It is unfortunate that they are the ones who first bear the brunt in this incident. They have lost their jobs and their dreams are dashed. They have been forced to take to the streets in protest. For many days they have been fighting before the Government Headquarters and holding marches and rallies. They recounted stories of untold hardship and suffering and we are moved by their stamina, peacefulness and reason.

President, I know that my voting decision today may not make the employees of HKTVN and some of the industry practitioners feel happy. But I wish to say to them that we should not see today as the deadline for solving the problems. My efforts in fighting for a clear and open account of the incident from the Government will not stop. I expect to see a further explanation offered by the Government in the meeting of the Panel on Information Technology and 2134 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Broadcasting. If the explanation is not to our satisfaction, I will still consider filing a judicial review in the hope of finding out the truth of the incident.

As for the sustainable development of the TV industry and the large amount of work that should be done, as well as detailed suggestions to be made, I will elaborate on them during the debate on the motion proposed by Mr James TO. I so submit. Thank you, President.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, without any doubts, the Government has performed really badly in its handling of this free-to-air television licensing saga. The crux is that the Administration failed to provide justifications for the issue of licences in a timely manner to address public concern, thus giving rise to speculation of various kinds. The doubts so aroused grew with the passage of time, and culminated in the type of opposition confronting us today.

At the earliest stage, when Secretary Gregory SO announced the result on the issue of licences, he only cited a host of reasons, like the capability for programme planning, and so on, but fell short of providing a clear account to the public of the concrete justifications for not issuing a licence. Afterwards, the Chief Executive added that competition would be introduced into the free-to-air television market in a gradual and orderly manner, so it was appropriate to issue only two licences at this stage. Over the past 20 or so days since the announcement, the Government was rather passive in its response all along, giving outsiders an impression that it was covering up something and gave brief and sometimes incomplete answers even to questions asked. Further pressed by the public and the media, it proceeded to unveil the 11 factors plus four criteria for assessing free-to-air TV licences. On Tuesday evening, it further explained in writing the justifications for the issue of licences.

From my point of view, if the Government grasped the time to give a clear account to the public of the assessment criteria and factors behind the decision the soonest possible, so long as justifications were given, the rational Hong Kong people would have understood what went on, and the matter would not have unfolded in such a way where many found the Government's decision incomprehensible. The Government's performance in handling the incident is really disappointing.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2135

Today, Mr Charles Peter MOK has proposed to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to request the Government to disclose the relevant documents. In my opinion, as the proposal will inevitably touch upon the Executive Council's confidentiality system in running for years, it must be approached with caution.

Despite doubts that the Executive Council's confidentiality system works like a shield for the Government, the said system actually has its raison d'être. For example, under the confidentiality system, licence applicants in question might be able to submit their confidential information to the Executive Council in a worry-free manner for the latter to consider and make a decision. In the Executive Council's deliberations over the free-to-air TV licences, some of the documents examined might involve sensitive information and commercial secrets. Invoking the P&P Ordinance to mandate disclosure by the Executive Council will affect related business organizations.

President, the Government or the industrial and commercial sectors are very often involved in tender exercises of different areas. For example, every year, there are numerous tender exercises for the various types and scales of engineering or professional services in the sector I represent. It appears that during the tendering process, information and documents on the bidders' design or patents, mode of operation, finance, and so on, are more or less involved. I believe most of the companies will neither agree nor hope to have the information concerned disclosed to outsiders in order to avoid their interests from being compromised. From a broader view, undermining the Executive Council's confidentiality system will lead to severe implications on the Government's operation, which in turn will have far-reaching impacts on Hong Kong.

Despite the expression "but excluding the deliberations and relevant records of the Executive Council and any confidential commercial information involving the licence applicants" in Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment, there are questions as to how it is defined, as well as who is to decide which documents can be disclosed or made public, and what constitutes a commercial secret. It is definitely difficult to do so, and there may be disputes. More importantly, once it becomes a precedent, Hong Kong's business environment will be dealt a blow, and the consequences can be dire.

President, in the past few days, I have consulted the opinions of members of my sector through email. Most replies pointed to the Government's poor 2136 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 performance in explaining its licensing decision, and the fact that it was difficult for the public to make a reasonable judgment based on the information disclosed. Hence, some of them would support the invocation of the P&P Ordinance by this Council to request more related documents from the Government.

Nevertheless, many doubted if it was appropriate to do so, and hence they disagreed with the motion. In their view, the Executive Council's confidentiality system had to be respected and upheld, and should never be undermined by any party, including this Council. Otherwise, the relationship among the executive, the legislature and the judiciary in Hong Kong as well as their independent operation would be disrupted and even sabotaged, and this would not do any good to Hong Kong as a whole. In addition, the documents in question might involve commercially sensitive and confidential information, so caution was called for. Otherwise, there would be implications on Hong Kong's business environment. These are the opinions and grievances that members of my sector do want me to reflect to public officers and the public in this Chamber today.

President, after all, that this licensing exercise has become the subject of an enormous controversy can be ascribed to the Government's poor handling, but I also believe that it is essential to uphold the Executive Council's confidentiality system. It is clearly stipulated in the Basic Law that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and shall be vested with independent executive power, legislative power and judicial power, including that of final adjudication. It also emphasizes the complementary relationship between the executive and the legislature. These are the important principles enshrined in the Basic Law regarding Hong Kong's political set-up, and we need to uphold and stick to them.

If the motion proposed today is passed to allow this "imperial sword" to be deployed, there will inevitably be worries about whether this Council will challenge the Executive Council's confidentiality system again on other occasions in future. Moreover, the approval mechanism long in use will be dealt a blow, thus giving rise to a wrestling between the legislature and the executive. As a result, not just the long-established operating mechanism of the Executive Council will be destroyed, Hong Kong's interest as a whole will also be undermined. It is worth putting all these into further reckoning.

President, with the above considerations, I will abstain on this motion. At the same time, I once again urge the Government to, where possible, provide to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2137 the public more information and documents related to this licensing exercise in a timely and proactive manner.

President, I so submit.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, please speak.

MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): President, once again, the incident of issuing free TV licences clearly reflects the structural problem with the SAR Government that has recurred frequently in the past 16 years. It is also concrete proof of further deterioration in the governance of Hong Kong since LEUNG Chun-ying took office as the Chief Executive a year ago. Moreover, it also shows the disregard of the Central Government for Hong Kong's interests and well-being in an attempt to maintain the absolutely totalitarian rule of the Central Authorities and assimilate Hong Kong.

In recent years, public reactions to government policies have grown stronger and stronger from one occasion to another and this is totally attributable to the fact that the blunders of the SAR Government were increasingly glaring from one occasion to another. From the Buildings Department's partiality in the problem of unauthorized building works involving LEUNG Chun-ying, through the transformation of the Police Force into a force akin to that of the Public Security Bureau, to the lack of probity in the ICAC, the acceptance of gifts and entertainment from tycoons by the Chief Executive of the previous term, Donald TSANG, the operation of "sub-divided units" by the Secretary for Development for profit, the curtailment of the freedom of speech by the Executive Council this time around, to the disregard of the Chief Executive for procedures and the lack 2138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 of control over his autocratic style, the SAR Government nowadays reminds one of the saying "having a boil on the top of the head and pus oozing from the soles of the feet", which means that it is as bad as it could be.

All along, Hong Kong people have been known for their rationality, that is, they are not very deeply involved in politics but only work hard and earnestly each day. In general, they do not care much about grand affairs like the country, the people or society. I say so not because I want to criticize the public for not caring about society. In fact, I mean what the public hope for the most is a stable society and security in their lives, working hard during the daytime and getting together with the family happily in the evening. This is to, as the saying goes, "Work at sunrise, rest at sundown. The Emperor's power, though great, what is it to me?". Sometimes, this kind of rationality even makes one think that they are somewhat indifferent to society. However, we only have to recall how, each time when there was an earthquake or flood, Hong Kong people would make genuine efforts to take part in relief efforts and how, in the past 24 years, tens of thousands of members of the public took part persistently in the candle light vigil for the 4 June incident each year and we will know that Hong Kong people care about their society and country. For decades, Hong Kong people are used to putting work and family in the first place and even the many professors or intellectuals in universities are mostly opinion leaders, we would say jokingly that they are all thunder and no rain. However, obviously, such a situation has seen great changes in the past decade or so. If we simply look at the last couple of years, we would find there was hardly any period of calm lasting more than a couple of months and everyone is asking what has happened to Hong Kong as if, as it is said in a TV drama series, "this city is dying".

We have already talked too much about the various injustices in Hong Kong. Given the high degree of monopolization by several consortia, fair competition in various domains and at various strata in Hong Kong no longer exists. This kind of monopolization also causes the injustice to permeate each and every aspect of the life of the grassroots. The unfair electoral system further leads to the takeover of government by consortia, thus resulting in a free rein being given to the consortia and the aggravation of monopolization, and a vicious circle is thus created. This situation has developed over a long period of time and the general public are victimized every day, so the discontent with the Government also grows by the day.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2139

President, as the saying goes, "Three feet of ice does not result from one day of freezing weather". In fact, all members of the public can see that there are two pairs of hands giving directions behind the Government: One is red in colour and the other, gold. The Government has failed to play its role of a balancer and arbitrator. If we want to cite examples, it can be said there are countless ones. For example, for a long time, the Government has been extremely reluctant to regulate the sale of first-hand residential properties actively and the so-called regulatory measures now are all watered-down measures. It only keeps emphasizing the self-regulation of the industry, so this has given rise to the irony of "the owner of a vegetable stall involved in short-weight activities will be prosecuted but property developers selling inflated buildings can pocket the money safely". Another example is the divestment of the retail and carparking facilities in public housing estates by the Housing Authority to The Link REIT in 2005 and in just a few years time, The Link REIT made handsome profits but the small businesses in housing estates closed down and disappeared one after another, with the shopping centres being taken over by chain stores. Not only have all these measures victimized the public, they also made the Government lose its prestige in governance gradually and reinforced the public's views of connivance by the Government of various social injustices, so gradually, they no longer trust the Government. Such distrust has become a social consensus and also the main reason for the tides of challenges against various policies as soon as they are introduced. The pro-establishment camp and the Government often accuse the pro-democracy camp of causing trouble for the Government, but apart from thinking too highly of the ability of the pro-democracy camp, this also shows an ignorance of public sentiments.

When the former Director of Housing, LEUNG Chin-man, abused his power and position for personal gains, the public may still think that it was a matter of the ethics of an individual senior civil servant and a loophole in the Civil Service system. However, subsequently, with the acceptance by Donald TSANG of entertainment offered by tycoons, the abuse of power by the former Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, Timothy TONG, to receive gifts and make arbitrary claims from the public accounts, the operation of "sub-divided units" and the incident of the transactions on farmland involving Secretary Paul CHAN, as well as the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN) being "kicked out" by the Executive Council in Council, public discontent is now running very high. Among the 120 000 people who joined the rally earlier on, a very large number of them had taken part in a rally only for the first time.

2140 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

President, Hong Kong is a society upholding the rule of law and in the past, Hong Kong people would say so frequently and actually took great pride in it. Regarding the incident of free TV licences this time around, the Chairman of HKTVN, Mr Ricky WONG, who considered himself the aggrieved party, is considering applying for a judicial review but someone in the legal professional went so far as to criticize him for abusing judicial proceedings. In fact, applying for a judicial review is a fundamental right conferred by the law on all members of the public and whether or not an application for judicial review is granted will be decided by the Court according to the principles of common law and the grounds of application. If the Court grants an application, the issue of abuse does not exist. I have not received any professional legal training but in fact, this rationale is common knowledge which is not difficult to understand. In fact, the judicial review system in Hong Kong includes the re-examination of government measures and also reconfirmation of whether or not enacted legislation is in line with the spirit of the law. It is one of the important measures with which society protects fundamental civil rights from being violated. If this fallacious claim of abusing judicial reviews is circulated among the public and accepted by society, the threat to fundamental civil rights in Hong Kong will be mortal and the rule of law in Hong Kong will also move towards doom.

In this incident of issuance of licences, a host of questions has been left unanswered. They include: Firstly, if the internal study report of the Government also considers the capability of HKTVN to rank second, even if two out of three applicants are chosen, why was it not chosen? Second, why could the Government issue a letter in May to change the rule of assessment and why did it change the rule from having no ceiling to picking two out of three applicants? What is the host of grounds mentioned by the Chief Executive? Although many former members of the senior echelons of the Government and former Executive Council Members said that despite the principle of confidentiality, there was still room for explanations on policy decisions and also the need to do so, why does our Chief Executive insistently refuse to disclose anything? Such black-box operation causes anger and strikes fear, making one worried that those in power would cite the excuse of confidentiality to practise dictatorship. Thirdly, there are a lot of speculations in media reports, for example, it was said that the Government had to protect the interests of TVB, that the Central Authorities wanted to ensure the survival of ATV and that there was concern that the new company founded by Ricky WONG would not be obedient and would foment trouble. Are all these claims true? In fact, these issues all LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2141 involve several elements that the Hong Kong public guard against the most, including collusion between the Government and business, intervention by the Central Authorities in Hong Kong affairs, threat to the freedom of speech, brainwashing, and so on. These are the issues that the Hong Kong public wish to see the least. Fourthly, if some Executive Council Members were really inclined to issuing all three licences, as reported by the press, but the Chief Executive eventually decided to issue just two, does this mean that the decision-making mode that has all along been adopted has changed?

Last week, the representative of the business sector, Mr James TIEN, also came out to say that many members of the business sector were worried because they also took part in the tenders of many government projects and in the past, the Government only had a set of open assessment criteria and would not change the rules arbitrarily half-way through, thus moving the goalposts. It was only necessary for the bidders to meet the requirements to win the bid. The relevant Policy Bureau would then make recommendations and generally speaking, the Chief Executive and the Executive Council would not overturn the decisions of the Policy Bureau concerned. However, the incident this time around has given people the impression that the Chief Executive can overturn the thoroughly deliberated decisions of the Policy Bureaux on account of the personal opinion of an individual, so the business sector is worried that the Government is gradually changing to one practising the rule of man. In fact, as the saying goes, subordinates follow the example of their superiors, so if such a situation develops further, there is no guarantee that the heads of government departments would not all become autocratic, and the tradition of procedural rationality, in which civil servants in Hong Kong have all along taken pride, would become history.

President, the Hong Kong public certainly long for TV programmes of higher quality and they also believe that it is only in a competitive business environment that the quality of TV programmes can be most effectively enhanced. However, the incident this time around has taken on an even greater significance. The Government pacified the furore over national education only at the end of last year and it is incomprehensible why it has failed to learn a lesson. On the issue of free TV licences this time around, despite knowing full well that there would be strong public reactions, the Government still acted in defiance of public opinion, so this has aroused great suspicion as to whether or not there is an even more powerful force effecting manipulation behind the scenes. Do Hong Kong people really have no control over their wish? Is Hong 2142 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Kong still the place that we are familiar with, a place where we can settle down and get on with our pursuits?

As usual, Members of the pro-establishment camp make conditioned reflexes by blocking the invocation of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) on a number of occasions in the legislature and insisted on acting as royalists, so it can be said that they have abetted senior government officials in acting wilfully and raiding the bottom line of Hong Kong's core values repeatedly, thus testing the tolerance of the public repeatedly and abetting the controlling force behind the scenes in acting even more wantonly. The P&P Ordinance of the Legislative Council is like the judicial review system of the Court. It is the last bastion against the abuse of power in Hong Kong, a place without any system of universal suffrage, and the public pin their last hope of defending their fundamental rights on it. The inquiry proposed in the motion this time around does not just seek to pursue the responsibility of an individual, rather, it is a step taken to defend a crucial system in Hong Kong. I hope Members can create an opportunity for Hong Kong's rebirth and show their strength of character as representatives of the public.

Lastly, President, I wish to offer some advice to Honourable colleagues who are going to abstain. If they attend the meeting but abstain at the voting, this is just tantamount to casting an opposing vote. They may do well to refrain from voting altogether if they are present, or withdraw from the meeting, so that the two sides can make a fairer decision.

President, I so submit.

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, this issue, having developed thus far, should have been voted on last night but the debate has not yet been concluded. Last night, a large crowd gathered in the square outside. There were both supporters and opponents, so this issue has given rise to a fairly polarized situation. Therefore, at the beginning of my speech, I wish to cite the views of some members of the public and experts first.

I wish to cite the editorial of the Daily News published yesterday. A passage therein reads, to this effect, "The more profound reason is that the whole state of affairs arouses unease about the actions taken by the Government. They include: (1) The Government manipulated the so-called LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2143 procedural fairness to conceal the injustice of moving the goalposts; (2) the Government manipulated the confidentiality system of the Executive Council to justify not giving any reasons; (3) the Government deviated from its role by intervening in market operation and deciding which players will win and which will lose; (4) the Government eliminates the strong and retains the weak, thus dealing a blow to the creative industry. The nature of these disquieting developments involves the issue of whether or not the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration has exercised its power appropriately; it involves the issue of whether or not the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration no longer encourages true competition; it involves the issue of whether or not the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration is damaging Hong Kong's business environment, in which the law of free market has all along been upheld, and so on, so this incident involves significant issues and it is only through examining the relevant papers of the Executive Council that there is hope of finding the answers." This is an excerpt from the editorial of the Ming Pao Daily News yesterday.

It so happened that an economic expert, Dr Andy KWAN, also published an article in the press to put forward some of his views and the title of the article is quite interesting. It reads, to this effect, "Inability to explain refusal to grant licence makes all Hong Kong people lose". I will try to quote some of the views put forward by this academic in economics in the article: "(Translation)Yesterday evening" ― meaning the day before yesterday ― "the Government issued a six-page statement to the mass media to explain what criteria were adopted by the Chief Executive in Council in deciding to grant only two new free TV licences. However, after reading the entire government statement, I still could not find the main reason for refusing to grant a licence to HKTVN. Most important of all, the consultancy report believes that the existing market can only support three free TV operators and it is only under favourable market conditions that four free TV operators can be supported. However, I have a query: How can the Government foresee that in the licence tenure of 12 years, the market conditions will continue to be favourable? In the event that the economy experiences a marked downturn, the market conditions will surely be affected and in that event, some TV operators will surely close down, so will the present Government assume responsibility for granting too many licences?" The expert, Dr Andy KWAN, went on to say, "The Government set out 11 factors and four major criteria in its statement to prove the objectivity of the decision on granting licences but it did not provide the points scored by the three applicants. Moreover, the weight attached to various scores when considering the criteria was not disclosed either, so such an opaque approach would only increase the doubts 2144 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 of various sectors about the Government and eventually bring down public confidence in the Government.".

The aforementioned comments and expert opinion remind me of the need to set examination papers and mark answer sheets in teaching. All answer sheets will be marked according to a set of assessment criteria for answers and each time the marked answer sheets are returned to students, they can all see their overall performance on a certain occasion and the marks given according to the assessment criteria.

Of course, when a student gets back his answer sheets, he knows full well and can see clearly the marks for each section. For example, the total marks for section A is 20 marks and he got 10 marks; the total marks for section B is 50 marks and he scored 30 marks and the total marks for section C is 40 marks and he scored 20 marks. Everything is crystal clear. Some students may not be happy with the marks scored by them and may request a review of the answer sheets, but the overall marking process and results are all made public. If I did not do so, the school would make me account for this.

If I follow the approach adopted by the SAR Government this time around and only give an account of how many people passed and how many people failed when handing out the answer sheets, and if there are only ticks and crosses on the answer sheets, or just a number of ticks indicating that I have read the answer sheets, in response, the students would query why they failed or why passed and why they got such marks. If I say that this must be kept confidential and they cannot be told about this, they would only have a lot of doubts.

Therefore, as teachers, the basic approach is to let students know that the method of assessment is fair, impartial and open and that those are the marks they deserve. They may not agree with the answers, but it does not matter because they are not decided by me, rather, they are derived after verification with books and that is why they are adopted as the criteria. However, this time around, many Members, a lot of public opinions and even expert opinions all expressed disappointment with and concern about this incident. Why has it come to such a pass?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2145

Here, allow me to again cite the expert opinion of an academic in law, Mr Albert CHEN. According to a report yesterday, Prof Albert CHEN of the Faculty of Law of the University of Hong Kong had the following views about the Government's course of action this time: From a legal viewpoint, "The existing law prescribes the process for granting TV licences. Firstly, The Communications Authority (that is, the former Broadcasting Authority) makes recommendations, which are then submitted to the Executive Council for decision based on the relevant recommendations. Therefore, if the Executive Council changes the policy basis on its own after receiving the recommendations of the former BA to grant three licences, that is, to change from having no ceiling to choosing two out of three, then grants the licences on its own, this procedure does not comply with the legal requirements.". Prof Albert CHEN believes that "this can result in the decision on the grant of licences being overturned in a judicial review.".

President, what I cited just now is the view of an expert in law. I am no expert and I have only cited his views. However, it can be seen therein that there are indeed a lot of doubts about the Government's course of action. All these prompted the Legislative Council to conduct this debate today to explore if it is necessary to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to demand that the Government disclose more information. This is actually just one of the ways and as regards the question of whether or not the P&P Ordinance should be invoked in this way and how it should be invoked, of course, this can be discussed. However, in the Legislative Council, one of our roles is to exercise checks and balances by striking a balance and carrying out scrutiny, and the P&P Ordinance is one of the means to get answers.

Of course, Members here have different views but this time, apart from discussing whether or not we should invoke this piece of legislation, we also have to ask why we have to adopt such an approach and if this is the best approach. Members may have different views on this and some Honourable colleagues may even think that this approach would not work, for example, the proposal of Mr Dennis KWOK on what documents to be obtained is one of the specific details. However, an issue of principle that we need to consider when casting our votes is: Can this approach enable us to force the SAR Government to give a clear account of the incident relating to the issue of licences? Our aim is not to make it disclose all confidential information but to deal with this matter of principle. This is also the reason for our seeking to take such a course of action.

2146 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Concerning this course of action, naturally, there are various views, for example, it is alleged that this incident involves the confidentiality system of the Executive Council and that the cornerstone of the governance of Hong Kong will be destroyed. However, if we do not take such a course of action, some Honourable colleagues or the press have suggested that in order to preserve this important tradition of the confidentiality system of the Executive Council, it would be preferable to apply for a judicial review. However, does the Court have the power to demand the perusal, disclosure and discussion of all the papers of the Executive Council? I am not a legal expert, so I not sure but if it can, that means ultimately, the relevant information will still have to be disclosed, only that Members do not agree to their disclosure here and want them to be disclosed in the Court instead. However, it is also said that taking this matter to Court would involve public funds and that it is not right for the Government to use the public funds of the SAR on a legal battle with members of the public, so there are also opinions that do not favour the use of judicial review to resolve this matter.

Having said that, what other courses of action are there? In fact, I have no idea either. What the public want to know is the truth of the matter, not the confidentiality process or which Members of the Executive Council made what remarks. The public do not want to obtain records that look like the Hansard, rather, they want to know what points different companies scored according to the four major criteria and 11 factors, so that they can know what happened. In the same vein, after students have been given back their answer sheets, after learning about how many marks they got in a section, they can get a good idea of the situation. When it comes to the correction and marking of answer sheets, some students lack self-knowledge and would request a review of their answer sheets. However, usually, after doing so, they would be all the more grateful to the teachers for their kindness because when marking the papers, the teacher has already adopted a more lenient approach. Otherwise, the student's marks could have been lower. This can be described as a common occurrence.

No matter how, if the P&P Ordinance is not invoked this time around and if this matter is not resolved by way of judicial review, the truth would never be known. What I find strange is that when the Government was lobbying various Members, apart from having discussions with them, it also let them look at some information and after these Honourable colleagues had read the information, they all supported not invoking the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry and expressed their understanding and sympathy. However, in making selective LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2147 disclosures in such a way, to what position has it relegated the public? The public only want to know the truth, but why can a group of privileged elements who are not Executive Council Members obtain the information disclosed by the Government, then oppose invoking the P&P Ordinance to reveal the truth? This is really puzzling. What actually is the Government doing? It really baffles me.

The Government, or some Honourable colleagues, said that this issue is just about watching TV, so it is no big deal and asked why it should be politicized in this way. I also have some knowledge of politics because some knowledge of politics was taught in university. Some people say that politics is about public affairs. Politicization is to let the public look at the whole matter clearly and this is what politicization is about. It does not have the rather negative connotation given to it when it is talked about in the legislature. In fact, it is precisely because this is a political affair that it has to be politicized to let the public know clearly what actually happened. They only want to know the results, and they do not necessarily have to know the process.

President, in these circumstances, does this claim of so-called "politicization" hold water? If the Government thinks that this matter is too politicized, it should come out to talk about in what way it can dispel public misgivings. However, the Government may consider this unnecessary because it thinks there is practically no problem at all as this is just the Government's decision. In that case, is this not a kind of paternal approach, as some Members said? I am now 54 and have lived in Hong Kong for four or five decades because when I was small, I was also a new immigrant. All the important core values of Hong Kong in the past are precisely designed to avoid the paternal approach of the Government this time around because nothing can be decided by an individual and this is something that we all understand, so why did the Government do so this time around? To date, I remain baffled. Although I will vote in favour of these two motions, I also know that the voting results are no longer important.

However, President, this leads me to another thought. Please allow me to use the remaining time to talk about an issue which is not very relevant to this question. The incident this time around reminds me of an interesting phenomenon that occurred in the past decade or so, that is, the culture of "monster parents". Why is this kind of culture related to this incident? Because the SAR Government is just like a naughty boy who gets into trouble everywhere. 2148 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

However, the "monster parents" in the family would always pacify him, telling him not to be afraid because no matter what happens, they would settle it for him and ensure that he would get away. This is exactly how the Legislative Council nowadays is like. So long as there are enough votes, it does not matter what people say. No matter how grating the words of the opposition are, the SAR Government can still continue to be smug and complacent under this culture of "monster parents".

However, those in the education sector or people who are parents would all feel worried because although children who grow up under a "monster parent" culture would be very happy, they would never grow up and cannot survive in society. I hope the SAR Government can learn a lesson this time around and refrain from any inappropriate conduct under the umbrella of a "monster parent" culture.

Yesterday, I pointed out in the square that Hong Kong people should live healthily and happily, but it seems that the SAR Government has got into an unhealthy mental state, unable to make the public feel at ease about whatever it does. I hope the Government will not continue to spread this kind of unhealthy element under the protection of this kind of "monster parent" culture, thus making it impossible for the public to lead a healthy life. As a representative of the health services sector, I hope all of us can live healthily and happily in Hong Kong, so I hope Members would be spurred by this incident of the issue of TV licences to cast a vote of conscience.

Thank you, President.

MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): President, on behalf of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU), I will talk about our position on this motion on invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance).

First, we adopt an open attitude towards the number of TV licences to be issued. Of course, the general public think that the larger the number of TV operators, the better. In my leisure, I also quite like to watch TV, so we welcome the issue of one more TV licence and we also think that it does not matter if three, four or five licences are issued but two is also acceptable. Second, we believe that the Government's way of handling this incident of issue LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2149 of licences is very bad. It should give an account to the public by giving convincing grounds and talking about why it granted the licences in such a way this time around by providing sound justifications. Of course, if it is believed that the Government has not given a clear account, the Legislative Council can take follow-up actions but it should do so in the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting, rather than using this big club called the P&P Ordinance to hit out for the slightest reasons. Moreover, we believe that in this incident of issue of licences by the Government, if anyone thinks that he has been subjected to unfair treatment and believes that the Government has not complied with procedural justice, the right course of action should be to resolve this matter through the legal channel rather than dealing with this matter on the highly politicized platform of the Legislative Council.

President, originally, we believed that we should not turn this issue of the granting of TV licences into such a serious issue because the difference only lies in the grant of two licences and three licences by the Government. The Government did not withdraw one TV licence; rather, it granted two more licences, so why has this caused such a furore? We believe that the issue of three licences are welcome and desirable. For this reason, Ms Emily LAU of the opposition said, "Since you also welcome the issue of three licences, why did you not join us in issuing a joint letter?" This matter precisely reflects their way of thinking. In this world, apart from black and white, there are also many other colours. In welcoming the issue of three licences, it does not mean that I surely must join you in issuing a joint letter. I welcome the issue of three licences but I also think that it does not matter either if two licences are granted. Granting four licences would also be fine. This is a kind of attitude and you should respect other people's views. Why is it absolutely necessary to join you in issuing a joint letter and demanding that the Government grant three licences before I am considered to have done the right thing? This is sort of fossilized thinking, also an attitude showing an inability to change direction. If Members of the opposition adopt such a way of thinking, I am afraid in the next phase of the discussion on constitutional reform, it is practically impossible for various parties to reach a compromise and consensus on many issues.

In addition, I can also see that in this Legislative Council, so far, on a number of occasions, some Members have proposed invoking the P&P Ordinance to deal with issues related to the Government or various other issues. We have to point out that the P&P Ordinance, that is, the powers and privileges conferred by the P&P Ordinance, is a piece of highly destructive weapon. It can help us 2150 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 pursue the truth of issues but it will also destroy the procedures and approaches under the existing system. I once gave an example, saying that if someone finds that there is a mouse in his home, would he use a baseball bat to pursue it? In the end, the mouse may be killed but the hi-fi, TV set, bowls and dishes in his home will all be smashed, so is doing so worthwhile? Some people say that one would pursue the mouse in this way only if one has a mental problem. However, another possibility is that this person does not have any mental problem and to smash the bowls and dishes is precisely his intention. This is what we often say that the aim of the opposition is to destroy, that is, to destroy the system and destroy the present proven approaches and methods.

Why do we not find other better ways to deal with this matter? If there is a mouse, just seek the help of a pest control company, and if there is any problem, just refer it to the Court. I find it strange that many Honourable colleagues in the pan-democratic camp would apply for judicial reviews in relation to just about everything but on this issue, when judicial review was mentioned, they suddenly said that it would not serve any purpose, that it was not potent enough and that it could not resolve the problem. In the past, they would talk about judicial reviews for just about anything but now, judicial review has become useless all of a sudden; it cannot deal with this issue and it is a must to invoke the P&P Ordinance, so this is hardly convincing. In particular, given that these arguments were presented by our barristers, they are all the more incomprehensible.

President, on the approach in dealing with the issue of granting licences, there are also some people who keep splashing dirty water on the FTU, accusing us of not caring about the rights of some 300 workers who were laid off. May I ask who the perpetrator was? Obviously, the perpetrator is Mr Ricky WONG, who hired a large number of employees to run HKTVN before he had obtained a licence. If someone builds "sub-divided units" in industrial buildings in violation of the existing law, may I ask if, in order not to affect the people living therein …

(Mr Charles Peter MOK stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please wait a minute. Mr Charles Peter MOK, what is your point?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2151

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, a quorum is not present in the Chamber. Could you summon Members back here?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please sit down first. Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats. Mr WONG Kwok-kin, please continue.

MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): President, just now we said that the one who perpetuated the layoff of more than 300 employees of HKTVN should be Mr Ricky WONG because he had gone a hiring spree and expanded his business before a TV licence was granted to him. To be fair, this is to jump the gun. To put a more positive spin on this, this is being proactive. But Mr Ricky WONG himself should assume the responsibility for this commercial decision.

On the next day after the announcement of the result of the licensing exercise, he laid off more than 300 employees immediately. May I ask him if he had no money to pay the salaries there and then? This is because even without a licence, he had already operated his business for some time and according to the financial capability disclosed by him, it is absolutely unnecessary for him to lay off these some 300 employees immediately. Did he ever try his best to lobby the Government for the grant of a licence again on behalf of his company? Or has he ever considered adopting other modes of operation in order to retain these employees? Is it necessary to lay off these some 300 people immediately? This gives one the impression that he wanted to use these some 300 employees to create a social effect. Maybe to put an even worse spin on this, is he trying to use these some 300 employees as the hostages or pawns to exert influence or pressure? Has he ever considered other approaches, for example, continuing to produce drama series? We also know that there are markets for drama series, so he can continue with the operation for the time being. In any event, he had operated HKTVN for some time, so is it necessary to lay off these some 300 2152 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 employees immediately? I think that on this issue, first, he went on a hiring spree before obtaining a licence and after the announcement of the results of the licensing exercise, he laid off his employees immediately. To the employees, this is a kind of irresponsible behaviour.

As regards the demand that the employees raised with us, we think that such a demand is totally removed from the genuine rights of employees. This is because the employees' demand is not related to the insufficient compensation or insufficient long service payment or severance payment offered by HKTVN in laying off its employees. They are not asking for this sort of things, rather, they demand that we vote in favour of this motion today. What I would ask is: The motion today is about invoking the P&P Ordinance to demand that the Government produce the papers of the Executive Council. Just now, many Members said that even if this motion was passed, it would not mean that HKTVN could obtain a licence, so how is it directly related to their reinstatement? Even if we vote in favour of the motion today, can it be guaranteed that HKTVN can be revived? After obtaining the licence, can this group of employees get back their jobs? These are two disparate issues. For this reason, although some Members have cited this pretext here to attack the FTU for disregarding the rights of workers, it is just a pretext. A pretext is a pretext. This is entirely the same as someone citing this pretext of the issue of licences to invoke the P&P Ordinance to raid the executive-led system and the confidentiality system of the Executive Council, in that pretexts that are not related to our genuine goal are cited to do something else.

President, we often say that it is hoped society can be more rational and that on certain issues, various parties can have more exchanges and discussions to reach a consensus, particularly given that very soon, we will face an issue of even greater importance ― constitutional reform ― so it is hoped that there can be rational discussions. However, now, the mode of thinking of some people is very ossified and they do not know how to be flexible at all. There are also some people whose style of dealing with matters is autocratic. So long as you disagree with their views, you are wrong and anti-democracy. If this mode of thinking is adopted, I am afraid the wrangles in society would continue to no end in the future. At the next stage, when we have discussions on even more important issues, it will also be very difficult to reach a consensus. I hope that Members would not raise this issue of granting licences to the political plane infinitely or elevate and hype this issue continually, thus continuing to damage and fragment society. President, on this issue of granting licences, even now, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2153 we are still asking why it has come to such a pass. Of course, not only is it necessary for Members to think about the answer, more importantly, I hope that Secretary Gregory SO, who is present, will also reflect deeply. On the handling of this matter, what mistake did the Government actually make? Is there any remedy and what remedial action can be taken? I believe that at the next stage, the Government should give an appropriate answer. Thank you, President.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the thrust of the original motion and amendment today is to request that the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting be authorized under section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) to exercise the powers conferred by section 9(1) of that Ordinance to order the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development to attend before the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting to produce all relevant papers, books, records or documents involved in the processes of vetting and approval of domestic free television programme service licence applications within a specified period. Although the amendment adds such words as "but excluding the deliberations and relevant records of the Executive Council and any confidential commercial information involving the licence applicants" to it, after prudent consideration by Honourable colleagues from the Business and Professional Alliance for Hong Kong (BPA) and me, we still consider the motion lacks sufficient justifications and it is not a good solution to the problem either, so we have difficulty in supporting it.

President, I am the representative of the Engineering Functional Constituency and recently, I have listened directly to the views of quite a number of engineers on the incident of issue of free TV licences. On the announcement on the outcome of the licensing exercise without giving a proper account to the public, the mainstream opinion of engineers whom I got in touch with recently is that they were not satisfied. They believe that the Government should seize the time and offer more explanations to the public on the condition that the confidentiality principle of the Executive Council is not violated. However, on invoking the P&P Ordinance to order the Government to produce the relevant papers, although some people support doing so, the majority do not, believing that if the long-standing and effective mechanism of the Executive Council is compromised for this reason, the consequences will be dire and this is not the best solution to the problem either.

2154 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

After the analyses made by various parties and the examination of the developments in this incident, as well as doing our utmost to understand the views in our respective sectors and those of friends in various sectors, the position of the BPA on this incident is clear. Last week, I, together with several Honourable colleagues from the BPA, had a meeting with the representatives of the employees' union of HKTVN to listen to their demands. We could hear voices of the public demanding that the authorities give a detailed account of the decision on the grant of licences and we also believe that indeed, the Government has the responsibility to dispel the doubts of the public. Last week, when I had a meeting with the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Mr Gregory SO, and when several Members from the BPA had a meeting with the Chief Executive on Monday, we all relayed the voices of the public, demanding that the Government give further explanations on the justifications for the grant of licences.

Finally, the Government issued a written statement that is several pages in length on Tuesday to further explain the decision of the Executive Council on the applications for free TV licences. Its emphasis is on giving more systematic and detailed explanations on some of the queries of the public, so in the final analysis, this is a desirable course of action. As regards the questions of whether or not the Government's written statement can completely dispel the doubts of the public and whether or not the authorities still have more room, on the condition that the confidentiality system of the Executive Council is not compromised, to disclose more information and the specific scores of the applicants of free TV licences, there are still different views in society. However, is it appropriate to invoke the P&P Ordinance to intervene merely because there were different views on a specific issue in the Executive Council?

To uphold the rule of law and respect the system have all along been the fundamental principles upheld by Hong Kong society. According to the law, the Chief Executive in Council is the final decision-making body on the grant of free TV licences and all along, the Executive Council has strictly upheld the confidentiality system. For one thing, the Executive Council frequently has to handle a lot of sensitive and confidential information; for another, it is necessary to ensure that when Executive Council Members discuss various issues involving public interest, they can speak their minds freely. Since such a system is proven, it should be respected. If it is compromised rashly, the effective operation of the Executive Council will be affected in future.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2155

If the Legislative Council passes the motion relating to this incident and invokes the P&P Ordinance to intervene, inevitably, there are concerns that setting this precedent is like opening the Pandora's Box, as there will be infinite adverse consequences. Members may consider this: Which item examined by the Executive Council does not involve public interest? Obviously, it is impractical to expect the decisions made by the Executive Council to completely satisfy various sectors of society on each occasion. In future, in the event that a certain party does not feel satisfied and demands that the P&P Ordinance be invoked to intervene and that the Government produce the papers related to the Executive Council, the confidentiality system of the Executive Council will be rendered virtually non-existent, thus seriously affecting effective administration by the SAR Government.

On further analysis, although the amendment adds such words as "but excluding the deliberations and relevant records of the Executive Council and any confidential commercial information involving the licence applicants", similarly, it will also lead to many adverse consequences and side-effects. This is because the documents involved in the process of deliberation by the Executive Council are regarded as part of the relevant documents of the Executive Council. If the P&P Ordinance is invoked to order the authorities to disclose them, this will still impact on the confidentiality system of the Executive Council. Moreover, what good will this do to the matter? Apart from invoking the P&P Ordinance to intervene, are there no other feasible options? In fact, under the existing system, if all relevant parties, including existing free TV licencees and licence applicants, are dissatisfied with the decisions of the Executive Council in any way, they have the right to seek judicial review through recourse to fair and impartial judicial proceedings. Under the system of the executive, legislative and judiciary being independent of one another, this is a permanent mechanism. On the controversy surrounding the issue of licences, it seems a judicial review is a more independent and objective option that can prevent excessive politicization of the incident. Of course, if the Government can give the public more appropriate and satisfactory explanations and responses concerning the outcome of the licensing exercise, this is perhaps the best course of action.

President, in the past, there were also some biased comments in the legislature levelling the unfounded criticism that the Executive Council was a rubber stamp that only followed consultancy reports blindly in the course of deliberations. However, this time around, in this exercise to grant free TV 2156 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 licences, these voices turned around to criticize the comprehensive consideration made by the Executive Council, thus creating distrust of the Executive Council and the decisions of the executive among the public. Such an approach in discussing public affairs designed to achieve political ends without regard to matters of principle can only deceive the public momentarily. President, the BPA believes that the issue of more free TV licences by the Government has introduced competition into the market, so it is conducive to raising the standard of TV programmes and training new blood, as well as giving young people more development opportunities, so it merits the support of society. The Executive Council must make decisions according to the established criteria for licence issue and at the same time, it has to take into account Hong Kong's overall interest, so it is necessary to follow the principle of gradual and orderly progress. We have to enable the market to develop in an orderly manner, promote competition and give the public more choices. At the same time, we have to consider the stability and sustainability of the TV market, so the Government must assume the role of a responsible regulator and cannot open up the market infinitely or without order. Otherwise, the market may in the end shrink and suffer damage as a result of vicious competition, thus leading to the adverse consequence of an increase leading to a decrease.

Having said that, President, we believe that the entire process of announcing and explaining the decision on the grant of licences by the authorities was handled very poorly, so it is necessary to conduct a review. The developments in recent days indicate that the Government's decision has fallen far short of public expectations. More importantly, the authorities have seriously underestimated the reactions of society. Initially, the Government tried to use such hollow explanations as "a host of factors" and "not being able to please everyone" as its responses and naturally, the public did not accept them readily. This is not to mention the fact that a free TV business involves an investment of hundreds of million dollars, so the continuity of the investment environment and policies is very important. Since there are voices in society querying if there has been a change in government policy, the authorities should give an open and full account to the licence applicants and the public. Otherwise, the public cannot be blamed for feeling deeply concerned and dissatisfied.

Subsequently, the authorities attempted to give an account in the manner of "squeezing a tube of toothpaste", so inevitably, this resulted in many rumours and speculations, thus making this incident build up continually and more politicized. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2157

Certainly, the written statement of several pages issued by the Government already shows that an appropriate balance can be struck between the confidentiality system of the Executive Council and accountability to the public. Unfortunately, earlier on, the Government missed the most opportune time following the day on which the policy was announced for giving appropriate explanations, so I believe the authorities should engage in a review seriously. The Government's decisions must be in line with public interest, and it has to dispel public misgivings in a timely manner. Only in this way can mutual trust between officials and the public be promoted and the ability of the SAR Government to govern effectively be enhanced. President, I so submit.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, today, a number of Members have pointed out that since it is necessary to protect the confidentiality system of the Executive Council, they cannot support the motion today. I find this most baffling. What is the raison d'être of this confidentiality system? Is it confidentiality for confidentiality's sake? If this is so, the confidentiality system may become a divine rule that cannot be challenged. However, does the Executive Council not have an even greater responsibility, that is, to be accountable to the Hong Kong public? The confidentiality system should focus on the process and the papers but it does not mean that even the justifications for the decisions should also be kept confidential. If even the justifications for the decisions are kept confidential, how can society understand the final policy decisions of the Hong Kong Government? The Government must explain to the public the grounds for policy decisions, otherwise, it cannot become a truly responsible Government. The confidentiality system must be implemented on this premise in order for it to take on significance in facilitating administration. It is not true that the system per se cannot be challenged.

If the Government can explain its decisions to the public properly, there is no need for us to challenge the confidentiality system. The problem this time around is precisely attributable to the failure of the Government to fulfil its fundamental responsibility of giving explanations to the public, so the confidentiality system of the Executive Council should be subjected to checks and balances. One important element in the design of the entire modern political system is the presence of checks and balances. If the confidentiality system of the Executive Council hinders the Government in explaining to the public the grounds for its decisions, the public can mount judicial challenges and so can 2158 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Legislative Council Members. The aim is to subject the entire system to checks and balances again. Therefore, if some Members are concerned that the system would be dealt impacts, I have to point out that the impact now is not on the confidentiality system of the Executive Council, rather, it is the abuse of the confidentiality system of the Executive Council to refrain from giving explanations on policies to the public. I hope Members can make this point clear first of all.

The furore over free TV licences has drawn the wrath of man and heaven alike. On 20 October, 120 000 members of the public found it necessary to take to the streets and besiege the Government Headquarters. What did they do this for? Of course, this is not just about a TV licence. More importantly, it is about procedural justice and the transparency in decision-making by the Government, which Hong Kong society values, as well as such important principles as being given reasonable explanations. We have given the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration a lot of time but unfortunately, he still cannot give the public a convincing explanation. He has kept trampling on the core values of Hong Kong, so the Hong Kong public are feeling very indignant.

Today, more than 30 Members support invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to demand that the Government give the general public in Hong Kong a reasonable account. We also hope that today, not just these some 30 Members but even more Members will join our ranks. The starting point of all the foregoing discussion should be the existing policy on broadcasting and the regime for issuing free TV licences in Hong Kong. According to government official documents, the Government's broadcasting policy objectives are "to widen the programme choice for the community, encourage investment and innovation in the broadcasting industry, promote fair and effective competition and enhance Hong Kong's position as a regional broadcasting hub". A grand vision can be found herein, that is, to turn the TV industry in Hong Kong, which has been in decline for a long time, into an important industry in the East Asia Region. In addition, the Government stated the important decision of not to impose any ceiling on the number of local free TV licences.

Sections 9 and 10 of the Broadcasting Ordinance provides for the licensing regime of free TV programme services. In sum, any organization intending to apply for a licence can make an application for a free TV licence to the former LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2159

Broadcasting Authority (BA) or the existing Communications Authority (CA) and the CA, after receiving the application, will consider it, then make recommendations to the Chief Executive in Council. After further consideration, if it is considered that the conditions are suitable, a licence can be issued.

Although Hong Kong is renowned as a world city, during the past three decades, there are only two free TV operators for the public to choose from. This is indeed very strange. In this regard, it turns out that Hong Kong is even more backward than many developing countries. With increasingly vocal calls in the community for the issue of more free TV licences, the Government plans to increase the number of free TV operators. In 2009 and 2010, the former BA received three applications from HKTVN, the Limited (Fantastic TV) and the Hong Kong Television Entertainment Company Limited (HKTVE) respectively.

According to the official documents of the Government, the former BA considered that all three applicants had demonstrated compliance with all the statutory requirements. It was satisfied that all three applicants had the requisite financial capability, expertise, transmission infrastructure and commitment to provide quality television programme services to the public.

In relation to the sustainability of the free television market, although the consultant's findings indicate that the market might not be able to sustain a total of five players based on the business plans submitted by the three applicants, in view of the dynamic competitive environment and evolving business strategies of individual applicants, the BA came to the view that the sustainability of the market or individual applicants should not be a primary consideration in deciding whether a licence should be granted or not. Therefore, on 13 July 2011, the BA recommended to the Chief Executive in Council that approval-in-principle should be given for the grant of free TV licences to these three applicants.

In fact, this proposal is in line with the principle that has all along been advocated by LEUNG Chun-ying, that is, Hong Kong should make the pie bigger, that our "pie" is not fixed in size but can keep growing, and that we have the ability to make the pie bigger. From 2011 to 2013, the Limited and Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) respectively filed writs to the High Court to apply for a judicial review, but we cannot overlook the changes taking place in the TV industry at the same time. Greater importance was 2160 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 gradually attached to the pay and conditions of work of TV production workers and artists as well as the quality of programmes. The public also hope that after the introduction of new TV licences, the monopolization by TVB, which has dominated the industry for a long time, can be broken. At the same time, the situation of some TV operators being barely able to survive can be avoided. We hope that healthy competition can bring about free TV programmes of high quality, so that the TV industry in Hong Kong can regain its former glory.

However, on this issue of granting additional free TV licences, the Government kept adopting a delaying tactic and the delay lasted as long as four years. On 15 October this year, the Government eventually announced that the Chief Executive in Council had given approval-in-principle to the licence applications by Fantastic TV and HKTVE, whereas the application made by HKTVN was not accepted. This decision made by the Government aroused a controversy in society and it is believed that serious black-box operation has taken place in the Government's policymaking process, thus running counter to public expectations. Not only is this the major cause of the public indignation, it is also the reason for 120 000 people thronging the Government Headquarters.

In the last two weeks, the Government has still failed to explain properly why such a major policy shift from having no ceiling on the number to only granting licences to two operators has taken place, nor has it explained clearly the reasons for not granting a licence to HKTVN on such grounds as "having considered a host of relevant factors" or "a gradual and orderly approach should be adopted in introducing competition into the free TV market". This approach of citing various excuses to refuse to give an account of the details has caused public discontent to mount continually.

The day before yesterday, the Government again issued a six-page statement but unfortunately, it only recapped what had been said before and was totally unconvincing, nor could it dispel the misgivings of the public. The Government pointed out in the statement that the reason for not granting licences to all three applicants was the need "to consider whether the number of new licences will lead to over-competition or vicious competition", including a decline in programme quality as a result of the cut-throat competition and "the possible dilution of advertising revenue … during the 12-year licence period to support the consistent and quality programme production." This claim made by the Government is tantamount to saying that it must ensure that the players in the TV LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2161 industry make sufficient profits, thus turning them into a franchised public utility. Such a claim is indeed far too absurd.

On what grounds does the Government think that the market cannot accommodate five free TV operators? Should this matter be decided by the Government? If it is only possible to grant two additional free TV licences, why was HKTVN not granted a licence and what are the causes of its "death"? HKTVN pointed out that it had never been ranked the last in the consultancy reports, so why was it eventually kicked out? If the commercially sensitive information is eliminated, why can the Government still not release all the other information in the consultancy reports? Is there any unspeakable secret? It is indeed necessary for the Government to explain the underlying justifications clearly to the public, otherwise, it would be difficult to convince the public.

If we believe in free market and the principle of fair competition, why can a knock-out competition among TV operators not take place in Hong Kong? We should give various TV operators the chance to fight it out fair and square. Only in this way can the TV industry thrive and workers in the TV industry give play to their talents. Was the relevant decision made in public interest or for the sake of the commercial interests of certain TV operators? In the statement issued by the Government the day before, it is even pointed out that "the Chief Executive in Council has considered the three free TV licence applications against 11 factors and four assessment criteria" and that the assessment "reflects a judgment in overall terms". However, all these cannot help explain the decision made by the Government clearly.

I came from the education sector and we all know that when candidates sit for the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination or Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination, if they have doubts about their examination results, they can exercise an important right, that is, to review their answer sheets to ensure that the process of assessment is subjected to checks and balances. If any mistake is made, candidates can also know in which part of the answer sheets the mistakes are made and request a re-evaluation. What is at stake now is a matter of great public interest but the Government cannot give us a proper explanation or the relevant information, so what are the grounds for this? If our system is no better than an examination arrangement, a problem will arise in the entire public policymaking process, that is, the Government can make any decision in respect of public policy and needs not offer any explanation.

2162 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

As I pointed out earlier on, the confidentiality system of the Executive Council must be premised on the ability to give the public reasonable explanations, otherwise, in future, after policies have been referred to the Executive Council for decision, does it mean that we will not be able to get any reasonable explanation or relevant information? Once such a precedent is set, we will see no end of such instances in the future. The Government will become a dictatorial organization and we cannot exercise any checks and balances on it. If the Legislative Council gives up invoking the P&P Ordinance to demand due explanations, this is tantamount to giving up an important tool for exercising checks and balances on the Government. For this reason, I implore Members to support the motion today.

I so submit.

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): First of all, President, I would like to declare that my family members and I hold a small amount of shares of the Hongkong Telecom, Cable TV, The Wharf (Holdings) Limited and PCCW. Moreover, I am a non-executive director of the Harbour Centre Development Limited. I would like to further disclose that I have known Mr Ricky WONG longer than any other Members who are present here, witnessing his transformation from a computer salesperson to a media and communications mogul. When I was Chairman of the Vocational Training Council (VTC), Mr Ricky WONG had done a lot for the VTC and made an enormous contribution. It was me who wrote a letter in support of his bid to acquire a site in Tseung Kwan O to build a studio.

President, over the past three weeks, Hong Kong people have expressed great concern about the incident involving the issuance of free TV licences. They very much hope that the Government can come out and explain why it has decided not to grant a licence to HKTVN. The Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong (BPA) has been watching this incident closely. We were also very pleased to meet with representatives of the Hong Kong Television Trade Union last week for more than an hour to exchange views. After listening to Mr Ricky WONG's views, reading the Government's six-page statement and listening to the views of different sectors, we have finally decided to unanimously vote against this motion on invoking the P&P Ordinance.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2163

For quite some time, the BPA has urged the Government to expeditiously give a further explanation to the public on the criteria for not granting a licence, with a view to allaying their concern and calming down the storm as early as possible. However, the Government's persistent failure to proactively give a response has led to the spreading of rumours about the defeat of HKTVN. In view of the different versions given by sources in the know as quoted in newspapers, coupled with the Government and Mr Ricky WONG of HKTVN sticking to their own versions, the incident has become increasingly complicated and the storm over the incident has got increasingly worse. Yet the Government has still not responded positively to the public's greatest concern about its justifications for licence issue, especially the criteria governing the endorsement of the Executive Council, the impartiality of the Government's vetting and approval procedure, and how the number of licences issued will impede competition in the market. Despite the 11 factors and four criteria highlighted in the Government's statement, public concern can still not be fully allayed, for the Government has failed to explain clearly the criteria applied in refusing to issue a new licence to HKTVN and its real cause of death. The BPA considers that the Government should have room for further explanations. We understand that the six-page statement issued by the Government after scrutiny by countless solicitors and barristers under the shadow of a judicial review must be watertight. This explains why public concern cannot be allayed.

President, we have reservations about the call by Members to make public the documents involving the Executive Council, because the future governance of Hong Kong will thus be affected. Members should know it very well that it is the unique function of the Chief Executive in Council to decide whether or not a licence should be granted. The Legislative Council should not interfere with its collective decision. We disapprove of undermining a system of the Executive Council without careful consideration because, once a precedent is set, the Legislative Council can invoke the P&P Ordinance to conduct inquiries whenever it is dissatisfied with any decision made by the Executive Council. This is a very dangerous practice, for the Executive Council can hardly operate in future. What is more, the relationship between the executive and the legislature will be undermined. With its focus on Hong Kong's long-term governance, the BPA advocates that this storm be handled within a reasonable framework. Hence, we call on the SAR Government to give the public a clear explanation once and for all without prejudice to the Executive Council's confidentiality system.

2164 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Furthermore, the P&P Ordinance, even if invoked, cannot direct the Government to issue more licences but only politicize the incident further. In our opinion, if HKTVN is dissatisfied with the outcome of its licence application, the best solution is to apply for a judicial review through which procedural justice can be examined. Should it win the case, the Executive Council will have to examine afresh the granting of free TV licences. This is the only way to settle this storm direct.

Thanks to this incident, the Government has come to understand the public's great concern about the issuance of free TV licences. Over the past two decades or so, there has been a lack of competition in the free TV market, with the big TV station broadcasting stereotyped programmes and the small one airing re-run programmes again and again and scoring a rating of zero point repeatedly. The situation is so horrible that we can hardly bear to look at it. While members of the public have grown tired of the domination of the market entirely by TVB, ATV has often seen its shareholders in disputes and kept airing bought programmes. This is really disgusting. In the end, however, the authorities concerned have only requested TVB and ATV to increase their respective investment capital and make an additional request for ATV to increase the quantity of locally produced programmes by 20%. As the number of hours of broadcasting such programmes is not specified in the recommendation, coupled with the need for the production of new programmes, ATV has continued to meet the broadcasting requirements with re-run programmes, even repeating such programmes three to four times a day. Viewers left with no choice can only turn off their TV sets in protest.

I believe the majority Hong Kong public support the Government's issuance of free TV licences for the first time in four decades, because it is good to the development of the industry. Not only can the monopolization be broken, talents can also be trained and more development opportunities provided to young people aspiring to join the creative and culture industries as well as practitioners of the industries. We hope to see a new scene emerging in the TV industry.

We understand the public's demand that not only should there be different TV stations for selection when they turn on their TV sets, but there should be a greater number of quality programmes for them to watch rather than being given the two options of turning their TV sets on or off. Given that a positive response LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2165 should be given to the public's aspiration for quality and more choices, the Government should exploit the terms and conditions imposed in the handling of these new licences and the opportunity arising from the expiry of the licences of the two TV stations in late November 2015 to enhance regulation of the quality of TV programmes, with a view to rewriting the ending of the TV industry which is dominated and monopolized by one TV station alongside another one which is struggling to survive. What is more, viewers should be given genuine choices. I believe an opportunity will arise when licences are due for renewal in late November 2015. We hope the Government will not renew the licence of the TV station with a rating of only one point. Otherwise, I believe the Government will find the public response beyond proportions it could manage.

President, we can see from this incident that the Government's handling approach is a far cry from the public aspiration. The Government has paid a high price, too. Throughout the incident, we have seen the staff of HKTVN express their demands in a peaceful and rational manner. Its trade union can also sit down in a calm and peaceful manner to present their views to us. We really hope that these creative and competent staff of HKTVN can continue to work hard for Hong Kong's creativity in the days to come.

Over the past year, the Government has actually done a poor job in administration in many aspects. We hope that it can learn a lesson from this incident and listen to different views before making decisions in the future. We also hope that the public can continue to convey their aspirations to the Government. We would like to add that our decision not to support invoking the P&P Ordinance this time around does not mean that we have given up our fight for HKTVN and viewers in Hong Kong. We will definitely continue to monitor the operation of the Government and fight for better choices for the public.

Thank you, President.

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, for the sake of interpreting this storm, it is most imperative to look at the root of the problem, which I believe is the Hong Kong Government's approach of administration. I know that many people do not trust the Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying, for various reasons, but we cannot deny that the new Government is committed to resolving, without fear of difficulties, the deep-rooted problems cumulated in Hong Kong over the 2166 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 years, including housing, poverty alleviation, and problems caused indirectly by conflicts between China and Hong Kong. However, it is a pity that many well-motivated policies end up being targets of criticisms, though many of them make perfect sense. We can simply not accuse the opposition of stirring up troubles on each and every occasion. Certainly, I believe it is more beneficial to Hong Kong if the opposition can make more constructive suggestions.

I believe both the Government's failure to engage in careful and serious consideration and its approach of accounting for the incident are to blame for its administrative blunders. The new Government is still adhering to the old Government's line to take, or the official line, which means that disclosures are very often made in a selective or restricted manner. However, the Government has forgotten the change of times and the fact that this approach can no longer meet the public's request for the right to know and a high degree of transparency. Hence, it is doomed to failure. I hope it can conduct a comprehensive review or even change its approach of information disclosure in order to achieve effective administration.

Now I would like to turn to my views on this licence issue incident. First of all, Members must understand that it is a very complicated issue. If we cannot grasp the facts due to a lack of time or for various reasons, I believe it is impossible to fully understand the full story of the incident. Actually, it is unfair to pass judgment of right and wrong under such circumstances.

The day before yesterday, the Government issued another statement to further explain the decision on the issuance of licences. Although there is little new information disclosed, the Government still manages to explain in detail some of the considerations for issuing licences. However, I believe the community will absolutely not feel satisfied because the response is made by the Government in a hamstrung mannner. On the one hand, the rule of confidentiality must be observed and, on the other, confidential commercial information must not be leaked. As it is envisaged that a judicial review will be lodged sooner or later, the Government will definitely be advised by counsels not to say anything. Given so many constraints, it is actually difficult for the Government to explain such a complicated issue clearly.

I confess that I got my earlier impression of this incident from the press. After spending considerable time discussing with the Chief Executive and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2167 designated government officials, however, my views on the entire incident have changed. I believe it is actually very easy to make a wrong judgment if we cannot understand the incident in a calm and peaceful manner with no pre-established stance.

I believe the crux of the problem in this incident consists of these points:

First, the consultants consider that the gradual and orderly approach should be adopted in issuing licences, and the market can only allow one more new TV licence. Under a favourable market condition, only a maximum of two more new licences can be issued, but the market will be unable to sustain the operation of three new operators.

Second, the consultants recommend that the three applications be assessed according to four criteria. HKTVN is reportedly ranked second in terms of its overall performance.

Next, Members will definitely ask why the ranking of HKTVN would have fallen from second to third. According to media reports and my understanding, the Executive Council has to consider the applications in a holistic manner. Apart from the four consultant's reports, 10 factors have to be considered as well. Members should note that the Government has made representations in this regard in the information released just now. In my opinion, these two points merit Members' attention most: First, many rounds of representation documents and public interest are involved. To put it in a more vivid manner, in these representation documents, three applicants are seen criticizing each other and pointing out each other's shortcomings. At the same time, they are given the opportunity to give a fresh explanation and refute the arguments of the other parties. It is imaginable that a large number of problems concerning the actual operation of the TV industry and possible problems must have been exposed in such representations spanning several months. Under the circumstances that the hidden stories were revealed by people in the industry, I believe the Executive Council was thus able to consider from a new perspective in addition to that of the consultant's reports, and detect possible scenarios. Hence, it was able to consider the entire matter in a holistic manner.

(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)

2168 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Furthermore, the issue of public interest, including whether the new licences and operators can sustain their operation during the 12-year licence period, and whether sharp fluctuations will be caused in the market, are mentioned in the Government's statement, too. These are crucial considerations. Should the successful licensee lack strong financial capability, it might face the worst-case scenario of incurring losses for 12 years in a row. Some people even describe the injection of enormous sums of money for a TV station to sustain its operation as "burning banknotes". Should its income fall short of its expenditure for a long period of time, it might face "bankruptcy before the expiry of its licence". This is absolutely possible. In fact, Hong Kong has seen the closure of a TV station before. Despite its production of quite a number of successful TV programmes, the income of CTV had continued to fall short of its expenditure. Consequently, it kept "burning banknotes" and eventually went bankrupt after several years of operation. It was a bitter lesson.

In fact, it is already very difficult for existing TV stations to sustain their operation because their advertising revenue cannot possibly see a drastic growth. Should competition between TV stations trigger a cut-throat price-cut battle, even leading to the closure of some TV stations eventually, not only will the entire TV industry be impacted, other media will also be affected in a negative manner. When the two successful operators submitted their applications in 2010, their parent companies had already made it clear that financial support would be given. Moreover, they had long experience in operating TV stations. In this regard, their chances of "early bankruptcy" are indeed comparatively low. Certainly, Members might ask these questions: Why is the Government so conservative? Such being the case, how can small operators have any chance? These are the issues the Government needs to consider, too.

I believe the original motion today can hardly be passed because the Executive Council obviously has a practical need to maintain the confidentiality system, which has been in operation for years. If there is really a need for revision, in-depth studies and discussions must be conducted, for changes to the rule cannot be proposed simply because of the licence issue incident. As regards the issue of confidential commercial information, it is all the more unreasonable to destroy Hong Kong's trademark as a financial hub because of these circumstances or this incident.

Mr Dennis KWOK has proposed not to request documents involving the Executive Council and confidential commercial information probably because he LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2169 realizes the significance of the Executive Council's rule of confidentiality and commercial confidentiality. On the surface of it, the two major hurdles can thus be circumvented. On second thought, however, if several hundred documents have already been considered by the Executive Council during the process, which means that we can only obtain other information, these documents will actually be excluded from our consideration. So, how can we make a comprehensive and impartial judgment? In the end, Members will definitely act like "blind men examining an elephant": they can only feel the different parts of its body. Furthermore, many technical problems are actually involved, including distinguishing between Executive Council documents, non-confidential commercial information, and so on. Lengthy debates will thus be arise. Therefore, although the amendment appears to be fair, we actually need to spend much time to debate the motion. Just now, I was asked by a journalist whether or not public opinion had to be considered. Certainly, public opinion has to be considered. I also understand the public grievances over the incident. As a Legislative Council Member, we can choose to join the public in criticizing the Government in order to curry favour with voters for more votes. We can also choose to guide them to understand the complexity and difficulty of the issue and request or compel the Government to address their opinion properly. If invoking the P&P Ordinance can resolve this incident, I will definitely render it my support, but I believe the relevant issues can still not be resolved even if the P&P Ordinance is revoked.

In fact, for people dissatisfied with the Government's decision, the most correct way is to resort to judicial review to let the Court decide in what aspects the Government has acted unfairly. Yesterday, Mr Alan LEONG, SC, and Mr Dennis KWOK highlighted the limitation of judicial review. Just now, Mr Martin LIAO, SC, also responded to the relevant issues in detail. I think that his response makes perfect sense. It demonstrates that Hong Kong's system of legal practitioners is remarkable, for they can go in different directions as required. Sometimes, we need to engage a lawyer because we do not know which way we should go. While there is no way we can avoid spending money, the legal professionals will definitely win. In fact, I have great confidence in Hong Kong's judicial system, even more so than invoking the P&P Ordinance. Should the Legislative Council be allowed to make political judgment, not only will the problems not be resolved, many disputes related to laws and principles will definitely arise. Members should not say that Judges in Hong Kong are aloof but actually do not trust them. Our Judges must enjoy a transcendental status to make qualified, competent and systematic judgments. People who would like to 2170 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 deal with the problems in a rational manner had better apply for a judicial review. Unlike us, Judges appear to have no political considerations. Insofar as all parties are concerned, I believe it is fairer if Judges can adjudicate free from pressure whether or not the Government has erred.

I believe the chance of the original motion and amendment today being passed is slim, but even so, I still hope that the Government can explain in detail and resolve the incident through the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting to restore public confidence by all means.

Thank you, Deputy President.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Hong Kong's core spirits embrace not only fairness, impartiality, procedural justice, as mentioned by many colleagues just now, but also the spirit of dreaming. Hong Kong is a place where there are a lot of opportunities for us to pursue our ideals and dreams. Hong Kong can definitely give people with ambition and competence, or even resources and talents, opportunities to pursue their dreams, big or small.

The 1970s and 1980s saw the emergence of a couple of TV stations as watching TV became increasingly popular. The development of TV stations was not confined to the TV industry and a region. At that time, the movie and even phonographic industries had continued to be driven by TV stations because Hong Kong was made a dream factory as a result of the growing popularity of the TV industry. Certainly, TV productions, movies and music records are the brainchild of someone's thoughts and thinking ― though you might think that they are purely imaginary, creative, or like a story leading to nowhere ― even you have no "bricks" or money, these industries can give you infinite opportunities and allow aspiring and intelligent people to wander everywhere on this platform. Such a situation actually occurred in the 1970s and 1980s.

It was similar to the situation in Japan back in the 1980s and in Korea today. We can see that Korean movies, TV programmes and music records are very popular in Asia, and even around the world. This is precisely the soil we need in order to bring our dreams back to their days of glory in the 1970s and 1980s. Furthermore, the Government has to create and provide the platform we need for opportunities to be provided to different people.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2171

But obviously, we can see from this TV licence issue incident that the will of the official is overriding. The official might say anything. He might say, "No, I am concerned that you will incur losses." He might say, "When you are running out of money, not only you but also your staff will be affected." He might say, "It is unfair to the public should you go on like this." In short, every word of the official was in conflict with the room made over the years for opportunities to be provided to people to pursue their dreams and ideals in Hong Kong, as if the official was standing on the side in contradiction and confrontation with those people. Why did the official say something like that? What was going on in Hong Kong? Why could a colonial government allow us enormous room to exercise our freedom of thought? Following its reunification, Hong Kong is said to be our home. Even the Government emphasizes that Hong Kong is our home, but why can our home not allow us to develop, provide us with the soil and let us have an ideal?

Deputy President, it appears in a dream that many things behind the official are unacceptable to us. First of all, I would like to say a few words about the remarks made by LEUNG Chun-ying. Members should listen to what he said. He said, to this effect, "The licences were granted in accordance with four assessment criteria and 11 factors." In the beginning he said, "Excuse me, I cannot disclose the decision because it was made by the Executive Council and must be kept confidential." Then he said, "Since some people are seeking judicial review, I cannot say anything unless in court." After the parties concerned had backed down and withdrawn their judicial review applications, he said, "Excuse me, I still cannot say anything unless in court". These were the incomprehensible remarks he made on one occasion.

What about the incomprehensible remarks he made on another occasion? Quite many pro-establishment Members have recently met with the Chief Executive over the policy address consultation. However, when they met the reporters after their meetings with the Chief Executive, they would not express their views on the policy address. Instead, they would express their opinions on the granting of TV licences after hearing the Chief Executive's comments. Is such information not confidential? Is it not the system of the Executive Council to keep such information confidential? Why could CY disclose such information to them? Why could they reveal what they were told? I have no idea what was going on.

2172 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Deputy President, even some Executive Council Members, including Executive Council convenor LAM Woon-kwong and CHENG Yiu-tong, have been talking about the relevant details recently. LAM Woon-kwong even stated clearly that he was talking about the contents of the consultant's reports. Are they not confidential? Why can the official talk about confidential information every day and every hour in breach of the Executive Council's confidentiality system? But, sorry, Ricky WONG and HKTVN are not allowed to say anything. The four study reports are not allowed to be disclosed, either.

Deputy President, I really wish to ask these questions: Can I sum up all these remarks as "one man may steal a horse"? Is the Executive Council's rule of confidentiality applicable only to members of the public with the exception of the Executive Council Members? While Executive Council Members can say anything they like, the Executive Council's rule of confidentiality is used to gag Ricky WONG.

I think that LEUNG Chun-ying is not trustworthy. Why? Despite his remark that the Government has a licensing policy and it is stated clearly that no ceiling has been set, the relevant expression was removed mysteriously from the Secretary's website and restored after the Government had been criticized. Even this most important policy can be deleted and added anytime. Does it really exist?

The authorities concerned then added that a gradual and orderly approach should be adopted, but what does a gradual and orderly approach mean? Given that only two licences will be issued at the moment, does a gradual and orderly approach mean that the number of licences issued can only progress from one, two, three, four to five? If this is the case, only one new licence should be granted this time around. However, two rather than one or three licences are granted, thus arousing disputes unnecessarily. I guess fewer people will argue if one or three licences are approved, but it turns out that two licences are granted under the so-called orderly approach. What does "orderly" mean? Never has anything mentioned about it except that this is a new policy. The previous policy of setting no ceiling has been changed without informing the public, discussions and consultations. Like the "85 000" policy introduced by TUNG Chee-hwa, it had ceased to exist when it was no longer mentioned.

One point they raised concerning the financial capability of the applicants is very crucial. I have here a copy of information disclosed by HKTVN. I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2173 would read out some of the relevant information, though Members might have already known it. HKTVN, Fantastic TV and HKTVE are in possession of $2.317 billion, $56 million and $21.237 billion respectively. Certainly, Members can see that HKTVN came second. The liability ratios of HKTVN, Fantastic TV and HKTVE are 8.56%, 5.57% and 57.03% respectively. With its liability ratio slightly higher by 3%, HKTVN might compare less favourably in this respect.

However, when it comes to losses incurred over the years, except for a loss of $8 million in 2013, HKTVN has recorded surpluses from 2010 to 2012, with the highest annual surplus reaching $3.7 billion. As for Fantastic TV, excuse me, Deputy President, it has been incurring losses year after year from 2010 to 2013. Given its repeated losses, how can we expect it to make a profit or a huge profit in the following year to make up for the shortfall of more than $700 million. As for HKTVE, it has been making profits year after year. We can thus see that HKTVN came second. Judging from its financial conditions, the outcome is really baffling.

Furthermore, there is a new condition. What is this new condition? According to this six-page statement, the three applicants' and their parent companies' market capitalization and profitability have to be assessed as well. I have never heard of anything like including the parent companies behind the applicants for assessment. What does this new approach or condition mean? It means that the largest consortium is the best qualified. In other words, only large consortia can undertake this type of work, business or industry. There is no need for the Government to explain. It had better list all the consortia in Hong Kong, and the two highest-ranking applicants will definitely be granted a licence because the one in the third place will definitely be defeated by the one in the second place. Is there still any need for applications and arguments? The Government can simply calculate their fortunes. Actually, is the Government unaware of this? I have never carried on any business, but even I know the reason for a parent company to set up a subsidiary ― even if the subsidiary "gets into trouble" and sinks into the sea, it can severe the tie with its parent company anytime without getting the latter into trouble as well.

Second, has the parent company in question made it clear that it will inject $100 billion or $1,000 billion into its subsidiary for the development of the TV business? If not, how can the Government assume that the parent company will support its subsidiary with its entire fortunes? The Government is talking 2174 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 nonsense. In the absence of any verbal or written undertakings in this regard, is the Government not talking nonsense?

After hearing what I said just now, I really feel that I am most rational in the sense that I have got figures and data. On the contrary, I have to accuse LEUNG Chun-ying of running out of cogent arguments, delivering speeches full of contradictions, talking nonsense and expressing his views without allowing others to do the same. He is really unbearable.

Deputy President, three pro-establishment Members, namely Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Mr MA Fung-kwok, asked whether they should object given that even Ricky WONG has admitted today that the P&P Ordinance is not at all useful. Is this the reason or the main reason for them to think that they should voice objection? If they take Ricky WONG's words so seriously, I hope they can take a look at all his arguments rather than merely focusing on this point.

Second, I have received a statement which I believe was issued by HKTVN just now. Let me read it out, which is written to this effect.

"6 November 2013, Hong Kong. With regard to the meeting held in the Legislative Council today to discuss the P&P Ordinance to call on the Government to make public the relevant documents, the position of HKTVN is as follows: (a) The general public's right to know is a basic civic right that should be respected; (b) the Hong Kong Government is still unable to give a reasonable and concrete explanation on its revised licensing policy and the reason for not granting a TV licence to HKTVN; (c) HKTVN and Hong Kong people have waited three weeks for the truth. We agree with some of the Legislative Council Members that, if the Government can give a reasonable explanation in public, then there is no need to invoke the P&P Ordinance. But the fact is, the Government is insincere in solving the problems. Except for invoking the P&P Ordinance, what else can we do? How can public grievances be ameliorated? Should the Government fail to make a true and detailed explanation by 1 pm, HKTVN will call on Legislative Council Members to support invoking the P&P Ordinance to require the Government to make public the relevant documents."

I would like to invite the three Members I mentioned just now to listen to this statement. Given its support for Ricky WONG, I would like to appeal to all of you to give him support, too.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2175

Deputy President, I received many petitions from the large crowd of people gathering outside last evening, and there was a list of signatures collected by Socialist Action in the districts. Basically, this statement seeks to request the Government to make public its licensing policy and all the information related to this licence issue exercise and refrain from engaging in black-box operation. I will refer the statement to the Secretary later on.

Deputy President, besides talking about fairness, impartiality and procedural justice, we actually have to discuss the impact of this incident on the people. I think this incident have an impact on the choice of TV programmes for the vast majority of households, particularly housewives. I wonder if the Secretary has listened to the radio. After hearing the phone-in programmes on the radio over the past couple of days, I have summed up several points of view as follows: First, I have never taken any interest in politics, but I am very angry that I have no TV programmes to watch, not allowed to choose TV programmes because of the Government. Second, I have all along been a supporter of CY, but sorry, I cannot support him this time around. I have always believed that the Government will act in the best interest of the public, but it turns out not to be the case in reality.

Since separate voting is controlled by directly elected Members, I have all along been a directly elected Member until the Legislative Council Election of this term when I ran in the super District Council (DC) election as a functional constituency (FC) Member. This is really bad because the vote cast by me on every occasion has served no purpose at all. So, the importance of every single vote cast by FC members this time around is really unexpected. Hence, I have to tender a piece of advice to two pro-establishment elected Members from the super DC FC, namely Ms Starry LEE and Miss CHAN Yuen-han: Although both of you were returned by FC elections, I hope you can see that you were actually elected by 100 000 to 300 000 people, though Ms Starry LEE is an Executive Council Member, too. I wonder if she still remembers the lesson learnt by her party comrade, Mr LAU Kong-wah, in the election in 2012 when he stood in the Kowloon East Constituency. However, there was a drastic drop in the number of votes he won, particularly in Tseung Kwan O, because of his support for the Tseung Kwan O landfill, which was opposed by the residents. He was thus taught a lesson by his constituents with their votes (The buzzer sounded). Thank you, Deputy President.

2176 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of the authorization of the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting by the Legislative Council under the P&P Ordinance to order the Government to make public more information about the issue of licences. What is more, I call on the SAR Government to issue the fifth free TV licence to HKTVN.

On the eve of the voting on this motion on the P&P Ordinance, pro-establishment Members were seen complementing the Government in putting on an act with LEUNG Chun-ying. In a six-page document disclosed by LEUNG Chun-ying the day before yesterday on some of the contents of the consultant's reports on the issue of free TV licences, four assessment criteria were set out, including financial capability, programming investment, programming strategy and capability, and technical soundness. However, not only is there no mention in the document of the evaluation method and assessment criteria, the so-called justifications also lack common sense and are confusing and unconvincing in logic. Should LEUNG Chun-ying fail to give a reasonable explanation, the Government's prestige in governance, which is already at its lowest, will only continue to be undermined, and Hong Kong will thus be torn apart further.

Over the past couple of days, LAM Woon-kwong, the Executive Council convenor, and CHENG Yiu-tong, from the FTU, were found fighting in the front. They were followed by Bernard CHAN and other pro-establishment Members who had kept repeating the Government's points of view. Incidentally, they joined the chorus of voices of the consultant's reports that the TV market could accommodate four TV stations only, and a third licence, if issued, might lead to the closure of one of the TV stations as well as unemployment. Hence, a responsible government must give regard to significant public interest.

While LEUNG Chun-ying said that he did not wish to please everyone, LAM Woon-kwong said that issuing a TV licence was not as simple as running a Hong Kong style café, and Mrs Regina IP even used a "beauty pageant theory" yesterday to ridicule the public. All these comments were meant to confuse the truth behind the incident with the over simplistic language used by common folks. The leadership of the SAR is turning a blind eye to accountability by using such a shallow analogy to substitute a solemn account of its policy making. Why is the Government's prestige so low? There must be some reasons.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2177

Deputy President, currently, there are two free TV stations in Hong Kong. If three more licences were issued, there would be five free TV stations. Even if it is true, as pointed out in the consultant's reports, that the market can accommodate only four free TV stations, Deputy President, is a free market not respected in Hong Kong at all times? According to the theory of survival of the fittest, the weak will be eliminated and the strong will stay. Even if a TV station has to go bankrupt eventually because of keen competition, it merely manifests the market force. Why should the Government worry?

Deputy President, the justifications advanced by the LEUNG Chun-ying's Government that it is worried the TV station will go bankrupt and its staff will lose their jobs are so hypocritical that they make us laugh. After HKTVN was told that it could not sustain its operation because its licence application had been rejected, 320 employees were dismissed immediately. Not only have they lost their jobs, Deputy President, their dreams have also been shattered. Their prospect of making further progress has been smothered by the Chief Executive alone, and Hong Kong's creative industries have thus been impacted. Moreover, they are not unconvinced. Should they be eliminated because of losing in the competition, they will resign themselves to it. However, the Chief Executive has not handled the incident in an appropriate manner. Hence, it is most reasonable for them to demand accountability and call on the Government to do justice to the truth.

Deputy President, the Executive Council's decision made out of black-box operation has completely deprived Hong Kong people of the freedom of choice and conflicted with Hong Kong's core values. Hong Kong people do not wish to see the Government's impingement on personal freedom arbitrarily. Neither is this acceptable to the general public. In the absence of competition, TVB has continued to dominate the market and peddle its poor-quality programmes. On the other hand, the TV station which calls itself "Hong Kong's conscience" is abusing public resources for its private purposes by producing "rubbish" programmes to torture viewers in Hong Kong. This explains why Hong Kong people have expectations and keen demands for the sincere production of quality TV programmes. If the freedom of watching TV, which can inherently preserve stability, is denied by the SAR Government, how can the men in the street and housewives be blamed for taking to the streets in protest of the Government? Even some people who used to be "politically apathetic" have come forth to say "no" to the Government over this incident.

2178 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

All along, Deputy President, Hong Kong always upholds the principle of free economy, and the Government will not intervene in business competition arbitrarily. The Government's role is to ensure a fair and open business environment. Moreover, all the policies and procedures must be expressly stipulated to enable businessmen and business operators to follow laws and regulations, so that they can make investments in Hong Kong with peace of mind.

The policy of opening up the TV market announced by the SAR Government in 1998 is a public policy closely related to Hong Kong's economic development and people's livelihood. However, it has been delayed for 15 years. What has the Government done after a delay of 15 years? It turns out it has made such a controversial decision witnessed by Hong Kong people today. Not only have Hong Kong people witnessed its extremely low bureaucratic efficiency, the Government is even reluctant and has refused to give the public a full explanation of the vetting and approval criteria and related information. A policy which is not transparent and stable is not simply about no TV programmes for Hong Kong viewers to watch. When businessmen and investors note that the Government can move the goalposts and change the rules of the game arbitrarily, they will also find it hard to make investments in Hong Kong with peace of mind.

Hong Kong's procedural justice was seriously damaged as a result of the Government's change from its original stance of encouraging the industry to make investments and setting no ceiling on the number of licences issued to its abrupt decision of picking two out of the three applicants for its concern that the market may be unable to accommodate five free TV licences. If Hong Kong people still uphold the principle of free economy, the act of LEUNG Chun-ying today will definitely make them sigh. This is also the main reason for public grievances in Hong Kong to explode today. LEUNG Chun-ying is not a well-behaved Chief Executive, for he has put himself above regulations and systems.

Deputy President, while confidentiality has been used by LEUNG Chun-ying and the Executive Council as an excuse to refuse disclosing the criteria for issuing licences and reject one of the licence applications, some authorities have been assigned by the Government behind the scene to release to the media news to the detriment of HKTVN and Ricky WONG. Such a double-faced tactic is in complete breach of fairness and justice, undermining the core values cherished so dearly by Hong Kong people.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2179

When facing the media, LEUNG Chun-ying has repeatedly emphasized that the Government has made holistic considerations in deciding the issuance of new free TV licences with absolutely no political consideration. If there is no political consideration, what is his hidden agenda? Concerning the Executive Council's claim that it has to keep information confidential for the applicants, why is it necessary to do so? Given that the three applicants are listed companies, which means that their financial conditions are open to the public, and their plans to apply for free TV licences have also been gazetted, why can their information not be disclosed to the public?

In the past decade or so since 1997, Deputy President, Hong Kong people have come to deeply realize that the consideration kept confidential by the Government must be political. Deputy President, it is increasingly obvious judging from the situation today. It entirely violates the principle of democracy that, however strong the voice of opposition is inside the Executive Council, the final word is actually given by "one single man". While the policymaking process has changed from consultations at different levels before making decisions to allow the Chief Executive alone to call the shots, the Government has also changed from a system of collective decisions made by civil servants, accountable officials and the Executive Council in performing their respective functions to allowing the Chief Executive alone to have all the say.

Deputy President, since 1997, the P&P Ordinance has been invoked on six occasions by the Legislative Council to conduct investigations into incidents of great concern to the general public, including the chaotic circumstances following the commissioning of the new airport, the scandal surrounding the substandard piling works of public housing, the SARS tragedies, the incident involving LEUNG Chin-man, the Lehman Brothers incident, and even the involvement of LEUNG Chun-ying in conflicts of interest in connection with the West Kowloon Cultural District Development Project. Since his assumption of office, there have been calls from the pan-democracy camp to invoke the P&P Ordinance to conduct investigations into the acceptance of hospitality from tycoons by Donald TSANG, the former Chief Executive, and the alleged hospitality offered to Mainland officials by Timothy TONG, the former Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, with public funds. However, all these calls have been negatived in this Council. If Legislative Council Members or people's representatives turn a blind eye to the Government's barbaric behaviour, or turn a deaf ear to the community's strong demand for digging out the truth of the TV licence issue incident and ride on the heads of the people, 2180 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Hong Kong people will definitely bear this in mind. In elections to be held in the future, the people will definitely punish elected Members by paying them back twice or 10 times as much.

The acquisition of government documents by the Legislative Council under the P&P Ordinance is an important channel through which justice can be done. Will pro-establishment Members please demonstrate their conscience in compliance with the aspiration of the people and stop the Government from engaging in black-box operation. Will Members please vote in Hong Kong's interest rather than endorsing the unfair, unjust and biased acts of LEUNG Chun-ying.

Deputy President, since 1997, Hong Kong's politics, economy and community have been influenced by communist assimilation. In 2003, the Government intended to restrain the human rights and freedom enjoyed by Hong Kong people on the strength of Article 23 of the Basic Law. With the damage done to "one country, two systems" and procrastination of democratization, the lifestyle of Hong Kong people has been impacted severely. Even hospital beds, formula milk and school places have to be fought for. Last year, the Government even sought to force through national education to brainwash Hong Kong students. Today, Hong Kong people have even been stripped of their freedom of choice in watching TV. Without democracy, we cannot talk about people's livelihood; without universal suffrage, there will be no government which is really accountable to Hong Kong people, and we will have no rights to choose TV programmes.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, TV is a major channel through which the public can access information, entertainment and news. What is more, free TV is the only choice for many impoverished families and disadvantaged groups. Though they can certainly listen to radio broadcast, which is free of charge, free TV can obviously bring them more abundant information. Certainly, many people who are concerned about current affairs or wish to enjoy some entertainment after work are eager to have one more choice, or more channels through which they can access more abundant information or entertainment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2181

The situation in Hong Kong is very clear. Over the years, the industry has been completely dominated by one TV station while the other one has been unable to recover after a setback, remaining very weak for many years. Basically, it can be said that there is no choice to speak of ― Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) programmes are not given much air time despite their popularity. Under such circumstances, the public are eager to see a breakthrough. Even the Government has admitted that a policy to open up the TV market was already discussed and formulated as early as 1998. For many years, the public have been longing for the issuance of more free TV licences because there is basically no competition at the moment. If we take a look at the advanced cities around the world, or Asian cities or countries alone, it is indeed not easy to count the number of their TV stations or free TV channels because it is many indeed. Not only do these cities or countries have dozens of free TV channels, they are really free of charge. These channels, including national, regional, municipal and even community channels, provide the public with abundant information and enormous public space for people to receive information and get involved. In this regard, Hong Kong is surprisingly poor.

After waiting for so long, our Government has finally expressed its intention to issue new licences. Although three applications were received, it turned out that the Government would not issue three licences. The Government also indicated that it could hardly disclose the reasons because it cannot do so. However, under pressure from various parties, it has finally revealed that the Executive Council and the Chief Executive were concerned about the possibility of vicious competition among five TV stations should three TV stations be allowed to join the industry, thus making it impossible for all of them to survive. Given that only four TV stations at the most can survive, it has been decided that only two new licences will be issued. This explanation is really quite interesting. How many Hong Kong style cafes can be allowed to operate in Hong Kong or Central? Has the Government conducted any surveys on this issue? Does the Government need to do some calculations in granting business registration certificates to Hong Kong style cafes to ensure that there will be no vicious competition? Even if a Hong Kong style café is situated in a very small community, if it is run successfully, it may boost its takeaway business. Given the fact that a Hong Kong style café chain could have operated so successfully that it has gone public, why is the Government particularly concerned about TV stations for fear that they cannot sustain their business?

2182 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Honestly, for many years, the industry has been dominated by a single TV station, whereas the other one is on the verge of "going bankrupt". If not for a constant supply of funds, it should have closed down a long time ago. This phenomenon is known to everyone, but why did the Government wait until now to point out that allowing one more TV station to operate will lead to closures? This problem has already emerged. Will competition definitely lead to the demise of one of the five operators? Even if it might really go bankrupt, does the Government need to protect it in this manner? Must the Government act in this manner? I thought that the Government was an advocate of a free market and fond of competition. Certainly, when it comes to elections, it is not at all fond of competition. When it comes to universal suffrage, it will say that it is most preferable for the authorities concerned to take control.

There are a lot of things we hope the Government can do better. For instance, the social welfare sector very much hopes that the Government can undertake planning properly, but it has refused to do so. When it comes to the issuance of free TV licences, however, the Government has done such meticulous calculations, saying nothing can be done in terms of financial capability and markets because of inadequate advertising revenue. Is it really the case? Let me take the social welfare sector, which I am most familiar with, as an example. Although we very much hope that the Government can take a close look at the demand for residential care homes for the elderly and persons with disabilities and undertake proper planning for their supply, the Government has not acted accordingly. As regards our question of whether or not any planning has been undertaken for the coming five years and development of social services development, the Government has merely said that its planning is confined only to the number of additional places to be provided in the future without any regard for their demand.

However, the calculation done by the Government has been so meticulous. I wonder how the Government can tell the exact number of operators which can sustain their business and how it can be so remarkable as to come up with this figure. On the other hand, the Government has said in its statement that advertising revenue is influenced by a number of factors in the market, and its future development can hardly be predicted accurately. Given the Government's confession that the future development cannot be predicted, why did it say that some operators will definitely be unable to sustain their business, thereby leading to vicious competition and dropping quality? This is really amazing.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2183

Deputy President, I have all along thought that it is the Government's belief that the business sector should lower its threshold by all means to allow more competitors to join because the standard will be enhanced with increasing competition. Is this not the liberalism embraced by the Government? It is very fond of saying that the efficiency of the market should be raised through competition, for the standard will in turn be enhanced. When it comes to free TV, however, why has the Government acted in such a conservative manner all of a sudden? The Government even said that it decided not to issue one more licence in public interest ― sounds very considerate ― and it was worried that programming would be affected by the unstable standard of services. Moreover, there is a need for a gradual and orderly approach and prudence.

However, I have not seen the Government do such careful calculations whenever social services are mentioned, such as the enormous demands of elderly persons and persons with disabilities for institutions or community services. Neither have I seen it undertake proper planning. When we request the authorities concerned to adopt a gradual and orderly approach to gradually reduce the number of persons waiting for residential care homes for the elderly in the coming five years, why do they refuse to do anything? Despite the fact that 20 000 to 30 000 people are waiting for residential care home places, only several hundred places are provided annually, and we have seen some 5 000 elderly persons pass away each year during the waiting period. Why is the Government not concerned? Why does it turn a blind eye to people who have passed away during the waiting period? On the other hand, it is most ridiculous for the Government to say it is concerned that advertising revenue will be diluted.

We have really seen too many "ugly" things throughout the handling of the incident. As early as 20 October, the media obtained some Executive Council documents in which it was pointed out that the licensing decision was inconsistent with the consultant's reports. While the Government immediately responded that those documents were not Executive Council documents, Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN confirmed that discussions had indeed been held on the contents of the relevant documents. However, the Government sought to play on words, insisting that those documents were not Executive Council documents. But what does it mean by Executive Council documents? I do not know how the Government explains it. Anyhow, it insists that the documents are not Executive Council documents, though the Secretary for Justice has admitted that those documents have been discussed.

2184 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

The march held on 20 October attracted tens of thousands of members of the public. And then, the Secretary quietly deleted the sentence which read "there was no ceiling on new TV licences" from the Government's webpage late last month. After the deletion was exposed, the Secretary said that the webpage had been organized and the sentence had already been restored. Are these little tricks not quite "ugly"? Why did the Government act in such a furtive manner and keep hiding something? Why is the Government so frightened given that it has stated clearly that there is no ceiling and everything is already set out on the webpage? In addition to the fact that those documents have been discussed by the Executive Council, the consultants' reports have also indicated that the performance of HKTVN is not too bad according to the four assessment criteria and 11 factors and that its ranking is not the last place. Why should such information be kept confidential? Could it be the case that privacy is involved? What commercial confidential information is involved? It really beats me.

Even the pro-establishment camp has described the Government's handling of the entire incident as "poor" and compared it to "squeezing toothpaste from a tube, saying the incident could have been handled more properly, which might otherwise have prevented the huge public outcry today". In fact, I sympathize with the pro-establishment Members because they have to defend the Government on the one hand, and cannot completely turn a blind eye to the aspiration of the public on the other. It is a difficult task, is it not? They must explain their case because the whole licence issuing process is obviously unfair, and people obviously wish to have more choices. In particular, the attitude of Ricky WONG of HKTVN has been so aggressive. Moreover, HKTVN has recruited many talents who share the dreams and passion of creating more room for the TV industry to facilitate public access to entertainment and information, but still its application for a licence has been rejected.

The Government's only excuse is judicial review, and then the Executive Council's rule of confidentiality, commercial secrets, and so on, have been cited as well. Given that there is no more judicial review, and Mr Dennis KWOK has made it clear in his amendment that the deliberations of the Executive Council and confidential commercial information will not be involved, how should pro-establishment Members respond? How can they explain it away? They really find response and explanation very difficult. Honestly, the pro-establishment camp has kept defending the Government in the current term. A motion proposed by Mr Albert CHAN late last year calling for the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2185 establishment of a select committee to conduct an inquiry into the reasons for the cessation of services provided by the Digital Broadcasting Corporation was vetoed; a motion proposed by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan to probe into the unauthorized building works scandal involving LEUNG Chun-ying was again vetoed; a motion proposed by Ms Cyd HO to probe into the LEW Mon-hung's revelation of the inside stories of the election of LEUNG Chun-ying was vetoed, too. Earlier, a motion proposed by the Liberal Party to conduct an investigation into the scandal involving the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange Limited was again vetoed. The pro-establishment camp has continued to veto motions in defence of the Government, but how much longer can they stand by its side? The President once said that the pro-establishment camp had to endure insult without getting any glory. I really have great sympathy for it.

Through the votes cast today, we have to once again compel the pro-establishment camp to endure insult without getting any glory.(The buzzer sounded) …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, the speaking time is up.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): … I hope they can act according to their conscience.

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

MS CLAUDIA MO: Can we have the quorum, please?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

2186 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SIN Chung-kai, please.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I would like to clarify some financial issues mentioned by Mr Frederick FUNG just now. Mr Frederick FUNG has quoted the information about the financial soundness of the three TV stations provided by the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN) to us. In fact, this is also an important factor of consideration, especially Mr Michael TIEN, after a meeting with the Chief Executive, mentioned which companies are financially sustainable. I think this information is provided by HKTVN to all Members (I quote) to this effect: "According to the interim results as at 28 February 2013, HKTVN has net cash and financial assets of $2.31 billion; and the Fantastic Television Limited has $56 million." Mr Frederick FUNG did not make any mistake in citing this part of the information. But when quoting the information about the Hong Kong Television Entertainment Company Limited (HKTVE), he said that it has $21.237 billion. However, there are some more words following this statement, and that is: "negative net cash and financial assets". The figure is certainly not desirable; it has a debt of more than $20 billion. HKTVE does have enormous assets, which actually belong to its parent company, but such assets have yet to be injected into it. How much money will the parent company inject into its subsidiary for operating free TV programme service, it remains to be announced later. But from the perspective of financial soundness, it is difficult to see why HKTVN should be awarded the lowest ranking. I do not know what insider information Mr TIEN has got and therefore is convinced that the financial soundness of HKTVN is the worst.

Among the four assessment criteria including variety/number/quality of programmes, investment commitment, financial soundness as well as management, technical and professional knowledge, HKTVN has provided us a set of PowerPoint information, from which I do not see any significant gap between HKTVN and the other two companies. According to the information provided by HKTVN, it should never be ranked the third even though it may not be placed in the number one position. As for today's motion which seeks to request more information from the Government, I speak in support of Mr Charles Peter MOK's original motion and Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2187

Deputy President, I wish to talk about the licensing process. I gave Secretary Gregory SO an article earlier which is certainly not written by me. Written by Prof Albert CHEN, a scholar of a law faculty, the article is about whether the licensing process has violated any procedures stipulated by the law. In this article, he has elaborated several points in detail. I will give it to Mr WONG Yuk-man, Chairman of the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting at its meeting on Friday in the hope that Secretary Gregory SO will provide a written reply on Friday. Since I also hope the Secretary will respond to it in his reply later on, I have also distributed copies of this article to all Members.

All in all, there are several important points. Firstly, I hope my understanding is correct. Under section 9 of the Broadcasting Ordinance (BO), the Communications Authority (CA) will make recommendations on the licensing matter to the Executive Council which, according to section 10 of the BO, will make a decision after having considered the CA's recommendations. There are several focal points in the article. In particular, a court case is mentioned in the second last paragraph. In the case Television Broadcasts Limited v. CA (May 2013), it is mentioned in the Judge's ruling that the former Broadcasting Authority (BA), in its recommendation on licensing matter to the Chief Executive in Council according to section 9 on 13 July 2011, proposed that three TV licences be issued. This is clearly mentioned in the judgment.

However, according to a report by the Ming Pao Daily News on 18 October 2013, four consultant's reports have been considered by the Chief Executive in Council. Two of these reports dated April 2010 and April 2011 respectively are believed to be compiled by the BA. Later, two further reports dated January 2012 and February 2012 respectively were compiled. If the media report is true, then there are a total of four consultant's reports, two of which were compiled by the BA. But there is no mention of the authors of the other two. If the media report is true, the third and fourth reports were submitted to the Government after a formal recommendation had been made by the BA according to section 9. In this case, if the Chief Executive in Council had made a final licensing decision under section 10 without providing the latest reports to the BA to enable the latter to reconsider its original recommendation, there would be a major problem in the procedures since the BA had recommended issuing three licences. Will this be challenged in a judicial review citing this ground in the future? I believe this should be left to the relevant authorities for consideration. But I hope the 2188 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Government can clarify one point. Insofar as the procedures are concerned, are there four consultant's reports? Are these four reports all prepared by the BA? Did the Executive Council subsequently commission other agencies to compile the reports? Or were the then consultant commissioned to compile the reports later? I hope the Government will disclose these details to the public.

Deputy President, I wonder whether the licensing incident is an issue concerning technology, the market or politics. In my opinion, careful consideration is required in this aspect. Let us look at this issue from the technical perspective, is this a technology problem? There is a sentence in the BO: "Internet broadcasting is not broadcasting". Its meaning is crystal clear. Broadcasting on the Internet is not broadcasting. In fact, Mr Ricky WONG has provided TV service through the Hong Kong Broadband Network despite without a free TV licence. However, in a business case, the company will be easier to earn advertising revenue if it has been officially granted a licence. In retrospect, the TV market has undergone significant changes. If you go to buy a new TV set, almost 90% or more than 90% are SmartTV. What does SmartTV mean? To put it simply, SmartTV, through an optical fibre, enables the viewers to watch not only free TV but also a lot of Internet Protocol TV programmes. In fact, many TV programmes are also broadcast through the Internet subject to no national boundaries. Among various brands, Apple TV and Android TV are more popular. One can watch TV with even an Xbox. So, no one knows what changes will occur in the next 12 years, which is the tenure of a licence. Is the Executive Council so astute that after reading the two reports, it can predict which two stations will "die" in the future as the Hong Kong market cannot allow the existence of five free TV stations, albeit allowing the existence of four? If the Executive Council is so amazing, there will not be any poor people.

May I ask the Secretary whether he knows the share price of Nokia about 13 years ago? The share price of Nokia at that time was $56. But it dropped to about $3 in the beginning or middle of this year. Recently, the company has been acquired by Microsoft. Nokia was once the world's biggest mobile phone maker. But after 12 years, its share price was worth only a few dollars. Of course, if one has power of prophecy, one should have sold its shares at $56 and purchased the shares of another company, Netflix, whose current share price is $330 while it was only $6 12 years ago, representing an increase of 55 times.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2189

Why should I tell this story? Netflix is a video-on-demand company, which has totally changed the ecology of TV broadcasting. Is our Chief Executive in Council so far-sighted that it can predict the development in the next decade? Frankly speaking, I do not have such capability. Nor do I believe I have such capability. In retrospect, technological development over the past 12 years has undergone dynastic changes and our "eyeballs" have also turned. In the past, the viewers were looking at a square box. Nowadays, most people have become folks of "bow head tribe". Nevertheless, they do attach importance to the contents of programmes, but the channels and media have completely changed. Does the Government have the ability to predict the future?

Ricky WONG has gained his fame and fortune by only one tactic ― this is merely my comment ― he relied on destructive innovation in my opinion. The Deputy President, Mr Andrew LEUNG, said that he knew Ricky WONG when both of them were men in the street. I have also known him for many years. My wife is his classmate. In 1998, he and I ran in the election in the Information Technology and Broadcasting Constituency. When conducting home visits in Ping Shek Estate, we met when I was going downstairs and he was going upstairs. This scene was photographed by Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK). Over the past 10 years, he has introduced a lot of innovation by means of innovative technology, thereby breaking the monopolization. This is his track record. Can he create his career in the TV sector in the next 12 years? I do not know whether he will succeed. But in my opinion, if a person with the capability of destructive innovation has such a will and such a will is destroyed by our Government which refuses to give him the opportunity to play in the game, this is simply a mistake.

Does the Government have the ability to predict the future? The several consultant's reports may have assessed the changes of "eyeballs" by the traditional methods, and such methods are outdated. If we have such ability, the rules of the game must have already changed. The market needs not predict whether the five operators can survive in the unforeseeable future. In fact, I believe the Government does not have to worry about the fate of the five operators. It neither has to protect the Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB), which earns advertising revenue that has risen to more than $30 billion annually, nor protect the Asia Television Limited (ATV) which is led by red capitalists because it has the support of endless financial resources due to the political need.

2190 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Therefore, let the market operates by itself. The Government should allow competition in the market, especially in the absence of technological restrictions. Why should TV licences be subject to regulation? In fact, I think the regulation on TV licences should be relaxed and there should be only one kind of licence for application, that is, licence for the use of spectrum. Of course, some people said that anyone who wants to be the Chief Executive should also apply for a licence which should be issued by the public. Regarding the future of development of the broadcasting industry, only one licence is needed … it is not free, rather, the broadcast of TV programmes by spectrum should be subject to official regulation because spectrum is a limited resource. It is not unlimited. The Government has to formulate anew the regulations in order to decide who can use the spectrum to broadcast TV programmes. I believe we will be defeated in this battle eventually. However, Secretary Gregory SO, as I have reiterated time and again, I will continue to fight for it and push the Government to auction TV spectrum next year.

It is well known that TVB and ATV are using a total of eight or nine channels. In addition to the three channels to be used by RTHK comes 1 January, there are a total of 11 or 12 channels. These are precious resources in public possession. Why are these resources not auctioned so that through fair competition, the channels are sold to the highest bidder who can enter the market and operate the business? Since the introduction of this model in the mobile phone or telecommunications market in 1998, the Government has gained more than $12 billion in revenue. Over the past 10-odd years, such a practice has never been strongly criticized. Nor is there any allegation of collusion between the Government and business because public resources are sold by auction. Upon licence renewal in the future, the Government will be criticized for practising favoritism and collusion with the business sector if the renewal is not made through public auction.

In fact, the democrats have made a lot of suggestions. Last year, Ms Claudia MO requested that three licences be issued. Our suggestion was fully explained in the past instead of being raised recently. Just now, a pro-establishment Member said that we are not constructive. In fact, we have explained our proposal before.

I hope Secretary Gregory SO can respond to Albert CHEN's article later.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2191

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, many people have gathered outside the Legislative Council Complex. They are very concerned about the issuance of free TV licences. I fully understand their feelings.

I think the approach of the Government in handling the licensing incident and explaining it is far from satisfactory. In particular, as pointed out by many Honourable colleagues, several Members of the Executive Council have disclosed relevant information in a manner like "squeezing a tube of toothpaste". Such an approach is indeed not appropriate. Therefore, when I recently met with the Chief Executive, I expressed my wish that the Chief Executive and the Executive Council could reach a consensus on disclosing more information to the public in a consistent manner.

Deputy President, the focus of today's discussion is whether the Legislative Council should invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to set up a select committee in order to conduct an inquiry into the rejection of the licence application by Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN). I would like to state my views from three perspectives, namely the legal, political and effect aspects.

Can the problem be resolved by invoking the P&P Ordinance to set up a select committee to conduct an inquiry? I am not sure whether some Members are thinking that they can compel the Government to issue a licence to Mr Ricky WONG if the Legislative Council can invoke the P&P Ordinance. In fact, this will not happen. When we consider whether we should invoke the P&P Ordinance, we have to consider such factors as efficiency, effectiveness and appropriateness.

Let me talk about efficiency first. If the Legislative Council can invoke the P&P Ordinance to set up a select committee to conduct an inquiry, does it mean that the truth behind the free TV licence incident can be revealed and the problem resolved, or someone will be issued a licence? I wish to share my experience with all of you. I have participated in four select committees, of which two select committees, including the one concerning Lehman Brothers incident and LEUNG Chun-ying's involvement in the West Kowloon Reclamation Concept Plan Competition, were set up with powers conferred by the P&P Ordinance, while the other two concerning KAM Nai-wai and Timothy TONG were not vested with such powers.

2192 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Perhaps, Members may remember that the select committee relating to the Lehman Brothers incident had held a total of 106 open and closed hearings during the period from August 2009 to October 2010, having summoned a total of nearly 70 officers of the Government and regulatory bodies. Besides, from October 2009 to May 2012, the select committee held 55 closed meetings, spending nearly $28 million in public funds. Eventually, the select committee could not come to a unanimous view. Therefore, two reports were published, one of which represents the views of the majority of members or called the "majority report", while the other one represents the minority members' views or the "minority report".

According to my experience, the inquiries conducted by select committees formed by the Legislative Council by virtue of the P&P Ordinance can only play the role of political censorship. I remember that the banks and relevant parties had repeatedly refused to produce the relevant documents during the inquiry. After discussions, members decided to refute their ground of "public interest" by the same reason, that is, public interest. The Legislative Council and the Government had to spend a substantial amount of money on seeking legal advice and handling information. During the inquiry, various parties exchanged a lot of correspondence and the case dragged for a very long time.

Regarding the Select Committee to Inquire into Matters Relating to the Post-service Work of Mr LEUNG Chin-man, I did not take part in it. After checking some basic information, I found that the Select Committee had summoned more than 20 witnesses since March 2009. After working for almost two years and spending almost $16 million, the Select Committee released a 400-page report. However, this could not stop Mr LEUNG from rejoining the same syndicate three months after the publication of the report.

The Select Committee to inquire into matters relating to Mr Timothy TONG which was formed not long ago held a meeting in July this year at which only the terms of reference of the Select Committee were discussed. So far, it has not yet formally started its work.

In my opinion, the time required to conduct an inquiry by a select committee set up by the Legislative Council by virtue of the P&P Ordinance is not necessarily shorter than that required by the court's hearing. There is indeed a lot of political wrestling in this Council. In my personal judgment, a select committee to inquire into matters relating to free TV licences should take a longer time than a judicial review.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2193

Let me talk about appropriateness. In the original motion of urging this Council to invoke the P&P Ordinance, Mr MOK requests that all confidential information of the Executive Council be submitted by the Secretary. In Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment, confidential commercial information and confidential information of the Executive Council are excluded.

Like every Member here, I also want to know the causes of what has happened and why the incident has developed to this state. For instance, had the government official mentioned by Mr Ricky WONG flatly promised to issue a licence to him three years ago? According to the news report, the government official mentioned by Mr Ricky WONG not only invited him to make an application. Had the government official ever made such an undertaking? Why did the official make such an undertaking to an individual before the authorities had made any decision on the licensing issue? Why did the official make such remarks to certain individuals only? Is there any misunderstanding? Has anyone asked the then Executive Council or Chief Executive whether anyone had made the undertaking in an ultra virus manner? Did anyone act in violation of procedures and the law? Was the Government at fault? Was Mr Ricky WONG at fault?

Students of the Faculty of Law who have studied the curriculum for judicial review in year one will understand that the aforesaid problems are just very common issues. It is a typical application case of judicial review on a decision of licence application.

Certainly, the Legislative Council can also conduct an inquiry concurrently because the powers conferred by the P&P Ordinance are enormous. However, as to the question of whether it is appropriate to confer such powers, I wish to make a comparison in terms of time and focus. In my experience, the Court, as opposed to an inquiry by the Legislative Council, has in fact many established mature legal principles for dealing with issues involving principles of law. Given that the political stance of each Legislative Council Member is different, the findings of a select committee, unlike a court's ruling, cannot order the Government to reconsider its decision or declare that the Government's decision null and void. What we can do is to vent our political dissatisfaction. But in this process, the disputes may also be prolonged.

In my experience, the select committee empowered by the P&P Ordinance will always express in its final report, its views on the incident under 2194 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 investigation before extending its comments to policy issues. In my opinion, the licensing policies mentioned by Mr SIN should be given due attention by the Legislative Council, especially the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting. I also think that the Legislative Council and the Government should seriously consider the issue in the future.

Can the select committee empowered by the P&P Ordinance make a decision on an individual incident that the Government has or has not made some mistakes, or whether the Government should or should not issue a licence? In fact, such a select committee will only point out those institutional problems in its final report. For instance, the report can examine loopholes in law, propose remedial measures or criticize the parties concerned.

Deputy President and Honourable colleagues, what is the difference between an inquiry by a select committee set up under the P&P Ordinance and a judicial review? The former allows members to participate in the inquiry and ask questions with the focus on public interest. When there is dispute on public interest, we will seek legal advice. The relevant parties may also refuse to answer questions. As there will be arguments on the legal principles, a lot of time of the Legislative Council will be spent on the inquiry.

I think the most important figure in the judicial review on this incident is always Mr Ricky WONG. In my judgment, he is a capable person. If he has sought legal advice, he may make a decision as he is capable of applying for a judicial review.

Finally, the difference between an inquiry and a judicial review is that the Court is empowered to decree that the decision is null and void. The Court can deal with those problems raised by me and even other problems. The Court can also rule whether the process has violated the principle of natural justice and whether the Government's decision has complied with Wednesbury reasonableness. It is a frequently cited legal principle which refers to the standard of reasonableness applied to a decision of the Government from the angle of an ordinary person. There are many precedents to deal with similar problems.

The role of members of a select committee formed by virtue of the P&P Ordinance is not necessarily better than that of the Court. Of course, political judgment may be involved in a select committee and I agree that the Legislative LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2195

Council Members' judgments are political. However, I would like to tell Honourable colleagues that even in the Court, the lawyers of both parties will certainly present their views. If the case is decided by the Court of Final Appeal, a bench of five Judges may decide it by a majority of 3:2. We make our judgment merely on the basis of our own understanding. I hope that when we hold different views, we should not accuse the dissidents of being unconscionable. All such remarks will adversely affect Honourable Members. As a result, we would become reluctant to express our judgments and opinions.

As we have gained different experiences from participating in the work of a select committee, we would have different judgments when deciding whether the P&P Ordinance should be invoked. On the basis of my own experience and the principles and factors of consideration I mentioned just now, I think that even though we can invoke the P&P Ordinance to set up a select committee and conduct an inquiry, we may not be able to resolve the dispute over the free TV licensing decision. As to the question of whether the existing licensing policy or legislation has given the Government too much power to exercise its discretion, as asked by many Honourable Members earlier, I think it is worth discussing.

Finally, I would like to share with Members a scene in a movie called An Inconvenient Truth which was co-starred by the former Vice President of the United States. In the 2000 presidential election of the United States, Al GORE was defeated by George W. BUSH although his absolute votes were more than electoral votes. Therefore, many American people opined that the electoral system of the United States was unfair. In a continuous upsurge of public sentiment, the Court held that Al GORE had lost. Such a situation was unprecedented in the United States and social unrest was imminent. In his concession speech, Al GORE told his supporters, "Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I know that many of my supporters are disappointed. I am too. But our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country."

In a continuous upsurge of public sentiment, Al GORE, despite his extreme disappointment, could still say such words to his supporters. This fully reflects that he is a broad-minded politician and that explains why he has won high praises of the world.

Deputy President, I so submit.

2196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, would you please do a headcount according to rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure … it should be rule 17(2). But both subrules (2) and (3) are the same.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(When the division bell was ringing, THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, fortunately Dr Priscilla LEUNG has not left the Chamber, though she intended to leave. But now, she should not go away. Firstly, professor Priscilla LEUNG spoke in such an illogical way that I really do not know what she was talking about. We only ask for the production of documents, why did she change the question into the setting up of a select committee? Dr LEUNG, you are a teacher earning a monthly salary of $100,000. We request the provision of information which can be divided into two levels. For the first one, we request more information; for the second one, we request less information. In other words, there are two kinds of set meals: quick meal and special meal. If the royalists consider the special meal of requesting all information "hard to swallow", they may rule it out. If Members oppose a motion which has explicitly set out what documents to be requested by excluding those that are not required, we really do not know what wordings should be used in that motion in order to improve it. As the subject you teach is the law, you should know that it is impossible to write down everything. We can only specify the offences which are prohibited. You are really illogical in your speech. Buddy, I have never studied in the university, but you can be a professor. This is the first point.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2197

Secondly, the FTU argued that Ricky WONG should take the blame because he has recruited a large number of employees before getting a licence. I wish to ask a very simple question. Even if Ricky WONG is a bad guy and now listening to my speech in the 19th level of hell ― if this bad guy Ricky WONG has planned to expand his business after getting a licence and thus hired more than 700 people, but now his licence application is rejected, can the FTU adopt such an attitude? It is said that "every injustice has its perpetrator and every debt its debtor". Is this the fault of Ricky WONG? If so, you "wimps" should not always call on the Government to assist small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Do the SMEs or large enterprises need not run their business according to their capital? That is why you have urged the Government to subsidize large enterprises, right? Even though the MTRCL has made $10 billion in profit, it has to raise the fares because you want to ensure that it can continue to operate. I think the FTU's remark does not make any sense. In the past, I seldom criticized them.

If the employees of a bad boss lose their jobs because their boss has been poorly treated by a more wicked man, which party should you support? The problem is just as simple as that. There is an equal sign between justice and "rice bowl", isn't it?

In addition, President, there is this thing called "Zwilling" in the trial community. Do you know what it is? It is one of the 10 famous weapons. The 10 famous weapons of the Chief Executive include a folding stool. And "zwilling" is used as a tool to chop people by triad members ― a boning knife. Now I wish to talk about a "quadruplet" of boning knives, all of them being products of this Council, and they include Members of the Executive Council such as Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mrs Regina IP, a former Legislative Council Member whose surname is CHEUNG. Is he called CHEUNG Tat-ming? I have forgotten his name. He and I ran in the election in the same constituency. Yes, it is CHEUNG Hok-ming. Then, here is a rising star Ms Starry LEE. They are the "quadruplet" of boning knives that can slit a man in one stroke.

Two of these four persons are involved in a conflict of interest. One of them is Starry LEE, who is really funny. On some occasions, she is shameless, but on the other, she is not. In the Executive Council, she declared that she was the auditor of Cable TV and had to withdraw. I certainly understand this because it may involve direct pecuniary interest. However, she did not declared that she had a direct pecuniary interest when the vote was taken in this Council. 2198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

But the two issues are in fact the same and there is a conflict of interest because once we have obtained the documents, the truth will be revealed and the interest of Cable TV may be jeopardized in the face of an additional opponent. This is not my view. According to the Government, if there are three TV stations, only two can survive; or if there are five, only four can survive. This has been clearly pointed out by the Government. Is Ms Starry LEE deaf? Is she not a Member of the Executive Council? If she participates in the voting on the question of requesting the relevant documents, there is a conflict of interest, right?

Needless to say, Mrs Regina IP is willing to accept favour offered by everyone. Mr Jeffrey LAM, who has already left the Chamber, is the diehard supporter of the Government. Let me put aside the "quadruplet" of boning knives and talk about six other persons, namely, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Andrew LEUNG and Mr Frankie YICK. According to news reports, they are all associated with the relevant organizations. You may say that they are not involved in any direct pecuniary interest …

(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, what is your point?

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): None of those who were mentioned is present. I request a headcount.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): "Buddy", I do not know whether they are present.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2199

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please continue.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): The six persons I mentioned just now have not all returned yet. Ms Starry LEE has returned. But Mr Andrew LEUNG and others are not in their seats. These six persons are apparently involved in a conflict of interest. I am not saying that they must have a conflict of interest. But they should know the significance of this motion and should not participate in the voting. As the saying goes, an innocent man will be proved innocent somehow and vice versa. The most basic principle is that they should not do anything that may arouse suspicions. So, I repeat, these six persons, including Ms Starry LEE, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Abraham SHEK and Mr MA Fung-kwok should not vote on the question. If they vote, they should vote in favour of the motion and support our request for information in order to prove that they have not done anything that goes against their conscience. Well, forget it. In such a parliamentary assembly, we can let go these six persons.

Another question is that while the Government has refused to disclose the information, Ricky WONG decided to disclose some of the information on his own. So the Government claimed that certain information could not be disclosed. In that case, does the Government intend to apply for an injunction? He has almost revealed the truth. So the question is very simple. I call on Ricky WONG not to be afraid of the powers of the Government and disclose those four set of documents to the public so that Hong Kong people can see what information is contained in them. As for Ir Dr LO Wai-Kwok, it will be excellent if he is present. He likes MAO Zedong very much and cited a poem of MAO Zedong: "Beating the white-bone demon thrice" at a previous meeting. Does Ir Dr LO know that Chairman MAO had also written another famous poem entitled "No need to fart"? I would like to give these words "No need to fart" to him.

Today we have to ask a very simple question actually. Regarding the four criteria and 11 factors I mentioned earlier, the Government should have announced them beforehand according to the international standard of procedural justice instead of mentioning them afterwards. So, these criteria and factors should be announced in advance. In doing so, there will be guidelines for Secretary Gregory SO ― unfortunately, he is not in the Chamber again ― to 2200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 comply with so that he can conduct an investigation and then write and submit a report. Under the legislation, the Chief Executive has to read the report before asking his stupid apologists to make a decision. So, the report by the Secretary is very important. How could there be fairness in the absence of the report or information that is supposed to be provided? Now, I do not mean to find out who has voted for whom, or who has made stabled whom in his back because recently we can see all these clearly. The monkeys fled as the tree toppled. While Mrs IP has disclosed something, many of them have mentioned something implicitly to prove their innocence.

Speaking of procedural justice, I would like to ask the SAR Government a question. Before Tuesday, when and where did it clearly explain to us those four criteria and 11 factors? And how will they affect the decision on whether HKTVN will be selected? It is very easy to do this mathematic calculation. If there are three TV stations, one will "die"; if there are three, only two will survive; if there are five, only four can survive. Then, the one which will die is certainly the ATV. There is no question about it. It has no capital to run the business. Moreover, it has washed dirty linen in public. After seeking a capital injection from a Taiwanese businessman, it found another Mainland businessman to inject funds. Furthermore, it has engaged in lawsuits again and again. If one of these five stations must die, the one which cannot survive must be ATV. This will come true in 2015. Therefore, Ricky WONG should be killed first. If Ricky WONG has already got a licence in 2015 and one out of the five has to be eliminated, is it necessary to kill Ricky WONG instead of ATV? For conscience's sake, have the royalists ever watched ATV? None of them. Right? So, why should Hong Kong people watch ATV?

I do not know the powerful and the rich. I do not know what they have in their minds. But in a projection of the situation in 2015, it is necessary to eliminate Ricky WONG now in order to save the ATV. It is because the public will compare the quality of programmes of these two broadcasters if Ricky WONG exists. President, right? One who buys dates or preserved ducks can determine the quality by looking at their appearance. If there is no competitor, there is no comparison.

How did LEUNG Chun-ying make the decision? Did he make the decision on his own before instructing the others to toe the line? I do not know. But we can get some hint from his poor track record. Apart from MAK LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2201

Chai-kwong who has no tie with him, there are Franklin LAM, Barry CHEUNG and Paul CHAN. And it is most likely that Barry CHEUNG will be arrested. Franklin LAM has aroused suspicions by his own acts. He put his property up for sale in August and agreed to pay more commission to the property agents in October upon the launch of the "curbs" measures on the property market in order that his property could be successfully sold. According to ZERVOS, prosecution was dropped due to insufficient evidence. He was really kidding. A prosecution should be initiated so that he has to prove his innocence. You can ask Mr Paul TSE whether prosecution should be initiated. Although Franklin LAM did not get any benefits, his acts had aroused suspicions. There is also a LEW Mon-hung, who will face charges in Court. Also, there is this man whose nickname is "Shanghai Chai" (上海仔). All of them are darker than India ink and were arrested for preventing the course of justice. Are these stories invented by me? He, together with MAK Chai-kwong, Barry CHEUNG, Franklin LAM, and Paul CHAN, makes up a total of five. Could these stories be invented by me "Long Hair"? "Buddy", are you nuts?

We even accuse a pathologist of conducting bacterial studies to prove how filthy bacteria are instead of blaming those bacteria. Is this not idiotic? You do not target at those who have administered poison. Rather, you blame those who have pointed out that something is poisonous. Why? Have you ever watched the play by Ibsen, An Enemy of the People? The protagonist was ousted from the city where he lived because he had pointed out that the water was poisonous. He could not live in the city any more.

President, I have nothing more to say about this. Now I show you the "shameful look" of LEUNG Chun-ying, who is your master. He has an O-shaped mouth. Apart from LEUNG Chun-ying, there is a group of people, namely, LAM Woon-kwong, Anna WU, John TSANG, Secretary for Justice, Prof KC CHAN. They are like "slow-witted and tedious people gather together at the table". Why would this happen? Hong Kong needs procedural justice. We have to take public interest into account because public interest is significant and the crux of all problems. It is also the key factor for the Chief Executive to decide whether he should give up his privileges. A precedent was set during the SARS outbreak because TUNG Chee-hwa has to prove that he came with clean hands by allowing public access to all information. In other words, the Chief Executive had given up those things. Today, there is an upsurge of public sentiment. Had the SARS epidemic led to a situation where hundreds of thousands of people were demanding the resignation of government officials? I 2202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 believe the answer is in the negative due to the SARS outbreak alone! Now, there are 120 000 protesters in a demonstration. Why did LEUNG Chun-ying not give up his privileges and explain everything? Instead, he insisted that a full account would be given only in court. Is he sick? If so, go see a doctor.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you should not throw objects around in the Chamber. Judging from your condition today, I found it difficult to ask you to pick them up. But you should observe the Rules of Procedure.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, earlier I saw on the television Secretary Gregory SO choke, seemingly about to burst into tears. I would like to ask: If he was going to burst into tears, for whom did he cry? If he really choked, for whom did he choke? What grievance did he suffer? Can he honestly tell us so that we know the answer? Did he do anything against his conscience in the licensing controversy concerning HKTVN? He said there was a host of considerations, in addition to four criteria and 11 factors. Quite honestly, people who are watching the meeting on live telecast outside the Government Headquarters and waiting for his response to Members' questions have only one criterion in their minds: they want to know the truth without anything concealed. They do not want to watch the pretences and hypocritical affectation of Secretary SO. Yesterday, the Secretary's "performance" and opening remarks were greeted by boos of the people outside. Their response is very clear. There was no clapping of hands. The people had their middle finger rather than their thumbs up in response to the poor quality and vulgar tragedy which was directed, written and starred by the Secretary. Did the Secretary go out to see them? Did he visit the people and the staff of HKTVN stationed outside this Council? Did the Secretary listen to their views and take a look at their situation personally?

This morning, Mr MA Fung-kwok asked Mr Dennis KWOK some questions. Owing to the time constraint, I can only answer these questions briefly. Firstly, can documents disclosed in a judicial review case be made public? The answer is "no". Even though the Court has ordered the Government to disclose the documents, the documents cannot be used by the applicant for purposes other than the judicial review. It means that these documents cannot be disclosed to the public or else it may be regarded as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2203 contempt of court. Although Mr MA Fung-kwok is not here, I wish to tell him one thing. In view of his bravery in claiming that he would apply for a judicial review, may I ask whether he is prepared to put himself at the risk of being charged with contempt of court by disclosing the documents he has obtained to the public?

The second question is: Who is entitled to apply for a judicial review? Can everybody apply for a judicial review? Can the audience sitting in front of the TV set or the potential audience of HKTVN ― because HKTVN has been rejected a licence ― apply for a judicial review? Does Mr MA Fung-kwok think that due to his current status and position he can seek justice on behalf of Hong Kong people? In fact, the Court may not accept the application for a judicial review by Mr MA Fung-kwok. If the Court refuses his application, should he apologize to the public and step down? He can make such irresponsible and ignorant remarks to mislead the public because his speech is protected by the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance). Today, however, he said that he opposes the proposal of invoking the P&P Ordinance which empowers the Legislative Council to request relevant documents from the Executive Council. While being entitled to such privileges, he opposes the idea that Members may exercise the powers to seek justice for the people. What kind of world is this?

Mr WONG Kwok-kin of the FTU said that we should not act rashly as we may cause enormous damage to our room if we try kill a mouse with a large club, not to mention that we may not be able to catch it. This is an inappropriate analogy indeed. Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment precisely seeks to avoid any damage by requesting documents on the premise of respecting the operation principle of the Executive Council. What damage will be caused in the eyes of the Honourable Members? The only consequence is that it may cause damage to the privileges that can only be enjoyed by themselves at the bottom of their hearts. Every Tuesday, they exercise public powers in a place like a closet or a black box and make decisions that affect the well-being and choices of all the people. We certainly have to exercise checks and balances. For those Legislative Council Members and Executive Council Members who have adopted the mentality that they can make any decisions without under any obligation to explain their justifications to the public, are their acts not an indication of their attitude of protecting their own privileges?

2204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

President, the reason behind the Legislative Council requesting invocation of the P&P Ordinance is that the Executive Council was devoid of justifications and unable to convince the public in the course of dealing with this matter. Many pro-establishment and pro-government Members are also demanding the Government for clarification and explanation on why it has conducted the matter so poorly. However, the Government now relies on the Members to cover up a time-bomb under the deep blue sea.

The Government recently released a statement that spans a few pages. It is not substantial and it is immaterial to have it read or not. However, some Honourable colleagues have been benefited from favouritism. For example, Mr Michael TIEN who will speak next has received some information and even some documents which are disclosed by the Government. They then come out without haste to explain their position and speak in defence of the Government. Is it not a privilege? Why do some Members and political parties put their interests above those of the people? We fight for the public's right to know and we are demanding an answer. Similarly, the speech of Dr Priscilla LEUNG is actually a so-called "universal template". Every time when we discuss invoking the P&P Ordinance, she would repeat the same remarks, that she has participated in many select committees, and in spite of that, those efforts did not pay off. Besides, she finds it a waste of time and not helpful to resolving the issues. She even seems to be unaware of the question of today's debate. We are not going to conduct an inquiry. We just want to gain access to some documents. Without figuring out the question, she retrieved the "universal template" and read it aloud again. Today, this "service attitude" is nothing but a waste of time.

I dare say Members who oppose the invocation of the P&P Ordinance today are simply breaking their promises to the people and committing a dereliction of duty. The legislature will let Hong Kong people down if it turns a blind eye to the unreasonable decisions made by the executive. It is also a wrong to those people stationed outside in the precincts of this Council, to those dressed in black and sweating under the sun and to those now watching the debate in this Chamber through live telecast. The public may cast a vote of no confidence in those Members and parties which break their promises to the people.

The confidentiality system of the Executive Council is really ugly. The original purpose of the system is to preserve the confidentiality of two matters, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2205 namely the opinion and stance of Members of the Executive Council. Therefore, they may speak their minds while the results and the circumstances of the voting will not be made public. However, it does not follow that biased information or none will be provided and even no explanation is offered. Despite repeated requests, the public has yet to get a proper and convincing answer in order to understand what has happened.

When we flip through the news reports of the past few days, we would see how contradictory are the confidentiality system of the Executive Council and the Executive Council Members who should have vowed righteously this morning to defend the confidentiality system. Those reports quoted the remarks of some senior personnel, those who are privy to the inside story or some authorities. One of the most ridiculous and absurd remarks, made by Mrs , an Executive Council Member in an interview by Radio Television Hong Kong, was that these explanations and arrangements were far from satisfactory. The Government should, on the onset, offer an explanation to the public, according to her. Then, when someone asked her what the sources of the information and who those authorities were, she replied that they might be government officials. An Executive Council Member is telling us that a government official is leaking secrets to the public. Should the Government conduct a thorough investigation into the matter? Who exactly was lying? Was there a government official who had leaked secrets to the public? Why did the Government not explain the case clearly? What is the confidentiality system? It is contradictory to reiterate confidentiality on the one hand and to leak secret information on the other. Even not feeling ashamed, they should not insult the intelligence of the people.

The entire system has collapsed and is now crumbling. Today, Members still rely on the confidentiality of Executive Council as a pretext to fence off changes to a system which has been in place for more than a century. Frankly speaking, when public powers are abused, the public's right to know so suppressed and the people are deprived of their right to choose, why should we not deploy the "imperial sword" of this Council to seek justice for the people? Dr LEUNG Ka-lau said in an interview this morning that the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government (LOCPG) was very concerned about this issue and had a discussion with him. But when a reporter asked what issue was a concern to the LOCPG, Dr LEUNG said they were merely having a casual chatter. The LOCPG seems to be very concerned about the prestige in governance of the Government, and it is the only matter which concerns the 2206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

LOCPG. The people are striving for fairness while we pursue justice for the public. While we are speaking out for the recovery of the right to choose on behalf of the people, the LOCPG is only concerned about the Government's prestige in governance, which is, in other words, losing face. The confidentiality system of the Executive Council, the proven system, the four criteria, a host of factors and the 11 criteria mentioned by the Government ultimate boil down to a case of losing face. How can the Government uphold its prestige? What prestige is left of the Government?

As regards the performance of the Government in this licensing incident, we have clearly expressed our dissatisfaction; even the pro-establishment Members are similarly chiding the Government. However, their behaviour and thoughts are decoupled; they preach one thing but do quite another. They will, nevertheless, vote in favour of the Government. You are already at your wits' end. You jump from height with the Government saddled with negative equity once and again. Some people told us to arouse your conscience. In my opinion, it would be better to replace the official, the Government and Gregory SO for good. Secretary Gregory SO, it is said that others can bestow honours on you but humiliation is always the result of one's own making.

I so submit.

MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, last night, tens of thousands of members of the public gathered outside the Legislative Council Complex. They were all dissatisfied with the approach adopted by Government in granting free TV licences, in particular, its refusal to give any explanation right from the beginning on the ground of a host of reasons. Up to now, I still do not understand why the Government is so devoid of political wisdom and undermines itself by making the public lose confidence in it. No matter how the Government makes amends in the future, in fact, it will not be able to win the trust of the public.

It was not until this week, when the Government sensed the gravity of the situation and the not very favourable opinions about it among Members that it issued a six-page document to give explanations to the public. All along, the reason for Members' demand that the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) be invoked to conduct an inquiry is to look into the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2207 process and the criteria adopted by the Executive Council in scrutinizing the relevant applications and how the contents of the consultant's reports are like, so as to see how they resulted in Ricky WONG being rejected.

If Members have read the six-page document issued by the Government the day before carefully, they can find out the "causes of death". The document further disclosed the specific conditions under the four major criteria and many of them are unfavourable to new operators. Some people may think that the relevant conditions are specially tailored to deliberately make Ricky WONG fail. However, I do not wish to make any speculation.

If we look at the specific conditions under the four major criteria, we will find that the death of HKTVN is, unfortunately, inevitable. The most obvious "cause of death" lies in the aspect of "financial capability" ― "including the three applicants' or their parent companies' market capitalization … and financial support to be rendered to each applicant".

The so-called "their parent companies' market capitalization" is that grown-ups, in doing business, have to see who their fathers are and even who their grandfathers are. The father of Fantastic Television Limited is the I-Cable Communications Limited, which only has a market capitalization of $2 billion but it turns out that its "grandfather" is the Wharf (Holdings) Limited with a market capitalization of $200 billion ― this is really formidable ― whereas the "father" of the Hong Kong Television Entertainment Company Limited (HKTVE) is the PCCW Limited, whose market capitalization also reaches $25 billion. The market capitalization of Ricky WONG's HKTVN only amounts to $2 billion and it has neither a "father" nor "grandfather".

However, all businessmen understand that if a subsidiary gets into trouble, its parent company may not necessarily extend a helping hand, not to mention the parent company of the parent company. It can thus be seen that such a condition is actually unnecessary. The Government probably also understands this, so it adds the reference "financial support to be rendered to each applicant", meaning that the undertakings made by the backers of the applicants will also be taken into account. In that case, may I ask how can Ricky WONG be any match?

The message I previously got was that in the consultant's reports, it is said that the market can sustain at the most the operation of four free TV operators. However, how is the sustainability of TV operators assessed? Naturally, 2208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 financial capability is the crucial consideration. On Tuesday, when LEUNG Chun-ying spoke to the press, he singled out the criterion of "financial capability", so this made me see that policymakers attach special importance to the market capitalization of the parent companies of the applicants and the financial support that they will receive. Obviously, the ranking for Ricky WONG is the last in this regard.

However, the most important "cause of death" is the change in the number of free TV licences granted from three to two. According to the judgment of the Government, the market can sustain at the most four free TV operators and more than four operators would lead to vicious competition that would dilute the advertising revenue, thus resulting in a decline in the programme quality of all or most of the TV operators and compromising public interest.

Such thinking is absurdity of the highest order, an assumption made by people who do not know the ways of doing business. Precisely because of keen competition, only TV operators that can maintain their quality of service can gain a foothold, whereas TV operators that lower the quality to fit the bill will surely see a sharp fall in viewership and will be the first to go out of business. TV stations that nobody watch will close down. In that case, how can the Government say that public interest would be compromised?

I must stress that although I do not agree with the relevant criteria, the Government did give an account of the "causes of death". Yesterday, in his opening remarks, the Secretary said clearly that "different people will have different considerations and emphasis, and may attach different degrees of importance to various criteria, thus arriving at different conclusions … Moreover, the Executive Council cannot and should not only consider the views of one party, say the views of the consultant.". In other words, the consultant's reports were just one of the factors considered by the Executive Council. Therefore, even if we can obtain the entire consultant's reports, Members may still be unable to see clearly the whole picture of how the Executive Council made its decision. Conversely, this would only lead to even more speculations.

I believe that an attempt to obtain the relevant information from this angle is really not at all meaningful. To invoke the P&P Ordinance to force the Executive Council to disclose the other details of the aforementioned policymaking process would even impact on the confidentiality system of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2209

Executive Council, thus wreaking havoc on the Government's system of governance ― I describe it as the "system of governance" ― and this would not do any good to dealing with the most pressing issue either. The "the most pressing issue" that I am talking about is why applicants meeting the basic requirements also stand the chance of not being granted a licence.

Although the Government has explained the "rules of the game", Members do not agree with them and consider them unreasonable and even unfair. We must administer the right remedy for the disease. The next item on the agenda is a debate on domestic free television programme service licences. In fact, this motion provides a good opportunity for Members to voice their criticisms and proposals on the system established by the Government. However, since the Government issued the six-page explanatory document at too late a stage, Members lacked sufficient information to propose amendments to the motion.

Here, I wish to declare that I will propose a motion in the Legislative Council to urge the Government to re-examine and revise the four major criteria and specific conditions for granting free TV licences and change the existing licensing regime with a ceiling to one in which a licence will be granted so long as the various criteria are met, so that new and old operators can all have equal opportunities of participation.

Although the Government has stressed time and again any company is welcome to apply for a free TV licence, if the criteria and specific conditions remain unchanged, the likelihood of any new operator being granted a licence is slim. Moreover, when the licences of the existing TV operators have expired and are due for renewal two years later, there may not be an opportunity to inject new blood. The Government must think twice because the specific details of the existing four major criteria are unconvincing. The Government should carry out extensive public consultation on the criteria for granting licences.

I hope that this Council can conduct a debate on my motion as soon as possible. I hope that anyone who wants to operate a business in the TV industry can submit an application as soon as possible and the Government can also revise the criteria for processing the relevant applications, so that operators with the commitment and capability can provide quality TV entertainment services to the Hong Kong public.

2210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

The public do not hope that after work, they still have to take to the streets. Instead, they hope that they can go home, watch TV and rest a little. We have to change the existing system thoroughly, so that such a hope can have the likelihood of becoming reality.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Ms Cyd HO, please speak.

MS CLAUDIA MO: Excuse me, President, can we have the quorum, please?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO, please speak.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to respond to the speeches of several Members. Of course, I will first respond to Mr Michael TIEN's speech. Actually, half of his speech just now was spent on recapping the content of exchanges at the closed meeting. It baffles me. If Mr Michael TIEN can talk about that here, why dose the Government not explain it direct? Secretary, you were given time to speak yesterday and you will speak shortly. If so, why does the Secretary or the Chief Executive not explain it but see fit to leave it to Members to act as the "loudhailer" to relay the message? Why would Members be willing to assume that role? Before the meeting, they said openly that they considered the practice of the Government inappropriate and that they could not cast their votes to support the Government. After the meeting, after some pats on the back, they gave an extended account to relay this message of the Government, and then they changed their voting inclination.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2211

However, earlier on, Mr Michael TIEN proposed that new criteria might as well be used, and under the new criteria, more applicants might apply for licences, so that applicants found unsuitable in the previous exercise might be considered suitable in the next exercise. This may be what he meant to express. However, the crux of the problem is not the adoption of new or old criteria, or the absence of a set of criteria. At issue is that the Government does not act in accordance with the criteria. The criteria have been put in place all along. We are all very familiar with the criteria and can recite the "four major criteria and 11 factors" now. It cannot be said that no criteria have been laid down, can it? This has been stated extremely clear, both in the licence application and the press releases issued by the Government. However, we consider that the Government has not followed the criteria. Despite the assessment showing that the criteria had been met, the Government had not acted in accordance with the assessment. Now, we do not know where you have moved the "goalposts" of the old criteria. Even if the Government sets new "goalposts", we cannot rule out that it will keep moving the "goalposts" in future.

By all means, why does the Government not explain the case itself instead of getting Members to do so? I think probably because remarks by Members are not made by the Government, so the Government will not have to bear any responsibility. Besides, based on the supreme "hypocritical rhetoric" skill of the Government, discussions during the closed meeting could have been misunderstandings of Members, which the Government had never said so. Hence, to Members who are willing to play the role of the Government's "loudhailer", I have to remind them that they should be wary of being framed by the Government again.

Actually, the proposal put forth by Members in the democratic camp on invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) has compelled the Government to pay special attention to many Members in the pro-establishment camp and independent Members. Had the media not revealed the discussion at the Executive Council, had the staff not persevered, had the public sentiment not gone high, and had a Member from the democratic camp not proposed invoking the P&P Ordinance in this Council to obtain the documents, the Government would not have met with them all this week, would it? The "Western district" authorities would not have called Dr LEUNG Ka-lau this week, would they? He disclosed the incident this morning on radio. Although none of the exchanges of the persons concerned has violated 2212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 local laws, Members from the pro-established camp would not have received such favourable treatment had the public and the legislature not exerted such enormous pressure.

Mr CHAN Kin-por has also disclosed some new information which we have never heard of. He has disclosed certain new perspectives other than those stated in the consultant's reports, which are related to the disclosure of some concealed facts among members of the industry. I heard that clearly. Had I caught it wrong, please rise to make clarification. I query why these new perspectives outside the scope of the consultant's reports cannot be made open. Regarding the exposure of concealed facts among members of the industry, are they rumours or just some "stab-in-the-back" practices? Is the content exposed reliable? If the Government relies on the concealed facts revealed by members of the industry, and changes its decision based on such justifications that cannot be laid on the table, is it being somehow frivolous? Or can a decision be changed solely because of the political glout at those closed meetings?

Certainly, the Liberal Party will respond to Mr WONG Kwok-kin's speech with the highest seriousness. There is one point in his speech that I agree fully, that is, he considers the existing system and practice comparable to the presence of a mouse. Naturally, I think it is not that simple as the presence of a mouse. If there is a mouse, it will be an extremely big one given its big destructive power. No matter how, he agrees that the current practice is inappropriate. No matter how, we have not swung any baseball bat. We have all along been peaceful, rational and non-violent. Even if we are being critical, we respond in a "peaceful, rational, non-violent and no-foul-language" manner. We are not beating others with a bat but just seeking to obtain the documents. We have been acting in a peaceful and non-violent manner by all means. Indeed, some people consider that we are not being radical enough, am I right?

However, I think one remark by him has hurt the emotions of the staff of HKTVN. He said that in the HKTVN incident, Ricky WONG should bear the blame for his proactive attempt to jump the gun by employing a large number of staff. It is a business decision and since he has failed to get a licence now, he has laid off the staff. I surely agree that it is a business decision. However, in applying for a licence, an applicant must do some preparations. One cannot merely submit an application by saying a few words and putting forth a proposal. It will not help the application, will it? I believe most people will disagree that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2213 one can get a licence by merely submitting a proposal. Hence, the layoff of the employees should not be attributed to Ricky WONG's proactive approach or his attempt to jump the gun, nor the layoff of staff resulted from the unsuccessful licence application. The cause of death is the unfair procedure, where an applicant satisfying the requirements is not granted a licence. Members should differentiate which is the major cause and which is the secondary one.

If Members of the FTU consider such practice of Ricky WONG inappropriate, they should actually give a hand to the employees. Why did Miss CHAN Yuen-han not meet with the employees or offer them assistance when they approached her? As a Member representing the interest of workers and trade unions, it is necessary for her to listen to the justifications of workers. Besides, employees of HKTVN are not striving to safeguard their jobs this time, so Members should not insult them and look down on them. We should have dreams and ideals, and the production team has professionalism and they respect and enjoy their jobs. We should be glad to see one more organization providing room for freedom of production in the television industry. Due to the dominant position of the Television Broadcast Limited (TVB), its productions are now mundane, where creativity has been stifled. It can hardly find another drama series from its stock comparable to "天與地" ("When Heaven Burns") that can win high acclaim. The new productions from TVB these days are often open to severe criticisms from members in the industry and audience. In fact, this time, the employees of HKTVN are supporting HKTVN without any lament and regret, for they are striving for the creativity in Hong Kong and the realization of dreams and ideals. They are not striving to secure their "rice bowls", but the expansion of the room for freedom of creation. The Government and many Members from the pro-establishment camp often say that the frequent invoking of the P&P Ordinance is politicizing the incidents concerned and undermining the system. Right, the legislature is focusing on politics and we are politicizing the incident. However, our focus is on accountability in politics, the open and transparent right of access to information, and the monitoring of the Government by the public and the legislature. All these are politics. We are striving to crush black-box politics by upholding accountability in politics, breaking the dictatorial practice of secret-room politics where reasons cannot be made public.

Politics is neutral per se. We in the democratic camp aspire to upright practices, where decisions are laid under the sun for joint examination. The granting of free is definitely a political act. A good TV station 2214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 will maintain an independent and fair news report programme, and it will cause much trouble to the authorities when it only reports the truth and inside stories. An impartial TV station should have a platform for divergent views. But this is not the case of the two existing TV stations, for programmes produced by them have only one audience rating point and the content of their commentary programmes tends to be biased.

Drama series are powerful. Last year, the theme song of the series "When Heaven Burns" ― "年少無知" ("The Young Age of Ignorance") ― was sung vociferously in the people's square. The song became the theme song of the national education incident. The authorities will naturally be anxious. Last year, there was a movie titled "寒戰" (Cold War). In its final scene, fireworks ― the favourite tool of the SAR Government for painting a rosy picture of peace and prosperity ― and black powder were used to blow up the SAR "flying dragon" logo on the rooftop. All the audience in the cinema reached their emotional high at the sight of the scene, and the SAR Government would naturally feel unhappy about it. But if the Government delivers good governance, what does it have to fear? Why does it have to be so frightened about the freedom of creation and the freedom of expression in Hong Kong?

Talking about the system, that is, the confidentiality system of the cabinet, LEUNG Chun-ying said that confidentiality system is implemented in all cabinets around the world. But this is wrong. In 2008, the European Court of Human Rights declared the Armenian Government lost its case rightly because the authorities had failed to state clearly the criteria it used for approving or disapproving a broadcasting licence. The European Court of Human Rights considered that when the Armenian Government made the decision arbitrarily, it would prevent the locals from effectively preventing interference of freedom of expression by the executive authorities through the licensing procedures. The arbitrary and non-transparent policymaking process adopted by the Republic of Armenia was in violation of the safeguards for freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Moreover, in the referendum held in Ireland in 1997 on the amendment of the constitution, the Court was given the power to order the cabinet to present documents the cabinet considered could remain confidential on the grounds that public interest should override the confidentiality of the cabinet.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2215

Therefore, Chief Executive, President, I would like to tell the Chief Executive through the live broadcast that he is wrong again, for the confidentiality system is not adopted in all cabinets around the world.

Besides, I am rather dissatisfied with the way he presented an incident involving public interest as a "family issue". LEUNG Chun-ying said that it was the natural result of a licensing process when not every applicant was granted a licence, and he likened that to a person displeasing his sister-in-law when making a decision in favour of his brother. Who are his family members? We are talking about public interest here. We are talking about the right of the public in choosing television programmes and the room of creation for creators. It is a matter concerning public interest, which transcends the interest of existing and future operators.

We insist that more licences should be issued and there should not be a ceiling on the number of licences. In fact, we are striving for the expansion of the platform for expression and the room for creation and diversity in expression. It is absolutely not about his shadowy relationship with another party or their "family relationship behind close doors".

However, the Chief Executive seems to enjoy breaking rules, and this is probably a special interest of his. A simple example is the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session. It was scheduled at 3 pm, but he changed it to 9 to 11 am without advance notice, thinking the longer time lag between the session and the evening television broadcast would spare him much criticism. Unfortunately, the arrangement backfired. He had been rebuked since the News at one till the Late News, for criticisms against him were broadcast again and again.

Another example is the bundle-up of the consultation on the Budget with that on the Policy Address. He really enjoys breaking the rules again and again, and he keeps putting up a face saying "what can you do to me". However, public grievances accumulate day after day. Let us see which incident will be the last straw that breaks the camel's back.

In fact, 10 years ago, the granting of free TV licences might not necessarily provoke so many people to take to the streets angrily. However, each time when the rules are violated, the public feel that people's right is being insulted, and the 2216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 accumulated grievance has formed the base of opposition to the Government. One day eventually, an incident which was considered trivial 10 years ago may trigger the stepping down of the Chief Executive.

President, a number of colleagues blamed our request for setting up a select committee to investigate the case a waste of money and disturbance to the public without studying in detail the motion and the amendment proposed by the two Members. I have to reiterate here that we know the lines which these Members are going to say: "It is a waste of manpower and resources, they should not cause troubles, and the Secretariat does not have the manpower to handle this." Therefore, this time, we are just making a request to obtain the documents, merely the documents. Members in the pro-establishment camp, if you consider you do not have the time to read the documents, it does not matter, and you can just ignore them. We have a lot of time and we have the commitment, so we will examine the documents. The scores and assessment information in the documents can reveal the truth. Truth speaks louder than sophistry. This time, Members cannot put forth justifications for opposing the motion, but still they oppose it. Why? There is one and only one reason: it is politics. It is because (The buzzer sounded) … "Grandpa" has not granted permission, and everyone wants to defend the Government …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms HO, your speaking time is up. Does any other Member wish to speak?

MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): President, I would first declare that I am a non-executive director of two companies, namely ITC and ITC Property, of which Charles CHAN is the majority shareholder. He is also TVB's majority shareholder. The declaration has nothing to do with what our current debate is about. President, actually I do not need to make the declaration, since no interests are involved.

Second, several Members have criticized Dr Priscilla LEUNG for not noting what today's motion is about. She noted it actually. While you all take just a single step, she takes a hundred. What is your purpose in trying to obtain documents by invoking the P&P Ordinance? She is aware that you all will pursue an investigation with those documents, so she spells out your intention beforehand. All of you should not criticize her, because she has just taken a few LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2217 steps ahead. Many may criticize her for speaking so in her capacity of a professor, but she actually managed to observe a lot of things you are not aware. Hence, I would illustrate the whole picture for her. Politics can be so realistic that one may not point out the fact he sees.

MR ABRAHAM SHEK: President, today is the day of an exceptional quality debate. We are not debating between ourselves as pro-establishment or as opposition; we are today debating on an issue of public interest. We will be voting on an issue which touches the hearts of many. Today, I speak with a heavy heart, but as a legislator, the duty I should perform is to cast my vote.

Today's voting will be a voting of conscience for those who will vote "Yes", and for those who will vote "No", President, it is a voting for preserving the present system of government ― stability, a stable government of governance, and effective governance that we have inherited since 1997 from the Central Government.

Basically we do not have any argument regarding the concept of free market, nor do we have any argument on the concept of fairness, justice and business level playing fields. But for those who are going to vote "Yes" on the issue of conscience, they do have a view there because of the Government's blunders. That we also agree. They speak on high moral ground of openness, transparency, fairness and equality. So, do we all believe in these values? Their arguments are not without reasons. Their comments are well balanced and eloquently delivered, particularly the speeches of Dennis, Kenneth and Dr LAM Tai-fai. I share their views to the extent that they speak from their hearts on preserving the very core values of Hong Kong, and that is why we are different ― we are a special administrative region with a high degree of autonomy.

In general, I do support the views that have been spelled out in the debate. Take a look at the Government's six-page manifesto of "I don't know what". From a business point of view, the Government's explanation found no place in logic, business pragmatism nor sound business principles and free market philosophy. The six-page argument posed more questions than answers. It is really a PR disaster and suicide. Also, the six-page confession or explanation posed a strong platform for future unnecessary legal challenges if they exercise the public law. The six-page explanation reflected the governing philosophy of the present Administration, that is, big government or no market, or very little market. This is a sad day for Hong Kong, closing further the gap of interference governance and planned economy. It is a case that we all do not like to see.

2218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

For this, as a representative of the business sector, I cannot but condone this big-brother technique. In business, there is no absolute or complete fairness or equality, but what we want is a level playing field because if we measure in terms of wealth asset and risk management, it is very difficult to find complete fairness.

As I said early, they want a level playing field, they want to know why they win and how they lose. It is not important, and it is not essential that losing is the finality of everything, for failure is the mother of success. If they fail this time, and if it is a level playing field open to them, they will know that they are going to win next time. This is the very essence, I presume, the Members voting "Yes" are fighting for.

In this licence issue of HKTV, the Government might have done much, but were the actions appropriate? The Government might have given many belated explanations, like the six-page document, but were they adequate? The Administration might have thought that it has been fair and just, but justice must not only be done, justice must be seen to have been done.

Lastly, President, having heard my speech, you may think that I would be voting "Yes", but the answer is "Nay". If we just look at the Basic Law, the spirit of the separation of powers with checks and balances between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, highlighting their respective powers and functions, we, as legislators, have our powers derived from Article 73, particularly paragraph (5), in this case, which reads, "To raise questions on the work of the government". This, we have done, regarding the HKTV case in the Panel and in this Chamber. Paragraph (6) reads, "To debate any issue concerning public interests", which we have done so today and in the past years pertaining to policy transparency, fairness, justice and freedom of choice in the economic, social or political aspects. So, I do not particularly agree with Michael that this is not an issue of public interest. But is it an issue that warrants the invoking of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P)? That is a different issue.

Today, we are debating as if we have been able to debate under paragraph (8) which reads, "To receive and handle complaints from Hong Kong residents". The voices of the 120 000 marchers a couple of weeks ago, the 50 000 people outside this Chamber, have been heard. That is why we are here to debate and acknowledge their complaints. We have listened and have heard, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2219 but has the Government listened or has it heard? It is up to the Government to decide.

Paragraph (10), President, reads, "To summon, as required when exercising the above-mentioned powers and functions, persons concerned to testify or give evident", that is the very essence of what the motion is asking for.

Having examined the above, I asked myself this question: should I vote "Yes" and give them the powers and privileges to ask for documents? Like Dr LAM Tai-fai, I have asked myself many times if it is necessary to invoke the P&P in order to understand fully the situation? The answer is "No". We do not need to do so to find out the truth, for the truth always prevails. This is the very essence of life: we must speak the truth.

If the Legislative Council pass this motion today seeking to invoke the P&P, we are going on the unilateral approach of forcing the Government to give us documents which otherwise it would not give.

Before we actually look into our powers, let us also look into the powers of the Executive Authorities. Article 43 of the Basic Law confers powers on the Executive Authorities, stating that the Chief Executive is the head of the SAR, and is accountable to the Central People's Government.

Paragraph (4) of Article 48 reads, "To decide on government policies and to issue executive orders". This is exactly what they have done. They have decided on this government policy and issued an order that they will only grant two licences. They have every right to do that. This, we might disagree, but we have no right to challenge.

Paragraph (11) reads, "To decide, in the light of security and vital public interests, whether government officials or other personnel in charge of government affairs should testify or give evidence before the Legislative Council or its committees." They do have the right not to give, under this particular paragraph.

If this Member adopts a unilateral approach to invoke the P&P, and if the Government decides to exercise Article 48(11), the relationship between the legislature and the executive would be severely damaged. The people of Hong Kong would have to pay a price, and we will lose everything.

2220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Let us find an amicable solution to listen to the voices of the people. Let us work together to find the truth without a need to call for the invoking of the P&P. This is how I would vote: "No".

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

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, I would like to make a declaration of interest first. I discussed with Mr Ricky WONG about licensing at the beginning, and I have all along supported them. I recall that some time ago, I attended a poolside party hosted by them, and it was joyful. Later, some so-called launching activities were held. Though it had not yet obtained the licence, some activities were held. I have had some private meetings with Mr Ricky WONG to discuss the licensing progress. I have been extremely concerned about his licence application and I support him. I hope Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung will not say that I should refrain from voting for this reason.

Second, President, I strongly support that more choices of TV stations or economic freedom should be provided in Hong Kong, and this is a subject I often bring forth for discussion. However, President, it is clear right from the beginning that Members have already drawn a foregone conclusion for the present case. Examination seems unnecessary, for they consider the Government is wrong, incorrect and erroneous. Many colleagues have already pointed out the mistakes of the Government, which I need not repeat here. I only wish to discuss one indisputable point. President, the Government announced the outcome of the licensing exercise in 15 October. I do not know if it was the choice of the Government or a wrong decision, for this Council had scheduled a motion debate on a vote of no confidence in the Chief Executive on 16 October and the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session on 17 October, whereas the by-election of the King's Park Constituency would be held on 27 October. I think any officials with political wisdom, let alone the Chief Executive, would not have chosen such a time or date to announce the outcome. Needless to say, this incident has exposed the complete incapability of the Government. There was no advance notice, no public relations effort, no expectation management, no notification for its own men and no reminder about what would happen. We were caught by surprise and knew not how to react. What kind of government will act this way? What kind of Chief Executive will act this way?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2221

President, if we already know that the Government is wrong, the question we now have to deal with is whether or not we should spend more time and money on this. Should we spend more meeting time to debate whether or not to invoke the P&P Ordinance? Members should recall that in the previous term of the Legislative Council, I made all-out effort to block invoking the P&P Ordinance to investigate KAM Nai-wai's case on the grounds that there was only the plaintiff but not the defendant … sorry, it should be just the defendant but no plaintiff. I often mix it up. By the same token, in the present murder case, the corpse was not found. President, if the P&P Ordinance is invoked this time around to obtain some of the documents, I am afraid what we do will only be comparable to the blind man feeling the elephant. If we do not have the opportunity to read the deliberations of the Executive Council, the content of discussion and the debates based on certain primary data and initial proposals, or the reasons for reaching the final decision, we will be examining a murder case without any corpse. We can only rely on the so-called circumstantial evidence, or what the deceased had eaten and worn before death to find out the cause of death. Since the corpse is not available, we cannot confirm the final and genuine cause of death. We all know that a murder had occurred and someone had died. However, is it really necessary for us to do so?

President, I very much agree with Mr Abraham SHEK's earlier comment, that we should now proceed forward and find a way to handle the incident. Members in this Council, as well as friends making strenuous efforts outside this Council to support the motion only hope that the cause of death can be identified amid hopelessness. However, I believe they earnestly need a positive and forward-looking conclusion, knowing whether we can do something in several aspects. Let me do some explaining here.

The first and primary expectation is that the Chief Executive and the government officials in charge must apologize to the public for the serious mistake and incapability in handling the incident. Second, the licensing policy must be reviewed immediately. It may be on the debate to be carried out shortly, or the Government may take the initiative to find certain people with credibility and good knowledge of the industry to conduct an immediate review to examine whether or not additional licences should be issued and whether or not the licences of certain operators should be revoked. Third, should resources be used to assist the unemployed staff, particularly workers engaging in various job types in the industry, to deal with unemployment? Fourth, as the Chairman of a certain organization stated in open, all along, the Government has seldom 2222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 provided resources and subsidies for the creative industry. Will this be a good opportunity for the Government to do something good to increase talents and resources and to enhance the mechanism, so that they can submit applications to employ additional staff, restoring the golden days of the creative industry in Hong Kong in the past? Fifth, the system of the Executive Council was adopted before 1997, so after 16 years of test, is it necessary to make enhancement and adjustment? I will spend some time later to elaborate this point. In the present incident, the controversy centres around the so-called confidentiality system or collective responsibility system. The mention of these two terms is annoying, for they are impractical. Worse still, LEUNG Chun-ying has never observed the confidentiality system himself. We all know the situation before 1997. During the previous term of the Government, he was the Convenor of the Executive Council, and we all know the situation back then. Why should the authorities use this system as camouflage? It should act in an open and honest manner, making the necessary changes and required abolishment. It is the way to move on. President, sixth, when we have made every effort to improve the situation, but the entire cabinet, the Executive Council, and even the Government and Hong Kong as a whole still have to suffer due to the credibility, integrity, appointment approach and the incapability of the leader, it is time we considered replacing him.

President, just now, I mentioned the Executive Council system. Before 1997, what we had was the colonial system. Back then, the sovereign state still had many military and diplomatic considerations about Hong Kong, so they considered it necessary to maintain confidentiality. Confidentiality was kept for the British Government or those people making great profits in Hong Kong, such as the Chairman of the Jockey Club or tycoons of the HSBC, who were trustworthy persons and it was known to whom they were loyal. From 1997 onwards, Hong Kong is no longer a colony yet not a sovereign state. Its Government does not have to deal with diplomacy and national defence. Most of the time, it has to deal with issues concerning the people's livelihood. Against that background, except issues concerning some areas like the link exchange rate or significant business elements, there are not many issues which required to be kept confidential, restricting the knowledge and decision-making to only a few persons behind closed doors. For most of the subjects, some relatively open policies can be adopted and decisions can be made after consultation and consideration of expert advice, which can be presented in an open manner. We should be geared in this direction. In this connection, it is true that we do not have a relatively healthy approach for the time being, but at issue is how should LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2223 we deal with the incident that has already happened? Should we solve the puzzle immediately and find out what has happened? Should we invoke the P&P Ordinance, about which colleagues have spent much time to argue yesterday and today, or apply for judicial review? Actually, there is little difference at all, for both arrangements seek to carry out a post-mortem examination. The difference lies in the approach to be adopted. If the P&P Ordinance is invoked, it may be compared to assigning a group of automobile repairs masters or technicians to examine the vehicle and find out if there are any damages to the vehicle. If a judicial review is initiated, it may be compared to assigning a more capable and meticulous engineer to examine whether there are any damages to the vehicle. No matter which approach is adopted, it is basically about examining whether the vehicle has suffered any damages and what are the damages, yet it will not be helpful at all. As I stated right from the outset in my speech, the Government is completely wrong in the incident even before any adjudication and investigation, it is only a matter of degree.

Under this circumstance, we think the present request for invoking the P&P Ordinance is merely the preamble, for it only involves the obtaining of certain materials. However, it will not be conducive to digging out the truth of the incident. Of course, there are other views. As Mr Abraham SHEK said, it may just be a kick-off, and Dr Priscilla LEUNG may expect that after 10 steps, it will surely come to the step of invoking the P&P Ordinance for the setting up of a select committee to carry out an inquiry and conduct hearings. Members may make speculations and form their own opinions. Yet, on the whole, attempts to obtain the documents, to carry on with the dispute or even to resort to the silly act of holding a hearing will not be helpful. For such attempts will still be focusing on who is to blame and what has happened, which can in no way help the people outside waiting for an answer. This will not be helpful to the public in various districts, particularly housewives, people with leisure time and even the elderly, for all they want is more choices. As I mentioned earlier, we definitely need to review the policy as soon as possible, for the restrictive television broadcasting policy has caused grievances to accumulate over the years, and the public has seized the opportunity arising from the incident to vent such grievances. Hence, the correct direction is to take remedial actions at once.

President, I do not only have contacts with Mr Ricky WONG, I have even taken the initiative to sign a joint request put forth by colleagues for the granting of a licence to the third organization or even additional licences. However, after thinking over the incident thoroughly and particularly having been given the 2224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 opportunity to read more relevant documents … In the past, I did not have the time to examine in detail the debate in the community on the relevant policy. For instance, in the policy document issued in 1998, only one simple sentence was made, "Under the new technology-neutral licensing regime, there would be no limit on the number of domestic free licences to be issued". This is the 1998 policy which many people have mentioned, yet there was only one sentence about the issue in it.

After that, I finished reading the content of the Guidance Notes for applicants, which Mrs Regina IP has already read out part of it. Paragraph 1.3 of the Notes is about the Chief Executive in Council. Their discretionary power to grant any licence is not bound by the Guidance Notes in any way and they will not be held responsible, whereas the so-called conditions laid down in the Guidance Notes will not formed a basis for the applicant. Apart from the above paragraph, there is another paragraph, paragraph 5.2, stating clearly that the Guidance Notes can be changed from time to time without giving any reason. It is close to saying that the "goalposts" can be moved anytime to anywhere outside the Hong Kong Stadium, outside So Kon Po or even outside Hong Kong, yet it is still considered within the playing field. Theoretically, the Government can make changes at any time without giving any explanation. Against this background, anyone participating in the football match will be taking high risk when they submit their applications according to the aforesaid document. But the point is that the player is prepared to take the risk. Particularly in the case of Mr Ricky WONG who is willing to make an enormous investment, I think he has chosen to take such risk after seeking comprehensive legal advice.

I say so certainly not because I am so mean as to deny the efforts made by Mr Ricky WONG over the years. He is after all nicknamed "Boy Wonder". I have a long way to go to reach that level, yet I had been the "Superman of law" and I had fought with the pro-establishment camp. I desire to make use of innovative destruction as Mr SIN Chung-kai said, trying to be destructive … making destructive innovation ― sorry, I have made the wrong quote and it should be destructive innovation, which means being destructive in order to bring reform. I once also played with this in the past. Though I was a lawyer at the time and I did not need to apply for a licence, the suspension of my lawyer's licence was kind of punishment. As I chose to play it that way, I expected to run the risk. If you decide to run the destructive course, you should expect that the pro-establishment camp will pose all kinds of obstacles, which is inevitable, and you may have to pay a price.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2225

I hope that Mr Ricky WONG will draw on the experience of this incident. More importantly, I hope that the Government will reflect thoroughly on its mistakes. It is hoped that Members will exert further pressure on the Government to work on the various aspects I mentioned earlier, including reforming the licensing policy, the broadcasting policy and even the policy of the Executive Council. I think this will be more meaningful and can more aptly address the earnest aspiration of the public, for to them, the voting on invoking the P&P Ordinance to obtain certain documents is no more than a procedure.

This time around, I am somehow glad that I have taken part in the promotion and pressed the Government to back off half step by issuing the six-page statement ― the statement should be five pages, though it is written that it is a six-page statement, it has only five pages in actuality ― I cannot but borrow the quote from FUNG Wai-kwong. Indeed the Government has used different methods to disseminate information explaining the reasons for granting licences, even though I consider the approach not at all appropriate. However, if we continue with the argument here, we will be wasting our time and running on the wrong track. By then, I am afraid we can hardly help the public, but will on the contrary bring strong impact to society. I hope Members will reflect on this. After deep reflection, I am afraid I can only run the risk of being blamed for making a volte-face under the circumstance to abstain in the vote on the motion and the amendment. Thank you, President.

MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, I am a full-time employee of The Wharf (Holdings) Limited ― Mr CHAN Kwok-hung specifically reminded me earlier that I should make a declaration of interest, sorry, should be Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung. I would like to make known to Members that I am an employee of The Wharf (Holdings) Limited, whereas one of the organizations being granted the licence is a wholly-owned subsidiary of i-CABLE Communications Limited of which The Wharf (Holdings) Limited is the major shareholder. However, the two companies are listed separately and operating independently. I just want to give an account of this to Members. Thank you, President.

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

2226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, first of all, let me appeal to those Honourable colleagues who have indicated that they will abstain in the vote, including Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Tony TSE and Mr Paul TSE, because I have heard them say that they will abstain. If they really want to abstain at the bottom of their hearts and have made it clear that they will do so, I hope they will leave the Chamber because we clearly understand that they will definitely abstain. According to the existing rules on voting, if they press the "abstain" button, they actually want to influence the voting result rather than really casting an abstention. It is because the objective effect of their action will be defeating Mr Charles Peter MOK's motion or Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment. Therefore, I hope that these few Members would listen and think about it carefully. I also hope that the public who are watching or listening to the live broadcast could ponder whether these several Members are actually trying to affect the voting result or simply demonstrate their stance of abstention.

To monitor the executive is one of the functions of the legislature. If the seriousness of an issue, the extent of public concern and the action to be taken by us are all in proportion, then we must go ahead for the sake of public interest and perform the function of monitoring the Government. I do not have to describe the seriousness of this issue. Even Members who oppose this motion opine that the Government has dealt with the licensing issue in a very poor way for it could only provide a six-page statement at the last moment. Even worse, the Government said something to some Members behind closed doors while telling nothing to other Members.

The licensing issue has prompted more than 100 000 people to take to the streets and tens of thousands of people gathering outside the Legislative Council Complex. This is absolutely not an insignificant issue like that described by Mrs Regina IP. She said she did not have to explain why a foreigner was refused entry into Hong Kong. Perhaps she was still recalling herself being the Director of Immigration and the Secretary for Security when the legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law ended in a mess. Perhaps I should say that she had done a good job because the public rights and interests are protected due to failure of the enactment. Thus, with the immigration matters in her mind, she ended up saying it would not be necessary to give reason for any decision to deny foreigners entry into Hong Kong.

President, this is a very serious issue, otherwise, the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government (LOCPG) would not have contacted Dr LEUNG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2227

Ka-lau. As some Honourable colleagues said earlier, when did the LOCPG ever contact Dr LEUNG Ka-lau before? The purpose of talking to him was to discuss the issuance of free television programme services licences. The issuance of licences obviously falls within the jurisdiction of Hong Kong's autonomy. As it does not go beyond the Basic Law, what does the LOCPG care about in the end? This affects the prestige in governance of the SAR Government! In other words, this is no trifling matter because it has far-reaching repercussions.

However, some Honourable colleagues in this Chamber are really very "fantastic", even more "fantastic" than the Fantastic Television Limited. When I raised a question last week on the Hospital Authority's decision to suspend Prof YU Cheuk-man from performing surgery, Mr NG Leung-sing indicated he had to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) and that scared the hell out of me because he has never cast a vote for any motion to invoke the P&P Ordinance. Mr NG Leung-sing thought that the P&P Ordinance should not be invoked even though the failure of Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN) to get a license has aroused controversies all over town. What is his justification?

I remember that soon after LEUNG Chun-ying was elected as the Chief Executive, Mr Abraham SHEK proposed to find out what LEUNG Chun-ying had done more than a decade ago and actively advocated invoking the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry. Is the rejection to grant HKTVN a licence equally critical? Mr Abraham SHEK spent so much time in the first half of his speech only to end up abruptly and say "but" to indicate his opposition to the motion.

President, we wish to ask whether the relevant information cannot be disclosed. Actually, it has nothing to do with whether it can be disclosed. Many Honourable colleagues have met with the Chief Executive or other informed sources during which information, documents and justifications were mentioned and disclosed. Take Mr James TIEN as an example. Half of his speech told us what he had heard from the Chief Executive. There were of course some Honourable colleagues reminding him to be cautious. It might even be a trap awaiting someone to fall into because the Government would not be responsible for the content he quoted. Neither could it be admissible in the Court in a judicial review.

2228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

We have to listen to what Mr Ricky WONG said. He is one of those who have four consultant's reports. We also have to listen carefully to those who are involved in the whole process. Ricky WONG said that the Government was lying. If we do not invoke the P&P Ordinance to summon these documents, we shall never know the underlying philosophy of the Government. Neither shall we know if the six-page summary is full of lies.

Regarding the incident as a whole, what exactly is the licensing mechanism? The Chief Executive in Council seems to be responsible for the decision. But in fact, it is the decision made by the Chief Executive at the meeting of the Executive Council. This is not a remark by me. It is a remark made by LEUNG Chun-ying when he ran in the Chief Executive election. Back then, he was queried why he, as the convenor of the Executive Council under the leadership of Chief Executive Donald TSANG, was not held responsible for Donald TSANG's erroneous policies. In reply he said to this effect: "I am LEUNG Chun-ying, the then convenor of the Executive Council. But the decision was made by Chief Executive Donald TSANG at the meeting." Has such situation undergone any change after LEUNG Chun-ying was elected the Chief Executive? The answer is "No". In order to make his stance clear, LAM Woon-kwong, the convenor of the Executive Council under the leadership of LEUNG Chun-ying, came out and said that the licensing decision was made by the Chief Executive at the Executive Council meeting rather than by the Executive Council. Many other Executive Council Members have taken similar actions. In other words, if we want to conduct an inquiry into the decision of the Executive Council, we have to ask what decision was made by Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying at the meeting of the Executive Council and why he had to make such a decision.

The Chief Executive issued a six-page statement on behalf of the Government two days ago. But he did not explain the details of the six-page statement. Nor did he come out to face the public or the Legislative Council in order to answer their detailed questions and explain how he made the decision, or how the decision was made at the meeting of the Executive Council. Our purpose of invoking the P&P Ordinance is to obtain basic information in order to determine whether there is any fundamental justification to support the decision of the Chief Executive at the meeting.

Some Honourable colleagues queried whether the truth can be revealed after summoning several documents. This is a universal question. No one can LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2229 guarantee that the truth will be uncovered by summoning some documents or through the work of a select committee. However, there is one thing that can be guaranteed. We are discharging the duty of the Legislative Council and taking action in the direction of getting the truth. Furthermore, it will be more likely that the Government can be compelled to provide a fuller account. We have to discharge our duty because we should be fair to our voters. More than 70% of the respondents in an opinion poll oppose the Government's decision not to issue a licence to HKTVN. We have to be fair to them too.

President, today is a day of extreme absurdity because many Members from the business sector support the Government's erroneous decision and oppose free competition. Some Members from trade unions do not encourage employment and turn a blind eye to unemployment. The reason behind this is very simple: because "one single man" has made a decision, and then the Central Authorities blow the whistle to summon apologists. Hence, pressure is exerted by a powerful hand behind them.

Today, I heard many Honourable colleagues strongly condemn the Government. Despite that, they helped the Government enormously because they eventually opposed summon the relevant documents. Today, we may not get the documents. But Hong Kong people will remember you, including all the Members here. The voters will remember every one of us. There is one Honourable colleague who has not yet spoken so far. She is Miss CHAN Yuen-han. She has let me down because many people, in last year's election, thought that Miss CHAN Yuen-han, who spoke for wage earners in the past, is somewhat different from other pro-establishment Members even though she had also been forced to cast votes in favour of the Government on many occasions. However, can Miss CHAN Yuen-han be absent from the meeting when the question is put to the vote today? Can she do something fundamental so that the people will believe she adheres to a bottom line and does not blindly support LEUNG Chun-ying's Government. Meanwhile, she can prevent her reputation from being tarnished during her tenure as a Legislative Council Member which may possibly be her last term in office.

President, several functional constituency Members should think clearly whether they really have to vote against the motion or abstain, or they have to stay in the Chamber. In this Complex, no one can surely locate you although I know that there are lots of "paparazzi" watching over the exits of this Chamber. 2230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Although we still stay in this Complex and do not go out, we can still make a firm decision which will win the cheers and applause of the public.

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

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I wish to declare that I am a Member of the Executive Council and I am employed by KPMG as a director and my duties are on training and technical support. KPMG is the auditor for i-Cable Limited, Hong Kong Television Network Limited and Asia Television Limited. KPMG provides auditing and other professional services. However, 95% of my time is devoted to performing my duties as a Member of this Council and I do not take part in providing professional services to clients.

President, I notice that Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung queried in his speech earlier whether I should vote in this motion. I would like to point out the difference between declaration of interest in the Executive Council and in the Legislative Council.

First, there are differences between the two in terms of functions. The Executive Council assists the Chief Executive in formulating major policies. In terms of declaration of interest requirements, it is based on section 7 of the relevant code. After hearing the interests declared by Members of the Executive Council, the Chief Executive will decide whether the Member has any potential or actual conflict of interest with respect to the item under deliberation by the Executive Council. The Chief Executive will also decide whether the Member can take part in the discussion or shall withdraw from discussion. If the Chief Executive decides that the Member shall withdraw, he will not be given the meeting agenda on the relevant item and he will not take part in the discussion and will not be given the relevant minutes of meeting after the Executive Council meeting.

As for the Legislative Council, as other Members have mentioned, in the Rules of Procedure, it is stated that "a Member shall not vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest". I have made a declaration earlier and I do not think that due to my capacity as a Member of the Executive Council and my capacity as an employee of the accountancy firm that I will obtain any direct pecuniary interest in this question.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2231

President, about matters related to free TV licences, they have been discussed for a very long time and members of the public only want to know the "causes of death". In fact, even if the motions of Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr Dennis KWOK are passed, the causes of death or the truth may still not be found. This is because, as explained by the officials, Members of the Executive Council and the Government, the Executive Council will consider all the information available before making a comprehensive decision and I would agree that if we hope that different stakeholders can have a better understanding of each other, the legal proceedings in a court and the judicial review would be a more systematic and sounder way to deal with the issue.

President, I so submit.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, you may now speak on Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I declare that I do not hold any shares of the TV stations concerned. I am neither an employee of nor do I have any business with any one of the TV stations. However, I know the key player in this incident, Mr Ricky WONG. I have to point out here that IT men will surely support IT men. I will not consider his political position and background if what he does is reasonable. I am not sure if I or Mr Andrew LEUNG and Mr SIN Chung-kai know him longer, but I have known him for over 15 years. I dare not say I am his friend, yet I used to be his competitor in the beginning. This time, I am not striving to help him to get the licence, but to help him and all his staff and the people in Hong Kong to identify the "cause of death".

I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr LAM Tai-fai and Dr LEUNG Ka-lau for staying in Hong Kong to cast their votes ― I heard that they had to change their flights, which is troublesome. However, Mr Paul TSE made a volte-face at the last minute. Had he made that decision right at the beginning, he should have told the staff members and masses waiting outside last night. 2232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

They are really naive, for they have put your photo on the supporting side, and they never know that … I do not know whether or not they can see the situation in the Chamber now, and if they can, they may have to put your photo to the other side. I do not know how many of the 50 000 people outside here last night live in Kowloon East, but I think they will definitely remember this incident. Mr Paul TSE said that the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) cannot help them. Have you ever …

(Mr CHAN Kam-lam stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, what is your point?

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): President, point of order. President, in this session, Mr Charles Peter MOK should be speaking on the amendment.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I will come to it.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MOK, please speak on the amendment by all means.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Alright, President, I got your point. I really hope that Mr Paul TSE will go down with me afterwards to meet with them and ask them about it. I must say that it is relevant to the amendment for Members have expressed their views on the amendment. I would like to make a commendation: Mr Frankie YICK, you have done a good job.

Regarding Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment and my motion, some people ask which one is less strict or which one is stricter. In my view, they are the same. It does not matter, for if Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment is passed, it can already serve the intended purpose. The only specific change made by Mr KWOK is amending the date to "8 November" to give the Government more time to take action. It is a correct approach. At the time I submitted the motion, I hoped to obtain the information at the relevant meeting to be held tomorrow, and thus I put it that way in my motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2233

It is stated in the amendment that our objective is to obtain the basic information, excluding the deliberations and relevant records of the Executive Council and any confidential commercial information involving the licence applicants. Some people still consider this inadequate for Members to get the full picture. However, we truly believe that the full picture can be found in the several consultant's reports. This is what the amendment means to state and I believe Mr Dennis KWOK will also agree with this. The several consultant's reports are extremely important. Members should have noticed that. Dr LEUNG Ka-lau said that the LOCPG had approached him. Today, some Members are still saying it is useless to obtain the documents including the consultant's reports. A number of Members have repeatedly stated that even Ricky WONG and HKTVN considered such arrangement unnecessary and the documents obtained would not be helpful ― Mr MA Fung-kwok was still saying that this morning. I have to clarify here that HKTVN had issued a statement last night, stating that it had been waiting for three weeks for the authorities to tell the truth to Hong Kong people. Mr MA Fung-kwok might not have read the statement this morning. Mr WONG seems to agree with the views of the pro-establishment camp that if the Government could give an open and reasonable explanation, it would be unnecessary to invoke the P&P Ordinance. But the reality tells us that the Government lacks any sincerity to settle the problem. So apart from invoking the P&P Ordinance, what can we do to alleviate the grievances of the public? In view of this, a deadline was set in HKTVN's statement, urging the Government to give an open, truthful and detailed explanation before 1 pm. I think I have not missed anything, and the Government did not release new information before 1 pm. As such, the amendment should have gained the full support of the relevant stakeholders.

Before today, I heard the Secretary reiterate five points in his argument about the amendment and my original motion ― mainly about the amendment. The Secretary's speech has actually made us feel that the amendment is really necessary. We do need to obtain the documents to settle the incident. The first of the four points made by him is on the law and system, emphasizing that the Executive Council is the ultimate decision-making body on the grant of licences. However, the Executive Council may overturn the proposals submitted from a lower level. The executive is actually in a domineering position, so it can act arbitrarily without giving any explanation in future.

The second point mentioned by the Secretary is about the gradual and orderly approach, stressing that not every licence application will be approved. 2234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

It is an obvious attempt to shift the focus. The most important point is why the policy of no ceiling on the number of licences could have been changed to the present condition of selecting two out of three. For this reason, we have to use the amendment to obtain the documents.

Third, he has repeated the 11 factors and the four criteria, but it transpired that there is no marking scheme. It is a crucial point. He had mentioned it in the past and I recall that some Members have repeated the point that different people would have different considerations and conclusions. As mentioned by Mr James TIEN, it is evident that Hong Kong has changed and it is now ruled by man but not by law. In future, we may come to a stage as mentioned by Mr IP Kin-yuen earlier, that consideration and conclusion in rating students in an examination may vary according to individual teachers, for no marking scheme will be used to decide whether a student is qualified for a university place or whether the student should score A or B. How can the marking be done if there is no marking scheme? However, prior to the release of the document, Secretary Gregory SO said that, which was also mentioned in the paper, financial capability was given a heavier weighting. It has been said that there is no marking scheme and no weighting, yet he attaches greater importance to certain factors, so which remark of his is true?

Finally, in the fourth point, he mentioned procedural fairness and that the requirement of procedural fairness has been complied with. However, in reality, we notice that he has not announced the reasons. I wish to point out that according to the Telecommunications Ordinance … The present incident is on broadcasting but not telecommunications, but the setting up of the Communications Authority is a move to convergence in great measure. As such, issues in these two areas should be handled with markedly different approaches. In respect of telecommunications licences, a written account on the issue of licence is required, so I do not see why the Government simply set out the 11 factors and the four criteria without giving any explanation in granting broadcasting licences.

More importantly, this incident prompts us to think why the practice in monitoring competition in TV industry will be like that, and this practice adopted in monitoring the TV industry …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2235

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MOK, you will have time to speak in reply later, so please speak on the amendment of Mr Dennis KWOK by all means for the time being.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Alright, I will keep part of my speech for the reply later on.

President, finally, I would like to point out that both the amendment and my original motion has mentioned the ordering of the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development to produce the documents. I initially thought that the documents in his hands or at the Director of Bureau level would not include documents of the Executive Council, and so I thought the wording of my motion would be alright. However, some Members considered the wording unclear. We then heeded the concerns of Members from the pro-establishment camp and hoped they would accept this. We have written clearly that: to produce all relevant documents of the former Broadcasting Authority and the Communications Authority involved in processing the applications ― we even avoided using the term "vetting" lest they considered that we were referring to the Executive Council. In fact, the most important concern is the four consultant's reports. In the first place, I considered the original wording of my motion adequate, I then noticed Members had such concerns, and that certain Members have decided to support the amendment as a result of the change, I hope they will persevere and vote for the passage of Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment. As for other aspects, I will talk about it later in my reply. Thank you, President.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I have to thank the 47 Members in total who have expressed their views on this motion. The motion has been discussed for almost 12 hours in a debate very rich in content. As I clearly pointed out in my opening speech, the SAR Government opposes Mr Charles Peter MOK's original motion and Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment.

Our system gives the Chief Executive in Council statutory powers to make decisions on matters related to domestic free television programme service (free TV) licences. If any stakeholder is aggrieved by the Executive Council's decision, and confident of having a legal basis, he is given the right under our 2236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 system to lodge a review to the Court against the decision through fair and impartial judicial proceedings. If the Court considers that the Executive Council has made an illegitimate decision, it may revoke the decision and direct that the Executive Council reconsider the application in question. If anybody does not agree with a statutory decision made by the executive, this is the most appropriate and effective approach to deal with the matter under our system. As regards the use of the powers under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) (P&P Ordinance) to intervene in the current licensing incident, such an act will not only have an impact on the proven confidentiality system of the Executive Council, but also politicize the whole incident, all to no avail in solving the problem.

Mr Alan LEONG used the metaphor of "Ah Mau making cakes" to describe the current exercise of granting free TV licences. I do not know whether this analogy would descend into the category of shallow-meaning or vulgar slang as Mr Gary FAN referred to earlier, nor whether Mr Alan LEONG wants to play the role of "Ah Mau", because he said last night that he wished to select cakes of different flavours ― sweet, salty or other cakes ― as he specified. In fact, this is a very serious matter. Of course, I do not know whether "Ah Mau making cakes" is a suitable description but, to a certain extent, one can also argue that the "cake" to be made can be salty, sweet or flavour-less. However, as far as TV licences are concerned, there are likewise free TV licences, pay television licences and other television licences, such as satellite television licences for hotels to provide television services. As in the case of making cakes, where different production processes and conditions are required for different cakes, the approval process for TV licences should be conducted in accordance with legislation, procedure and policy, and the approval process for free TV licences is the strictest. Therefore, we must act in accordance with our policy and legislation. Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Broadcasting Ordinance provides that recommendations should be made by the Communications Authority (CA) for the Chief Executive in Council to make a decision, which is statutory. If one is aggrieved by this decision … in fact, I also graduated from the faculty of law; Mr Alan LEONG and Mr Dennis KWOK should know that very well. If one is aggrieved by such statutory decisions, he should challenge them. Instead of mounting an intervention through the Legislative Council, he should challenge the decision through judicial review proceedings in the Court. As I said earlier, if someone considers it illegitimate, the aforesaid is his very right.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2237

I must reiterate that the Executive Council has considered plenty of information and all the relevant factors before making a judgment in accordance with the established procedure, system and policy. Seeking documents irrelevant to the Executive Council's decision by invoking the P&P Ordinance does not facilitate the proper understanding of the decision. In fact, since the announcement of the result, the Government has explained the Executive Council's decision in as much detail as possible. In addition to routinely responding to enquiries from media and the public, we have issued 11 press releases, and government officials have on more than 20 occasions responded to relevant media enquiries at public events. On the day before yesterday, we also issued a detailed written statement to further elaborate the Executive Council's current decision. Having listened to Members' speeches today and yesterday, I found that many arguments were based on misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the Government's explanation. I wish that, given this opportunity today of making a response and clarification, I could enhance the understanding of Members and the public of the justifications for the Executive Council's current decision, and that they would agree to negativing the invocation of P&P Ordinance by the Legislative Council, in order not to politicize the incident.

Earlier I heard a Member claim that the Executive Council's decision to introduce competition with a gradual and orderly approach was a sudden change of the rules of the game. I wish to point out that this view is based on misunderstanding of the current broadcasting policy.

I have explained to all, regardless of being in the Legislative Council or on other public occasions, that the Government conducted a comprehensive review of the television policy in 1998. Following the policy review, the Government announced in December 1998 its decision to open up the television market (1998 Policy). In order to make the 1998 Policy clear, we issued a Legislative Council Brief at that time, paragraph 12 of which stated, "… transmission of free television service is not limited to using the UHF spectrum. General and direct-to-home satellites, for example, can be used to provide free television services. Under the new technology-neutral licensing regime, there would be no limit on the number of domestic free licences to be issued. Applications for domestic free licences transmitted through other technically feasible means will be considered."

2238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

In order to give effect to the 1998 Policy, the Government enacted the Broadcasting Ordinance (BO) (Cap. 562) in July 2000. Under the BO, there is no pre-set limit on the number of free TV licences to be issued, and the charging of royalties on television and radio broadcasters is formally abolished. The Government has reiterated a number of times that the 1998 Policy is public information. The Government's stance of opening up the television market has remained unchanged to date.

The Legislative Council paper that I quoted just now clearly stated, "There would be no limit on the number of domestic free licences to be issued. Applications for domestic free licences transmitted through other technically feasible means will be considered". This makes it clear that the 1998 Policy requires that "consideration be given to any applications", without mentioning that "any applicant meeting certain basic requirements must be granted a licence".

The current BO provides a legal basis for the 1998 Policy. Sections 9 and 10 of the BO provide for the free TV licensing regime. Generally speaking, any interested company may, at any time, submit an application for a free TV licence to the CA, of which the predecessor is the Broadcasting Authority. Upon receipt of applications, the CA should consider them and make recommendations to the Executive Council on such applications. After considering the CA's recommendations, the Executive Council may grant free TV licences, which are subject to such conditions as the Executive Council thinks fit. Under the BO, there is no pre-set limit on the number of licences that may be issued by the Executive Council. However, neither does it require that all free TV licence applications or any application meeting certain basic requirements must be approved. In exercising the discretion conferred by law, the Executive Council needs to consider all relevant factors before deciding whether to grant a licence. Thus the thought, if any, that the existing licensing regime requires that "any applicant meeting certain basic requirements must be granted a licence" is just a wrong interpretation of our legislation and the 1998 Policy. In this regard, I am very grateful to Mrs Regina IP for her speech delivered last night.

As regards the comment that the Government "invited relevant organizations to apply for free TV licences with the intention of introducing competition" in 2009, this remark is incorrect either. I did clarify in the relevant motion debate of the Legislative Council in November last year that under the 1998 Policy, the television market was already liberalized as early as 10-odd LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2239 years ago, and the legal basis as well as procedures for submitting licence applications have already been clearly stipulated by law, so the Government needs not extend open invitations for licence applications. As I pointed out just now, the 1998 Policy is to open up the market, and has remained unchanged to date. Any interested applicant can submit an application to us anytime in accordance with the law and the CA's Guidance Note for Those Interested in Applying for Domestic Free Television Programme Service Licences in Hong Kong (Guidance Note), and there is really no need for us to make any appeal. Under the aforesaid established policy, whenever an organization indicates its interest in submitting an application, it will definitely be welcomed by the Government. Every application will be handled by the authorities prudently in accordance with the established broadcasting policy, as well as the relevant requirements and procedures stipulated by law. As regards whether or not a licence will be issued, the decision will be made by the Executive Council after considering all relevant factors.

In the last couple of days, a number of Members confused the grant of a site in the Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate to Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN) for the building of a multimedia centre with the processing of applications for free TV licences. I wish to clarify again that the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation (HKSTPC) granted a site in the Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate to Hong Kong Media Production Company Limited, a subsidiary of HKTVN, in August 2011 for the building of a multimedia centre. According to our records, the relevant application was submitted to the HKSTPC by the predecessor of HKTVN, namely City Telecom (Hong Kong) Limited (CTI), on its own initiative, and neither the Government nor the HKSTPC had invited CTI to make such an application. As I understand it, any interested and eligible organization can, at any time, submit an application to the HKSTPC for the use of land at the industrial estate. Upon receipt of such applications, the HKSTPC will notify other organizations which have expressed interest in the use of the same site previously, and make an announcement on its website. Apart from the applicant, any interested organizations may also submit applications within the same period. Approval for use of land in the Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate is granted independently by the HKSTPC in accordance with procedures and is in no way related to the Government's processing of free TV licence applications. According to the information submitted to the CA by HKTVN in relation to its application for a free TV licence, the multimedia centre at Tseung Kwan O belongs to a business sector different from that of the free TV 2240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 business proposed by HKTVN. The two companies are not related in terms of investment and personnel recruitment. Therefore, the aforesaid grant of land should not be categorically interpreted as evidence that the Government has had the intention of granting HKTVN a free TV licence since a long time ago. I do not want Members to be confused again by this matter either.

Therefore, it is evident that none of the three ― the BO, the 1998 Policy and the Government ― have undertaken that all applications whatsoever must be approved. It is a matter of choice and business decision that any organization or person makes any investment or other decisions before being granted a licence. I understand that the current decision has certain impacts on HKTVN staff, but I seek your understanding that the licensing authority cannot grant a licence to an applicant organization simply because of the investment and preparation that it has made before being granted a licence, otherwise our licensing regime is nothing more than cosmetic. Before making the current decision, the Executive Council has considered all the latest developments, including the applicants' representations and the information submitted by them in relation to their proposed services.

If the two organizations which have been granted approval-in-principle is ultimately granted licences, the number of free TV stations in Hong Kong will be doubled, with an addition of four more free TV channels. As a result, there will be not just a significant increase in the number of video and audio choices for the audience, but also more employment opportunities in the creative industries. The Government believes that, with the introduction of more competition into the free TV market of Hong Kong for the first time in nearly four decades, the industry players will have a broader platform to showcase their talents and pursue their dreams.

President, as I said just now, although the BO imposes no pre-set limit on the number of free TV licences that may be issued by it, the Executive Council, as the licensing authority, must examine all the relevant factors before deciding whether or not to issue a licence. In my speech yesterday, I already explained the 11 factors in detail, so I will not repeat them here.

Over the past few decades, there were basically only two free TV stations in Hong Kong, despite the brief appearance of a third one, which however eventually closed down. The Government understands that free TV LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2241 broadcasting is the main source of information, education and entertainment for the general public of Hong Kong. It is precisely because of the importance of free TV that, having regard to public interest, the Executive Council takes into account the sustainability of the free TV market and does not want the competitive environment consequential to the introduction of new operators to be merely short-lived.

All along, different views have been expressed on the size and room for growth of the television advertising market. Some views hold that operators will benefit from a larger market, or a "larger pie" so to speak, with the issuance of additional licences. Others hold opposite views. The Executive Council has taken note of such views. As I mentioned in my opening speech, based on the business plans and estimations submitted by the applicants, the consultant's findings indicated that the market would be able to sustain the operation of three operators (including the two existing licensees), and perhaps four operators under a favourable market condition. The consultant considered that the local free TV market could hardly sustain a total of five players. However, no one has a crystal ball to accurately predict the future market development, because it would be affected by various market factors.

Therefore, having considered the aforesaid 11 relevant factors and the latest market situation, the Executive Council held that the decision on the three applications should be taken with a prudent and careful attitude, and a gradual and orderly approach should be adopted in introducing competition, lest unforeseeable changes or an adverse impact would be brought about by a sharp increase in the number of free TV operators, for example a decline in programme quality as a result of the cut-throat competition, which would eventually injure public interest. Accordingly, the Executive Council decided not to approve all three applications at this juncture (but not precluding the possibility of granting more free TV licence(s) in light of market development).

There are some views among Honourable Members and in the community querying why, even if the market cannot support three new free TV operators, the Government does not grant licences to all three applicants despite the fact that someone is prepared to bear the risk of losing money. As I mentioned earlier, the Executive Council has to consider public interest in processing the applications for new licences, including the impact of the new licences on the sustainability of the TV industry. That is to consider whether the number of 2242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 new licences will lead to over-competition or vicious competition, including the possible dilution of advertising revenue in a way that all or most of the TV stations will not have adequate revenue during the 12-year licence period to support the consistent and quality programme production.

I must reiterate that the gradual and orderly approach in introducing competition is in public interest and conforms to the 1998 Policy. In line with the policy stance of market liberalization, the Executive Council must also take into account the current market situation in order to make decisions in public interest. It would be very difficult to make an accurate prediction of market development. Having regard to the consultant's analysis, relevant latest data and representations, the Executive Council considered that the gradual and orderly approach in introducing competition into the free TV market is in public interest and in line with the established policy. I hope Honourable Members and the public will understand that, under unforeseeable circumstances, the licensing authority needs to prudently make a responsible decision. As regards Mr Christopher CHUNG's mention of the need for the Government to draw up a timetable for gradual and orderly progress, we believe that it is not feasible, because no one can accurately predict market development, but the Government's policy of television market liberalization remains unchanged. If the Executive Council receives applications in the future, I believe it will process and consider them having regard to the circumstances and in accordance with the legislation and established procedures.

Some Members said that it was unreasonable for the Executive Council not to adopt the recommendations made by the CA. I wish to point out that the premise of this view is incorrect. The law has clearly differentiated the role and powers in the licensing process between the CA and the Executive Council, that is, the CA makes recommendations and then the Executive Council decides whether to a grant a licence. The Executive Council always values highly the CA's recommendations. As always, the Executive Council considered the CA's recommendations and its relevant advices in making the current decision. However, we must understand that even on the same topic, the views and considerations of two different organizations may not be exactly the same every time. Moreover, after the CA had made recommendations on the three applications, the market continued to change, and the three applicants had made several rounds of representations to the Executive Council as well. As the ultimate licensing authority, the Executive Council had to consider such relevant information that was available only after the CA had submitted its LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2243 recommendations, and make a decision having regard to the overall public interest. Therefore, we do not find it appropriate to make a simple and biased comparison between the CA's recommendations and the Executive Council's decision.

President, on this basis of a gradual and orderly approach in introducing competition into the free TV market, the Executive Council adopted the four assessment criteria proposed by the consultant, which had been disclosed to all applicants, to assess the proposals submitted by the three applicants. These four well-known criteria are:

(a) financial capability;

(b) programming investment;

(c) programming strategy and capability; and

(d) technical soundness.

Against the four assessment criteria, the Executive Council considered the applicants' proposals and all relevant factors, including the Consultant's Reports, all representations/responses by relevant parties and all latest developments. The Executive Council formed the view that Fantastic TV and HKTVE outperform HKTVN in overall terms, and on this basis decided to grant approval-in-principle to the applications of the former two.

There is this remark that the Executive Council "has kicked out the applicant whose assessment result is not the worst". As I made it clear earlier, in assessing the relative competitiveness of the three applicants against the four criteria, the Executive Council formed the view that Fantastic TV and HKTVE outperform HKTVN. I must emphasize that the consultant's assessment on the applicants' competitiveness is only one of the factors taken into account by the Executive Council in considering the three applications. In this course, the Executive Council considered all relevant factors as well, including all the representations submitted by the applicants on the Consultant's Reports and the relevant latest developments, before making a decision on the three applications.

2244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

The assessment made by the Executive Council is based on comprehensive information and involves a judgment in overall terms. Of course, different people have different considerations and focuses. The Government has already done its best to clearly explain the justifications of the Executive Council within the framework of the regime. As regards the assessment process and details, it is inappropriate to make them public because confidential business information and details of the Executive Council's internal discussion will inevitably be involved. We respect different viewpoints and opinions in a pluralistic society. Before making the current decision, the Executive Council has taken into account the views and representations provided by various parties.

In their speeches, some Members expressed the view that it was unfair of the Executive Council to not allow the three applicants to modify their original proposals when it intended to adopt a gradual and orderly approach. This is not the truth. First of all, as I have explained, the 1998 Policy has all along remain unchanged; therefore, as far as procedural fairness is concerned, there is no need to allow the three applicants to modify their original proposals. All applicants have been given sufficient opportunities to respond in respect of the intent to adopt the gradual and orderly approach, the Consultant's Reports as well as the assessment criteria, and their relevant representations have also been submitted to the Executive Council for consideration. The Executive Council has therefore sufficient information for consideration before making its decision. Moreover, if applicants were allowed to revise their proposals at any time when their applications were being processed, there might then be new factors/developments necessitating reconsideration of matters already considered. The entire process would then become endless. There is no question about fairness as all applicants have been subject to the same "no alternation" requirement.

I have noticed Members' quotation from an article by Prof Albert CHEN that describes as procedural injustice the failure of the Executive Council to request the CA to reconsider the three applications after it had decided to adopt the gradual and orderly approach. We do not agree with this view. As I understand it, Prof CHEN's article is based on the assumption that there is a change in policy, and in such case the Executive Council should request the CA to reconsider the applications based on the latest policy and make recommendations to the Executive Council. I reiterate that our 1998 Policy has remained unchanged to date, and the decision concerned conforms to the 1998 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2245

Policy. Moreover, all applicants have been given sufficient opportunities to respond in respect of the intent to introduce competition in a gradual and orderly manner, the Consultant's Reports as well as the assessment criteria, and their relevant representations have also been submitted to the Executive Council for consideration. Therefore, the Executive Council had sufficient information for consideration before making its decision, and there was no need to consult the CA again.

President, I am very grateful to Honorable Members for their precious views expressed on the subject matter in the past two days.

The Government encourages competition, supports the creative industries, and respect the audience's right of choice.

Since the 1970s, no new operators have entered our free TV market. It is necessary for the licensing authority to ensure the orderly and healthy development of this free TV market, which is very important to the general public. The Government hopes to bring in healthy competition through the issue of additional free TV licences, with a view to providing more choices and better quality programmes to the public as well as increased career opportunities for workers in the related performance, creative, production and media fields. Therefore, the Executive Council will continue to complete the outstanding work relating to the free TV licence applications in a fair and prudent manner with a view to formally granting free TV licences as soon as possible to the two organizations whose applications have been approved in principle for the early provision of more and better programming choices to the public.

As always, the Government will continue to make best efforts to implement the established broadcasting policy in order to ensure that the broadcasting licensing and regulatory regime can keep abreast of the times, thereby bringing more choices of quality programmes to the public, strive to develop Hong Kong into the broadcasting hub in the Asia Pacific Region, and keep on implementing policies to facilitate the development of creative industries.

President, I so submit and wish that Honorable Members would oppose the original motion and the amendment today. Thank you, President.

2246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Dennis KWOK to Mr Charles Peter MOK's motion, be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Mr Vincent FANG stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Vincent FANG, what is your point?

MR VINCENT FANG (in Cantonese): President, I have some interests to declare before casting my vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Vincent FANG, please sit down.

Under Rule 84 of the Rules of Procedure, a Member shall not vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest. Although he is not obliged to declare such an interest, he shall withdraw from the Council. Other Members who have no direct pecuniary interest in the question to be voted upon are not subject to Article 84 of the Rules of Procedure. They may remain and cast their votes without making any declarations.

Hence, Mr FANG will please consider whether or not you have a direct pecuniary interest in the question to be voted upon. If yes, you have to withdraw because it is not enough to make a declaration only.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2247

Mr Charles Peter MOK rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): I have to declare again that I am an Executive Council Member.

(When the division bell was ringing, a Member shouted in his seat)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members should not shout in their seats please.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Prof Joseph LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted for the amendment.

Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.

2248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr POON Siu-ping and Mr Tony TSE abstained.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO, Mr James TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

Mr Paul TSE and Mr WONG Yuk-man abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 35 were present, 15 were in favour of the amendment, 16 against it and four abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 35 were present, 18 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and two abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance" or any amendments LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2249 thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG be passed.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.

I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, please reply.

2250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I am grateful to learn that besides Mr Dennis KWOK and me, 45 Members have spoken on this motion. At least, they are willing to speak up, and they are willing to do so even though they may oppose the motion.

I know that as at this morning, the Legislative Council has received more than 6 000 faxes and emails. In order not to waste paper, of course there is no need to print them out one by one. But I am sure Members will know what the people are thinking, and now the total number may be more than 7 000 or 8 000. As I listen carefully to Members' speeches, and actually those deliveries were made in a very peaceful manner, we all agree that the information provided by the Government is not enough and we all think that it is not a bad thing to introduce more competition. But I can see many cases of the word "but" used in these speeches. Some Members began to use the word "but" in the middle of their speeches or even right in the beginning. If we did not listen to these speeches until the end, we might even think that all the Members were lending their support to this motion.

This is the case with politics. We only want the people to see clearly and remember it clearly. What the Secretary has said in his conclusion is nothing new. So I wish to continue talking about one point which I already mentioned earlier and that is, is there any contradiction between competition among the TV stations and the existing fair competition law? I do not know if Members know that the English long title of the fair competition law is this: An Ordinance to prohibit conduct that prevents, restricts or distorts competition in Hong Kong. To my understanding, broadcasting is not included in the list of exemptions. I therefore do not know whether the present handling by the Executive Council has violated this law at least in spirit.

The Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance certainly serves a purpose. If exemption is to be given to the Executive Council, at that time when the Legislative Council passed this Ordinance, it should have stipulated it. So this motion proposed today is meant to exercise our statutory powers, there is indeed no reason why the established system will be damaged. Some people argue that it will be damaged. But actually what they are doing is not to make the Government feel embarrassed and that is all.

On the contrary, we can see the fact that the executive is dominant. As Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has said, it is dictatorship by "one single man". We LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2251 know that if part of the information is disclosed, the case is not as described by the Government and some Members, that we will not be able to see the full picture. The real problem is that no one is allowed to see the full picture. Hence, there is something which the Government must be hiding in this incident.

I have just criticized Mr Paul TSE for making a volte-face. Now I do not want to mention that again. But I only wish to tell him, actually Mr SIN Chung-kai is not so awesome and there is no such thing as "innovative disruption" or "distortion". But there is something called "disruptive innovation" and it was actually a theory advanced about 20 years ago by a professor called Clayton CHRISTENSEN from the Harvard Business School. We can check it in Wikipedia. The meaning of this theory is that there can be no innovation if the existing order is not disrupted or subverted. It could be due to this reason that there is no innovation in Hong Kong. Since the Government has to predict market behaviour, it will not talk about a far-fetched topic like a Hong Kong style café. When the Government uses this mentality to handle TV, media and technology affairs, no wonder there is no innovation in Hong Kong.

I do not wish to cite again the comments made by LAM Woon-kwong a few days ago. He compared the TV industry to Hong Kong style cafés. It is ridiculous. Actually, enhancing competition will never lead to ― or we may be fair and say, not necessarily lead to ― cut-throat or vicious competition. On the contrary, too little competition may lead to this situation. I would think the meaning of this can be understood by students in their first year of a MBA programme. Just that the consultant they hired charges exorbitant fees and it is only natural that it can find an answer that suits them.

About the speech made by Mr WONG Kwok-kin today, it really makes many voters feel disappointed. He claims that if anybody is unhappy, he or she can file a judicial review. Of course, the parties involved will do so and so will the rich people. But what about ordinary members of the public, to whom should they go? It is the Members of this Council. As we look at the findings of the opinion polls, we find that more than 70% of the people think that something is wrong about the decision or the procedures, while more than 60% of the people support invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to conduct an inquiry. But as we know, the amendment was negative just now. Then if Members of this Council cannot be expected to speak out for 2252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 the people, then who should the people go to? Do they have to hire a lawyer and sue the Government in a court of law?

His remarks make us feel very disappointed and he said the situation is like someone taking a club and trying to beat a rat in a house. I may as well not probe into what he means by that rat. The problem now is not like that and what we need is just putting on a pair of glasses, chase the rat and it can be hit then. This is what we want. But he does not wish to even put on a pair of glasses, nor does he wish to see anything.

Then he made another even more outrageous remark. He said that Ricky WONG was the perpetrator of all the trouble. I post his remark in Facebook and immediately there were responses from netizens. One of them says he is a retired actor and he would work as an extra once in a while. He also plays a part in the TV drama series produced by HKTVN. He considers that the quality of staff working in HKTVN to be better than those in TVB and everybody is working hard. He is out of work now and there are a few hundred of such extras. He says if someone hires him but does not pay the wage, then this is a plot. In other words, it is not right to say that Ricky WONG is the perpetrator of all the trouble because he has paid the workers.

Why is Mr WONG Kwok-kin not willing to meet the workers? If he thinks that Ricky WONG is the perpetrator of all the trouble, why does he not lead the workers to stage a protest before Ricky WONG? He is supposed to be a union leader. I recall he said earlier on in a radio programme that drama series purchased from overseas was more competitive. Perhaps he likes to watch those Mainland, Japanese or Korean drama series aired by ATV. But those who shot these drama series are not Hong Kong workers. If we all watch drama series purchased from abroad, what can the Hong Kong workers do? He should be ashamed to say that he is a union leader.

As far as I can see it now, and as compared to the trade unions, I would think the people are more convinced by the bosses. Mr WONG Ting-kwong mentioned certain acts done by demonstrators. I wish to say with all sincerity that I do not approve of those acts at all. Actually, when I walked past the other side of the Legislative Council Complex last night, I also saw some radical demonstrators. They even hurled articles in my direction. But that does not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2253 matter. There is no need for us to get distracted. Turning back to the incident this time around, he mentioned that the plan to start 30 channels is definitely proof of excessive competition. But in fact those 30 channels include some channels with contents obtained from some of the existing pay TV and aired. So not every one of these 30 channels are brand new channels. I do not think HKTVN can manage to do so. Some of these channels may even be handed over to certain political parties for public broadcasting. This can be a possibility. But in any case, not all of these channels are new. I therefore hope that Members can know the details of the application more carefully.

Mr Christopher CHUNG pointed out the various mistakes made by the Government. But he said that the greatest problem is to make delays in offering an explanation. I would think that the greatest problem is the Government changing the procedures in violation of procedural justice. Why did he not talk about it? The most interesting thing is his claim that he had given his support to Mr WONG in finding a site to build a production plant. Now it seems that all these are none of his business, for the Government has made the final decision, changed the direction and got some other plans. So, President, in future should Members ― but unfortunately, you also belong to that political party ― or should a political party say that it will lend its support to a certain person, I am sure that person should think carefully.

The eyes of the public are discerning indeed. There are people who say that they will solve the people's problems. But it turns out that the solution is in fact not to do anything at all, leaving it to the Government. For us, at least we would give it a try. So Members may as well consider lending their support to my original motion. As I have just explained, the nature of my motion is similar to Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment. Mr MA Fung-kwok said that the licensing decision is not a political decision, so we should not turn it into a political event. I think a political event and a political decision are two separate matters. Even if we believe that there is no political decision behind it, it is obvious that this incident has become a political incident because the Government has moved the goalposts, so to speak. He also said that the best way is to help the staff of HKTVN find jobs. Do you think the workers will be grateful to you? Is it because they are unable to find jobs that they are furious? Or is it because you people have shattered and destroyed their dreams?

2254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Mr Michael TIEN said he is happy after getting this six-page explanation from the Government because he knows the cause of death now. But it would be terrible if he were a forensic pathologist. It is because all he has to see are the bruises on the face of the corpse and he can tell what the cause of death is. It is surprising that he can accept something like that. He does not care about what many of us said after reading these six pages, that there are doubts about the Government breaching the Broadcasting Ordinance or violating its spirit. He also said that he would propose another motion. But more than 100 000 people have already taken to the streets in protest and last night, more than 50 000 people who gathered out there. But he was asking us to wait until he proposes this motion which is after all, not legally binding. Is he going to propose another motion to urge that the P&P Ordinance be invoked?

Mr CHAN Kin-por talked about the difficulties in running a business in the TV industry. I wish to stress that as at 2012, the TVB has an annual growth in income which averages $300 million to $500 million. In 2012, the income from advertisements after deduction of commission is still worth $3.73 billion. So I really do not know how difficult it is. Those companies which do not run their business well will run into difficulties. But if you ask me if the market is large enough, I do not think I need to say more. How can you say that there are difficulties in running a business in the TV industry?

Some people say that the best option to take is to leave the case to the Court, then a decision can be made without any pressure. But what pressure is there in this Council? I really do not know. Does it come from the votes? Among the many functional constituencies, I think my own makes me feel some pressure. I do not wish to talk about other people. But I would think that in certain functional constituencies, the pressure experienced is not too large. Then where else does pressure come? From the Government or from the LOCPG? On Members from the BPA, on the business and economic side, the speech by Mr Andrew LEUNG failed to let me hear anything on free economy and free competition. On the other part of this political party's name in Chinese which means "the people", I must say that now some 60% to 70% of the people support this motion to invoke the P&P Ordinance. This makes us think that this political party is really a coalition in support of the LEUNG Chun-ying Government.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2255

Actually, I would very much like to hear certain Honourable colleagues speak, but they have not done so. One of these colleagues is Miss CHAN Yuen-han. Many people from the trade union want to find her and talk with her. But they do not have the chance. I would also want to hear Mr Jeffrey LAM speak. It is because, after all, he is a Member of the Executive Council and he should make some comments on that, although the result may still be the same. Another Member who I would very much wish to hear her speak is Dr Elizabeth QUAT. It is because she also belongs to the information technology sector and she is a member of the Election Committee and also the vice-chairman of the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting. Even if she has to follow the party line when it comes to the vote. I would still wish to hear her views.

This debate has been going on for a long time. Many Honourable colleagues have said that even if this motion is passed, the truth may not be found. I may have missed something, but it seems that I have never heard any Member say that after the passage of the motion, all the documents obtained are definitely useless. Perhaps they are afraid of trouble. But if we do not do anything, we will never find out the truth. If we sit and wait for a reply from the Government, I really have no idea how long we will have to wait. And if we sit here and wait for other people to file a judicial review, we really have no idea for how long we will have to wait.

I know very well that the amendment by Mr Dennis KWOK will not be passed, and for my motion, I do not think there is any risk in its not being passed but the fact is, it will surely not be passed. Anyway, miracles could happen. And essentially these two motions are cognate. Well, we cannot say that this is a miracle. Because as Mr WONG Yuk-man said, he supports my original motion but not the amendment by Mr Dennis KWOK. Perhaps, all of a sudden, you people will agree with the view of Mr WONG Yuk-man. At least, the process here today can enable Members to see some of the truth in this Council, including how Members decide to vote under this division system. I am sure we can see clearly whether Members have really listened to the voice of the people.

I seldom make remarks like debt of votes will be repaid by votes. I will not make remarks like those made by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. But I will say, "The people will never forget." And this incident is not over yet. Will the citizens who are gathering outside or those who are concerned about this incident please not forget or let this incident fade away. At least, we will be discussing it 2256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 in the panel meeting tomorrow. So work in this Council on this incident has not ended. Members who vote in favour of this motion should also engage in further discussions to see what can be done to find out the truth of the matter.

I think it may not be possible today ― I always make the wrong guesses though ― for this motion to be passed. But I wish to tell Members all the same, that I wish to implore all Members to lend their support to my motion to request the Government to produce the relevant documents. This will enable us to be accountable to the people of Hong Kong. Moreover, this is the first step to getting answers in connection with the incident related to the rejection of the licence application from HKTVN and the Government's moving of the goalposts and changing the rules of the game half-way. If we do not even take the first step forward, we cannot go on certainly. So I hope all Members can change their mind and give all of us a chance.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Charles Peter MOK be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Charles Peter MOK rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2257

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the motion.

Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted against the motion.

Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr POON Siu-ping and Mr Tony TSE abstained.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the motion.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, 2258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the motion.

Mr Paul TSE abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 35 were present, 10 were in favour of the motion, 22 against it and three abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 35 were present, 18 were in favour of the motion, 15 against it and one abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The third and the fourth Members' motions are motion debates with no legislative effect. I have adopted the recommendations of the House Committee: that is, the movers of motions each may speak for up to 15 minutes, and have another five minutes to speak on the amendments; the movers of amendments each may speak for up to 10 minutes; and other Members each may speak for up to seven minutes. I am obliged to direct any Member in speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third Member's motion: Domestic free television programme service licences.

Members who wish to speak in the motion debate will please press the "Request to speak" button.

I now call upon Mr James TO to speak and move the motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2259

DOMESTIC FREE TELEVISION PROGRAMME SERVICE LICENCES

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, in moving this motion, I would like to first tell those people who are watching and listening to the live broadcast on television and radio that a particular television station should not keep replaying its old dramas and interview programmes. Although it is a non-binding motion, we can be more focused on this motion debate and simply request the Government to issue a licence to Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN) after the motion to invoke the powers under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to obtain documents has been vetoed. It does not matter whether we can obtain documents. What matters is that members of the public request the Government to issue a licence to HKTVN.

President, according to the public opinion survey conducted by the University of Hong Kong in June 2013, 63% of the respondents indicated their support for issuing licence to HKTVN. That was the highest percentage of support among the three applicants. The reason was very simple. Members of the public are very discerning and they can see that HKTVN has put in lots of resources to produce various dramas and programmes. Some programmes have even been uploaded onto the Internet for public rating to see how well they are produced, whether the company is strong enough to compete with the existing two television stations, and whether the programmes are up to the standard and well received or not. After the Government decided not to issue a licence to HKTVN, 73% of Hong Kong people indicated on 16 to 18 October that they opposed to the Government's decision to reject the licence application of HKTVN.

President, the opinion of the public is very clear. The Government did antagonize the people and operate in a black box. The Government indicated that public opinion was just one of the factors in its basket of considerations. However, as the Government has failed to convince the public with its detailed explanation, we come to the conclusion that HKTVN has met all the licensing conditions. It was not awarded a licence because, as Secretary Gregory SO said before and at the previous debate, issuing too many licences would result in vicious competition. In other words, the Government rejected the licence application for fear of vicious competition. That is not acceptable to members of the public. If only such factor were removed, HKTVN could be awarded a licence.

2260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Would granting a licence to HKTVN really result in excessive competition and undermine the overall interest of society? In fact, many Members ― even those who opposed invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) just now ― agreed that there would be much to gain and nothing to lose by issuing one more licence to HKTVN. Also, many Members who earlier opposed invoking the P&P Ordinance to obtain documents, including Mr WONG Kwok-kin of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions and Mr Michael TIEN of the New People's Party, have indicated their support on granting one more licence. Therefore, if the Government is attuned to the impulses of this Council, it will come to the conclusion that this Council supports granting a licence to HKTVN immediately.

President, the second reason for granting a licence to HKTVN is promoting the creative industry. Some Members say that it does not matter as HKTVN, with land in hand, can continue to operate and produce dramas even if it is not granted a licence. Coupled with the Creative Media Centre, HKTVN can still proceed on with its creativity business. I think these are very callous and meaningless remarks. When it comes to investment, a company has to consider it from a broad perspective. A company has to consider whether it can break even on all its investment and make a profit if the dramas it produces are sold to other licensed television stations. If the company has its own licence, its production of dramas can bring in many other extra incomes. If it just sells the dramas to another television station, the return will be far less than that brought by having its own licence. If the Government really wants to boost the creative industry, it should definitely grant one more television licence.

Thirdly, granting one more television licence to introduce competition is more in line with the free entrepreneurial spirit of Hong Kong. Many colleagues have indicated earlier that the Government is worried about vicious competition. To put it plainly, the Government wants to protect Asia Television Limited (ATV). There are only two possibilities. The first possibility is that ATV can continue receiving capital injection from some amazing sources to spare it from closing down. Yet, it still fails to compete for advertisement revenue as it has no audience. It can only linger on and own a licence, with the mere existence of its station while lacking the ability to compete for advertisement revenue. Therefore, if the Government grants one more licence to HKTVN, there will actually be four television licensees competing for advertisement revenue. It will not result in vicious competition. The Government's consultant says that the market can accommodate four television licensees. In fact, there will only LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2261 be four licensees as ATV is unable to compete for advertisement revenue. If the Government indicates that ATV will eventually close down, there will still be four licences, right?

If the Government is worried not about ATV, but the two new television licensees instead, I can tell the Secretary that these two television stations have given the general public an impression that they are indeed not serious with this business. We have many reasons to believe the saying that these two licence owners or applicants were not keen to get a licence but just participated under the system. Perhaps the Government had been encouraging more people to apply for a licence. Based on these two factors, if the two applicants being granted a licence had a genuine interest in operating a free television station, they would not have prepared themselves with such an attitude. When the Government anxiously urged them to announce their business plan, they were still … But why? It was because the Government was calling for help, hoping to increase the number of licences from two to four as soon as possible. If the two television stations indicated that they would launch their businesses with much fanfare and make huge investment to produce many dramas, it would save the Government and provide it with the explanation, "No, the two other licensees can do well even without HKTVN". The Government has said it out loud and urged once and again. What did the two television stations say after the Government's repeated request? Seen in this light, were the two applicants being granted a licence based on those two factors really keen on operating a free television station? Members of the public absolutely have a big question mark about this in their mind.

Lastly, if the existing policies make it difficult to issue a licence to HKTVN immediately, the Government can, in view of the seething public opinion and the positions taken by Members, together with their remarks and comments on policies, change those policies to remove the difficulties immediately. Then, it can change its decision at once and issue a licence to HKTVN. President, members of the public hope that the Government will immediately rectify its mistake and let them have more choices on television programmes, and provide room for an enthusiastic free television operator to spark the creativity of the HKTVN staff, who are dream-makers and passionate about programme production.

I so submit and move the motion.

2262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Mr James TO moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That the Administration has recently issued licences to two applicants of domestic free television programme service licences, but has refused to issue a licence to Hong Kong Television Network Limited ('HKTVN'); this Council expresses regret that the Administration vetted and approved the licence applications in a black box, and its licensing decision departed from public opinion and antagonized the people; besides, the public are very dissatisfied with the Chief Executive's refusal to openly give an account of the justifications for not issuing a licence to HKTVN on the grounds of the confidentiality principle of the Executive Council; in this connection, this Council urges the Chief Executive, on the premise of safeguarding the overall interest of society, to explain to the public the details of vetting and approval of the licence applications concerned (including the vetting and approval criteria), and the Chief Executive in Council should respond to public opinion and consider issuing a domestic free television programme service licence to HKTVN."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr James TO be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Two Members will move amendments to this motion. This Council will now proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the two amendments.

I will first call upon Ms Claudia MO to speak, to be followed by Mr MA Fung-kwok; but they may not move the amendments at this stage.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, the last motion was vetoed even though it only sought to invoke the powers under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to obtain documents. Yet, are we surprised by that? Of course not.

The debate on Mr James TO's motion and my amendment is scheduled immediately after the one moved under the P&P Ordinance today. That is a mere coincidence. I feel a bit poor for Secretary Gregory SO. He has to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2263 remain seated throughout all these debates. I wonder how long he will have to remain seated here tonight.

President, we have been discussing the issue about free television for a long time. I myself take this matter close to my heart. After the motion seeking to invoke the powers under the P&P Ordinance has been vetoed just now, I will move another motion under the P&P Ordinance, seeking to name Mr Ricky WONG to come here. Maybe it is not to name anybody. I make such a request again under the P&P Ordinance because Hong Kong's foundation as a free market and economy with fair competition has been seriously rocked. We must relentlessly and unbendingly pursue this course. I do not believe that people, in view of the non-binding nature of today's motion, just go home to have a meal after the debate ends and feel nothing special.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, please speak on the motion and the amendments.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, when I heard the Secretary talk about the topic of free television earlier, he spoke for long but just recited from a script. It perplexed me when he suddenly uttered "sik1 sou3". What did he mean by "sik1 sou3"? I originally thought he meant "colour", but it turned out that he meant "all"2. He just uttered those words without any digestion.

However, the Government kept saying that the pie of advertisement revenue would not change in size and it was no use for all people to strive for a slice of that pie as there would surely be someone who would be starved to death eventually. I wonder if the Secretary has read the article written by Mr Joseph LIAN of the Hong Kong Economic Journal today. He is one of the best and brightest economic scholars in Hong Kong. He asked in his article whether people realize the situation of "one-station dominance". The result is that advertisers have no choice. Knowing its "one-station dominance" position, that television station adopts a "priced high" strategy. As the market lacks competition, advertisers have no choice but to advertise on that television station. As a result, that television station can set a price as high as it likes. As we all

2 The Chinese terms for "Colour" (色素) and "all" (悉數) are different in written characters but pronounced the same as "sik1 sou3" in Cantonese. 2264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 know, television advertisements are priced at astronomical level in Hong Kong. To apply the "tea-restaurant" analogy made by Mr LAM Woon-kwong, is there any "tea restaurant" which is financially strong enough to advertise on television? Surely, this is impossible because a 30 seconds television commercial will cost a "tea restaurant" two months of its operating capital. If the Government was talking about genuine competition, why did it not consider this point? Pardon me for repeating myself, the Government of course would say that the pie of advertisement revenue is just that big and it is not enough to be shared by so many operators. Why does it not talk about advertising expenditure? As there are so many advertisers, why can we not have more choices? There should not be just one television station available with another having nobody to watch. Although two new television stations will soon enter the market, I do not know what will happen then. At the present moment, advertisers have no choices yet.

We often talk about the Lion Rock spirit. It is downright unacceptable by some relatively left-wing youngsters. What does "Lion Rock spirit" mean? It is old-fashioned and pretentious. They just think that it is a swindle. The so-called "Lion Rock spirit" is just a false message sent through the media by the underlings and hirelings ― cronies and followers ― of the plutocrats: "In Hong Kong nowadays, one can definitely get on in life by working hard and long hours; one can definitely make a fortune and climb up the ladder of success by toiling and moiling." They think it is deceiving. Yet, that is a myth misunderstood by youngsters. There are still such opportunities in Hong Kong. If I do not remember wrong, senior officials earn a monthly salary of $300,000. While busy going here and there, should they not make an effort to correct the thinking of youngsters? The Lion Rock spirit still rings true in Hong Kong. They can make it if they are willing to work and strive hard. However, let us take a look at Mr Ricky WONG's case. The Secretary earlier rebutted, sentence by sentence, that his land in Tseung Kwan O was not granted by the Government but applied for usage on his own. The authorities had also informed other organizations which had interest in that land site. It just ended up that he succeeded in his application. He has hired many people but he has to fire them now. But why the buck is passed to the Government? With all these sayings, it just brings to the point that one has to take responsibility for his wrong decision in our free market and economy. The Government has not answered why it had to "play" a small independent investor to destruction. His investment is "small" when compared to others' parent companies with $20 billion worth of capital. Some parent companies' capital may even be 10 times more. Well, I do not know.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2265

However, when considering it purely from the economic perspective, even laymen would query if parent companies and its subsidiaries necessarily have exchanges for mutual benefit. When a subsidiary company goes into trouble, would its parent company save it for sure? By the same token, the Government would never save any big corporations which have gone into trouble in a free economy. Yet the Hong Kong Government saved Ka Wah Bank 20 years ago, not to mention the United States Government, which did the same to counter numerous problems emerging from the financial meltdown at Wall Street.

President, past experience told us that it is very difficult to champion fair competition in Hong Kong. As you may remember, there was the Cyberport issue during TUNG Chee-hwa's era. The top eight property developers in Hong Kong at that time joined together to protest in Beijing, citing a commentary entitled "All the President's Men" from an English newspaper, which had caused trouble to the commentary writer, who was an editor specialized in China-related issues. Why was the Cyberport project criticized as unfair at that time? In fact, that was just unfairness in a small circle of people. They just queried why the land was granted to a certain person. The Cyberport is still full of cyber elements now. It should be the Silicon Valley of Hong Kong. Yet, it still gives people an impression that property development prevails over everything. Hong Kong needs genuinely free competition and a fair competition law. When we talk about fair competition, there should never be predatory pricing in the first place. People should not be allowed to ride roughshod over others with their financial strength. If that is the case, all the goods sold in wet markets can be sold in supermarkets instead. Should all our wet markets close their business then?

We have discussed many theories today. The Government and Members have locked horns in ideological combat. However, all we are saying is to find out the truth and obtain the score report to see which areas has HKTVN failed in. What we see now is that the Government cannot explain itself. Could the Government say it out loud and clear that HKTVN "ranked last" on all items and was therefore not granted a licence? Yet, the Government fails to give us an account of it. If the Government really stays true to itself and its people, please re-issue a licence to HKTVN. Thank you.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I repeat my declaration of interest which I made this morning regarding another motion, and it is still valid.

2266 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

President, the Legislative Council held a motion debate on "applications for domestic free television programme service licences" in November last year. After a year or so, the Government now finally ends the prolonged vetting and approval process and announces the application result. However, how the Government handled this matter has fallen far short of public expectation, causing widespread discontent while bringing twists and turns to a matter which should have been conducive to the development of the local film and television industries.

The original motion moved by Mr James TO today requests the Government to explain to the public in detail the vetting and approval of the licence applications. In this regard, my stance is the same as that of the original motion. Over the past week, I have been persuading the Government to give more detailed explanation to the public regarding its licensing decision. The Government issued a six-page statement this Tuesday to explain the factors and criteria it considered in granting a licence. Although the Government has further spelt out in detail the four main criteria for assessment and its consideration behind the decision to award two licences, it still fails to address the core problem. The information it has provided is even less than that reported in newspapers and magazines, nor as much as that released from the so-called authoritative sources. The Government's statement has not answered in full detail what made Fantastic Television Limited (Fantastic TV) and Hong Kong Television Entertainment Company Limited (HKTVE) stand out with their applications under the various criteria and factors. Nor has it explained why HKTVN failed.

I understand that the Executive Council has to uphold its confidentiality principle. However, a responsible and politically wise government should be able to strike a balance between the confidentiality principle and the public's right to know. I do not think that the Executive Council has to keep all its information and data confidential and cannot disclose any of it. There should be some room for the Executive Council to explain its decisions.

As such, I once again strongly urge the SAR Government to give more justifications for its licensing decision at the special meeting of the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting to be held tomorrow. It should clearly explain to the public the Government's criteria for granting a licence and its comments about the three applicants in all aspects. Let me reiterate once again that if the Government still sticks to its own guns and does not want to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2267 make detailed explanation, judicial review may seem to be the last resort for finding out the truth of the matter.

President, the few amendments I made to the original motion are mainly for the development of the industry. Issuing more free television licences and opening up the television market has been a common wish of most members of the industry. The emergence of new television channels will not only provide more programming choices for the audience but also create more job opportunities for those on screen and behind the scenes, which will help enhance the overall competitiveness of the local television industry.

The original motion contains the specific wording "consider issuing a domestic free television programme service licence to HKTVN". I have reservation on this point. I do not want the Legislative Council to give others an impression that we fight to get a licence for a particular organization. In fact, the crux of the licensing issue lies not in fighting for a licence, but in the fairness of the process in vetting and approving licence applications. HKTVN staff have also made it clear that they come out to seek justice for Hong Kong. Their slogan is "We can lose, if it is reasonable". That also explains why people have been on their side all along.

Of course, a superficial understanding of the situation is that the bigger the market "pie" is, the better it will be for those working in the industry. More free television stations will mean more development opportunities for people in the trade. As regards this licensing issue, many members of the industry think that the Government should issue three licences to allow more licensed operators to compete freely. However, I have also heard other members say that prudent consideration should be made as too many licences would probably lead to vicious competition and thus undermine the overall development of the television market. A few days ago, Mr Robert CHUA, a veteran and pioneer in television business, also wrote an article to discuss this issue in detail. As the environment for development continues to evolve in the long run, the Government is in a position to issue more free television licences if they can be absorbed by the market and there are qualified operators who are willing to make investment. Therefore, my amendment requests that the authorities, having regard to public opinion and the sustainable development of the industry, study and consider timely issuing more domestic free television programme service licences to benefit the public and development of the industry.

2268 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Another major amendment I make is related to the film industry. President, most colleagues present here have experienced the golden era of the television broadcasting industry. At that time, the market was dominated by three major players, namely the Television Broadcasts Limited, the Rediffusion Television Limited and the Commercial Television. Although it was just a flash in the pan, the players fought fiercely for every bit of viewership. People now still talk happily about some of the dramas produced at that time. The thriving of the television industry also boosted the film industry, as well as the development of other cultural and arts industries such as music, dance, visual arts and creative writing. Quite a number of local film directors, scriptwriters and actors started their career in the television industry before switching to the film industry and eventually becoming famous worldwide. Therefore, I have included in my amendment the wordings "support the development of the film industry", hoping that the authorities will promote the long-term development of Hong Kong's cultural and creative industries by issuing more television licences.

President, the third major amendment made by me is related to the expectation on the two new operators. Despite the widespread social discontent caused by this licensing issue, we cannot ignore the fact that the Government has approved in principle the licence applications of Fantastic TV and HKTVE. In terms of the overall development of the industry, it would actually help promote competition. Therefore, my amendment includes a point, which is requesting the Government to urge the applicants being granted a licence to strictly abide by the undertakings made in their applications and the licensing requirements. Over the past two weeks, HKTVE and Fantastic TV have respectively announced their investment commitment and overall development direction. I very much hope that the new licensed operators will, after being granted a licence, absorb the affected staff of HKTVN and actively introduce high-quality local television productions so that different types of programmes will flourish in the market.

Meanwhile, I also hope that the Government will demand the new operators to produce or procure more locally-produced television programmes when considering the granting of new licences. In fact, licensed operators need not be programme producers at the same time. The former can be programme purchasers. There are many independent television production companies. Unfortunately, over the past decades, local television stations have mainly aired programmes produced by themselves. As a result, there has not been much room for local independent production companies to survive. Their development has thus been limited. After the granting of additional television LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2269 licences, if the new operators can open up the market of television production and procure more locally produced programmes, it will boost the development of local independent production companies and help them build a solid foundation before entering into the Mainland and overseas markets. Although Mr Ricky WONG has been denied a licence, I believe he can consider development in this direction and continue devoting himself in the local creative industry to gradually realize his dream in the television business.

The last point of my amendment is of lesser importance. It is related to the criticism on the Government in the original motion. I very much disagree with the way in which the Government handled the matter. To induce more Members to support the amendment, I have made slight changes to the wording of the original motion with regard to its criticism on the Administration. On the premise that the confidentiality principle of the Executive Council will not be undermined, I urge the Administration to expeditiously explain in detail to the public its vetting and approval of free television licence applications. As to Ms Claudia MO's amendment, I agree that the Government should consistently apply the fundamental principle of "free market with fair competition". However, as her amendment maintains some wording of the original motion, which reads "consider issuing a licence to HKTVN", I have reservation on this point and will thus abstain my vote on her amendment.

President, the recent report issued by the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority has made a quote from the film "Shaolin Soccer" the talk of the town ― "Those living without dreams are more or less like a dead salt fish". No members of the industry would like to be a dead salt fish. They have much aspiration and dream in the industry. Their dream is exactly the valuable asset of the cultural and creative industries in Hong Kong. I again urge the Government to come forward and further explain clearly its licensing rationale, so that the storm over free television licences will abate. It should then focus its effort to cultivate a desirable environment for the development of the film industry to provide more room for the aspiring and ambitious members of the industry to realize their dream.

President, I so submit.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, we have just finished debating the motion moved in 2270 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 accordance with the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382). Members have thoroughly expressed their opinions about the results of the domestic free television programme service (free TV) licence applications. As I have already made a detailed response before, I would not repeat that here again.

Simply put, the Government has already explained the criteria and the reasoning leading to the decision of the Chief Executive in Council over the three free TV licence applications. I have also elaborated on that during the previous motion debate. The decision was made in compliance with the requirements of the system, the established procedures and the broadcasting policy. It is also made in the interest of the general public. The handling process had been conducted in a fair and impartial manner in adherence to procedural fairness. The Government had to handle the matter in accordance with the prevailing law and system, and should not deviate from the system for any individual incident. If anyone, including existing licensees and new licence applicants, is aggrieved by the decision made by the Executive Council, he has the right under our system to resort to judicial actions to review such a decision, which will be handled by the Court fairly and impartially. Therefore, the Government opposes Mr James TO's original motion and the amendments proposed by Ms Claudia MO and Mr MA Fung-kwok.

President, I would like to see if Members have any other opinions before making further elaboration. Thank you, President.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President, as regards this motion, I initially said that the related debate should be scheduled first. In that case, if all colleagues supported the original motion or the two amendments, the Government would probably follow our advice and accept our suggestions to issue a licence to Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN). Then, "everything would be fine". However, the Secretary made a quick response just now, indicating the Government's opposition to both the original motion and the two amendments. I was quite taken aback by it.

Regarding this licensing matter, I, on behalf of the Liberal Party, have presented data in various aspects at the previous motion debate. Yet, I did not comment on one major aspect yesterday because I was not familiar with it. Mrs Selina CHOW, Chairlady of the Liberal Party, shared with me many insights LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2271 regarding the operating model of the television industry based on her personal experience. She would like me to raise the following two points.

First, as far as she knows about the operation of HKTVN over the past few years ― that is not about whether HKTVN was misled by the Government to bid that piece of land or invest in the television industry ― the dramas it has produced are of high quality. She thinks that another industry similar to the television industry is film-shooting. "Movies made in Hong Kong" had gone through a period of poor production. In recent years, however, many films produced in Hong Kong, or post-produced in Hong Kong after shooting on the Mainland, are blockbusters in both Hong Kong and the Mainland. They make lots of money indeed. What will happen after companies have made huge profits? The industry starts to boom, making much room for development for directors, scriptwriters and actors.

As Hong Kong can make such good achievements in film-shooting over the past few years, why can the television production not make a comeback to its heydays in the 1970s or 1980s? If the dramas produced have a good story to tell, they will be well received in Hong Kong and can be sold to East Asian markets, as well as the Mainland market after being translated into Mandarin. In fact, there is much room for development for the whole industry. So is the investment prospect in this industry.

Also, there is a saying that the production and the screening of films should be separated, especially for television dramas. Mrs CHOW does not quite agree to that from her professional perspective. Nowadays, quite a number of dramas in the United States and Europe are still first produced by and aired on a television station before having sales opportunities. It is different from the film industry in which films are produced first before cinemas are searched worldwide for screening. If we ask Hong Kong investors to produce dramas without the right of broadcasting, they have to seek broadcasting on television stations everywhere in Hong Kong or worldwide. That is illogical. Therefore, we think that the Government should issue a licence to HKTVN.

As regards the amendment proposed by Mr MA Fung-kwok, the Liberal Party does not quite agree to it. Yet, to maintain today's harmonious atmosphere, the Liberal Party will vote in support of both the original motion and the two amendments. Both the original motion and Ms Claudia MO's amendment request the Government to issue a licence to HKTVN. Instead of 2272 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 requesting the Government to open up the market and conduct a review afterwards to see whether it should issue two or three licences ― or otherwise ― a few years later, we think their demand is very clear and specific. That is the first point.

Another point we would like to raise is the claim that this matter has been politicized. That has been mentioned several times by the Secretary, as he did during the previous motion debate. I hope the Secretary will not repeat that this motion has been politicalized. We are just discussing about a specific industry and see how it has fared over the past few years. According to the relevant data, the business of Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) has expanded from a worth of $2.1 billion to $3.1 billion over the past few years. In other words, increasing the number of television stations from two to three would not possibly make any company become "loss-making for sure" if all market players perform well.

As regards the issue of Asia Television Limited (ATV), in fact it has not been discussed during the deliberation on granting three additional licences. It only happens that many people speculate about ATV's plan upon the expiry of its licence in two years' time. ATV has been making losses for years. Although it is not a listed company, Mr WONG Ching has mentioned many times that he and other shareholders had made loans to ATV, the total of which was over $1 billion. This was a rough figure mentioned in recent two months … sorry, mentioned last year. Under such circumstances, whether ATV can sustain its operation may in fact have no direct relation with the granting of three additional free television licences. The Liberal Party thinks that if one more new competitor is introduced to the market and that competitor can produce other sorts of drama, it is appropriate to do so.

I find it very regrettable that this motion is scheduled after the motion moved under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance today, which has been debated on just now. If this motion is passed, it will mean that all the political parties are making a joint request demanding the Government to issue three licences, as the Liberal Party initially proposed. If the Government is willing to issue three licences, it will mean that the debate we have been having for a day or so, and the various opinions made by members of the public, as well as the big rift between pro-establishment Members and pan-democratic Members, can all be avoided. However, that is not the case after hearing the remarks made by the Secretary just now. Although this motion just requests the Government to consider issuing a licence to HKTVN so as to settle the dispute, the Secretary LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2273 is not willing to accept our advice. I do not know how this matter can be settled in the future.

President, although the Secretary says that he does not want to politicize the matter, I think the matter has surely become a political issue. If the Administration indicates no support to this motion and the amendments, I think it will pose a negative impact on people outside the Legislative Council building. They include not only the staff of HKTVN, but also other members of the public and even some members of the business sector. They will think negatively on things like whether it is possible to have fair competition, and whether youngsters with "Hongkonger" spirit should start up their own businesses. I also feel very disappointed in this regard. The ball is in the court of the Government now. I hope that the Government can handle the matter well. The matter will surely evolve into a political issue, and will probably affect the consultation to be conducted later this year on the direction of the constitutional reform and other matters. I believe that more and more people will express their dissatisfaction by that time.

With these remarks, President, I support the original motion together with the two amendments.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, in the previous debate on the motion moved under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, I criticized the SAR Government's decision on granting the free television licences from the perspective of public power. As for this motion, I would look into the market condition of the free television industry from the perspective of audience's interest.

Mass media not only provides information, it also serves as a social instrument with the power to keep an eye on social issues and monitor the Government.

When I was teaching at university, I raised a concept while talking about communication theories, that is, the right of using the media. It means that the general public can request the media to provide page space or time slot for them to express their opinions with or without payment under specific conditions. That can be extended to the public's right to demand for fair sharing of radio frequencies, as well as to establish and operate their own media platforms.

2274 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Recently, the Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) has planned to raise some questions when filing a judicial review. How many television licences are needed? Who should be issued a licence? When should the licences be issued? In an academic perspective, airwaves are public assets to be shared by all members of the pubic. The Government is duty-bound to allocate these public assets in a fair and impartial manner.

Taiwan's highest judicial organization, the Judicial Yuan, ruled in a constitutional interpretation in 1994 that "the protection of the freedom of speech described under Article 11 of the Constitution includes the expression of opinion via radio or television broadcast media. To protect this freedom, the state must fairly and reasonably distribute the use of radio wave frequencies and bandwidths"; "radio wave frequencies are a limited public resource. In order to avoid monopolies, the state must enact laws that govern their distribution. Under such laws, the responsible authority is empowered to work out a fair and reasonable system concerning the lifting of the ban on radio wave frequencies. This system will serve to ensure the balanced development of radio and television and increase the availability of media for the average person". The Federal Communications Commission ruled as early as 1972 that cable operators must allocate three channels for free-of-charge usage by local governments, education and social service organizations, as well as people in the community respectively. The social development of Hong Kong lags far behind the global trend. Our television market is not as prosperous as those of other regions. The reason is very simple. It is because the authoritative SAR Government has restricted Hong Kong people's choice of television programming and their right of using the media.

The SAR Government indicated in 2010 that "with the introduction of digital techniques, the market will be able to accommodate new competitors if the airwave transmission constraint can be removed. With the advent of digital technologies, broadcasting services are no longer limited to that with a terrestrial system. The number of free broadcasting channels has been increased from four originally to 11. It is believed that, after the technical problems are resolved, the existing licensing system is ready to accommodate new competitors. Applications have to be of business nature. It will be left to the market to decide on whether to accept the applications. The Government's stance is to welcome all applications. The vetting and approval process will be conducted in accordance with the law." That was the remarks made in 2010. At that time, I thought that the SAR Government had finally opened up the free television LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2275 market, in which airwaves were used for transmission, and the entire media market, with the advent of digital technologies. The usage of the media would be fairer and more equitable to safeguard the interest of the audience.

Take this free television licensing saga as an example, the licensees are not using the radio frequency spectrum. Seeing the convergence of television and telecommunications, as well as the technological development which allowed for unlimited channels, the Government still limited the usage of the radio frequency spectrum by two free television licensees in 2010. That was already lagging behind the technological advances. It thus results in the issuing of free television licences which cannot use the radio frequency spectrum now. Yet, the Chief Executive even broke the promises made by the previous SAR Government regarding the broadcasting policy. After seeing the black-box operation in the Government's licensing decision on 15 October, we therefore cannot help but to accuse the "689" regime of challenging Hong Kong people's bottom line of tolerance over him with his licensing decision.

Some people have focused their attention on Mr Ricky WONG, Chairman of Hong Kong Television Network Limited, in this matter. Mr Ricky WONG has trodden a fine line in this licensing issue with excellent skill of political spin. Although he said he knew nothing about politics, he is actually a businessman with excellent skill of political spin. I think that we should not take things personally. What we support is neither a specific television station nor a specific entrepreneur, but the opening up of the whole free television market. If another capable and ambitious television station is being denied a licence without reasonable explanation from the SAR Government, we would still oppose it.

President, I do not know whether this motion will get passed. As it is a non-binding motion, it does not matter anyway. Yet, the vetoing of the previous motion has proved that this Council is left without any cure. The Government is also left without any cure. Hong Kong people out there will just keep bleeding without any cure if they do not help themselves. Thank you, President.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, the Government has explained repeatedly that not granting the licence is not based on political factors. On the contrary, I hoped that the Government would say not granting the licence was based on political factors. Should that be the case, it would be more desirable; as the Communist Party claims that politics should override everything else. 2276 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

However, the Government's explanation is that not granting the licence is not based on political factors, but on the basis that the market would not be able to sustain the operation of too many free television operators and therefore a gradual and orderly approach in introducing competition should be adopted. Surely we are not addressing the issue of universal suffrage now, are we? Why should we adopt a gradual and orderly approach in addressing an economic issue?

The Government explains that the market will not be able to sustain the operation of three new operators of free television service, and therefore only two licences can be issued. If the current Chief Executive and the Executive Council base on this vision to consider the economic issues of Hong Kong, it is really sad for Hong Kong. Hong Kong will really be beyond cure in the next few years.

The crux of the issue is that we hope to get the report. But Robert CHUA came forth to make irresponsible remarks. Times have changed. This is no longer the era of "Enjoy Yourself Tonight". This is the era of Facebook and YouTube. Twitter will become a listed company tonight. New media have completely changed the entire environment. The access of Facebook was restricted to Harvard students 10 years ago. Now it is at the "top" of the media sector ― I should not use the term "top" ― it is one of the companies with the highest market value.

I talked about disruptive innovation last time I spoke. With innovation taking place in various media, it is difficult to forecast at this moment how information will be disseminated in 12 years' time. As a matter of fact, a simple means could have been adopted by the former Broadcasting Authority or the Executive Council. That is, after assessing the accounts of the applicant, if they think that the applicant will be able to sustain operation for three years, a licence will be issued to this operator. In the Silicon Valley, many start-up companies cannot sustain operation for three months, not to mention three years. If the Government has assessed the accounts of the operator and hold that it can sustain operation for three years, what is the rationale for not granting it a licence? If the operator is able to sustain operation for three years, it may even become the media company with the highest market value in 12 years' time. This is what market competition is about. I mentioned just now 95% of the market value of a telecommunications company ― which had been the largest telecommunications company 12 years' ago ― has evaporated after a period of 12 years. Now only 5% of its market value remains. On the contrary, a company engaged in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2277 business of video on demand 12 years' ago has achieved an increase of market value by 55 times after a period of 12 years.

Insofar as Members of the Executive Council and the Chief Executive are concerned, they had tunnel vision in addressing the issue. Can they predict what will happen in the future? With regard to proceeds from advertisements, there has been a massive shrinkage in the volume of advertisements placed in traditional newspapers worldwide. Where have the advertisements gone? Tablet computers ― we have become the "Group of Bowing Heads". The environment is completely different now. Modern technology has thoroughly revolutionized the media and has defeated the old media.

We simply cannot predict the future. Twitter may close down in three years' time. Who knows? However, the Executive Council has a crystal ball. They can predict which company will close down and which will not. The Convenor of the Executive Council has even remarked that operating a television station is different from operating a café. If it is not a café, can it be a big restaurant? Does it mean that the Government must have a say in the number of restaurants that should be in business on a certain street?

The Broadcasting Ordinance has set out clear specifications for a licensee, such as whether the licensee is fit and proper, and whether he is involved in cross-media ownership, and so on. All these specifications are outdated. The Broadcasting Ordinance needs an overhaul and the market needs further opening up. For companies using frequency spectrum to provide free television services, the Government should adopt a system of class licence. As long as the applicant fulfils the eligibility criteria, it should be granted a licence. This is because it does not involve utilizing a precious resource ― radio frequency spectrum. Radio frequency spectrum is precious.

I have pointed out more than once that the three television stations in Hong Kong, namely Asia Television Limited, Television Broadcasts Limited and Radio Television Hong Kong, may use the radio frequency spectrum. In doing so, 10 channels can be provided. On future licence renewal, the Government should exercise a reshuffle, providing room in a comprehensive manner for all companies that wish to enter the market, including the two companies which have been granted free television licence ― Fantastic Television Limited and Hong Kong Television Entertainment Company Limited. These two companies ― 2278 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 and probably the company of Ricky WONG as well ― may wish to use the frequency spectrum to provide free television service.

I certainly hope that the Government will grant a licence to Ricky WONG's company or the future operator of the company as soon as possible. An effective means to facilitate competition is through open auction of frequency spectrum, rather than allowing companies that do not seek to make progress, or lack competitiveness and innovation but given continuous injection of money by red capitalists to continue their operation. As for other companies that wish to operate in the sector, the Government simply closes the door. Insofar as facilitating competition and innovation is concerned, the SAR Government is not practising what it preaches, as reflected in this licensing incident.

I support the original motion and the amendment proposed by Ms Claudia MO. But I oppose the amendment proposed by Mr MA Fung-kwok. This is because, in simple terms, Mr MA Fung-kwok opposes granting the licence.

MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, the Civic Party thanks Mr James TO for moving this motion because many members of the public have been asking these days what they are going to do when Hong Kong is in such a mess now. If LEUNG Chun-ying had not been tyrannical and domineering, arrogant and conceited, the issue could have been resolved easily. This motion put forward by Mr James TO this time has provided LEUNG Chun-ying with a way to back down with good grace. If only he can announce what actually is lacking in the application of Ricky WONG's Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN), Mr WONG will be able to fix any omissions and provide necessary remedies, subsequent to which a licence will be granted. This will be an all-win situation. Members of the public will have one more television station and more programmes to choose from, LEUNG Chun-ying will not lose face and Mr Ricky WONG will be granted a licence. This is the best option.

However, I have heard the reply of Secretary Gregory SO just now. He completely opposes the original motion and the two amendments proposed by the three Members. I believe LEUNG Chun-ying is past redemption. President, it is very simple. He can give us an explanation. If his explanation is acceptable, there will not be any problem. We will not have to express regret at him. As he has failed to give an acceptable explanation, he should choose to grant another licence. But he says this is not acceptable. What can be done then?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2279

Thus, the Civic Party will express at the outset that we oppose the amendment of Mr MA Fung-kwok. This is mainly because he has deleted the wordings "this Council regrets that … its licensing decision departed from public opinion and antagonized the people" from the original motion. He has even deleted the word "regret". How can we accept this? He has also deleted the wordings "consider issuing a domestic free television programme service licence to HKTVN". As I have mentioned just now, this is the best way to back down with good grace and to lead Hong Kong out of the predicament. But he has deleted the wordings. President, how can we support this? We will not support his amendment.

Mr MA Fung-kwok is probably not surprised at all that he is not supported by the Civic Party. However, I believe he will be a bit upset because even the Secretary does not support him. Playing the role of royalists these days is indeed a hard but thankless job. I can also say that sometimes it is difficult to distinguish whether supporting LEUNG Chun-ying is tantamount to committing suicide. In fact, it is very strange. Just now, Mr MA Fung-kwok opposed to the motion for invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (the P&P Ordinance). Now he has also indicated that he does not wish to express regret at the Government or press the Government to issue the licence. Nevertheless, the Government has even refused to support such an amendment. This is indeed a thankless job. I fully sympathize with him.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)

Deputy President, we must express regret. We do not have to look elsewhere; just look at the 17 pages of statement issued by Mr Ricky WONG's HKTVN in response to the Government's announcement of five or six pages. In comparison, Mr Ricky WONG's response has made the Government's six pages look pale, brittle, and weak. Secretary Gregory SO is not in the Chamber now. I do not know where he is. Just now, he criticized the analogy of "Ah Mau making cakes" put forward by me. According to him, the analogy seemed to be very trifling. He pretended not to understand why we hold that judicial review will obstruct the Legislative Council's invocation of the P&P Ordinance, and the two should not be engaged side by side. Deputy President, in fact, how would he not understand this?

2280 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

If he has not heard clearly, I will say it one more time. As a matter of fact, the example of "Ah Mau making cakes" is very simple. It means that even if the court later on rules that this decision made by the Government is illegal or the procedure is unjust, it will be tantamount to "Ah Mau" putting in wrong quantities of sugar, water, milk or butter. In that case, the cake has to be sent back to him and he will be asked to make another piece of cake. However, he can make the same cake again. Deputy President, it is that simple. It is impossible for this to replace this Council's exercising of our monitoring power, which can "drive straight to the enemy stronghold" and go straight to the crux of the issue, and that is, whether "Ah Mau" ― the Executive Authorities ― should make such a cake.

Secretary Gregory SO is a person with wisdom, but he pretended not to understand the analogy, and asked whether Mr Alan LEONG himself was "Ah Mau". I am really puzzled if he cannot understand such a simple thing. I am also surprised and find this unexpected. However, now that it is explained clearly, I hope to put on record here so that it will be clearly written on the record of proceedings. Perhaps the two assistants of Secretary SO can explain to him when he comes back.

Deputy President, what is the other point that we find regrettable, or why must we support the word "regret" in the original motion? According to the latest development ― I have just read from the inews of Ming Pao which reports that during an interview, Mr Paul TSE explained why he had changed his voting preference in the last minute because he had discussed the matter with some offices set up in Hong Kong. When Dr LEUNG Ka-lau was interviewed by two radio stations this morning, he admitted that "Western District" had contacted him. This is really regrettable. We are dealing with television licence applications in Hong Kong. Why does the Central People's Government make irresponsible remarks about the matter through its offices in Hong Kong?

Deputy President, it is the fervent wish of Hong Kong people that more quality television stations will be available so that they will have more good programmes to choose from. If the Administration's four major principles ― financial capability, programming investment, technical soundness, and programming capability ― are adopted as assessment criteria, a small television station in Hong Kong should have been closed down long ago. However, it is allowed to remain in operation, while a licence is not issued to Ricky WONG. Everything is so unreasonable. Thus, we support the original motion and Ms LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2281

Claudia MO's amendment, but oppose the amendment proposed by Mr MA Fung-kwok.

MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Government issued a statement earlier on 5 November to explain its decision on the granting of free television licence. This statement has further explained in details the considerations and assessment criteria in granting licences. To a certain extent, it can help us understand whether the procedure for granting licences has been conducted in a sensible, reasonable and lawful manner. Due to the Executive Council's confidentiality rule and the need to avoid disclosure of commercial secrets, it is difficult to further disclose more details and more specific data. I believe this can be deemed reasonable. I still remember that soon after the announcement of the Government's licensing decision, someone put forth the proposal of seeking a judicial review. The Chief Executive has more than once indicated openly that he is willing to disclose the relevant information in the Court, in other words, not all information is not allowed to be disclosed through a certain channel. Unfortunately some Members of the Legislative Council have chosen not to adopt the channel of the Court, and have obviously complicated a simple issue.

In his motion, Mr James TO states that licences should be granted "on the premise of safeguarding the overall interest of society". I think this remark should apply not only to explaining the vetting and approval procedure; a more important point is whether the vetting and approval results are in the overall interest of society. First, two new television licences are granted this time. Obviously the number of licences has doubled from the original number, and so has the choices of the public. To a certain extent, public aspirations have been met. What is more important, however, is the effect of granting licences on the sustainable operation of the entire sector. A rash or a lack of careful handling of the matter may cause the closing down of a broadcaster, which is evidenced by the close-down of Commercial Television in 1976. Should such a close down happens today, it would be difficult to imagine the social effects it brings. The further information provided by the Government has accounted for the Administration's considerations in relation to the long-term interests of the public. I certainly hope that granting two licences will, to a certain extent, facilitate healthy competition of the sector concerned, enhance the quality of television programmes and be conducive to the continuous development of the employees in the sector.

2282 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Deputy President, with regard to the request put forth in the motion of making public the details concerning the Executive Council's discussion of the licence applications, the so-called making public the details will mean making public the details involved in the meetings of the Executive Council in an exhaustive manner. I believe those who have some knowledge of this will understand that this precedent will result in making the meetings of the Executive Council go public, which will shatter the political ecology completely. Moreover, international investors will be deterred from investing in Hong Kong if data and information of commercial organizations can be fully disclosed in the future. This will deal a fatal blow to the commercial ecology of this international city.

Lastly, the motion asks the Administration to respond to public opinion and consider issuing a commercial licence to a certain company. The Legislative Council is the legislature. With this proposal, the public will inevitably wonder with worries how many motions with the objective of fighting for licences for more commercial organizations will be proposed by the Legislative Council in the future.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): I thought that we would hear more Members expressing support for issuing more free television licences in today's motion debate. To my surprise, many colleagues have played the old tunes again by repeating the views expressed in the last motion debate.

I think today's discussion is very important because it involves a very important issue ― the Secretary and the Government have more than once emphasized ― whether the long-standing objective of the existing broadcasting policy can be maintained. What is the so-called "long-standing objective"? It is to broaden programme choices, encourage innovation, maintain Hong Kong's competitiveness and enhance Hong Kong's position as a regional broadcasting hub.

We must not forget that the Government specified in as early as 1998, and the Secretary also mentioned in the last motion debate that, "Under the new technology-neutral licensing regime, there would be no limit on the number of domestic free licences to be issued". This is the basis. But what is the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2283 explanation given by the Government? The main point is that there are worries that excessive competition in the market will result in closing down of enterprises and repeat the Commercial Television incident in 1976. Thus, the number of domestic free licences has to be capped at four. This argument is inherently inconsistent with the policy intent.

What is the Government's explanation? The Government has repeatedly claimed that the viewers' right to choose has to be taken into account, and it is hoped that the market ecology can be maintained. However, does the Government know that in an attempt to seek a breakthrough at the past situation where no other domestic free licences were available, the Hong Kong Cable Television Limited (Cable TV) provided television service at a fee of $10? However, the Cable TV was not widely accepted eventually. This might have involved the issue of its economy mode or operation mode.

Most importantly, what the Cable TV attempted to do back then was the same as the Government's requirements specified in the guidelines of television licensing. The existing programmes of the Cable TV include news programmes, documentaries, current affairs programmes, children's programmes, programmes for teenagers, programmes for the elderly, and arts and cultural programmes, and so on. But they do not produce dramas. The Cable TV provided service close to free television service at a fee of $10 (that is, the so-called "nominal charge"). They were not very successful at that time. The licensing criteria required of the applicants this time is exactly the same as the service Cable TV provided back then, which was met with failure. That being the case, how can the Government convince the public that its decision will bring in healthy competition, thereby achieving the objective of improvement?

Secondly, I would like to cite an example of a free newspaper, the Sharp Daily, which has stopped publication recently. Some people responded by clapping their hands in approval. The free newspaper Sharp Daily competed with the paid newspaper , the situation of which was like an "internal strife". The Government has now granted two additional free television licences to Fantastic Television Limited, a subsidiary of i-CABLE Communications Limited; and Hon Kong Television Entertainment Company Limited, a subsidiary of PCCW Limited operating now TV. Let us think about this: would they compete against each other as if they were in an "internal strife"? Viewers cannot help but query the Government's rationale in claiming that there will be "choices" and "innovation".

2284 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

As a matter of fact, if the Cable TV and now TV were willing to allocate resources to operate paid television business in order to attract the attention of the market, they would have allocated their resources long ago. They simply do not have to wait for the Government to grant them a free television licence. Should they start to allocate resources only after that, they would have lagged far behind.

The issue of whether competition should be strengthened in the sector has been the focus of our social policy. Over the years, whenever this Council discusses free competition, Members of various political parties hold that this is the core value of the Hong Kong society, and agree that a level playing field must be safeguarded to allow everyone to engage in a fair competition in the field, thereby facilitating innovation and giving play to creativity through competition in order that Hong Kong will become the regional broadcasting hub.

Mr MA Fung-kwok has pointed out clearly just now that although Commercial Television had to close down back then; it has successfully nurtured a generation of television talents who have contributed enormously to establishing Hong Kong as the hub of movie and television production in South East Asia. If the Government fails to understand this simple rationale in the course of making licensing decisions, any of its decisions will only be a waste of social resources eventually.

Secretary SO and LEUNG Chun-ying, you are wasting our social resources and public money, and are antagonizing the people. We simply hope to have more choices, but you have chosen to go against our wish. You have glorified your actions as remarkable feats, claiming that you have to protect competition in the market. As a matter of fact, there is no need for you to protect competition in the market. Does it mean that since the Government is worried about competition in the newspaper market, it will forbid other newspaper operators to enter the market? Does it mean that since we are worried about the competition faced by Wellcome and PARKnSHOP, we will not enact the law for fair competition? Does it mean that since we are worried that the four major oil companies cannot monopolize the oil market, we will not enact the law for fair competition?

The objective of a fair competition law is very clear ― to prevent the market from being monopolized, influenced and distorted by companies that have influence. Unfortunately, as I have pointed out during our discussion, there is a loophole in the fair competition law, and that is, government policies have to rely LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2285 on the Government to play the gate-keeping role. Today, we can see that even the Government is not keeping the gate for the fair competition law. How can the Government convince us?

With these remarks, I support Mr James TO's motion.

Thank you, Deputy President.

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, although the motion proposed under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) was negatived just now, Secretary Gregory SO must not feel smug over it, for we will not give up finding out the truth. Secretary, up till now, you still owe people of Hong Kong an explanation.

Just now, the pro-establishment Members kept saying that the entire matter had been politicized. What I have found most pathetic this time is that the politicization is not initiated by us here; instead, it has been elevated to the level of "Western District" already. The matter has developed to such a stage that "Grandpa" has to step in. I would like to ask the pro-establishment camp how it can save its face. Obviously, the logic of the entire matter is that LEUNG Chun-ying has clearly found himself in a chaotic situation where a mess has been created by him. Having failed to convince the pro-establishment camp, he is unable to secure their support. I do not know whether he has called the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government (LOCPG) in Hong Kong, informing the LOCPG that its subordinates do not listen to his instruction, asking the LOCPG to step in.

According to Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, "Grandpa", that is, "Western District" does not mind how many licences are issued. I have no idea whether this is true because no one knows the truth. That is why we have to find out the truth. Let us assume it is correct that "Western District" does not mind. But why has it stepped in? Obviously, it does so to the rescue of the mess created. I do not know why the pro-establishment camp only obeys the instructions after "Western District" has stepped in. If "Western District" does not press the button or blow the whistle, the pro-establishment Members will not "rejoin the force". Mr Paul TSE also "rejoined the force" because the whistle had been blown. Someone has asked why Mr Paul TSE had to "rejoin the force". In fact, he could have voted according to his own wish. The vote cast by him would not make any 2286 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 difference anyway. However, if he is allowed to have his "fun" and vote according to his wish each and every time, will it not make those Members who have "rejoined the force" look very "stupid"? This is the logic.

Why must it involve "Western District"? It is terrible when "Western District" is involved. If each and every voting of the Hong Kong Legislative Council is decided by "Western District", what will happen to "a high degree of autonomy"? What will happen to "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong people"? Members of the pro-establishment camp claim to be Hong Kong people. If that is the case, why should they listen to the instructions of "Western District"? Why can they not decide by themselves? Why must they listen to the instructions of "Western District" each and every time? I am asking Members of the pro-establishment camp to reflect on themselves. Why do they not have the ability to think independently? Why must they listen to the instructions of "Western District" in order to remedy LEUNG Chun-ying's mistakes?

Of course, you have kept rebuking LEUNG Chun-ying for not handling the matter well today. I very much agree that he has not handled the matter well to the extent that you are victimized to bear the blame now. However, you deserve it. Why did you not vote according to your conscience instead of following the instruction of "Western District"? If you have a conscience, you will not find yourself in such a dilemma ― carrying LEUNG Chun-ying through the voting on the one hand, but not being convinced of doing so on the other. I am asking you to act according to your conscience. Nevertheless, over the years, we have been used to the pro-establishment camp obeying the instructions of "Western District". Finally, I can only comment in three words, "I am speechless".

Deputy President, I really have to talk about the issue of "three". We have accused the Government of relocating the goal, but the Government has adamantly refused to admit that it has changed the number of licences from three to two. The Government commented that it had never said anything about capping the number of licences since 1998. I would like to ask Gregory SO whether he would admit that the former Broadcasting Authority (BA) recommended granting three licences. The ordinance related to the government framework stipulates that the Executive Council has to take into account the recommendations of the BA before a decision is made. Did the BA submit recommendations to the Executive Council on granting three licences? The Court has confirmed this already. If that is the case, had the Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2287 consulted the BA or the Communications Authority (CA) when it changed the number of licences from three to two?

I believe the Secretary will certainly reply in the negative, because the fact as seen by us is that it has not done so. Secretary, you have neither consulted the BA nor the CA. You may claim that in terms of policy, the number of licences to be granted has never been stipulated all along. However, the BA indeed made such a recommendation, and you need to adopt the recommendation of the BA. How can you make excuses? After you have changed the number of licences from three to two, do you admit that you sent letters to the three applicants to ask them to submit representations? If you admit doing so, is this a tacit admission that the policy has been changed? If the policy has not been changed, why have they been required to re-submit representations? The policy has certainly been changed, but the Secretary refuses to admit it. Secretary, over the past two days, you insist that the policy has not been changed and the goal has not been moved.

The policy has been changed. The number of licences to be granted has been changed from three to two, with the Executive Council taking up the role of vetting and rating. Did the CA play any role in this process? According to the ordinance, you should adopt the recommendations of the CA. The CA has all along recommended that if there are three applicants, three licences should be granted. The number of licences to be granted has been changed from three to two now, but has the CA been consulted regarding this change? According to the ordinance, you should consult the CA. We wish to know whether you have consulted the CA, and what recommendations the CA has put forward. Insofar as the information disseminated by you is concerned, right from the outset, the CA was nowhere in sight throughout the entire process. But the ordinance stipulates that the CA should be consulted. Thus, you have eventually resorted to "black box operation", stifling the authority of the CA. This is the entire story. You simply cannot deny that this is "black box operation" to the extent that the CA has been bypassed.

Thank you, Deputy President.

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I will be very concise. I must state the position of the New People's Party clearly that we cannot support 2288 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Mr James TO's original motion and Ms Claudia MO's amendment. However, we will support Mr MA Fung-kwok's amendment.

As a matter of fact, much of the rationale behind Mr TO's motion has been put forth repeatedly by many colleagues, including Mr TO himself, in the motion debate on invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. I only wish to reiterate that in the course of the licensing process, when the matter was submitted to the highest level ― the Executive Council ― for consideration, public opinion and public interest had indeed been taken into account. The Guidance Note for Those Interested in Applying for Domestic Free Television Programme Service Licences in Hong Kong (Guidance Note) sets out clearly the assessment criteria in respect of licence applications. The 11 factors set out in Annex A of the Guidance Note have also included all public views received and public interest. Thus, I do not concur with the view that the Government disregarded public opinion and antagonized the people during the long process over the past three years.

Regarding the dissatisfaction with the Chief Executive's refusal to give an account of the justifications for not issuing a licence to HKTVN on the grounds of the confidentiality principle of the Executive Council, I pointed out in the debate earlier that the Government had the responsibility to give an account. However, regarding the decision on an individual case, when consideration has to be made at the highest level, it is not the Government's practice to provide rationale for its refusal to or concerning the appeal of an individual licence application. With regard to this point, I would like to thank Mr Paul TSE for reminding us in his earlier speech that the Guidance Note has specified that the final licensing consideration of the Chief Executive in Council is not bound by the Guidance Note. Moreover, paragraph 5.2 of the Guidance Note clearly points out that the criteria set out in the Guidance Note may be changed from time to time, and "the final decision in awarding a licence shall rest with the Chief Executive in Council. The Chief Executive in Council will not be obliged to give any explanation as to why an application has not been approved".

This is not a new arrangement. The information can be found on the website. This is a long-established and effective practice. Thus, the Government has great difficulties in revealing "the true cause of the death" this time. This is not a new practice, and we have not contravened our core value or violated the normal practice. As for explaining "the true cause of the death", I mentioned earlier that it posed problems from the personal and legal perspectives. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2289

The party not granted a licence is already very disappointed and may even be angry, if further critical remarks are made, alleging that its investment is inadequate or its programmes are sub-standard. The party will be much offended, and may make instant refutation. Despite the fact that the Government does not encourage litigations, if the applicant wants to appeal the decision, the Government will prefer that the case be brought to court for settlement. As a matter of fact, this is the normal practice and not a new practice.

As to the explanation of policies, we have already heard many views. Of course, I agree, and I believe the Government also agrees that, insofar as policy explanation is concerned, there is room for improvement for government officials as well as Members of the Executive Council. There is room for improvement for everyone in handling matters. With regard to the criticisms from the public about Members of the Executive Council offering different versions of the story, I believe these criticisms have been heeded by colleagues of the Executive Council and a review will be conducted. Of course, there is an inevitable factor in this regard. We cannot expect the understanding and interpretation of every Member of the Executive Council to be as rigid as an iron plate. Nevertheless, I believe government officials and Members of the Executive Council will certainly learn from this lesson. In explaining the government policy in the future, perhaps they should attempt to disclose to the public as far as practicable the reasons why some applicants are not granted licences, and give a clear account as much as practicable.

However, the Guidance Note for issuing licences has in fact been promulgated for quite some time. Applicants should not think that once an application is submitted, the licence will be granted; nor should they feel very disappointed when "the true cause of the death" is not announced. However, I agree with the proposal of Mr MA Fung-kwok that the Government should encourage sustainable development of the television broadcasting industry; study and consider issuing more licences timely. Of course, increasing the number of licences from two to four is already a significant advancement. But we should not rule out the possibility that more licences will be granted in the future. I also agree with Mr MA's proposal that the Administration should urge the two operators who will be granted licences to strictly abide by the undertakings made in their applications. In fact, we will have this opportunity tomorrow. According to my understanding, all three applicants will attend the meeting of the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting tomorrow. Members will 2290 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 have the opportunity to ask them how they will do the job properly after they have been granted the licenses so that the public will be offered more choices.

With regard to initiating a joint submission ― even if the persons who have signed the submission are the honourable Members of the Legislative Council ― requesting the Chief Executive in Council to re-issue a licence, I hold that it is not feasible to grant the licence in this manner. This is because the licensing procedure lasted for three years, during which the matter was studied by the CA, the consultancy firm and the relevant Policy Bureau, as well as discussed by the Executive Council for a number of times. The Government has taken into account views of the public. It simply cannot immediately overturn its decision rashly just because of a joint submission from Honourable Members of this Council. Nevertheless, an opportunity to re-issue a licence will certainly be available in the future. I so submit.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the motion on asking the Secretary to produce all relevant documents has been negatived. The Secretary indicated in his response that the Government's position in the formulation of broadcasting policies remained open. I would like to point out that although it has apparently maintained an open stance, the sky is still closed at present.

Broadcasting policies are of utmost importance to a society, region and even a country. They cover not only news, information and entertainment programmes, such policies, together with the broadcasting systems of the region and society, also play an essential role in the development of the society as a whole because such policies and systems promote, strengthen and defend a crucial part and the structure of its local political, social and economic culture. That was why the Soviet Union manipulated all broadcasting institutions when it invaded Czechoslovakia in the 60s. However, with the communist regime being overthrown by the "Velvet Revolution", the people of Czech have set up their own radio and television stations, the number of which has rapidly increased to six, and also established privately-operated radio and television stations. As such, if a society is to grow and develop healthily, autocracy must be broken.

After the preceding motion being negatived, 10 friends who have sat outside in silent protest for 19 days issued a statement. I do not have their authorization, but I think that their statement represented the voices of many LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2291

Hong Kong people. I would like to point out that many Members, in particular those in the pro-establishment camp, have immediately took to their heels when they saw the petitioners outside, and several have quailed before this group of petitioners, evaded them and escaped from them, never dared to have eye contact with them and were even more afraid to answer their questions. Under such circumstances, I am now going to read out parts of their statement so as to put it down as an official and historical record in the Legislative Council's Official Record of Proceedings.

Their statement reads, "We are helpless and feel extremely disappointed with the Government, which operates in a black box, and the Legislative Council, which ignores public opinions. We have stayed outside the government Headquarters for 19 days in the hope that the Government will give a clear account on why the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN) has not been granted a licence. Though the strength of 10 people is very feeble, we have been true to our consciences and stood up in defense of social justice. Unfortunately, the Government clings to its own argument and fails to provide the public with a convincing answer. Today is not the end but rather a new beginning, for Hong Kong people have awakened and realized that they can no longer resign to their fate without putting up a struggle and we have lost confidence in the executive and legislative authorities. Hong Kong people should ponder over issues like what kind of system can truly reflect public opinions and how Hong Kong people should fight for this system. Today onward, we will continue to fight for justice through various channels and by different means. We are convinced that from now on, more people will stand up and fight for social justice.".

Deputy President, our unrighteous Government has repeatedly ignored public opinions, bullied the people and turned a blind eye to the lives and deaths of the public in this Chamber over the past years under the manipulation of the Hong Kong Communists. As such, I think that the statement of the 10 warriors has represented the aspirations of millions of Hong Kong people. I also hope that with their awakening and help of mass movements, the "Jasmine Revolution" of Hong Kong will succeed one day. The Occupy Central with Love and Peace campaign scheduled for next year may start any moment and take place on an earlier date.

Deputy President, I have repeatedly mentioned in this and the previous Chamber of the Legislative Council that protest movements are conducted along 2292 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 two lines. I have also repeatedly quoted the examples of protest movements in Europe and the United States to illustrate that apart from peaceful, rational and non-violent protest movements, armed revolutions and uprisings have also taken place. Apart from the protest movements of Martin Luther KING, violent protest movements under the leaderships of Malcolm X and "Black Panther" did take place in the United States. Whereas in Hong Kong, with the exception of violent protests launched by leftist Communists in the 60s, radical movements or movements which involved violence have never been advocated over the past years under the leadership of the democratic camp, and we have not called for any violent movement at the present stage. However, please do not assume that everything can be controlled with power and manipulation. The people will employ every means to overthrow a totalitarian regime after they have been awakened. Hong Kong will eventually be able to achieve one day what Czech has managed to achieve.

Deputy President, I would like to quote an absurd figure to help Hong Kong people understand the backwardness of the broadcasting industry of Hong Kong. Hong Kong ranks 170 in the world in respect of the number of television stations. While football games of Hong Kong now rank 148 in the world, the number of our television stations ranks 170, which is worse than that of our ranking in football games. This reflects the backwardness, shamelessness and ignorance of the Hong Kong Government. Hong Kong will become the laughing stock of the world if this trend continues. The ranking of Hong Kong's broadcasting industry is even more backward than its ranking in football games.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, 47 Members have spoken on Mr Charles Peter MOK's motion on requesting to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance just now. Secretary Gregory SO, please listen. None of the Members has said in their speeches that the Government has done right and one of the main points of Mr James TO's current motion is to express regret to the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government. This is already a very polite way of putting it and Mr Paul TSE has also pointed out ― though he has "backtracked" just now, that the Government should apologize to all Hong Kong people for the way in which it handled this issue. Secretary Gregory SO, will you do so in your reply later?

Just now, many Members asked the Secretary to explain the vetting and approval criteria with regard to the licensing incident, and we are definitely not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2293 satisfied with your 11 factors and four major principles. The Secretary has spent 29 minutes on his final response, but I find that the majority of your 17 minutes speech has been spent on repeating the contents, most of which are facts which we known already, and on the so-called six pages of response issued by the Government the day before yesterday. The whole incident is absolutely disappointing.

However, let us look forward and take a look at the film and television industries of Hong Kong. As pointed out by many colleagues earlier, we were a powerful exporter of Asian culture in the 70s and 80s. Korea lagged far behind us in those days and there was no Korean drama whatsoever. When I was studying abroad in London back then, the only form of entertainment I had every night or weekend was watching video tapes which I rented from a subsidiary of the Hong Kong Television Broadcasting Limited. Do you know which television series was aired back then? It was "Police Cadet". Do you still remember that series? We could watch the video tapes we rented the whole night. Not only Chinese nationals in the United Kingdom, but also those in almost all parts of Europe, were very appreciative of the way Hong Kong films and television programmes had developed. But unfortunately, those glorious days were gone after Hong Kong's reunification in the 90s. I earnestly hope and support that the market of free television programme services should be fully opened up. I also support the development of the film and cultural businesses. I have recently watched two very good Hong Kong movies, one of which was "The Way we Dance", recently nominated for several international film awards, and the other was "Rigor Mortis". I definitely do not wish to find that such innovative cultural products appear once in a blue moon.

The Secretary talked a lot about reasons like public interests in his response just now and said that licences should be issued in an orderly and gradual manner. I do not wish to repeat them, but the Secretary has completely failed to explain to us what is meant by public interest in his main reply. This is actually a cliché. He has just copied it word for word from the statement. But what exactly does public interest refer to? Does it mean our right to choose, or the possibility that certain enterprises would collapse, which you would not wish to see? Which of these should be regarded as public interest? Can you explain this in your reply later?

Moreover, I would also like to ask the Secretary to explain to me the meanings of healthy competition, vicious competition and "cut-throat" 2294 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 competition. What is the difference between vicious competition and "cut-throat" ones? Why can you not explain this to us? When will there be vicious or "cut-throat" competition? Can you please explain?

You have also said that licences should be issued in an orderly and gradual manner. But why should it be orderly and gradual? What is the meaning of "orderly"? Surely, "orderly" means in a certain order, but what kind of order is it? Does it refer to the order of the market, order as perceived by the Executive Council, or order as perceived by the Central Government? What kind of order does it exactly refer to? If it refers to the order of the market, then it is definitely not something which the Secretary or the Executive Council can decide, for it has to meet market aspirations. Supply, demand and pricing should be decided by the market and not by the Executive Council. What does the so-called "order" refer to? Can you please explain?

Mr James TO's motion, which asks the Government to reconsider issuing a licence to the HKTVN, actually provides a very good opportunity for the Government to back down. It is pointed out in several of the 11 factors that we have to consider the latest development, and the latest development is that public sentiments, or public comments received, are very turbulent. This should have an impact on the licensing decision of the Executive Council and public interests. According to my interpretation, public interests refer to the rights of the public to choose high quality entertainments.

I believe that the Secretary will not have much to say in his later response, but I would like to ask you a legal question. Section 8(3) of the Broadcasting Ordinance states, "Subject to subsection (4), a domestic free television programme service licence shall not be granted to a company which is a subsidiary of a corporation." This has been clearly stated in section 8(3) of the Broadcasting Ordinance, but it is pointed out in the so-called four major principles of the Government that considerations have to be made with regard to the fiscal capacity of the applicant or its related holding company. Why should considerations be based on the holding company? What exactly is the meaning of the so-called holding company? This term is not very accurate. Is the Government referring to the controlling shareholder, majority shareholder or the cornerstone investor? Why should considerations be made on revenues or cash flows of holding companies or whether the holding companies have offered any guarantee to the company which has applied for a licence? What exactly is the Government referring to?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2295

Deputy President, I hope that the Secretary can give us an explanation in his reply later. Deputy President, I so submit.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): First of all, I would like to respond to Mr Albert CHAN with regard to the example of Czech which he has quoted just now. The 1989 "Velvet Revolution" of Czech was an absolutely a peaceful and non-violent evolution process to democracy, and not a revolution which meets violence with violence. The people of Czech stayed at the Wenceslas Square for a continuous period of 20 days and demanded the authoritarian Government to relinquish its power, and the country then peacefully evolved to democracy through a proportional representative system after a transitional period on the basis of its long-standing Christian cultural.

There is one similarity between Czech back then and Hong Kong of today. The people of Czech signed the "Charta 77" before 1989. How did they manage to motivate so many people to sign the "Charta 77"? It was not because politicians were persecuted, but because their Government had been foolish enough to arrest an ordinary person, an underground music pop star, who had nothing to do with politics. To them, this was the last straw on the camel's back. The current situation of Hong Kong is similar. Why do so many people who do not usually take to the streets or condemn the Government now take to the streets? It is because people find that politics has already intervened into their daily lives, to the extent that they cannot even enjoy the right to choose television programmes that they would like to watch.

The Secretary has been saying that the policy has never been changed. Despite what he has said, however, the things they have actually done, such as how they dealt with the licensing decision, have in fact changed the rules. As mentioned by Mr Kenneth LEUNG, the Broadcasting Ordinance lays down the restrictions on holding companies. It means that applicants will be considered on their own merits. However, the Government told us recently that when considerations were made on the fiscal capacity of an applicant, its decision was based on whether more funds would be invested by others behind the scene. Does it mean that investment behind the scene is required, as in the case of the Asia Television Limited (ATV), which required WANG Zheng's investment behind the scene? However, have the authorities ever considered whether investors behind the licensees of television stations can meet their requirements on licence holders?

2296 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

The Secretary and the Government have recently indicated that they will not issue too many licences because they are afraid that there will not be enough advertisement revenues to go around. However, are existing advertisement revenues being distributed appropriately? We see that there is a weaker station. On the subject of the weaker station, I fail to understand how they can have such enormous financial resources which allow them to waste money. Its viewing ratings usually stand at 1% to 2% and any rating of over 5% virtually calls for celebrations. However, we have one question. Since they have so much money to spend, why have they failed to put some thoughts on conducting market researches to see how they can produce better programmes? It only asks for a place in the market and it is willing to lose money every month in order to keep its licence and stop other people from entering the market. Therefore, please stop talking about the worry that there will not be enough advertisement revenues to go around, for this is actually not the real reason. Currently, there are people who operate television stations without receiving any revenue from advertisements. Instead of worrying that there will not be enough advertisement revenues to go around, the Government might as well withdraw the licence of the weaker station and allow its staff to find other jobs. In that case, we will not have to worry that the staff of the weaker station may lose their jobs in the future, which is the logic proposed by some Members.

Deputy President, I support Mr James TO's original motion and Ms Claudia MO's amendment to the motion. What is most palatable is that "differentiation between close and distant relationships" should not be taken into consideration in the process of the vetting and approval of licence applications, and relevant parties should be allowed to compete fairly in the open market. While Hong Kong protects disadvantaged groups and treats the vulnerable well, it is also a city which offers opportunities to those with abilities, and these opportunities should be made open to people who are capable. This is how LI Ka-shing, who started from operating a plastic flower factory, has become a tycoon and there are also other tycoons who started from selling electric fans and have now evolved into owners of extremely powerful consortiums.

As a matter of fact, here in Hong Kong, people with abilities, imagination and diligence will definitely be rewarded. This is the value of free competition and it was the norm in Hong Kong in the past. However, this norm has been destroyed by the Government. It turns out that the vetting and approval of licence applications are now based on the background of the company and those behind the scene, and these rules were incorporated only in the last minute and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2297 would not be made public. Whoever the applicant is, he is bound to fall into the trap unknowingly if he has not read the Broadcasting Ordinance carefully and does not know that it has laid down restrictions on holding companies. Is this not "moving the goal"? Is this not disrupting the routine? Is this not destroying the free market and fair competition?

Deputy President, "let the capable win" is the local value of Hong Kong and we also protect disadvantaged groups, but Hong Kong has now been turned into a place where a licence holder, who has huge financial resources but not the heart nor ability to operate, is protected in a market which warrants competition. Hence the norm of free market and fair competition is disrupted and the business environment of Hong Kong is upset. However, it is strange that for some reasons the business sector and Members of the functional constituency who have always placed great emphasis on fair competitions and favourable business conditions dare not follow their consciences in casting votes under the pressure of the "Western District" this time. It is a great pity indeed. Therefore, the previous statement of the HKTVN's staff association has hit the nail on the head in stating that this is not only a licensing issue but also an issue of the current unfair political system. In order that all Members who are now present will respond to public opinions and follow their consciences in casting votes, not only do our Chief Executive but also all seats of the Legislative Council have to be returned through universal suffrage. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Ms Cyd HO stated in the last sentence of her speech that she hoped Members would follow their conscience in casting votes. I remember a Member really said last night that he had cast his vote according to his conscience, but the word "conscience" mentioned by us may actually mean differently. The word "conscience" which the Member said means that he has to be true to his Party Central Government or has to support the Government in all matters, while our conscience is built on fairness and justice. Hence I must make this very clear. As Mr Kenneth LEUNG said earlier, we should not just use abstract nouns randomly without clear definitions, or else some people may try to mislead the public.

Though it is expected that the previous motion on invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance cannot be passed, it is still quite disappointing. This is because even though we possess the power, it turns out that we cannot exercise it to perform our duties properly. As such, how can 2298 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Members fulfil their obligations? We can see from the findings of a number of surveys that the majority of the public expect us to exercise this power to find out the reason why the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN) has failed to obtain a licence. However, it is really disappointing that we have chosen to hold up our hands in surrender and give up the power ourselves. Therefore, it is not hard to understand why some of HKTVN's staff stated earlier that they had lost all their confidence in this Council and the Government.

Anyway, the purpose of our request on invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance is to find out the truth. But, in fact, we have now more or less learned the truth as the Government has been claiming that it has said all it wants to say and has nothing more to add, meaning that everything it has said before are all empty words. There are actually no criteria, principles or factors and everything is rather vague. Therefore, the final outcome may have been the decision of one person, who does not want to issue three licences and therefore not three licences have been issued. One person likes to "move the goal" and the goal is moved. I believe that this is the final conclusion.

This is an unfair and unreasonable practice. The Government stresses today that after two additional free television programme service licences have been issued, it expects that the television industry will have better development in the future. However, my intuition tells me that this is rather unlikely and I cannot see what prospects the television industry as a whole can have as a result. What is the reason for that?

The two additional licences issued by the Government have been granted to two institutions which have operated pay television channels to allow them to operate free television programme service stations at the same time. Let us consider this. When such institutions operate both pay and free television stations at the same time, how will their funds and resources be spent on the operations of these stations? If they focus their resources on the operations of their pay television channels, the performance of their free television channels will naturally be undermined, and on the contrary, if the operations of their free television stations go very well, the performance of their pay television channels will naturally be dwarfed. So how can a balance be struck between the two? To quote the words of the Government, how can they avoid "pleasing one party and letting the other down"? This is actually impossible. How can resources within the same institution be utilized in a way which pleases both sides? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2299

Therefore, if the operations of pay channels go well, the performance of the free television station will definitely be less satisfactory, and vice versa.

The same applies to free newspapers. One organization which operated both pay and free newspapers at the same time was caught in the same dilemma, and the operations of the free newspaper were eventually forced to close down. Some people are bound to say that another organization which operates both pay and free newspapers at the same time has managed to make both work. However, we can see that the quality of the two varies and there is significant difference in their readership, thus it is inevitable that one compares more favourably than the other. As such, this clear phenomenon proves that the act of issuing licences for free television programme services to two pay television stations will not bring good prospects. As such, I think that industry can only have bright prospects if the licence is issued to a third station, the HKTVN, to make sure that it can operate a free television programme service station wholeheartedly.

Not only has the Government failed to do so, it also treats us like children and deceives us by saying that the former approach is better. But is that possible? It is definitely impossible. How can it be argued that the results of focusing on one job will be less favourable than dividing the attention between two jobs? I really cannot understand the Government's argument.

I would most definitely support Mr James TO's motion today, but I am deeply puzzled by an interesting point in Mr MA Fung-kwok's amendment, which requests that the television broadcasting industry should have sustainable development. I am deeply worried about the request, which asks the Government to interfere with a private industry so as to ensure its sustainable development. This is only possible under a planned economy, but what the Hong Kong society pursues is a free economy. People who believe in a socialist economy will certainly be strongly in favour of this and will ask for the implementation of a comprehensive planned economy. Why should the television broadcasting industry alone have sustainable development and this can only be achieved under Government interference and regulation? This is really a very scary idea, and tantamount to subjecting Hong Kong's economic system to a major reform and major change. I do not know whether the Government will urge Members to support this approach, and if so, it really has to explain to us its views on the future economic development of Hong Kong.

2300 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Finally, I would like to point out with deep regret that the Government has not taken advantage of the current development in the television industry to bring more competitions into the market by allowing a third free television station, that is, HKTVN, to join the market and develop with wholehearted efforts.

Thank you, Deputy President.

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

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, on 29 November last year, which was nearly a year ago, my amendment to Ms Claudia MO's motion on "Domestic free television programme service licence applications" was passed by the Legislative Council. The main purpose of my amendment was to urge the Government to make a decision on the issue of additional free television programme service licences within a reasonable time frame and issue the licences as soon as possible. Back then, I proposed that the end of March this year should be a reasonable time frame, and the Administration finally announced on 15 October that the Chief Executive-in-Council had decided to issue licences to two domestic free television programme service applicants after a complicated vetting and deliberating procedure.

This is the first time for additional free television licences to be issued in Hong Kong over the past 40 years. The number of free television licences will be increased from two to four, and the number of free television channels will also be increased to four. This should be welcomed by the community. To our surprise, however, public opinions are that the authorities have failed to offer appropriate explanations with regard to the Executive Council's criteria for issuing licences, especially that they have failed to disclose timely why it cannot issue a licence to the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN). This has given rise to various doubts and voices of discontent over the way in which the Government handles this matter in the community, to the extent that we have to launch a debate at this Council Meeting on whether the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance should be invoked to allow the Council to intervene into this matter. Though Members have different views on the voting results of this motion, I think that from now on, both within and outside the Council, the focus of discussions should be appropriately adjusted to look into LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2301 issues which may assist the long-term sustainable development of our local television industry.

The Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government has a very important role to play in promoting the sustainable development of the local television industry. First of all, the Government must weigh the interests of the society as a whole, and take up the role of balancing the interests of different parties. Firstly, the authorities have to strike a suitable balance between different policy objectives, such as promoting fair market competition and ensuring sustainable development of the industry at the same time, so as to create a suitable business environment for the industry and promote orderly development and healthy competition. Secondly, the Government has to balance the interests of different stakeholders, including those of existing operators in the television market and applicants for new licences, as well as the interests of television viewers at large, and take into consideration the rights of all stakeholders.

Viewed from this perspective, the issue which deserves the community to consider more thoroughly as compared with the vetting and approval of free television programme service licence applications is whether the SAR Government has laid down directions and strategies for the sustainable development of the television industry in the long term. If competition is to be made open, what will be considered "appropriate"? How can the existing market mechanism be optimized and the level of production be enhanced? The SAR Government and people from all sectors of the community alike should broaden their horizons and set their views on the market of the local television industry as a whole when they look into this issue. In other words, they should focus not only on free television programme services, but also on the development of pay television, multimedia network television industry and so on, in order to have long-term and comprehensive considerations and to ensure that our local television broadcasting policy can be consistent and sustainable. I think that the SAR Government should give this Council and the public a clear explanation with regard to these strategic issues.

Another role of the Government is to act as the regulator of the industry to ensure that the Broadcasting Ordinance and relevant Codes of Practices can keep abreast with the time, and be equally applicable to existing licence holders and future operators who will join the competition, and actively urge all operators to strictly abide by the provisions of the licence and fulfil commitments which they 2302 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 have made in their licence applications, so as to promote healthy competition in the television industry and enhance the quality of television programmes as a whole.

Deputy President, the cultural and creative industry, of which the television industry is undoubtedly a very important part, is one of Hong Kong's industries which have a competitive edge. Social responses aroused from the incident of free television programme service licences have shown that members of the community have rather high expectations on the development of our local television industry. In fact, many youths of Hong Kong have enrolled in courses related to multimedia, and in order to increase their job opportunities and promote the development of creative media, the Government should formulate long-term strategies and plans for the development of our local television industry. Not only will this nurture Hong Kong's cultural diversity and innovative abilities, it will also help promote its economic growth, create more new opportunities, and provide particularly more creative space and upward mobility opportunities for the youths of Hong Kong.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the first television station of Hong Kong, Rediffusion Television, the predecessor of the Asia Television Limited (ATV), came into existence in 1957. Ten years later, the second television station, Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) started broadcasting in 1967 and Hong Kong people were very happy back then for everyone could finally have a choice in television programmes. Over the past 40 years, the two free television programme service stations have accompanied the growth of almost three generations of Hong Kong people and brought us a lot of joy and spiritual sustenance. However, people always want to have more choices, just as the saying goes, "If you always eat choi sum (flowering cabbage) you will occasionally crave for bak choi (white cabbage)." Hence Hong Kong people were very happy and had high expectations when the Government announced several years ago that more free television programme service licences would be issued.

As soon as the news that two additional free television programme service licences would be granted in principle was eventually announced last month, those who will not be issued licences are bound to be unhappy. The existing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2303 television broadcasters are not happy, either, because there will be more competition. Even those who will be granted licences do not seem particularly happy. What is bizarre is that many members of the public are unhappy and have taken to the streets. Seeing such, one really does not know whether they should laugh or cry. It is not surprising that the Secretary cried before other people did. Therefore, some people ask why the licences should be issued if it would bring so many troubles.

What exactly is the reason for this? After repeatedly asking around, I have found out that many members of the public assumed that the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN) of Mr Ricky WONG would broadcast its programmes through airwaves like TVB and ATV. In fact, the free television programme service licences currently being issued are actually for fixed network copper wires transmission, and not wireless transmission. In other words, as in the case of Cable TV and now TV, even if HKTVN were granted a licence, "indoor wiring" would still be required. Not only the general public have such misunderstanding, even Mr YEUNG Wai-hong, founder and writer of the Next Magazine, also admitted in an article he wrote in the last issue of the Next Magazine that he had such misunderstanding. As such, it is understandable that the public may not have a clear idea or may even be a little angry.

Deputy President, I believe that the final decision of the Government to issue two licences only has by no means been made lightly, as the issue has been brooded over for several years. Though the Administration and Mr Ricky WONG have issued consecutive statements, saying that the incident has nothing to do with politics, how will politicians, who are determined to play politics, let them off the hook easily? Therefore, the "big drama" of invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance has once again been staged in this Chamber over the past two days. The motion moved by Mr James TO today is only a sequel, and the main theme of the drama is to disintegrate the administrative system of the Government, which has been practised effectively over a hundred years.

Some Members proposed that a public inquiry be conducted on the ratings of all companies which have applied for licences, meaning that the Government is required to make public all tendering and licensing documents of the executive authorities which should be kept confidential, and the persons-in-charge of those companies can be summoned by the Legislative Council at any time and be interrogated by Members who aim at exhorting confessions. I really want to ask 2304 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Dr LAM Tai-fai, a representative of the business sector who supported the motion, but he is not present at the moment, whether he has consulted the business sector. A friend of mine in the business sector, who is acquainted with both Dr LAM Tai-fai and me, asked me to convey a message to Dr LAM. He said Hong Kong's long-term economic development would be seriously undermined if the Legislative Council set the precedent of altering the decision of the executive authorities.

Furthermore, a friend from a Civil Service group has also told me that many government departments have to handle matters like licence applications and project tenders every day, and if such a precedent has been set by the Executive Council, government departments will have to explain in the future why this and not that person is issued a licence. He also points out that if this really happened, the Government would simply be unable to continue its operation.

From a certain point of view, I agree that although it may not be necessary for the Government to give repeated explanations on everything, if many members of the public are concerned about an issue, increasing transparency will be the best means of communication after all. Therefore, I also hope that the Government can explain and publicize the services and operations of the two free television stations through various channels and does its best to let the public know that the stations which have been granted licences can also provide the public with high quality free television programmes.

All along, the legislative and executive authorities of Hong Kong attend to their respective duties, and Mr James TO is really fierce today. He claims that if the Government does not issue a licence to the HKTVN, then it is operating in a black box, and if the Government fails to give a clear explanation, then it has to issue a licence to Mr Ricky WONG's company. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) has reservation about this. However, the DAB will support Mr MA Fung-kwok's amendment, which proposed that "having regard to public opinion and the sustainable development of the television broadcasting industry, the Chief Executive-in-Council should consider timely issuing more domestic free television programme service licences".

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2305

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

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, since the very beginning, I have always supported more competition and also the issuing of additional licences in Hong Kong, especially in the case of television viewing options. Because the debate earlier has led my colleagues in this Council and individual members of the public out there to show the immediate response that I have changed my stance, let me state that basically, I have not changed my stance on this matter. On the question of whether I should agree to invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance), I have already considered the matter very thoroughly and read the relevant papers. If anyone criticizes me for any fault, I think my only fault is that my initial grasp of the situation and the relevant papers was not as clear as what I can now understand after so many days of preparation.

Deputy President, why do I say so? If Members read the relevant guidance note, if Members are really sensible, if they abide by the rule of law, they must read the guidance note. In fact, it already sets out the licensing requirements very clearly. I hope that if Members are not arguing for the sake of arguing, or if they are not trying to ignore the relevant documents and legal basis simply for the sake of saying what they want to say, they should read the guidance note patiently and carefully. Since I belong to the legal sector, I take this fundamental principle very seriously. I am afraid that if Members do not agree to or accept this principle, we cannot possibly discuss anything further.

The guidance note is indeed very clear. I already read it out just now, and time may not permit me to read out both paragraphs 1.3 and 5.2 once again. Paragraph 5.2 is shorter in length, so for the sake of having a clearer record on the content of this paragraph, please allow me to read it aloud very quickly, "The criteria set out in this Guidance Note may be changed from time to time depending on the circumstances. The final decision in awarding a licence shall rest with the CE in C. The CE in C will not be obliged to give any explanation as to why an application has not been approved.".

The general theme of paragraph 1.3 is identical. But more specifically, the effect of what is said in this paragraph is that when the rules of the game are strictly adhered to, the discretion of the Executive Council is indeed very great, so great that it can really "shift the goal" at any time without offering any 2306 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 explanation whatsoever. Well, of course, I am only talking about the legal basis here, and I do agree that politically speaking, in an enlightened society, people should always be offered more detailed explanation. Such is the practice that should be opted in the course of exercising discretion, and also the kind of attitude to be adopted by an enlightened government. Under these circumstances, I therefore support Mr James TO's original motion today. In other words, I think we must ask the Government not to make us waste our time, telling it that even without our taking the fruitless step of invoking the P&P Ordinance, it should still be obligated to offer an explanation to the public as much as possible. In this regard, I already severely criticized the Government and the Chief Executive for their unsatisfactory handling of this matter. Frankly speaking, I am surprised that a private-sector organization has managed to compile such a document within such a short time, setting out clearly all the justifications raised by the Government, even tactfully and indirectly disclosing all the justifications concerning those issues which the Government is reluctant to disclose for reasons of confidentiality, and even responding to all such justifications. This is something that should be done by the Government, rather than the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN). In contrast, it took the Government many days before issuing a six-page document ― five-page, actually. And, as remarked by two Members just now, there is one problem with the document ― I do not know whether the Government did so deliberately. There is "something" in the document which can enable people to apply for judicial review at any time. I am talking about the point of auditing the assets of the "papa" and "grandpa". This is precisely something not permitted under the law and should not have been mentioned.

Instead, the Government should have referred to the exemption clauses in the guidance note, which I read out a moment ago. But the Government has never explained the issue properly to the public, and has only resorted to the confidentiality principle of the Executive Council as an excuse. The Government has come to notice such favourable clauses only today, only inside this Chamber. What has made you people handle the matter in this way, giving so much trouble to everybody and hurting many people's feelings so unnecessarily?

Deputy President, on the issue of licensing, on the "change from three to two" and "no ceiling on the number of licences to be issued", I also want to say a few more words. As a matter of fact, the guidance note does mention that there is no pre-set ceiling on the number of licences to be issued. But I am afraid that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2307 this is not subject to any specified time frame relating to any particular year or duration of time. Nothing about this is mentioned. There is one groundless argument that two licences can be issued this time around, one licence can be issued the next time, and one more licence can then be issued the time after next. Actually, what is said is certainly not subject to any time frame. In fact, paragraph 6.2 of the guidance note states, "Applications will be accepted all year round." Of course, nobody will submit an application every year. But this paragraph can offer some sort of allowance because eligible applicants can theoretically make applications at any time to urge the Government to take the matter forward. Of course, the whole process is very long and complicated, so an applicant who does not have what it takes and who has not reached any tentative agreement with the Government will not lightly submit an application. But all these facts must be clarified.

Deputy President, just now, I did not have the chance to discuss one issue in detail ― the true "cause of death". People find the whole thing unacceptable for one reason, the reason that the Government has only put forward some abstract justifications such as the need for market competition and protecting other market players. These justifications are unacceptable to people. I hope that the Government can make its policy a bit more flexible, so that people can know the real reasons, including the reason why the HKTVN wanted to apply for 30 channels this time around, with only two channels for its own use ― a Chinese one and an English one? What about the remaining 28 channels? Do any channels involve Falun Gong or certain Taiwanese television broadcasters? We must face all such concerns and clarify the facts, or else people will only have all sorts of speculations. Besides, have any local organizations exerted too much pressure on the Government, or have any such organizations followed the example of certain newspapers which treat the Government as an enemy and keep attacking the Government, thus leading the Government to consider it impossible or inappropriate to issue a licence to it, and in turn arousing its dissatisfaction? People want to know the answers to these questions. Deputy President, I support the motion today. Thank you.

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

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Government has put forward many justifications today. A radio reporter asked 2308 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 me outside the Chamber just now, "Assuming that there was really no procedural mistake, that the only problem is our disagreement to the outcome, and that the Executive Council really has the power to make the final decision, can we thus conclude that nothing can be done?" The reporter wanted to know my opinion in this regard. Immediately, I told myself that I could not quite accept the argument that there was no procedural mistake. Such an argument actually implies that "the goal can be shifted". I find it very hard to accept this argument.

In my opinion, there is indeed a prima facie case of procedural mistake, so it cannot be argued that procedural justice has been preserved. For this reason, just now, we expressed the hope of conducting an investigation, reading the documents concerned, and knowing more facts. Even though the procedure may have been fully complied with, the decision made may still be wrong. A moment ago, we heard Members talk about many problems. Some said that different people might hold different views, while others talked about the absence of any marking scheme. In that case, I would like to make an analogy. In case there is no marking scheme in an examination, can we thus eliminate an applicant after the interview without giving any reasons? This may really be the case with kindergarten entrance examinations, but the present case we are talking about is not such an examination.

I therefore believe members of the public really think that there are procedural mistakes. As for the present practice of the Executive Council, aren't there also some problems? Has the Executive Council taken account of public opinions? It should have done so. Members of the public see the lack of procedural justice, but the Government says that rules are already set out in that way. Nowadays, such a practice is unacceptable. Hence, I must ask whether we should accept such a situation. Or, if we believe that there are procedural mistakes … At present, some Members or other persons outside the Legislative Council have applied for judicial review to look into the matter. Apart from that, should the Government itself also study whether there are any problems? Should such problems be rectified? If nothing is done, all will say this is a dictatorial practice.

Many Members asked just now whether there would be any further actions if the motion relating to the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance could not be passed. As a matter of fact, further actions are coming very soon, because the relevant panel will hold a meeting tomorrow afternoon. Hence, the matter has not yet come to a close. As mentioned by several LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2309

Members earlier, many people consider today a day of darkness for creative and innovative industries.

Procedural justice aside, many people think that government officials and Members are totally ignorant about the running of innovative and creative industries. What is subversive innovation? What is destructive innovation? Is destruction necessarily undesirable? Whenever innovative and creative industries are mentioned, they will invariably respond with the age-old mindset, advising people to switch their occupations, and asking whether it is necessary to help these people to find new jobs, and whether the Labour Department should be requested to render any assistance. Well, their problem is not so much about any inability to find jobs, but just about their unwillingness to work for certain employers. I am sorry, but people like us who engage in innovative and creative technologies are sometimes kind of silly ― not really silly in that sense, but just because we have dreams. However, government officials and some Members may not know what is meant by having dreams; they only think that assisting these people in securing new jobs is already enough, and the only problem may be lower pays. But some of these people really do not want to take up the jobs referred to them. We can therefore see that Hong Kong's existing policy on innovative and creative industries is really deplorable.

The present decision was made by the Communications Authority (CA). What is the CA? It is the organization formed after merging the former Office of the Telecommunications Authority and the former Broadcasting Authority. The purpose of the merger back then was convergence. However, despite the merging of administrative structures for some time, the relevant laws have remained unchanged, in the sense that the governance frameworks of the two sides are totally different: the legislation governing one side clearly provides that reasons must be offered for the rejection of licence applications, but the legislation governing the other requires no explanation at all.

The Secretary was originally supposed to announce the result of the redistribution of 3G spectrum allocations in late October, but he has failed to do so probably because he has been fully occupied. I do not think we need to press him, because the decision will be announced sooner or later. In respect of 3G spectrums, the Secretary insists on liberalization and introducing more competition. I do not know the conclusion of the relevant consultancy reports, because once again, we have no access to them. I do not know whether the consultants have done any research on how excessive competition will arise, how 2310 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 cut-throat competition is created, and what the most appropriate number of suppliers should be. In fact, the issuing of free television licences is similar to 3G spectrums. Spectrums are also limited. Frankly speaking, however, there is actually unlimited room for television services as long as fiber networks can be installed. Again, we can see that the policies on the two sides are actually very different in most cases.

Let me also talk about digital audio broadcasting. Maybe, I do not know what has been happening. The Secretary can give me some information later, telling me whether any similar consultancy studies have been conducted to determine the maximum number of competitors that can be accommodated by the market. We can now see that if the conversion of analogue television to digital television can be done more satisfactorily, many spectrum allocations can be recalled for redistribution. However, we see that the applications relating to the renewal of free television licences must be dealt with this month, and consultations must be launched in early 2014, so not much time is left. Many Members have asked why the television station concerned is not requested to return its licence for auction upon expiry. I am afraid the Government will once again say that since there is not enough time, it will be better for it to grant automatic licence renewal to the existing two television stations. Following this, the Government can monitor them closely, particularly ATV, and demand it to produce more programmes of its own. Well, in that case, all will end up maintaining the status quo, right? I am really afraid that there will not be sufficient time, because the deadline cannot be changed. I hope our prediction will not come true.

Hence, I support the original motion and Ms Claudia MO's amendment today. As for Mr MA Fung-kwok's amendment, since he has deleted words such as "regret" and "black box", I find it hardly acceptable and will vote against it.

Thank you, Deputy President.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, when it comes to television licensing, many hold that it has to be fought for through judicial review. Based on my experience of dealing with the Government over Citizens' Radio … Since I had no money to pursue judicial review at the time, I had to break the law in order to bring the matter to Court. The magistrate concerned LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2311 accepted our argument that it was unconstitutional for the Chief Executive to make a decision on his own on whether to grant a licence to an applicant for using airwaves for broadcasting after consulting the opinions of the then Broadcasting Authority and the Office of the Telecommunications Authority. The first justification was that Hong Kong people enjoyed freedom of communications. The second justification was about procedural unfairness, because a decision on who could use such important airwaves, or whether applicants for the use of airwaves could continue to operate should never be made by the Chief Executive alone. This was the judgment at that time. Later on, the Department of Justice applied for a retrial, and in the retrial, it was ruled that there was no mistake. The judge could not do anything because an upper authority had already made a decision. So, the Judge ruled that we lost.

The matter has been put aside since we lost the lawsuit. Of course, Hong Kong people may not consider Long Hair's Citizens' Radio their cup of tea, so the matter has been put aside even though the Government is wrong. But these days, Ricky WONG's television station has a following, so the question has become whether airwave broadcasting, television broadcasting or Internet broadcasting should be liberalized.

The Chief Executive is in total control, and all people, including the Secretary, can do nothing. The Secretary may say yes, but if the Chief Executive says no, the Secretary cannot do anything.

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung was blocked from view by the objects on the bench)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, the camera cannot capture you. I would ask our staff to remove the objects on the bench.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): It is okay. It is fine as long as people can see LEUNG Chun-ying. You have reminded me. This is LEUNG Chun-ying, the very person whose dictatorial decision has given Secretary Gregory SO such a hard time. The whole thing is unreasonable. What can we do to make the whole thing reasonable? Basically, the answer must be an alteration of the system. In other words, the point here is that in any advanced countries nowadays, all matters involving major public interests or the use of limited resources are never handled dictatorially by the head of the executive 2312 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 alone. Instead, all such matters are invariably handled by a statutory body established by the head of the executive or persons with credibility appointed by him.

The ordinances currently in force in Hong Kong are actually outdated. Simply put, as I mentioned earlier today, keeping two out of three actually means that one among the three will be knocked out, and in 2015, one among the five stations, of which Asia Television Limited (ATV) is one, will be knocked out. ATV now takes up the most valuable frequency spectrum, because it is not an Internet television broadcaster. But it is total rubbish. Secretary, a rubbish television station can now stand in the way of a capable counterpart, even though the latter broadcasts through a different mode. Ricky WONG now adopts Internet broadcasting. In 2015, if Ricky WONG can also operate frequency spectrum broadcasting, do Members think ATV can still continue to operate? The answer is no. Hence, the Government has actually been trying to protect a terribly messy television station, once described by Ricky WONG as a China Central Television channel, which is given manpower, resources and capital by the Communist Party to do this unthankful job.

Put simply, spectrum broadcasting is regarded with so much importance mainly because the programmes concerned can also be viewed in other places outside Hong Kong. The kind of Internet broadcasting adopted by Ricky WONG's television station must depend on set-top boxes in contrast. This is precisely the very reason for the Government's protection of a television station which it considers obedient and unambitious, but which is of no use to Hong Kong people.

LEUNG Chun-ying's reasoning is extremely absurd, as absurd as his reasoning in the issue of constitutional reform. His reasoning is that he and his people must first do the screening, and that since Mr Alan LEONG or someone else may not obtain enough votes in a Chief Executive election, it is better to screen them out beforehand, so that they can be saved a miserable defeat. How can they do anything like this? But, they will probably do the same with the introduction of universal suffrage in the future. Once they think that a person cannot represent Hong Kong people, or if they think that that very person does not love the country and Hong Kong, they will say that this person should not stand in an election lest he may suffer defeat. In this way, people who are capable of competing will be screened out. His reasoning is really so simple, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2313 and such persons are the ones that must be screened out by LEUNG Chun-ying as an heir of the dictatorial power.

Actually, his labelling us as the opposition is based exactly on the same reasoning. We call for competition not only in broadcasting but also in politics, right? We are not convinced that a person must refrain from the election once they think that even if that person wins, he cannot become Chief Executive because he is incapable, or because he will not be liked by Beijing. We are not convinced that people whom they deem unable to govern Hong Kong well after winning should refrain from the election, nor do we think that people with possibility of humiliating defeat after obtaining nomination should stop running in the election. How can all this be possible?

Therefore, in a word, Secretary SO himself knows in all conscience that it is wrong for the Chief Executive to grant spectrum broadcasting licences to the other applicants in such a dictatorial manner, especially when we know that ATV actually scored zero mark whereas Ricky WONG still managed to score 20 as a novice. Why is he deprived of the right to operate? Why do they refuse to disclose the reasons? Hence, as long as the system remains undemocratic, dictatorship shall last.

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

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in my view, the whole issue actually involves two major factors, one of which concerns two major areas we need to discuss. First, why is the Government so anxious to withhold the disclosure of its justifications? This is unacceptable to the public. No one is asking the Government to disclose the Executive Council's minutes of meetings ― details like who said what, who supported what, who opposed what and who voted for what. These are not the most important concerns of the public. Their most important concerns are the factors considered by the Government when making the decision at that time. The Government has now disclosed four criteria and 11 factors, but it is still very hesitant, still withholding the full picture.

As I already mentioned in our debate on the previous motion, Executive Council Members and the Chief Executive himself will, every now and then, 2314 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 disclose something to Legislative Council Members of the pro-establishment camp, and these Members will then say something openly, thus filling the whole place with confidential information of the Executive Council. Does the Government wish to disclose any information or not? If the Government does not want to make any disclosure, it should observe confidentiality no matter what. If the Government wishes to disclose such information, then it should make a clear statement covering all the facts. The situation now has left people completely unable to grasp the Government's reasons for refusing to issue the third free TV licence. I wonder if the Secretary knows what situation they are in and what they are doing now ― of course, objectively speaking, he is dealing a blow to himself, and at the same time, disappointing Hong Kong people and many families, especially housewives.

As we all know, the so-called free entertainment in Hong Kong has now become increasingly boring. There are two TV broadcasters, but to be precise, there is only one, and this broadcaster keeps airing reruns. Sometimes, even I myself am also bored by the personal interview of me produced by this TV broadcaster, because there can be as many as four reruns a day. How can that be possible? This is all because viewers have no choice. There is only one TV broadcaster, with the result that it can abuse its liberty in broadcasting and engage in sub-standard production. Hence, market competition must be introduced.

I believe that competition can bring many new stimuli to the industry. First, competition can help achieve diversification of programme contents; second, diversification of programme contents can serve to stimulate the thinking of producers and creative workers, and since a wide variety of programmes are to be produced, many different types of jobs will be created. This will stir the stagnant waters of the existing TV industry, thus enabling the integrated art form of TV production to break new ground in the cultural field.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

As I remarked in our debate on the previous motion, a look at the 1970s and 1980s will make us see that our TV programmes managed to boost not only the TV production industry itself, but also the film and phonographic industries. This was likewise the case with Japan 10 years ago, and also Korea in the past decade. They similarly started with TV production. I do not understand why LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2315 they are heading back and unwilling to take a step forward. People are certainly not happy about this.

The second factor is that only competition can bring progress ― it is always true that only competition can bring progress. And, it is only natural that there are winners and losers in the course of competition. The Government has however ruled out competition for fear that someone may lose. President, what kind of logic is this? This is the first time I have ever heard of such logic. It fears that someone may lose or go bankrupt. Does it mean that only those who are financially sound can be allowed to operate? It has now turned out that background and the support of large corporations will be taken into account. If this is the case, things will be simple. The Government only needs to clarify that if an applicant does not have any financial support from any large corporations at the time of assessment … Things will be very simple indeed. Just ask all large corporations to disclose its wealth and assets and then rank them on a scale of one to 100. When they lodge applications, those whose rankings are higher will win. No other assessment is required, and a simple cash count will do. Those who get top rankings in the cash count will forever win and will be awarded all government projects. They will always be the winners, and they will never lose. They always have the assurance that they will never lose. All this sounds very frightening, but we must never think that it is just a joke. It is really very frightening, because it is hard to imagine how such words could have come from any government officials in charge of a market economy. How can we accept such words and such logic, such words and logic that preclude competition and a third TV broadcaster? What a big headache.

President, more importantly, what are you going to do if the Government now says that we can always request it to disclose the justifications, but we must apply for judicial review? Do you know that an application for judicial review requires, first, money, and second, time? Suppose you file an application for judicial review today, you never know when the hearing can commence, nor can you predict how many days of hearing there will be. Also, you never know the outcome of judicial review when the proceedings are all over ― whether the judgment is in favour of Ricky WONG or the Government, in other words. If the Government wins, can it thus refuse to do anything? If it loses, is it bound to issue a licence? No one knows the answers either. And, irrespective of the outcome, you will have to file another application and wait one or two years more. The previous application process took three years. Secretary, it takes three years to process a licence application. This means a wait of three years 2316 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 more. So, three years for judicial review and three years for application processing will mean a wait of six years in total. This is of very serious implication. I frankly do not know when we can have the third TV broadcaster in that case.

President, I think what has happened this time around is very clear. Even ordinary housewives and grannies know that the Government is in the wrong. Even ordinary housewives and grannies think that the Government is limiting their programme and broadcaster options. Even ordinary housewives and grannies ― who do not have much money and can hardly afford a 3D or 4D movie ― question why the Chief Executive of Hong Kong gives them such treatment. They cannot afford going to the cinema, and they can only watch television at home. So, their conclusion is that the Government is being very mean to them.

President, speaking of this motion, I support the original motion and Ms Claudia MO's amendment. In addition, I wish to say that the current term of the Legislative Council is the first time that I serve as a Functional Constituency (FC) representative. In this term of the Legislative Council, I voted for the first time as an FC Member. Theoretically, I should be glad that I have the support of 260 000 votes, but when it comes to voting, I know that I am destined to lose under the system of separate voting. This is something very bad indeed. But let me offer some advice to the five Members of our District Council (second) FC ― I think James TO should have no problems ― including Miss CHAN Yuen-han and Ms Starry LEE. My advice to them is that although they belong to the pro-establishment camp, they must not follow the Government, must not betray their conscience or even betray their electorates. LAU Kong-wah is a good example. He defied Tseung Kwan O residents' opposition to landfill extension and supported the landfill extension projects, so in the end, voters across Tseung Kwan O abandoned him. This was one of the reasons for LAU Kong-wah's defeat in the election. Today, Ms Starry LEE treads the same path as LAU Kong-wah, deviating from the interest of the general public. Miss CHAN Yuen-han has won the heart of housewives, the elderly and workers. These people like watching television very much. Today, it is she who breaks the heart of every worker and housewife. I hope Miss CHAN Yuen-han and Ms Starry LEE will carefully consider whether they should cast a positive vote. Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2317

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TO, you may now speak on the two amendments. The speaking time limit is five minutes.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I support Ms Claudia MO's amendment, but oppose Mr MA Fung-kwok's amendment for one simple reason ― his amendment not only proposes to delete from my original motion the negative expressions concerning the Government's messy application processing and also the expression "black box" … Well, I can forget all this. But most importantly, if the Government really wants to turn back before it is too late and reconcile with the people of Hong Kong, it will be a very good idea, as remarked by many Members, for it to take the face-saving step of re-considering the issuing of a licence to Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN) in response to the Council's advice ― although my original intention is not to offer this as a face-saving step for the Government. But the Government does not even give it the slightest thought.

The remarks of many Members are even more frightening. For instance, I heard Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's speech just now, and I cannot understand why she cannot understand the situations described in the original motion as well as the amendments, and also why people are still unhappy despite the issuance of two more licences by the Government. She thinks that all is just because people fail to understand the whole picture correctly, thinking that they only need to buy a new television set, but without realizing that they still need to use set-top boxes. However, I noticed that a member of the public shouted loudly on the Public Gallery, saying that she was the only person who was ignorant about that. I believe that some members of the public are ignorant about that too, but with the availability of new television equipment, more and more Hong Kong people will be able to enjoy the new services. If a licence is issued to the HKTVN, even if set-top boxes or new models of television sets are required, Hong Kong people will still be willing to view the free, innovative, creative, and highly original television programmes produced by this new television station.

2318 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Should the DAB treat the people that way? I hope that members of the public who have no television viewing option and who are deprived of the HKTVN as an option can all remember Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and the DAB. People must all remember Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, who dismisses Mr James TO's request for issuing a licence to the HKTVN as politicking.

(Mr IP Kwok-him stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, what is your question?

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): He should speak on the amendments.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TO, please note that the five minutes is for you to speak on the amendments. You will still have time to give a reply later on.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, I see. But the speech given by Dr CHIANG Lai-wan just now relates directly to the amendment. Under this circumstance, I … it is certainly fine for me to repeat my point later on. I urge members of the public who have no choice of television programmes to remember Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr IP Kwok-him and the Members belonging to the DAB.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I am very grateful to Members for expressing their opinions again on the outcome of the domestic free television programme service (free TV) licence applications.

The Chief Executive in Council processed the three free TV licence applications in accordance with the Broadcasting Ordinance (BO) (Cap. 562) and the established procedures. He decided to approve in principle the applications of Fantastic Television Limited (Fantastic TV) and Hong Kong Television Entertainment Company Limited (HKTVE), and reject the application of Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN).

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2319

I have already given a detailed account of the Government's broadcasting policy, the factors of consideration and the assessment criteria leading to the decision during these two days at the Legislative Council. I would like to reiterate several points with regard to the remarks made by Members just now.

First, there is no pre-set ceiling on the number of licences to be issued under the prevailing policy and law. Yet, it does not mean that approval must be granted to all applications. Nor does it mean that the Executive Council should ignore the sustainability of the overall free TV market and make a decision that may jeopardize public interest. The government policy of opening up the television market has remained unchanged to date. The authorities would still consider every application received without precluding the possibility of introducing more television operators as appropriate in the light of market development in the future.

President, Ms Claudia MO mentioned in her amendment the principle of "free market with fair competition". I believe we all know that the SAR Government has all along been striving to maintain Hong Kong's competitive edge of free economy. It will continue to provide a conducive business environment to enable enterprises to thrive in a free market with fair competition. Meanwhile, we have also established a proper regulatory system to ensure that a free market can operate fairly and smoothly. As far as the broadcasting policy is concerned, we have always aimed at increasing the choice of programmes and encouraging creativity while maintaining Hong Kong's competitiveness. As regards the three applications, the Executive Council considered them from a broad perspective of the overall business environment of the free TV market, rather than the sustainability of an individual corporation's operation. It aimed to ensure that the free TV market can develop in a healthy and orderly manner. Such practice is in line with the Government's long-standing economic principles.

Second, I disagree with the motion's claim that the authorities refuse to explain their reasoning. Over the past few weeks, or during the debate on the motion moved under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382), I have already tried my best to explain the factors of consideration and the assessment criteria of the Executive Council. I am not going to repeat those 11 factors of consideration here.

2320 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

President, the Government has stressed once and again that the vetting and approval of the three applications was conducted fairly and impartially without prejudice, and was in adherence to procedural fairness.

President, the Executive Council, having considered all relevant factors, was of the view that decision on the three applications should be made prudently to ensure the sustainability, stability and healthy development of the free TV market. On this premise, the Executive Council assessed the three proposals submitted by the three applicants against the four main criteria as disclosed to the applicants. I would not repeat those four criteria here again.

President, Mr MA Fung-kwok's amendment mentions the regulatory issue after the licences have been issued formally to the two applicants being granted approval-in-principle. The Communications Authority (CA) is now seeking to obtain a series of supplementary information from Fantastic TV and HKTVE. These include application forms containing latest information which reflect all the amendments agreed after their initial applications. The Executive Council has earlier agreed on the CA's suggestion that the licence conditions for new free TV licensees should be similar to that applied to the existing licensees. If the community has any opinion on the licence conditions, I believe the CA and the Executive Council will consider it properly when they further review the free TV licence applications made by the two applicants at the second stage. The Government believes that the CA will fulfil its duties as a statutory regulatory body to strictly enforce the relevant licence conditions upon the new and the existing free TV licensees.

President, I have also noticed that some Members have some misunderstandings regarding the BO. They believe that the Ordinance prohibits the authorities from considering the financial support given by holding companies. That is a wrong understanding.

According to section 8(3) of the BO, the Executive Council cannot grant a licence to a company which is a subsidiary of a corporation. However, it does not stipulate that subsidiary companies cannot apply for a free TV licence. Fantastic TV and HKTVE have promised to undergo corporate restructuring after their applications were granted approval-in-principle and they have confirmed that they can meet the legal requirements provided for non-subsidiary companies. Fantastic TV and HKTVE have sought independent legal advice and can confirm their compliance with the requirements for non-subsidiary companies. The Executive Council will, before formally granting them the licences, review the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2321 corporate status of relevant applicants after restructuring and consider the advice of the Department of Justice, so as to decide whether the companies can meet the relevant legal requirements.

The application guidelines of the CA have clearly spelt out that applicants have to prove how financially stable they are and indicate their investment commitment. Hong Kong Cable Television Limited (Cable TV) and PCCW Limited (PCCW), the existing parent companies of Fantastic TV and HKTVE respectively, indicated that they would provide full financial support to back the operation of Fantastic TV and HKTVE after their restructuring. The BO does not restrict such business relation.

Let me cite an example from everyday life. Members and the public may also hold shares in certain listed companies. They are investors of those companies and provide financial support (that is, shareholders' funds) to those companies. However, general investors are not deemed as having exercised control over those listed companies.

Cable TV and PCCW are television programme service licensees. Therefore, Cable TV and PCCW are disqualified persons under the BO. Unless approved by the Executive Council, they cannot exercise control over a free TV licensee. What does "exercise control" mean? The BO has a clear definition on the term "exercise control" and financial support does not fall into this definition. Therefore, after Fantastic TV and HKTVE are restructured, the financial support of Cable TV and PCCW does not constitute the definition of "exercise control" under the BO. Their financial support does not violate the law either.

Mr MA Fung-kwok's amendment also mentions the support for the film industry. The Government has attached greater importance to the development of creative industries. Various measures are in the pipeline to support the development of the creative industries. To promote the development of the film industry, the Government has set up the Film Development Fund (FDF) with a capital of $320 million. It serves to finance small-to-medium budget film productions with a production budget of not more than $15 million, and subsidize projects conducive to the long-term healthy development of the film industry in Hong Kong. Since its inception in 2007, the FDF has provided subsidies of about $300 million, among which about $80 million was spent to finance the production of 29 films and about $170 million was spent to subsidize 96 film-related projects.

2322 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

As regards the television industry, it is worth noting that one of the applicants being granted approval-in-principle has indicated that it will actively consider purchasing programmes produced by local independent production companies. When the authorities discuss the licence details with Fantastic TV and HKTVE, it will also consider how to take this opportunity of introducing competitors to the free TV market to promote the development of those creative industries related to the television and broadcasting industry.

President, the Government encourages competition and will spare no effort to implement the established broadcasting policy continuously. As for television broadcasting, our first priority now is to continue to complete the outstanding work relating to the free TV licence applications in a fair and prudent manner, with a view to formally granting free TV licences to the two applicants given approval-in-principle and introduce more new elements and competition to the free TV market as soon as possible.

The decision made by the Executive Council will significantly double the number of local free TV stations to four, greatly enhancing the audience's choice of programming while avoiding the possible negative impact created by a sharp increase in the number of free TV stations. Under the policy of opening up the television market, the Executive Council does not rule out the possibility of issuing more free TV licences in the light of market development. Throughout the two debates held consecutively for 16 hours at the Legislative Council, the Government has, under the system, thoroughly explained the Executive Council's 11 factors of consideration and its four assessment criteria. I believe that Members will be as pragmatic as the Government on this matter. I hope that we can all support the development of the television and creative industries with a forward-looking approach.

With these remarks, President, I hope that Members will oppose today's original motion and the amendments. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I call upon Ms Claudia MO to move an amendment to the motion.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr James TO's amendment be amended.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2323

Ms Claudia MO moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To delete "recently" after "the Administration has"; and to add ", ensure that the free television broadcasting policy can consistently apply 'free market with fair competition' as its fundamental principle, and undertake that 'differentiation between close and distant relationships' is not taken into consideration in the process of vetting and approval of domestic free television programme service licence applications" after "criteria)"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Ms Claudia MO to Mr James TO's motion, be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr IP Kwok-him rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

2324 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr MA Fung-kwok abstained.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted against the amendment.

Mr Michael TIEN abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 23 were present, eight were in favour of the amendment, 14 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2325 against it and one abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 14 were in favour of the amendment, 10 against it and one abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on " Domestic free television programme service licences" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG be passed.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.

2326 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Domestic free television programme service licences" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-kwok, you may move your amendment.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr James TO's motion be amended.

Mr MA Fung-kwok moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add "after several years of deliberations" after "That"; to delete "recently issued" after "the Administration has" and substitute with "eventually decided to issue"; to delete "this Council expresses regret that the Administration vetted and approved the licence applications in a black box, and its licensing decision departed from public opinion and antagonized the people" after "('HKTVN');" and substitute with "the absence of reasonable explanation by the Administration on the vetting and approval of the licence applications has made the public disappointed and puzzled"; to delete "respond to public opinion and consider issuing a" after "Council should" and substitute with ", having regard to public opinion and the sustainable development of the television broadcasting industry, study and consider timely issuing more"; and to delete "licence to HKTVN" immediately before the full stop and substitute with "licences; the Administration should also urge the two operators who will be granted licences to strictly abide by the undertakings made in the applications and the licensing requirements, so as to foster competition in free television, upgrade the quality of Hong Kong television programmes and support the development of the film industry, which is related to the television broadcasting industry"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr MA Fung-kwok to Mr James TO's motion, be passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2327

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr James TO rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted against the amendment.

2328 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted for the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 23 were present, 15 were in favour of the amendment and eight against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TO, you may now reply and you have three minutes 34 seconds.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, it is actually alright for us to hold different views or opinions, and many Members from the pro-establishment camp also disagree strongly to the way in which the Government has been handling this matter. As to why I want to move this motion after the motion proposed under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) was moved, my hope is that the Government can reconsider the issuing of a licence.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2329

Dr CHIANG Lai-wan of the DAB spoke earlier, but I find her speech very unacceptable. As she mentioned in her speech, she cannot understand why the public should still be dissatisfied despite the Government's issuing of two more free television licences. She is actually implying that members of the public are ungrateful. She simply wonders why so many people should still be dissatisfied and take to the streets despite the Government's generosity.

Let me ask Hong Kong people to act as arbiters. Regarding the SAR Government's refusal to grant a licence to the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN), should Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr James TO be blamed for moving the motion and instigating all the parades? Or, should we say that the Government's such shoddy efforts and improper explanation and handling are the very causes of public discontent and widespread indignation? I think the public must act as arbiters.

Dr CHIANG Lai-wan of the DAB is the only Member who has spoken on behalf of the DAB, but she has made such remarks. I really want Hong Kong people to remember the DAB, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, and the DAB that she represents. She thinks that concerning the Government's refusal to issue a licence to the HKTVN, the pan-democratic camp is the trouble-maker who has sought to politicize the matter. I hope members of the public can remember her words. In the future, when people are really deprived of HKTVN programmes, they must remember the voting stance of the DAB, remember whether her speech was in support of issuing a new licence. Though some among them did express their support, people must still ascertain whether their support was genuine or mere pretence.

President, some Members opposed the motion under the P&P Ordinance, but they could actually give their support. If they are willing to render their support, there will be the possibility of making the Government to turn back before it is too late. If you genuinely hope that the Government can re-consider its decision, I call upon you to vote for the motion.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr James TO be passed.

2330 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr IP Kwok-him rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the motion.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the motion.

Mr MA Fung-kwok abstained.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2331

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the motion.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the motion.

Mr Michael TIEN abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 23 were present, eight were in favour of the motion, 14 against it and one abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 16 were in favour of the motion, 11 against it and one abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members, we will finish with all the items on the Agenda tonight.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fourth Member's motion: Imposing economic sanctions on the Philippines and restoring Hong Kong people's dignity.

Members who wish to speak in the motion debate will please press the "Request to speak" button.

I now call upon Mr Albert CHAN to speak and move the motion.

2332 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

IMPOSING ECONOMIC SANCTIONS ON THE PHILIPPINES AND RESTORING HONG KONG PEOPLE'S DIGNITY

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move the motion as printed on the Agenda. President, this motion is about restoring Hong Kong people's dignity, and seeking justice for the Hong Kong people who died in the incident and their families.

President, I move this motion because three years have flashed by since the incident, and we were extremely enraged at the sight of Hong Kong's Chief Executive being derided and humiliated by the Philippine President earlier on. In our view, if we are to restore Hong Kong people's dignity, we can no longer merely rely on senior officials of the Hong Kong Government. We cannot even count on the Chinese Government to do us justice through diplomatic means. We must stand firm with Hong Kong as our base in compelling the Philippine Government to respond to the four demands of the victims' families and seeking justice for Hong Kong through the voice of Hong Kong people, and through Hong Kong's measures and policies. These four demands include a formal apology and appropriate compensation from the Philippine Government to the victims' families and the injured.

Three-odd years have passed in a flash. Many people may not quite recall the course of the incident, so let me just give a brief account of the facts. On 23 August 2010, a 21-member tour group of Hong Thai Travel Services Limited was taken hostage by a gunman named MENDOZA for 10-odd hours, resulting in eight Hong Kong people being killed and three injured. Subsequently, a report released by the Philippine side pointed to mistakes on the part of a number of officials, but the Philippine President AQUINO III meted out lenient punishments not commensurate with the findings of the report, letting a number of principal officials off the hook.

Thereafter, a hearing was conducted in the Coroner's Court in Hong Kong. Among the 116 Philippine people summoned, 71 formally declined to come to Hong Kong. Eventually, the Coroner's Court found that the deceased were unlawfully killed. The jury concurred that there were a spate of blunders in the deployment by the Philippine authorities and police, causing the innocent deaths of the Hong Kong hostages.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2333

After the Coroner's Court issued its report, the Hong Kong Government liaised with and presented the demands to the Philippine authorities time and again, but still did not receive any concrete response. On 1 September 2011, when the Premier of the State Council met with AQUINO III, he also demanded that the relevant issues should be handled properly. However, on 8 May 2012, the Philippine President insisted that it was not necessary to apologize to Hong Kong. On 7 October 2013, AQUINO III reiterated that he would not apologize. This series of public refusals to apologize was rubbing salt into the wound, and was a further insult to Hong Kong people.

It is against this backdrop that People Power proposes to impose economic sanctions on the Philippines. We propose a number of measures, including a phased ban on the entry of Philippine domestic helpers, because they earn wages amounting to 7.5 billion dollars each year. In addition, I also plan to further study various other economic sanctions later on, including a phased ban on the import of integrated circuits, gold and other electronic and electrical products from the Philippines.

President, when it comes to economic sanctions, actually these measures are often adopted in different places around the world. For instance, in many cases where two jurisdictions or two governments are in dispute, especially when it involves the killing of nationals of one jurisdiction, the government concerned will adopt economic sanctions against the other. Over the years, the European Union and the United States have imposed economic sanctions successively on Haiti, Zimbabwe, many African countries, the Middle East, South America, and so on.

President, Taiwan has been through a strikingly similar experience to Hong Kong. Earlier on, there was an incident in which a Taiwanese fisherman was shot dead by the Philippine military. At that time, Taiwan proposed a number of economic sanctions, leading to a response within a short time from the Philippine Government, which offered a public apology and compensation.

Therefore, People Power proposes the imposition of economic sanctions. Our proposal has been drawn up by reference to internationally recognized measures adopted by other jurisdictions, countries and governments, with the intent to compel the Philippines to respond to Hong Kong's demands. Many people have accused People Power of racial discrimination in proposing to ban Philippine domestic helpers from coming to Hong Kong for work. We have to 2334 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 make it clear that there is absolutely no element of racial discrimination in this measure, because our proposal is targeted at a jurisdiction, a country, and is by no means based on the ground of colour or bloodline. We are putting forward a demand in response to the wrongful acts on the part of a country, or rather, a government. I hope that everyone can understand that this measure has nothing whatsoever to do with so-called racial discrimination. President, People Power has also prepared a Member's bill on refusing Philippine domestic helpers' entry to Hong Kong. The initial draft has been completed. It will be submitted to you, President, for handling shortly afterwards.

President, we wish to take this opportunity to point out that three-odd years is definitely not a short period of time. Eight Hong Kong people were killed, and many injured. The Coroner's Court in Hong Kong has unequivocally ruled that the deaths were due to dereliction of duty on the part of the relevant Philippine officials. If we still refrain from taking firm and strong measures, Hong Kong will only become an international laughing stock; ultimately, in the event that Hong Kong people are subjected to such unfair and unreasonable treatment again in any place in future, Hong Kong people cannot but endure in silence because of our weakness.

President, when I came up with this motion, a friend gave us this flag as a gift. According to him, this flag symbolizes Hong Kong's loss of status. The regional flag of the SAR is originally red in colour, but he deliberately changed it from red to black to signify that Hong Kong is dead and hopeless. Eight Hong Kong people were killed, but our Government is weak and feeble and continues to endure in silence. This is the shame of Hong Kong. He indicated that as Hong Kong failed to restore justice and dignity in respect of the hostage issue, he changed the colour of the regional flag of the Hong Kong SAR to black. This is the voice of Hong Kong people.

The wording of this motion moved by me today is comparatively mild, because I really hope that this motion, which proposes the adoption of economic sanctions to restore Hong Kong people's dignity and do us justice, will be passed unanimously in this Chamber. If this motion fails to be passed today, a wrong message will be sent to the whole world, particularly the Philippines, that Hong Kong people fail to unite as one in seeking justice for ourselves. Therefore, I am calling on Members to set aside our differences and support this motion today, so as to restore the dignity of the victims and Hong Kong, and seek justice for Hong Kong people.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2335

Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That, on 23 August 2010, a Hong Kong tour group was tragically taken hostage in Manila in the Philippines; due to the Philippine authorities' serious mishandling of the rescue work, the Philippine hostage incident eventually resulted in a tragedy with eight Hong Kong people killed and seven injured; more than three years have lapsed since the Philippine hostage incident, yet the Philippine Government has never faced up to the relevant demands of the victims' families at all, even adopting an extremely poor attitude in handling the incident; however, after a Taiwan fisherman was shot dead by the Philippine Coast Guard in May this year, the Philippine Government tendered a formal apology for the incident within three months following Taiwan's announcement of sanctions against the Philippines; given that the Philippine hostage incident has yet to be resolved properly, and the progress is hardly acceptable and is grossly unjust to the victims' families, this Council urges the Government to impose strong and forceful economic sanction measures, so as to press the Philippine Government to make a prompt and formal response to the four demands of the victims' families, i.e. to apologize to the victims' families, to offer compensation to the victims' families, to penalize the relevant officials for dereliction of duty in the Philippine hostage incident, and to implement measures to protect tourists' personal safety."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Albert CHAN be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Five Members wish to move amendments to this motion. This Council will now proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the five amendments.

I will first call upon Miss Alice MAK to speak, to be followed by Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mrs Regina IP and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen respectively; but they may not move amendments at this stage.

MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, in Mr Albert CHAN's speech just now, I heard a few remarks which exactly match the proposal of my amendment, 2336 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 that is my hope that the public can unite and hold the Philippine Government responsible, so that the victims' families can get an answer and an explanation, and justice can be done to Hong Kong people. For this reason, I believe that Mr Albert CHAN will support my amendment later on.

President, Mr CHAN just now mentioned that we may have forgotten what happened three-odd years ago, but I definitely will not forget. In fact, I said here a few weeks ago that one of the deceased victims was a nice kaifong whom I had known for ten to twenty years, and I am still in touch with her parents at present. Actually, in the past three-odd years, the greatest difficulty facing the bereaved family members was not only the lack of care from their offspring, but also the most miserable fact that this incident was brought up repeatedly every now and then, so much so that it was simply impossible for them to lead a tranquil life, because at certain points of time, people would criticize the Government for doing nothing or not responding. This went on and on without an end. In fact, these elderly persons or other bereaved families really hope that this incident can be put to an end as soon as possible, and that it will not be brought up so often again. The pain can never be forgotten. It is just that no one wants the scarred wound to be reopened over and over again.

President, the tragedy three-odd years ago resulted in eight Hong Kong people being killed and seven seriously injured, but the Philippine Government has yet to offer a formal apology or compensation. The most shameless of all is the Philippine President, whose name I cannot even recall. He once proclaimed the establishment of the Incident Investigation and Review Committee. Its investigation report categorically pointed out the blunders of the Philippine Government in this incident. Given that there were blunders, how come he could still say that he was not obliged to apologize? This being the case, we take the view that it is not about whether a country has the tradition or culture to apologize for others' faults; rather, it is a matter of individual conscience. As the head of state, he, whose name I do not remember and will never recall, should at least have the conscience to apologize for his government officials' mistakes, particularly when the investigation report issued by their own government has also stated that those officials were at fault.

Some Philippine nationals, including the Philippine domestic helpers working in Hong Kong, were also sad about this incident. After this incident, some Philippine domestic helpers said sorry to me in tears, they were saddened LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2337 by the shameful acts of their Government. However, this President, whose name I do not know, had the impudence to say that he was not obliged to apologize, and he even wore a gloating smile when he visited the scene shortly after the incident took place on that day. I believe none of us will ever forget that smile.

Therefore, we must unite today. We support Mr Albert CHAN's motion, though we think it should be more forceful. As Mr CHAN said just now, all of us have to unite as one. That is why my amendment stresses that we have to unite in order to hold the Philippine Government responsible. We must take certain measures to sanction the Philippine Government, and press them to respond to the four demands of the victims' families.

Three years have gone by, and there seemed to be a bit of a breakthrough recently when the Manila authorities deputed Bernardito ANG, a City Councillor, to come to Hong Kong to negotiate with representatives of the victims' families. Nevertheless, he was not quite co-operative in that he actually indicated that the bereaved families were asking for sky-high compensation, and as a result, the negotiations were not making any headway. What should not be forgotten is that their so-called compensation turns out to be soliciting donations from Chinese businessmen in the Philippines. Are Chinese businessmen not Chinese people? Is that not fleecing us, Chinese people? Bernardito ANG also said that the discussions by the Legislative Council of Hong Kong on sanctions against the Philippines were based on recent heated debates in society, and thus were neither relevant nor conducive to the negotiations. I agree that our discussions may not be conducive, and therefore we support the earlier statement of the Government and of the Chief Executive in demanding the Philippine Government to make a formal apology within a month, or else sanctions will be imposed.

Hong Kong absolutely has what it takes to formulate sanctions against the Philippines. On the economic front, in 2012, the Philippines was only Hong Kong's 18th largest trading partner, and 16th largest market for domestic exports; on the contrary, Hong Kong was the Philippines' seventh largest trading partner. Hong Kong's domestic export of goods to the Philippines last year only totalled HK$600-odd million, whereas Hong Kong's import of goods from the Philippines totalled about HK$41 billion, representing a trade deficit of HK$40.5 billion. It follows that once we adopt economic sanctions, the Philippine Government will 2338 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 definitely be adversely affected. I believe that Bernardito ANG will no longer think that we are just talking about something that is not conducive to the negotiations.

Furthermore, we should not forget that Hong Kong is also an important entrepôt for trade between Mainland China and the Philippines. Hong Kong's re-export of goods to the Philippines totalled HK$21.9 billion in 2012, with bilateral trade amounting to HK$63.5 billion. So, all these economic figures are telling the Philippine Government that there is no way that they can withstand our economic sanctions.

Regarding the issue concerning Philippine domestic helpers mentioned by a number of Honourable colleagues, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) always supports the hiring of local domestic helpers. As a matter of fact, from April to September 2012 alone, the Philippine domestic helpers working in Hong Kong already remitted 3.8 billion pesos to their native country. This amount of money is by no means a small sum to them. Therefore, we absolutely can make the Philippine Government understand that Hong Kong's sanctions, if imposed, will take a heavy toll on their country for sure. They can no longer think that we are just talking about something that is neither conducive nor relevant to the negotiations.

We also note that Mrs Regina IP has raised an issue about entry visas for Philippine people. Let us look at the figures. The number of visitors to Hong Kong from the Philippines was some 650 000 in 2011, 700 000 in 2012, and 510 000 from January to September alone in 2013. So, in our view, if Hong Kong can introduce some measures in respect of the visa-free entry arrangement for Filipinos … we are not antagonizing Filipinos; we just want to give the Philippine Government a very clear message that we will take measures at all costs to make the Philippine Government face up to the demands of Hong Kong people.

Hence, we from the FTU will support all the views expressed in the amendments proposed by the several Honourable colleagues today. Regarding Mr Albert CHAN's original motion, we of course support it; as for the economic sanction measures put forth by Mr SIN Chung-kai, the visa-related arrangements proposed by Mrs Regina IP, and the arrangements relating to Philippine domestic helpers suggested by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, given that we always support the hiring of local domestic helpers, we support these various amendments. As to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2339

Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment, we certainly support it, because it is basically consistent with our demands and direction.

Our ultimate hope is that Hong Kong people can be united, and that the Government, upon hearing our message today, can negotiate with the Philippine Government in a bold and confident manner, so that we will not have to wait three years after three years, without knowing how many three years we will have to wait. Thank you, President.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, given that Hong Kong is a diversified society with freedom of thoughts and speech, it is often difficult to reach a consensus on how each incident should be perceived and handled as people have different interests, views and stance. The only exception is the Philippine hostage incident. All Hong Kong people and different political parties and affiliations in this Council share the common conviction and stance that the Philippine authorities must tender an open and formal apology as well as offer compensation to the victims and their families.

Unfortunately, during the three-year negotiation between the SAR Government and the victims' families on one side and the Philippine Government on the other on the hostage incident, Hong Kong people have clearly seen the procrastinating and irresponsible attitude of the Philippine authorities towards the incident. Although the report released by the Incident Investigation and Review Committee under the chairmanship of the Secretary of Justice of the Philippine recommended criminal prosecution of four senior police officers and negotiators, a number of key officials who had caused this tragedy were eventually off the hook. All of them are confidants of the Philippine President AQUINO III, for example, Alfredo LIM, the Mayor of Manila, who only cares about eating, was only punished by administrative sanctions, whereas the other three people including the Undersecretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, Rico PUNO, were merely reprimanded but not punished.

The overall performance the Philippine President AQUINO III in the hostage incident is even more disgusting. Soon after the incident took place, he gave an account of the incident with a disgustingly flippant attitude and evaded the due responsibility of his Government. Worse still, his stern refusal to admit a mistake and tender an apology has not only outraged Hong Kong people, but has also reflected his lack of the breadth of mind required of the head of state. 2340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

By playing political tricks in his meeting with Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, from the seating arrangement to media reporting and release of information, he had deliberately belittled the position of the SAR Government, which is also a member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation. AQUINO III has been cold-blooded and acted impudently and shamelessly, and has therefore seriously infuriated Hong Kong people.

In the face of this despicable and rascal-like President of the Philippines and the evasive Philippine Government which is attempting to shirk responsibility, the SAR Government and the victims' families must remain vigilant during each and every negotiation and discussion. Above all, the unswerving support of Hong Kong people has provided the strongest backup. We must tell the Philippine Government that it is the enemy of Hong Kong people so long as it acts like rascal and is evasive. The SAR Government has issued a one-month ultimatum, which is supported by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB).

The DAB understands Hong Kong people's wish to hold the Philippine authorities responsible through sanctions. In order to achieve the greatest effect, a "carrot and stick" approach should be appropriately adopted on the negotiation table. Thus, the DAB opines that the various ways to penalize or impose sanctions on the Philippines as proposed by people from all walks of life are viable so long as such sanctions are reasonable and practicable. Any proposal that can put certain pressure on the Philippine authorities in respect of the economy, non-governmental exchanges or official activities, is worthy of consideration. We therefore support the non-governmental and governmental sanctions proposed in today's motion, which include the concrete sanction measures put forward by Mr SIN Chung-kai and Mrs Regina IP. In my amendment, I have not only proposed to put external pressure on the Philippines by imposing sanctions, but also sought to call on Hong Kong people to unite from within and point their gun outward in support of SAR Government's work to discuss and negotiate with the Philippine Government. As my amendment shares the same idea with that of Miss Alice MAK, the DAB will support her amendment.

The DAB agrees to put pressure on the Philippine authorities through sanctions, but the sanction measures must be reasonable and effective to avoid resulting in a "lose-lose" situation. We therefore opine that Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's proposal to forbid the entry of Philippine domestic helpers would LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2341 prejudice the interests of local families employing Philippine domestic helpers. What is more, as it is not easy to find replacements for domestic helpers, forbidding the entry of Philippine domestic helpers will seriously affect the everyday life of local families. Thus, the DAB does not support the relevant amendment.

Speaking of sanctions, I appreciate the concern raised by Mrs Regina IP on the imposition of economic sanctions by Hong Kong as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It is true that we must be cautious when economic sanctions are forcibly imposed to avoid contravening the international agreements, but sanctions may take many forms and may not necessarily contravene the international agreements. Colleagues may also be aware that as the Sino-Japanese territorial dispute intensifies, the Chinese Government has imposed some economic sanction measures on Japan, who is also a member of the WTO. For example, Mainland's custom authorities have conducted stringent checks on Japanese goods to delay their customs clearance procedures; dozens of Mainland hospitals refused to renew their procurement contracts with their Japanese suppliers of pharmaceutical products, and many Mainland tours to Japan have been cancelled. These are viable measures. It can therefore be seen that amid disputes among WTO members, economic sanctions is commonly imposed to put pressure on the other parties. As we are at liberty to develop our own methods, any measures that can put pressure on the Philippine authorities without prejudicing the interests of Hong Kong people would be supported. Here, I would like to reiterate our support for the proposed economic sanction measures and Mrs Regina IP's proposal to tighten the arrangements for issuing visas.

President, it seems that there have been new developments on the hostage incident recently, including the show of stance by the Central Government lately. After State President XI Jinping instructed the Central Authorities to follow-up on the hostage incident, Hong Kong people were even more relieved to hear the remarks made by the Premier of the State Council LI Keqiang. He said that the hostage incident has "affected the feelings of the people in China, especially the compatriots in Hong Kong". This makes Hong Kong people understand that the hostage incident is not a matter of Hong Kong alone, but the State as well. Also, he has made it loud and clear that the Philippine Government should look squarely at the incident and expeditiously resolve it in a reasonable and fair manner. This has changed the attitude of AQUINO III and he is now forced to look squarely at the incident and undertake to resolve the matter by all means.

2342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

The support of the Central Authorities has undoubtedly exerted external pressure on the Philippine Government on another level. And yet, as President XI has said, "the metal itself must be strong to be turned into iron". Irrespective of the level of support and assistance that the Central Government has rendered in our negotiation with the Philippines, Hong Kong people can only resume our dignity and seek redress for the victims' families by uniting together to build up a stronger image, with a view to pressing the rascal-like AQUINO III to face the reality by seriously responding to the four demands put forward by the Hong Kong people in respect of the hostage incident.

President, I so submit.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I have to thank Mr Albert CHAN for moving this motion. The Democratic Party is also willing to fight side by side with pro-establishment Members for the cause of seeking justice for the families of the victims in the Philippine hostage incident. So we will support Miss Alice MAK's amendment and Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment, particularly their calls for unity as highlighted therein. But then, my amendment is just intended to enrich Mr Albert CHAN's original motion by proposing certain specific measures, for which I earnestly request Members' support.

As for Mrs Regina IP's amendment, I have to bring up a few points for discussion. Firstly, in her amendment, Mrs Regina IP has crossed out ― I have to emphasize this ― she has crossed out a very important part of Mr Albert CHAN's original motion which is worded as follows: "this Council urges the Government to impose strong and forceful economic sanction measures, so as to press the Philippine Government to make a prompt and formal response to the four demands of the victims' families, that is, to apologize to the victims' families, to offer compensation to the victims' families, to penalize the relevant officials for dereliction of duty in the Philippine hostage incident, and to implement measures to protect tourists' personal safety." President, the Democratic Party cannot accept an amendment with such a deletion, which as good as deletes the spirit of the original motion, that is, pressing for a response to the four demands of the victims' families and seeking justice. In fact, we have also heard of Mrs Regina IP's proposal to set up a fund and cease pursuing the matter with the Philippine Government as it would be futile to do so. This is not our spirit. The Democratic Party takes the view that we must persevere in our stance on the Philippine incident.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2343

In proposing this amendment today, we hope that economic sanctions can be implemented. I also note that Mrs Regina IP has, in her letter to Members, specifically referred to Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Let me cite a passage from Mrs Regina IP's letter: "As a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Hong Kong must comply with the treaties made by the WTO. Under ordinary circumstances, according to Article XXI of the GATT, economic sanctions may be imposed only when national security is at risk, in time of war, or when assisting the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace (say, for the avoidance of the use of force in penalizing a regime which violates humanitarianism)."

Mrs Regina IP once served in the Trade and Industry Bureau, though I am not sure if her title was Director-General or Secretary, and she also served as the Director of Immigration at one time, so she should be well versed in these polices. But then, I have also industriously checked Article XXI of the GATT. In subpart (iii) of subparagraph (b) of Article XXI, it is stipulated that in time of war … the GATT certainly does not govern actions taken in time of war, but the provision also contains the expression "or other emergency in international relations". To put it simply, if the relations between two jurisdictions were strained, they would not be subject to the GATT. Plainly speaking, they would not violate the GATT because of that, and would not be sanctioned by the WTO. Of course, a sanctioned country or jurisdiction may, among other things, file an appeal with or request arbitration from the WTO. However, after reading the GATT, the Democratic Party does not see any conflict in this regard. We have found a piece of literature on the aforesaid situation. In 2003, a legal scholar at Duke University in the United States wrote a lengthy paper in which this situation was specifically mentioned. This scholar took the view that … in fact, I have issued a letter to all Members which also refers to this point, and provides a URL hyperlink for Members to downward that paper. Simply put, this scholar, Peter LINDSAY, explained in detail that if the relations between two jurisdictions were under strain or in a peculiar state, it would not be against the GATT to impose economic sanctions. Therefore, we cannot accept Mrs Regina IP's deletion of this part on economic sanctions.

Regarding the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, the Democratic Party must also stress that his amendment consists of three parts. The first part is to forbid the issuance of visas to newly-employed Philippine domestic helpers. The Democratic Party keeps an open mind on this for the 2344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 time being. However, we have reservations about the third part, that is, "phase three: from 1 July 2015 onwards, to forbid the issuance of entry visas to Philippine passport holders." This is because some entry visas are sought on humanitarian grounds and should be approved, and this has nothing to do with the issue about domestic helpers. As we cannot support the third part, we will not support Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment. That said, if he submits a private bill to the Legislative Council in future, we will study it further. But then, as far as the third part is concerned, I believe that this part will only be implemented in times of war, as such restriction is a bit over the top and rather harsh.

President, just now I missed out one point which I still want to explain. It is about the visa-free issue raised by Mrs Regina IP. Actually, on the visa-free issue, if we look at the figures, we will understand. To suspend the visa-free arrangement ― at present, no visa is required for a Hong Kong resident to go to the Philippines ― if we suspend the 14-day visa-free arrangement, Philippine people will need a visa to come to Hong Kong. In the event that the Philippines takes retaliatory action against Hong Kong, will there be a greater impact on Hong Kong people than Philippine people, or vice versa? The number of Hong Kong people visiting the Philippines is around 110 000 to 120 000 each year, which is not very large, of course. As Miss Alice MAK said earlier on, the number of Philippine people visiting Hong Kong was about 660 000 in 2011, 700 000 in 2012, and 510 000 in the first nine months of this year. In other words, these figures clearly show that the number of Philippine visitors to Hong Kong far exceeds the number of Hong Kong visitors to the Philippines by roughly six or seven times. If the proposed suspension of the visa-free arrangement is purely a political gesture to cause greater inconvenience to Philippine people because of our unfriendly relations with the Philippines, then the Democratic Party will support it.

However, if we think about it more deeply, a suspension of the visa-free arrangement would actually do more harm to Hong Kong, as the tourist activities, spending and so on by Philippine people in Hong Kong would decrease. But then, this measure has more to do with politics than economics. A suspension of the visa-free arrangement is, in fact, not an economic sanction. If it was an economic sanction, it would do more harm to Hong Kong than to the Philippines, because there would be fewer tourists to Hong Kong. This measure is a political sanction; as long as it is a political sanction to be imposed as a political gesture due to unfriendly relations, we will render support. One should not think that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2345 the measure proposed by Mrs Regina IP would do more harm to the Philippines. It is just a political gesture rather than an economic sanction. Yet, for the sake of unity, we should support it.

If Miss Alice MAK's amendment or Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment or my amendment is passed later on, what follows will be Mrs Regina IP's amendment. Let me stress once again that the four demands of the victims' families cannot be deleted. Given that the four demands of the victims' families are deleted in Mrs Regina IP's amendment, we find it unacceptable. But then, if the four demands of the victims' families are not deleted in her amendment, and it purely proposes to suspend the visa-free arrangement, we can support it. Nonetheless, in the event that all the amendments prior to Mrs Regina IP's are negatived, we will not support her amendment, as she has deleted the part about pressing the Philippine Government for a prompt response to the four demands of the victims' families. I believe that this is not the mainstream opinion of Members of the Legislative Council. Therefore, we cannot accept such an evasive attitude.

With these remarks, the Democratic Party hopes that Members will support the amendments proposed by Miss Alice MAK, Mr IP Kwok-him and me.

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, the purpose of the amendment proposed by me is consistent with the objectives of Mr Albert CHAN, Miss Alice MAK, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr SIN Chung-kai and even Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. It has been three-odd years since the Manila hostage tragedy, but the relevant authorities of the Philippines have yet to seriously respond and face up to the sufferings of Hong Kong people. As a result, the families of the hostages are indignant and aggrieved. Their demands for compensation and an apology have not been squarely addressed.

First of all, let me give Mr SIN Chung-kai some explanations. In my amendment, I do not mean to delete the four demands. Please read the wording of my amendment. It also contains the words "apology" and "compensation". It is just that my attitude is relatively pragmatic. Certain officials of the Philippine authorities mishandled the incident, but some of them may have already disappeared or left the Government. So it would indeed be difficult for their former superiors to take disciplinary action against them. On the contrary, I am taking a pragmatic approach to this issue, and I am asking the SAR 2346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Government to negotiate with the Philippine authorities so as to seek a sensible and reasonable solution, as well as more room for manoeuvre.

On the sanction measures proposed by Honourable colleagues, I would like to explain briefly my views. As a non-sovereign entity, Hong Kong actually has never imposed sanctions on any other places in the past. In his speech just now, Mr Albert CHAN indicated that Hong Kong had imposed sanctions on countries such as Zimbabwe, Mali, Somalia, and so on. In fact, in imposing those sanctions, Hong Kong was only implementing the resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations. As far as I remember, the only occasion when Hong Kong imposed sanctions independent of a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations was in 1982. At that time, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong's suzerain state, sanctioned Argentina for its invasion of the Falkland Islands. Hong Kong, as a British colony back then, merely followed the instruction of its suzerain state.

In fact, as far as international law is concerned, Hong Kong is not in a position to impose sanctions on other countries. In particular, as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Hong Kong must comply with the WTO's agreements on merchandise trade and trade in services. In other words, Hong Kong cannot arbitrarily impose sanctions on other WTO members, regardless of whether such sanctions pertain to merchandise trade or trade in services.

Mr SIN Chung-kai mentioned Article XXI of the GATT (cough) … sorry, I have not recovered from tracheitis yet, so my voice is still hoarse. According to my understanding, Hong Kong, as a contracting party to that agreement, has never invoked Article XXI. Mr SIN Chung-kai just now mentioned subpart (iii) of subparagraph (b) of the first paragraph of Article XXI ― "taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations; or". Subpart (iii) is under subparagraph (b). As the major premise of subpart (iii), subparagraph (b) contains a reference to "… necessary for the protection of its essential security interests", which refers to "essential security interests".

What we are discussing now is about holding the Philippine Government responsible for the hostage tragedy that occurred three years ago, and demanding the Philippine authorities to compensate, apologize and protect the safety of Hong Kong people in the Philippines in future. These are demands that have yet to be satisfied, rather than "essential security interests". I have consulted some experts in trade, and have been told that this provision does not apply. I am only LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2347 expressing my technical view on this provision. Of course, Mr SIN may quote different authorities. Whether this provision applies or not is a question to be answered by the Government, because none of us can give a definite answer. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that this provision does not apply.

One initiative that is feasible in the context of Hong Kong's rights and can be implemented expeditiously is to suspend the visa-free arrangement. Given the absence of a bilateral agreement between Hong Kong and the Philippines, the visa-free arrangement between the two jurisdictions is only an administrative arrangement announced unilaterally. In 1996, the Philippines suddenly refused to grant Hong Kong SAR passport holders visa-free access. At that time, the Immigration Department also strove to safeguard our interests in this matter. After negotiations, the Philippines unilaterally announced the entitlement of SAR passport holders to visa-free access, and Hong Kong made a similar arrangement in favour of the Philippines as well. This is an administrative arrangement, and there is no agreement between the two jurisdictions. I think that Hong Kong can readily suspend this arrangement by giving seven to 14 days' notice, and this is what the Philippine Government fears the most.

Regarding the number of visitors, both Mr SIN Chung-kai and Miss Alice MAK have mentioned that the number of Philippine people visiting Hong Kong is on the increase. It has surged from 234 000 in 2003 to more than 700 000 last year, compared to only 110 000 to 120 000 Hong Kong visitors to the Philippines each year. The number of tour groups to the Philippines is not very large either.

Comparatively, would Hong Kong's economy suffer a greater blow? That is not necessarily the case. As far as flights are concerned, a number of airlines from the Philippines provide an average of 49.5 flights every day travelling between Hong Kong and the Philippines. These include Philippine Airlines, AirAsia Philippines, Cebu Pacific Air, PAL Express and Tigerair Philippines. According to my figures, there are 49.5 flights on average travelling between the two places.

In Hong Kong, by contrast, only Cathay Pacific provides an average of 15 flights every day travelling between Hong Kong and the Philippines. All flights arriving in Hong Kong from the Philippines are full, and they are planes of small airlines from Cebu, Clark or suchlike places. If we implement a suspension of the visa-free arrangement, a Philippine national will have to pay HK$160 to get a visa for entry to Hong Kong. It will generally take four weeks to process a visa, 2348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 but as the Immigration Department has no special manpower arrangement at present, it is impossible to process several hundred thousand visas within four weeks. It is foreseeable that there would be a wave of closures of airlines in the Philippines, especially small airlines from places like Cebu and Clark. So this initiative would be tantamount to an economic sanction.

In fact, on the very next day after I set forth this proposal in a column at the end of last month, the Philippine Consul-General in Hong Kong already requested an urgent meeting with me. Two days later, the Philippine Consul-General and Deputy Consul-General in Hong Kong further contacted me, enquiring how and when this initiative would be implemented. It is said that recently, having heard that the Legislative Council would debate and discuss sanction measures, the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, which is fairly hawkish, has specially issued a statement expressing its hope that the SAR Government would not link the visa-free arrangement with the hostage incident. Clearly, this initiative is one that the Philippine Government fears the most.

The Philippine Government understands that Hong Kong, as a WTO member, cannot arbitrarily sanction the Philippines. Also, there is currently no on-going air services negotiation between the two jurisdictions. Moreover, as a WTO member, Hong Kong has signed the Government Procurement Agreement, which renders the SAR Government unable to specifically refrain from procuring Philippine products. At the community level, the dessert shop Hui Lau Shan can stop selling Luzon mangos, but that is a decision that only Hui Lau Shan itself can make.

Therefore, many proposals are technically impracticable. However, I still support the spirit and objectives of Honourable colleagues in proposing the sanctions. Hence, I support the motion and all the amendments, except for Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment. This is because the proposed suspension of the issuance of visas to Philippine domestic helpers, and so on, as put forth in Mr CHAN's amendment would have too great an impact, and deal too deep a blow to Hong Kong. Although Mr CHAN only proposed to forbid the issuance of new visas, and that the sanctions be implemented in phases, this measure would result in a significant reduction in the supply of foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong. Actually, quite a number of Members have often received complaints from the public alleging that Philippine domestic helpers are getting increasingly "difficult". Without an infusion of new blood, the currently serving Philippine LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2349 domestic helpers would become even more "difficult". This measure would deal too deep a blow to Hong Kong, and would amount to punishing the middle class in Hong Kong.

As Mr IP Kwok-him has said, any sanction measure may harm ourselves as well as others. The sanction measures we are going to take must be those that would do minimal harm to ourselves, but the other party would fear. Therefore, I earnestly call on Honourable colleagues to support my amendment, so that this Council can unite in making it clear to the Philippine Government that if it does not solemnly respond to the demands of the victims' families, or treats the SAR Government in a frivolous and impolite manner again, we definitely will not be courteous.

With these remarks, I will support the original motion and all the amendments, except for Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment.

President, I so submit.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, on 23 August 2010, eight Hong Kong people were killed in the Philippine hostage incident. On 5 November 2013 (Tuesday), LEUNG Chun-ying declared that the SAR Government would take the necessary sanctions against the Philippines unless substantial progress was made within one month. Three years and two months have passed since the incident and Hong Kong people have been waiting for three years and two months. Nonetheless, we still have to wait for another month before we can find out what forceful economic sanction measures the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration is going to take against the Philippines. Why do we need to wait one more month? Why didn't LEUNG Chun-ying make this declaration one month earlier? Why didn't LEUNG Chun-ying propose any sanctions against the Philippines three months ago when the deadline for filing a civil claim over the tragedy incident had yet to expire? Why didn't LEUNG Chun-ying consider imposing sanctions on the Philippines when he took office one year ago?

President, be it the last-term Government led by Donald TSANG or the current-term Government led by LEUNG Chun-ying, how much efforts have been made by the HKSAR Government in resolving the Philippine hostage incident are undeniably clear to all. On the eve of the three-year deadline for 2350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 filing civil claim, the victims' families intended to meet with LEUNG Chun-ying to see if he could render assistance in their pursuit for redress. But LEUNG Chun-ying had been hiding from them. It was not until 18 August (Sunday) when LEUNG Chun-ying visited Kwun Tong to stage a popularity show that the elder brother of Masa TSE, TSE Chi-kin, finally managed to, with the help of members of the public, put a couple of questions to LEUNG Chun-ying.

Have Members ever thought of the factors that have precipitated the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration from being indifferent and evasive in the past to proactively considering taking sanction measures today? Some people attributed this to an order from the Beijing authorities. Why then did the Beijing authorities not issue such an order over the past three years but only did so recently? I think Hong Kong people should seriously think of the reason. Though being reluctant, actions have to be taken. "Brother Kin", the elder brother of the deceased tour guide Masa TSE, described the setting of a deadline for negotiation as a breakthrough and remarked that the Government has eventually agreed to do something. In other words, people think that the SAR Government has not done anything in the past three years.

On 9 October, the People Power proposed to amend the Immigration Ordinance by way of a private bill to impose economic sanction on the Philippines, to the effect that Philippine domestic helpers would be forbidden, in phases, to come to Hong Kong until the Philippine authorities tender an apology, make compensation, penalize the relevant officials for dereliction of duty and implement measures to protect tourists' personal safety. The amendment proposed by me today is exactly about such sanction measures. At that time, Secretary for Security LAI Tung-kwok responded that Philippine domestic helpers accounted for 40% to 50% of foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong and there was a keen demand for such helpers. Any measure that might affect Hong Kong residents and employers must be carefully considered. He said that there was no strong justification to restrict the entry of people from a certain country or region.

When we put forward this proposal, it was not supported by any political party. The New People's Party opposed the restriction on the employment of Philippine domestic helpers in Hong Kong, worrying that the middle-class families and the relevant agencies would be adversely affected. The Liberal Party also highlighted the impact on the middle-class families. Some people likened People Power's proposal to the "seven injuries boxing"; one who practices LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2351 this kind of martial arts will injure himself as well others, or even injuring himself before injuring others. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) suggested that the matter should not be dealt with hastily. Should anyone think that our proposal is made in a hasty manner, may I ask why no one has ever suggested any economic sanction measures three months, six months or 12 months ago, or much earlier?

On 9 October, in the editorial "Why is there no hope for the hostage incident to be resolved?" written by Mr LEE Yee, he pointed out that "There are 150 000 Philippine domestic helpers in Hong Kong, much more than the number in Taiwan. As Philippine domestic helpers generate foreign exchange earnings and are the economic lifeline of the Philippines, Hong Kong definitely has the power to put pressure on the Philippines. If Hong Kong freezes the applications for Philippine domestic helpers, will the Philippine Government not succumb in the face of public pressure? However, the idea of sanction has not been proposed by members of the public, public opinion or Legislative Council Members, not to mention the Hong Kong Government. While members of the public do not have the power to do so, politicians are worried that they may lose public support if people are unwilling to suffer from any inconvenience arising from unavailability of Philippine domestic helpers. As the Government does not consider it necessary to fight against overseas political dignitaries for the citizens' interests and dignity, the hostage incident has dragged on for so long."

For people who oppose and query the restriction of Philippine domestic helpers' entry to Hong Kong, I have classified them into three major categories. The first category of people queries whether the restriction can effectively force the Philippine authorities to succumb. Let me call them the "efficacy party". There are comments that as Philippine domestic helpers are in short supply, they can work in other places if they are not allowed to come to Hong Kong. There are currently over 150 000 Philippine domestic helpers in Hong Kong and their total remittance to the country was as high as US$420 million in 2010, accounting for 2% of the Philippines's total amount of remittance. Can this amount of money effectively force the Philippines to succumb? I am not going to talk about this for the time being. Let me present some facts to Members. When the People Power proposed to forbid the entry of Philippine domestic helpers in phases, the Philippines authorities responded right away. A spokesman of the Department of Foreign Affairs said that Philippine domestic helpers have contributed to the society and economy of Hong Kong with their labour, and should therefore be considered in isolation from the hostage tragedy. 2352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Mainstream newspaper of the Philippines also commented that the measure to restrict the entry of Philippine domestic helpers has hit the mark. We can therefore see that though the measure has yet to be put in place, the Philippine Government has already started to shiver. How can we jump to the conclusion that the measure is ineffective? From the perspective of effectiveness, our attitude is open and we welcome discussion. Members can by all means put forward more forceful and effective ways.

The second category of people who oppose our motion is the "egoist party". I do not consider these people selfish, but they are egoistic and only concerned about the interests of Hong Kong people. Chairman of the Hong Kong Employers of Overseas Domestic Helpers Association said that the restriction would affect and bring inconveniences to over 100 000 families. Firstly, I must reiterate that People Power's proposals will be put in place in phases, and the first phase will only come into effect on 1 April 2014, when employment visas will not be issued to newly-employed Philippine domestic helpers. Those who are employed will not be affected. The second phase will commence from 1 January 2015 onwards, which seeks to forbid the extension of Philippine domestic helpers' limit of stay. In fact, in the motion, a pretty long buffer period has been proposed for employers of overseas domestic helpers to look for domestic helpers of other nationalities to replace the Philippine domestic helpers.

To repeat, any form of economic sanction measure would not only inflict injuries on the person being sanctioned, but may also bring inconveniences to people living in the country that imposes the sanction. If people oppose measures that have implications on them, there is no point for further discussion. At present, the decision depends on whether Hong Kong people are willing to make a little sacrifice. How come Taiwan managed to do so but we cannot? Many people have asked this question. After Taiwan announced to impose sanction on the Philippine domestic helpers for three months, the Philippine Government succumbed. Taiwan does not have as many Philippine domestic helpers as we do and there are only around 20 000 of them. However, some 60 000 Philippine workers are working in factories. Although restricting the importation of workers would result in labour shortage and bring inconveniences, Taiwan people have not raised much opposition to the sanction measures because they want to seek redress for the fisherman.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2353

Let us look at the case of Hong Kong. According to the interactive public opinion poll conducted by now TV, nearly 90% of the respondents supported or considered it viable to impose sanction by way of restricting the importation of Philippine domestic helpers. Of the 160 000 people who had responded to the online public opinion poll conducted by Yahoo, 77% supported the suspension of importation of Philippine domestic helpers. Of the 1 382 people who had voted in the ET Net poll, 90% supported the imposition of sanctions against Philippine domestic helpers. When compared with the Government and this Council, it seems that members of the public have attached greater importance to the implementation of forceful and effective measures, and do not mind making sacrifices.

For the third category of people, I would call them the "fair play party". They consider it unfair to impose restrictions on Philippine domestic helpers coming to work in Hong Kong. Philippine domestic helpers belong to the under-privileged class in society who have to leave their country to make a living. Therefore, they should not be used as scapegoats. I would like to highlight one point, any form of sanction will have implication on the so-called innocent people and cause unfairness. This is why some people considered People Power's proposal unfair to Philippine domestic helpers. Some leftists even considered that the under-privileged are being bullied. But if we do not exert concrete pressure on the Philippine Government to make it compromise, is this fair to the victims' families and Hong Kong people? The more forceful, swift, harsh and accurate the sanction measures are, the easier it is to force the other party into compromise. If the Philippine Government is willing to compromise within three months and accept our four demands, the issue will be settled before April 2014 and there will be no need to genuinely impose sanction on Philippine domestic helpers. I therefore hope that Members will support our motion. Concerning the other sanction measures, regardless of whether they are harsh or not, I will discuss with an open attitude.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, the SAR Government has been highly concerned about the Manila hostage incident in which some Hong Kong residents were unfortunately killed and some others injured. We also deeply understand that the bereaved families, the injured and the whole community are still very infuriated and their grief has yet to be pacified.

2354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

I truly appreciate Members' concern about the incident. Apart from proposing various strategies and options on the follow up on the Manila hostage incident, the President of the Legislative Council had written, on behalf of all Legislative Council Members, to the Senate and House of Representatives of the Congress of the Philippines earlier, asking the Congress to urge the Philippine Government to proactively respond to the four demands of the injured and the bereaved families, and expeditiously hold a high-level official negotiation with the SAR Government, with a view to resolving the incident as soon as possible. During an adjournment debate in the Legislative Council two weeks ago, 18 Members expressed their views on the incident. In this motion debate today, I believe quite a number of Members will also express their views on how to resolve the incident.

Since the incident happened more than three years ago, in addition to providing assistance to the injured and the bereaved families, the SAR Government has, through the Central Government and the local Consulate General of the Philippines, continuously asked the Philippine Government to seriously follow up and respond to the four demands of the injured and the bereaved families, including apology, compensation, sanctions on officials responsible for the mishandling of the incident and devising and implementing effective measures to ensure the safety of tourists. All these demands are fair and reasonable.

We have recently made some progress in respect of this incident. In early October, while attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) Economic Leaders' meeting, the Chief Executive reported to State President about the latest development of the incident, and President XI directed relevant authorities to follow up on the spot. In addition, while attending meetings of the East Asian Leaders in Brunei, Premier LI Keqiang met and conveyed to the President of the Philippines that he was concerned that the Manila-hostage incident, which had remained unresolved for long, had aroused the sentiment of the Chinese citizens, in particular the Hong Kong people. He urged the Philippine Government to pay high attention and solemnly handle the aftermath of the incident, so as to resolve the incident in a reasonable and appropriate manner as soon as possible. When attending the APEC Economic Leaders' meeting, the Chief Executive met with the President of the Philippines for the first time and he took the initiative to request for a formal discussion on the hostage incident, which activated the subsequent formal meetings between both sides. During their meeting, the Chief Executive reiterated the four demands of the injured and the bereaved families. He clearly expressed his disagreement LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2355 with the view of the Philippine side that the incident had already been resolved. Both sides agreed to assign senior officials to conduct formal discussion on the incident. In the past few weeks, the SAR Government had contacts with the Philippine Government on the incident.

Last month, the Manila City Council passed a special resolution to tender a sincere apology to the SAR Government, the bereaved families and the injured in the hostage incident. On 23 October, the Manila Mayor assigned a City Councillor to come to Hong Kong to submit the relevant resolution to the SAR Government. He also had discussions with the SAR Government and the representatives of the bereaved families and the injured. The three parties agreed that the discussion had narrowed differences, and further discussion would be held, with a view to reaching a satisfactory proposal on the four demands of the bereaved families and the injured. We will continue to follow up on the incident with the Philippine Government and the City Government of Manila so as, to ensure that the Philippine side would explicitly respond to these demands and do justice to the bereaved families and the injured. The Chief Executive announced on Tuesday that, in order to resolve the Manila hostage incident as soon as possible, the SAR Government would continue to negotiate with the Philippines and it also urged the Philippine Government and/or the City Government of Manila to put forward appropriate and specific proposals expeditiously to respond to the demands of the bereaved families and the injured. The Chief Executive also stated that, unless substantial progress was made within one month, the SAR Government would take the necessary economic sanctions.

The SAR Government notes that various political parties and community groups have proposed different sanction measures. Recently, an organization had conducted an opinion poll on the follow-up work on the Philippine hostage incident. Among the 1 200 plus people interviewed, 65% considered that the SAR Government should impose sanctions on the Philippines. I believe a number of Members will also speak on this issue today.

President, I deeply believe that the community as a whole are united in one mind and the common goal is to meet the four demands of the bereaved families and the injured as soon as possible. I will listen carefully to the views of Members and give a response later.

Thank you, President.

2356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, one of the survivors of the Manila hostage tragedy, Ms LEE Ying-chuen, once described the SAR Government's attitude in handling the incident as being lax. But it seems that it has become tougher lately, and we certainly hope that it is serious this time.

Three years is indeed a very long period. Over the past three years, the victims' families, Hong Kong people and this Council have been waiting patiently, but it was only until recently that some actions have been taken. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen just now queried why the Government has become tougher all of a sudden and he asked us to ponder the reasons. President, I do have an observation. I noticed that Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying proposed the one-month deadline at a time when he was actually pressed by the media about the issuance of free television licences. Does LEUNG Chun-ying, who has been described as being lax, purposely adopt a tough attitude and make an empty promise to divert the public's attention? This is certainly the last thing that I wish to see, and this should not be the case. I trust that if this is just an empty promise made to divert the public's attention, Hong Kong people will not let go of him.

President, assuming that what LEUNG Chun-ying said was true, how optimistic can we be about making substantial progress within the one-month deadline? Of course, I have no idea about the details of the negotiation, which is supposed to be confidential. But summarizing different media reports, I have at least two observations and that the victims' families and the survivors have not reached any agreement with Manila City Councillor Bernardito ANG. There seems to be great differences between them.

The first observation is about apology. Which level of apology will the Philippines make? Will the President or the Mayor tender the apology, or is there any other suggestion? This is the first issue. The second issue which zero progress has been made is compensation. We seemed to learn from the City Councillor Bernardito ANG that the Philippine Government is not going to pay compensation from the public coffers. Instead, it has called for donations from investors in the Philippines, especially the Chinese businessmen, and the donations will be used as compensation. I wonder how the victims' families and the survivors of the Philippine hostage incident would think. Particularly, if the Philippine Government called for donations from Hong Kong businessmen who have invested in the Philippines to compensate the victims' families and the injured, they may not accept this kind of compensation. Therefore, we must LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2357 draw up a contingency plan because if the Chief Executive is serious about what he said, the one-month deadline will soon pass. What will the Government do if no substantial progress is made within one month?

President, the Civic Party has all along supported any ways or means to meet expeditiously the four reasonable demands of the victims' families and the survivors, and accord justice and dignity to them. Earlier, we have proposed to suspend all kinds of official exchanges between the two Governments unless the Philippine Government has resolved the compensation question over the hostage incident. Furthermore, we have called on the Government to announce once again the black travel alert for the Philippines, urging Hong Kong people not to visit the Philippines and to impose economic sanctions. When I first read Mrs Regina IP's amendment, I thought she has deleted all the relevant measures and thus found it hard to support her. But after listening to her speech, I learn that she actually supported all the measures. In that case, we will support her amendment. And yet, we still have reservation about supporting Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment at this stage. This is the only reservation that we have.

President, I wonder if you have noticed that the economic sanctions may really be effective because the microphone, now being used for recording my voice in this Council, is also made in the Philippines. Statistics shows that goods imported from the Philippines include electrical machinery, apparatus, appliances, and electrical parts; office machines and automatic data processing machines; telecommunications and sound recording and reproducing apparatus and equipment, and so on. Our trade deficit against the Philippines is nearly HK$40 billion per year. Therefore, the Civic Party will support today's original motion and all the amendments, except that we have some reservations about (The buzzer sounded) … Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment. I so submit.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, the Philippine hostage incident happened three years ago, and in various investigation reports published by the investigation committee in the Philippines, it was stated that a number of Philippine officials are in dereliction of duty in handling the incident. However, the Philippine Government still refused to admit responsibilities for this tragedy and it has been evasive in facing the demands for apology and compensation. In particular, the frivolous attitude of the Philippine President AQUINO III has enraged Hong Kong people. During these three years, the aspirations of the survivors and the victims' families for apology and compensation have not been 2358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 heeded. Not long ago, the Philippine media wrongly reported that "LEUNG Chun-ying agreed to put behind the incident" and "the family members have accepted the compensation", in an attempt to mislead Hong Kong people, dilute the matter and divert attention from the conflicts. This has in turn further infuriated the victims' families, the survivors and Hong Kong people, and has drawn greater concern about the incident.

Since the Government issued a black travel alert for the Philippines three years ago, the business of the tourism industry has undoubtedly been affected. For the sake of righteousness, most members of the industry have reached a consensus that they will not, for the sake of doing business, ask the Government to withdraw the black travel alert or proactively organize group tours to the Philippines before the hostage incident has been resolved. However, the Philippine side still turns a blind eye. In the face of the irresponsible attitude of the Philippine side, the victims' families, the injured as well as Hong Kong people have been rather rational and restrained; but this does not mean that we can tolerate repeated procrastination by the Philippine Government.

Recently, owing to the active follow-up actions taken by the SAR Government and the Chief Executive, as well as the concern expressed by leaders of the Central People's Government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, promising progress has been made. On 22 October, the Manila City Council passed a special resolution, authorizing Mayor Joseph ESTRADA to travel to Hong Kong to apologize for the hostage incident. Soon afterwards, Bernardito ANG, a Manila City Councillor, came to Hong Kong to deal with the hostage incident on behalf of the Manila Mayor, and he had constructive negotiations with Mr James TO who represented the victims' families and the injured. In the course of negotiation, Mr TO has kept the public informed of the situation and the Government has made relevant arrangements so as to avoid further complications. Thus, significant progress was made when compared with the previous negotiations. Nevertheless, Hong Kong people still find the attitude of the Philippine side unsatisfactory. Thus, the Chief Executive stated clearly on Tuesday that if the Philippine side failed to put forward an appropriate proposal within one month to respond to the demands of the victims' families, the Government would impose economic sanctions.

While I fully support the Chief Executive's clear stance, I think attention should be paid with regard to the strategies in imposing sanctions on the Philippines. On the premise of respecting the wishes of the victims' families and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2359 the injured, the Government should act in a rational and restrained manner, and should not take drastic actions hastily, so as to avoid a stalemate or even a lose-lose situation. I agree with Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment which "calls on the various sectors in the society to unite and support the SAR Government in holding negotiations with the Philippine Government on the Philippine hostage incident", and to impose sanctions only when the negotiations have no results.

Regarding the specific sanction measures, I think we can, as the first step, adopt the proposal in Mr SIN Chung-kai's amendment. On the one hand, the sanction measures proposed by Mr SIN Chung-kai can express Hong Kong people's dissatisfaction with the ways in which the Philippine Government has dealt with the incident, and such measures will cause insignificant damage to our economy; and on the other hand, it leaves some room for the next round of negotiation.

Concerning Mrs Regina IP's proposal to suspend the visa-free arrangement for Philippine visitors, I think the Government needs to consider seriously. According to the figures from the Hong Kong Tourism Board, about 710 000 Philippine people visited Hong Kong last year, and the Philippines is the fifth largest source of visitors to Hong Kong. If the Government unilaterally suspends the visa-free arrangement for Philippine visitors, Philippine people will definitely be discouraged to visit Hong Kong. While travel agencies will bear the brunt, other consumer industries including restaurants, hotels, transportation, retail and scenic spots, as well as our economy will be directly affected. In addition, quite a number of Philippine travellers come to Hong Kong for business, exchange activities or visiting friends and relatives, suspending the visa-free arrangement for Philippine visitors will cause inconvenience to those who suddenly decide to come to Hong Kong for urgent matters, and the normal exchanges between people in the two places will also be affected, which is a lose-lose solution. Unless there are no other alternatives, I hope the Government will not go that far. Hence, I will vote against the amendment.

As regards Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's proposal to restrict the entry of Philippine domestic helpers, the impacts are even greater. There are some 320 000 foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong, and about 50% of them are from the Philippines. If the Government stops issuing employment visas, the everyday lives of over 100 000 households and several hundred thousand Hong Kong residents will be affected. At present, as there is a significant labour 2360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 shortage in Hong Kong, it is very difficult and even impossible to identify ways to replace Philippine domestic helpers. Therefore, I will vote against this amendment.

After three years, progress has finally been made on the Philippine hostage incident. I hope that the Philippine side would fully respect the aspirations of the victims' families and the injured, and would not miss the best opportunity for negotiations at the moment. They should take the initiative to propose reasonable solutions and refrain from forcing the Government to take more stringent sanction measures.

I so submit, President.

MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): President, it has always been said that time flies. Time really passes quickly and three years have flashed by, but for the victims in the Philippine hostage incident and their families, days wear on like years.

I remember that three years ago when the incident happened, Hong Kong people witnessed the whole process in front of the television. At first, we were optimistic that the incident could be resolved, but it ended up in bloodshed with eight Hong Kong people shot to death and a number injured. Some victims still have to undergo surgeries today.

While people were grieved to see those Hong Kong people falling victims and died innocently, they were also outraged by the incompetent Philippine Government who did not care about human lives. Families of the victims have insisted on seeking justice over the past few years; all they ask for are a sincere apology from the Philippine Government and compensation. As the incident was live broadcast to the world, everyone jeered at the incompetence of the Philippine Government in handling the incident. It is therefore indisputable for the Philippine Government to apologize for mishandling the incident and causing such serious casualties.

For the victims and their families, some have been subject to endless medical treatment, some have lost their breadwinners and some have to bear additional expenses because they have partially lost their earning capacity. Therefore, it is completely reasonable to ask the party in default, which is the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2361

Government of a country, to offer such an insignificant compensation. It is indeed a very basic demand for the victims' families to seek apology and compensation. However, it has been three years since the incident occurred but the Philippine Government is still finding excuses and procrastinating. I remember that in August this year, mother of the deceased tour guide, Masa TSE, expressed her sorrow and remembrance in "Hong Kong Letter", a radio programme of the Radio Television Hong Kong. It was indeed heartrending. Mrs TSE still missed Masa very much, and such feeling was particularly acute when the whole family gathered for a meal. His absence was strongly felt. Listeners who are parents shared her deep sorrow. Mrs TSE thought that the truth was simple and the Philippine authorities should assume responsibility after an investigation by the Coroner's Court, but the incident has dragged on for three years without any progress.

As a social worker, I know very well that if this traumatic incidents drags on, it is not just a torture to the victims and their families, but is also detrimental to their physical and mental well-being. The Government has kept on saying that it would seek justice for them, but as Mrs TSE has said, she has heard the same response time and again over the past three years. Secretary for Security LAI Tung-kwok also said that he has followed up on the incident with the local Consulate General of the Philippines for more than 20 times.

Nevertheless, I would like to tell Secretary LAI Tung-kwok that this does not show that he has worked hard to follow up on the incident. Rather, people would query if he is incapable as no progress has been made after more than 20 times of follow-up. It gives an impression that he is muddling along without making real progress.

In fact, the victims' families are very disappointed with the HKSAR Government, and have thus placed their hopes on the Central Government. The Secretary said that progress has been made in the negotiation with the Philippine authorities and stressed that a sincere apology is worth more than money, I nonetheless want to remind the Secretary that this is just his own wishful thinking. He should grasp the actual needs of the victims and their families, listen to them and resolutely insist on the fight for their four demands.

President, the motion proposes that the Government should impose economic sanctions on the Philippine Government. While I agree to exert greater efforts to hold the Philippine Government responsible, I am worried that if 2362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 the sanction measures are not carefully formulated, they may turn out to become the "seven injuries boxing", one who practices this kind of martial arts will injure himself as well others. I think this is the last thing the victims' families would want to see.

Last week, Manila City Councillor, Bernardito ANG, breached the confidentiality agreement by disclosing the compensation amount. I wonder if this is another dirty trick played by the Philippines after AQUINO belittled our Chief Executive. I seriously doubt the sincerity of the Philippine Government in the negotiation. According to Bernardito ANG, a Philippine soldier killed in action would just get HK$50,000. I can only say that the country shows no mercy to its nationals, but this not should be the standard on which our discussion on the compensation amount is based. It is an insult to measure human lives in monetary terms, and this shows how cold-blooded the Philippine Government is. I do not mean to say that the lives of Hong Kong people are more valuable as all human lives are invaluable.

President, I notice from the negotiation process that the Philippine Government has been lacking sincerity. I therefore suggest that we should continue to press on the Philippine Government, and both the Government and the community should unite together and escalate our actions by phases until our goal is reached.

President, I so submit.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, it has been more than three years since the Philippine hostage incident occurred, but the Philippine Government has not made any formal apology or compensation for the incident so far, thus making it difficult for the families concerned and the survivors to relief their pain. While expressing intense anger, the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong (BPA) has not forgotten to help out with the incident. Noting that the Chief Executive has vowed to impose necessary sanctions on the Philippines if the negotiation does not bring material results in one month, the BPA will continue to make use of its channels and do its very best at this critical moment to expeditiously work out a reasonable solution.

For the four demands made by Hong Kong people to the Philippine Government, that is, to apologize for the incident, to offer compensation, to penalize the relevant officials for dereliction of duty and to implement measures LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2363 to protect Hong Kong tourists' personal safety in the Philippines, the BPA, as a member of Hong Kong, has been liaising with the Chinese leaders and business associations in the Philippines through our social links and channels, hoping that they can exert their influences and urge the Philippine Government to seriously handle the incident and assume its due responsibility.

Meanwhile, apart from supporting to maintain the black travel alert for the Philippines, the BPA has also followed up on the incident with the local tourism sector, which includes requesting the Philippines to step up the protection for tourists' safety. Since early 2012, the Philippine Government has deployed uniformed tourist police in major tourist spots, such as the Rizal Park and big shopping malls.

President, in connection with this hostage incident, I would like to express my views on the current impasse as a Chinese who had lived in the Philippines for a period of time. From my contacts with the Chinese associations in the Philippines and our correspondences these days, I understand that the Manila City Council and Mayor Joseph ESTRADA, as well as the local Chinese are very sincere in resolving the issue, not only because they feel sorry about the incident, but also because they do not want to see the relationship between the people of Hong Kong and the Philippines turns sour. The key therefore lies in the attitude of the Philippine Government towards an expeditious resolution of the incident.

President, we have now come to a very critical stage as the Central Government and all Hong Kong people cannot wait any more after dragging for three years, and the pitiless attitude of the President of the Philippines, AQUINO III has made our blood boil. In fact, the Philippines and Hong Kong have published investigation reports on the incident, and both revealed that the tragedy was caused by a series of blunders made by the Philippine officials. They should therefore assume responsibilities for their mistakes. I think Hong Kong people are rational in this regard. AQUINO is duty-bound to make a formal apology for the incident in which Hong Kong people were killed and injured, regardless of whether he does it in his capacity as the President, in the name of the Philippine Government or delegates other officials to do so.

As for compensation, since the financial position of the Manila City Government is not sound, a compensation of HK$20 million (about 123 million pesos) to the victims' families and the survivors will use up nearly half of the reserves of the City Government. This is why they have been raising funds from 2364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 local businessmen these days. As businessmen in the Philippines are mostly Chinese, this fund-raising campaign was seen as a move to force the local Chinese into sponsorship. On the other hand, the Chinese leaders in the Philippines told me that the fund-raising campaign was actually initiated by the local community. This is not an extortion of the Chinese by the Government, as depicted by some people, nor is the Government insincere in making compensation. According to my knowledge, the fund-raising campaign is truly spontaneous. As the local Chinese have settled in the Philippines long ago, they are nationals of the Philippines and feel obliged to contribute their money and efforts when the country needs help. I hope the victims' families will understand this and no misunderstandings will arise.

Regarding the different levels of sanctions proposed by a number of colleagues in this Council, the Chief Executive has issued an ultimatum to the Philippine authorities on Tuesday asking for due responses to the four demands of the victims' families, or else necessary sanction measures would be taken one month later. I believe this is an essential move to urge the Philippine authorities to look squarely at Hong Kong people's demands. However, this is definitely the last thing that I wish to see, not because I want to protect the Philippines, but because most of the sanction measures will hurt the Philippine people and the local Chinese, as well as undermine the interests of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is a free and open city, the abolition of the visa-free arrangement will have an impact on people who are coming to Hong Kong for business or exchanges. Therefore, we must think twice before introducing any sanction measure.

With these remarks, President, I support the seeking of justice from the Philippine Government.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): First of all, I would like to thank People Power for proposing this motion, otherwise, we will not be able to follow up on this incident at a Council meeting again and the Chief Executive would not rush to make a statement on Tuesday, claiming that the Government might take tougher measures.

Three years have passed since the Philippine hostage incident and the problem has not been resolved from the past Donald TSANG Administration to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2365 the present LEUNG Chun-ying Administration. Many Hong Kong people and I still vividly recall the live television broadcast of how the Philippine special squad stormed the coach; this particular scene had deeply saddened us. Hong Kong people could hardly forget the unprofessional performance of the special squad, and the indifferent attitude of the Philippine Government officials at various levels on the evening of the incident and thereafter. For three years, with the assistance of Mr James TO, the survivors in the hostage incident and the victims' families have persistently taken up the matter with the Philippine Government, hoping to get an apology owed to them. However, the Philippine Government has time and again treated them with contempt and evaded its responsibilities. Hong Kong people gnash their teeth whenever the words and deeds of the Philippine President on the hostage incident are mentioned, and our Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying is the only one who acts differently.

Last month, when attending the APEC Economic Leaders' meeting, Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying met with the Philippine President AQUINO III for the first time in the capacity as the Chief Executive of the HKSAR. Nevertheless, the media captured LEUNG Chun-ying talking and laughing with the Philippine President. As the highest decision maker of the SAR Government, LEUNG Chun-ying wore a smile on his face at the meeting, a good reflection that the Government did not have the heart or strength to resolve the Philippine hostage incident. In the subsequent formal meeting, AQUINO III violated diplomatic protocol and arranged the meeting in such a way that humiliated the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive of Hong Kong had become a laughing stock and made a fool of himself. The feeble attitude of the SAR Government towards the Philippine Government has given many Hong Kong people a strong feeling that LEUNG Chun-ying had brought shame and dishonour to Hong Kong. More importantly, the reasonable demands of the survivors and the victims' families, which include apology, compensation and sanction, are all the more difficult to meet.

President, the Manila City Council recently passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor of the Manila City to apologize to the SAR, the victims and their family members. It is surprising that the Security Bureau has acted as a "peacemaker", trying to arrange the Mayor's representative to meet with the representatives of the victims to resolve the incident expeditiously, so as to attain some political achievements. However, the victims' families and the injured in the hostage incident have four demands, requesting the Philippine Government to 2366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 apologize, offer compensations, penalize the officials for dereliction of duty, and ensure that similar incidents will not happen again. As such, either the representative of the Manila Mayor or the Mayor himself obviously cannot act on behalf of the Philippine Government, not to mention the right to penalize the officials for dereliction of duty.

At a media interview, the City Councillor representing the Manila Mayor even criticized that the victims' families in the hostage incident should not ask the Philippine President to apologize on behalf of the Philippine people because the Philippine people had not done anything wrong to Hong Kong people. In fact, the Philippine people had been "represented" in the past. The Philippine President had apologized on their behalf to Taiwan as it has decisively decided to impose economic sanctions on the Philippines. In August this year, after the Guang Da Xing No. 28 incident, the Philippine Government asked its representative in Taiwan to issue a statement of apology, expressing regret and apology of the Philippine people, but the words the "Philippine Government" were deliberately avoided. Consequently, the Taiwan Government refused to accept the apology and economic sanction measures were activated. Eventually, the Philippine President had to make a formal apology.

President, the hostage incident is really not the fault of the Philippine people, but the investigation report published by the Secretary of Justice of the Philippines clearly stated that some government officials should be held responsible for the hostage tragedy, and AQUINO III, as the head of the Government, had the responsibility to apologize and penalize the officials concerned. Nonetheless, in view of the insincerity of the Philippine authorities in a spate of incidents, and coupled with the Taiwan's Guang Da Xing No. 28 incident, it is well evident that the SAR Government must take tougher measures to force the Philippine Government to give a positive response to the incident. President, the media cited the data released by the Trade and Industry Department in September this year, which showed that the total imports from the Philippines to Hong Kong in 2012 amounted to $41 billion. Even excluding re-exports, there was still a huge trade deficit of up to $18.4 billion. Hong Kong definitely has the power to impose economic sanctions on the Philippines.

The Neo Democrats is in favour of Mr Albert CHAN's original motion and suggests imposing sanctions on the Philippines in phases. In the first three to six months, we can impose economic sanctions; if no progress is made in three to six months, we can suspend the issuance of employment visas to Philippine domestic LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2367 helpers who have not yet come to Hong Kong. The Neo Democrats hopes that the Government will not just engage in empty talks; it should make specific commitments and expeditiously propose specific sanction measures, so as to urge the Philippines to respond to the four demands of the victims' families and the injured, and restore Hong Kong people's dignity and justice.

President, I so submit.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, on 23 August three years ago, all Hong Kong people witnessed in front of the television a tragedy which we still feel aggrieved. In that tragedy, eight Hong Kong tourists were killed and seven injured. Among them, Ms YICK Siu-ling was seriously injured.

The incident made all members of the community flew into a fury. As we all remember, 80 000 people took to the streets on 29 August that year. The community as a whole felt sad and extremely angry about the incompetent Philippine Government. When we revisit the matter three years later, most Hong Kong people still cannot forget the sorrow. However, what made Hong Kong people even more grieved is that it is the SAR Government but not the Philippine Government that has rubbed salt into the wounds. The public have the impression that the SAR Government is in a quandary and it has brought shame to Hong Kong people.

When the LEUNG Chun-ying Government took office last year, the family members of the deceased and injured (especially the brother of Masa TSE the tour guide) already asked the SAR Government to follow up on the matter. Regrettably, LEUNG Chun-ying refused to meet them. On 24 August last year (the second anniversary of the incident), the Chief Executive only instructed , Director of the Chief Executive's Office, and LAI Tung-kwok, Secretary for Security, who is now sitting opposite to me, to meet with the family members of the deceased and injured. The only commitment made to them was that during the bilateral talks with Philippine President AQUINO III at the APEC meeting to be held in September in Russia, the Government might directly put forward to him the four demands of the family members of the deceased and injured, which included apology, compensation, accountability and enhancement of the safety of tourists.

2368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

We may have forgotten that at that time, Hong Kong was undergoing a national education crisis created by the LEUNG Chun-ying Government. The crisis can be described as a big mess. The situation at the time was somewhat similar to the situation of today or yesterday, with tens of thousands of people besieging the Central Government Offices. In the face of this situation, LEUNG Chun-ying decided to cancel the trip and asked John TSANG to attend the meeting on his behalf. A year later, he has not taken the initiative to talk about the incident, but he suddenly became very imposing the day before yesterday, expressing his consent to impose sanctions. He acted like a totally different person.

Nevertheless, just like me, many people have been deceived by LEUNG Chun-ying once, twice, thrice and even four times, and we no longer believe in him. A Member of this Council once commented that for LEUNG Chun-ying "what is said is considered to be done". This is really an apt description. Perhaps he will eventually tell us that he has taken action. He proposed economic sanctions before a meeting was held on 5 November to discuss economic sanctions and before the debate held on 6 November about invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Is that right? Yet, he may only want to divert attention from some pressure and the public's concern about the licensing crisis.

The performance of the Philippine Government is nothing surprising. We still recall that, on the day when the hostage incident took place, the former Chief Executive, Donald TSANG, gave AQUINO III a call but he did not answer, a move implying that Donald TSANG was not on a equal standing to hold discussion with him. Later, the SAR Government wrote to AQUINO III, pointing out his shortcomings in handling the incident and proposing the actions to be taken by the Philippine Government. At the press conference on 9 September, AQUINO III responded to the SAR Government, indicating that he was unhappy with the tone of the letter.

In fact, we should have discussed the implementation of economic sanction measures long ago, and it may be too late to discuss now. Nonetheless, the sanction measures must be strong enough to have effects. As evident from the Guang Da Xing incident, the Philippine economy relies heavily on export trade.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2369

In the original motion and various amendments, the most powerful sanction measures should be those proposed by Mr SIN Chung-kai, apart from the measures concerning Philippine domestic helpers as proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. The sanction measures proposed by Mr SIN Chung-kai include suspending the procurement of Philippine products and suspending the negotiations on air freedom rights. The goods that Hong Kong imported from the Philippines amounted to tens of billions of dollars, if Hong Kong stops importing Philippine goods, this would constitute real pressure on the Philippine Government. On the contrary, Mrs Regina IP's proposal of suspending the visa-free arrangement for Philippine visitors is a bit like loud thunder but small raindrops and not only the Philippines will suffer. As Mr YIU Si-wing has said a while ago, this move may have even greater damages or impacts on our tourism industry. Even so, Hong Kong should be able to cope with it.

Finally, I would like to say that the situation of Ms YICK Siu-ling still arouses much concern. It is said that she still needs $1 million more to pay for surgeries. In such an affluent society as Hong Kong where the Government has the financial means, why should a victim behave servilely for the sake of getting compensations (The buzzer sounded) … I so submit. On this incident, I hope the Government …

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, over the past three years after the tragedy, the Government has not been actively handling the incident. However, after the leaders of the Central Government have recently indicated their stance that the Philippine Government should resolve the incident in a reasonable and appropriate manner, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) has indeed taken positive actions. On behalf of the victims' families and the injured, I would like to extend our gratitude to the Central Government for the support given.

Over the past few weeks, I have been urging the Government to issue an ultimatum, stating, for example, that the Hong Kong Government would impose first stage sanctions if no substantial progress has been made within one month. The Chief Executive eventually issued an ultimatum the day before yesterday, stating that sanctions would be imposed if no substantial progress has been made within one month. Although the ultimatum came a bit late, it is still an important step forward. I believe it is related with the powerful support given by the Central Government.

2370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Earlier, the Chief Executive has initially reached an agreement with the President of the Philippines that a negotiation between officials of ministerial level from both sides would be held later. However, it seems that no progress has been made after his return to Hong Kong. However, all of a sudden, Mr ANG, a City Councillor, came to Hong Kong and requested for a meeting with the bereaved families and to offer an apology on behalf of the Mayor. The families certainly would not want to meet hastily with Mr ANG face-to-face, and they would like me to meet with him first on their behalf.

I would like to clarify on this occasion that the SAR Government has not stayed aloof after Mr ANG came to Hong Kong. Why has the Secretary or the Under Secretary not met with Mr ANG then? In fact, after discussing with the bereaved families and the Government, we have decided that, in order to avoid making the same mistake of allowing Hong Kong to be treated inferior because of certain inappropriate arrangements, I would meet with Mr ANG so that it would be a meeting between two City Councillors. The SAR Government has been actively making arrangements during the whole process. It has completely understood what happened in each and every meeting, it has participated actively in the matter and made proposals to Mr ANG on different occasions in response to the demands of the families. The families have had adequate discussions with the Government in relation to questions ranging from negotiation tactics to the demands made.

After two rounds of negotiations, the differences between the parties have been narrowed and some progress has been made these few days. I believe that the sanctions discussed recently, including the measures proposed in this motion today, have imposed pressure on the Philippines and may help to increase the chance of achieving a fair and reasonable resolution. The results of the recent opinion polls also indicate that the public is still supportive of the demands made by the families. That has given the families great comfort and encouragement.

Finally, I would like to talk about the amount of compensation reported in the media. As we are talking about eight people killed, three seriously injured and many others who suffered minor injuries, do we think that the amount discussed as reported is ridiculous and completely unreasonable? I expect the SAR Government would continue to impose pressure on the Philippines so that a fair and reasonable resolution can be reached for the victims' families and the injured as soon as possible.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2371

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

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): First, I would like to pay tribute to the victims' families and the injured. Their perseverance in the matter has reminded the people of Hong Kong that we should act without delay and we should pursue justice and responsibilities.

President, three years have gone by since the Manila hostage incident in which eight were killed and seven injured, but scenes of the tragic incident were still deeply imprinted in everyone's mind, not to mention the grief and torment suffered by the victims. Going through grief does not mean giving up the pursuit of justice and responsibilities. That is particularly true given that the Incident Investigation and Review committee, set up under the instruction of the President of the Philippines AQUINO III, categorically pointed out the blunders of the authorities in the incident. However, the Philippine authorities have been evading responsibilities over the past three years. During the recent negotiations, they have also resorted to all kinds of manoeuvres and tricks, and their attitudes are despicable indeed.

However, when compared with the incompetence and craftiness of our Government, as well as the naivety of LEUNG Chun-ying in handling foreign affairs, the perseverance and determination shown by the victims' families and the injured far more warrant our respect. They are guileless and straight-forward, have nothing to hide and insist on pursuing responsibilities. Their perseverance over the past three years has reminded the people of Hong Kong that we have to pursue justice. These people are members of our community, we can feel their suffering, and their dignity is our dignity. The steadfast determination to pursue justice and responsibilities is the quality which makes a person respectable and a country strong. It is the spirit that draws the society together and the cornerstone of a safe and peaceful community.

President, the handling of the hostage incident has demonstrated the weakness of the Hong Kong Government and the rascal nature of the Philippine Government. LEUNG Chun-ying has acted and behaved naively in handling foreign affairs. It was highly inappropriate for him to wear a gloating smile when meeting with the President of the Philippines. Perhaps in the eyes of LEUNG Chun-ying, the pursuit of justice by the victims' families and their demand for an apology from the Philippines was only a chess piece. He had 2372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 hoped that his meeting with the President of the Philippines when attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation Economic Leaders' meeting would raise his popularity, yet his actions were met with a rebuff. The meeting between LEUNG Chun-ying and AQUINO III was like a sampan sailing alongside an ocean liner in the sea. LEUNG was being subdued in every aspect, and he was even unaware of being taken advantage of. The President of the Philippines received LEUNG Chun-ying in a condescending manner, and then unilaterally announced the contents of their dialogue which were favourable to him. He blew his own trumpet before the local media without paying the slightest respect to the people of Hong Kong. LEUNG Chun-ying could hardly hit back and had to rely on "Grandpa" to pick up the pieces. Regarding the latest progress of the negotiation, the level of negotiation has been downgraded from the state level to the city level, and the compensation is to come from the donations of the Chinese in the Philippines. Will the people of Hong Kong accept such a situation?

LEUNG Chun-ying once said that plans and strategies had been devised by the Government for handling the hostage incident, yet all the details could not be disclosed. However, the day before yesterday, LEUNG said that sanctions would be imposed if no substantial progress was made within one month; and yesterday, we held a motion debate on invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to require the Government to produce papers involved in processing the television licence applications. What does he mean by "substantial progress"? It can mean moving one step or 100 steps ahead. What then is regarded as "substantial progress"? Once again, this kind of double-talk has frequently been used by him and it is a trick which we are accustomed to. I only want to know what kind of a government do we have. What does the Government mean by "sanctions"? What are the strategies to be adopted in imposing sanctions?

In any negotiations between two countries, or in handling arguments over the foreign affairs between China and the Philippines, it is a common practice that both sides would at least state their basic stance and approach. However, on this occasion, everything is kept confidential. Is this a wise approach? From the experience of Taiwan in handling disputes a few months ago, we notice that Taiwan had not kept any information confidential and had made public all the course of action. The Taiwan Government was resolute to impose sanction once the proposal was raised. Obviously, the Philippine Government was more responsive to a "hard approach" than a "soft approach". Seeing that the Taiwan Government had taken such a firm stance, it immediately apologized. President, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2373 it is most unfortunate that we have a case for comparison; otherwise, we would have thought that our Government has been acting properly. But since we have this successful precedent, we will question why the approach taken by Taiwan cannot be considered by the Government. We can only sigh in disapproval and wonder what on earth the SAR Government and LEUNG Chun-ying are doing.

Apparently, the hard measures taken by the Taiwan Government and the concerted efforts made by the Taiwanese people have made the Philippine Government tender an official apology three months after the incident. Has the Hong Kong Government drawn on the experience of the approach taken by the Taiwan Government at all? I believe that the people of Hong Kong are all determined that the issue should be resolved properly. I have no doubt that we all side with the victims' families and the injured. The problem is that we cannot be convinced that the Government has the ability to handle the matter. It lacks representativeness and acceptability; it lacks the will, the capability, the strength and the strategies in accomplishing anything. It indulges in empty talk without taking any action. How can such a government do some real work for us? I hope the SAR Government can take a firmer stance on this issue, in order to indicate that this territory, which belongs to China, should have the due dignity.

The Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood considers that certain strategies can be adopted, including suspending official dealings and civilian exchanges with the Philippines, imposing concrete economic sanctions and putting restrictions on the issuance of new employment visas to Philippine domestic helpers as long as the measure does not affect employers who have currently employed Philippine domestic helpers. I hope that the Government will treat the matter even more seriously than we do. Thank you, President.

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, the motion proposed today urges the Government to impose economic sanctions on the Philippines and to restore dignity to the people of Hong Kong. It has been more than three years since the Manila hostage incident. Over the past three years, the bereaved families have been seeking to negotiate with the Philippine Government, asking for an inquiry into the incident and demanding the persons responsible to be penalized. Unfortunately, the Philippine Government has behaved arrogantly and has been refusing for long to negotiate on the questions of apology and compensation.

2374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

In addition, while attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation Economic Leaders' meeting, the Chief Executive specially arranged to meet with the President of the Philippines on the hostage incident. During the meeting, the Philippine side had made inappropriate seating arrangement that made Hong Kong look inferior; had unilaterally videotaped the meeting and released part of the clips. The Philippine side had totally ignored diplomatic protocol and paid no respect to the HKSAR Government. The rudeness of the Philippine authorities had raised the attention of the Central Government and Premier LI Keqiang therefore asked the President of the Philippines to resolve the issue properly as soon as possible.

Upon the intervention of the Premier, the Philippine authorities finally took certain actions. Earlier, the City Council of Manila passed a resolution to offer an apology to the SAR Government and the bereaved families and the Mayor of Manila would take the lead in conducting the conciliation work. The Mayor will visit Hong Kong in due course and Mr Bernardito ANG, a City Councillor of Manila, had visited Hong Kong earlier. Mr ANG had met with representatives of the Security Bureau and the families separately to discuss issues such as compensation and apology. However, it has been reported that the divergences are still great.

I agree that the Government and the families should, at this stage, first negotiate actively with the Philippine side, with a view to striving for an official apology from the Philippines and concluding a settlement agreement expeditiously, so that the four aspirations of apology, compensation, accountability and improvement can be met, the confidence of Hong Kong in the Philippines can be regained and the relationship between the two places restored. However, if the Philippine authorities do not show sincerity in resolving the problem, we should, in the next stage, impose sanctions which will exert pressure on the Philippines but not affect the lives of the people of Hong Kong.

It is true that the incident has caused trauma to the bereaved families and the survivors of the hostage incident. Any delay in resolving the issue is not good for anyone and a timely settlement of the matter is preferred. However, since the incident involves international and foreign affairs, it should be handled carefully. In fact, the Government has already taken a tougher approach and the Chief Executive has said clearly that sanctions would be imposed on the Philippines unless substantial progress was made within one month.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2375

Regarding the actions to be taken, I think the proposals put forward by Mrs Regina IP to suspend the visa-free arrangement for Philippine visitors and to tighten the arrangements for issuing business and employment visas to Philippine passport holders are worthy of consideration. These measures will have the slightest impact on Hong Kong while exerting substantial pressure on the Philippines. However, we should continue to seek for a fruitful outcome through negotiation at this stage. If a consensus cannot be reached eventually, it will not be too late for the Government to consider this proposal then. Since it would only require giving the other party a seven-day notice to implement the sanction measures, it is a very simple and feasible approach.

Furthermore, a Member has suggested the Government to suspend the procurement of Philippine products, call on the commercial sector to suspend their commercial exchanges with the Philippines and even boycott Philippine goods. If we look at the figures provided by the Trade and Industry Department, our imports from the Philippines in 2012 amounted to a total of HK$41 billion and the imported goods mainly included various kinds of electrical machinery and telecommunications equipment. Boycotting Philippine goods without proper consideration will certainly impact on the trade and industry of Hong Kong. In addition, as Hong Kong is a member of the World Trade Organization and a world-famous free trade port, suspension of foreign trade dealings has almost been unheard of. If we rashly boycott Philippine goods, Hong Kong's reputation as a free trade port will be tarnished, and this is a very unwise move.

Besides, there are views in the community that the Government should impose stricter sanctions on the Philippines, such as suspending the issuance of employment visas to Philippine domestic helpers. I think such a measure would directly affect the lives of the people of Hong Kong. As a small move may lead to a chain of reactions, the consequences can be disastrous. According to the figures provided by the Immigration Department, there are over 310 000 foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong and about half of them are from the Philippines. Many young children, elderly people and people suffering from mobility problems in many families are taken care of by Philippine domestic helpers. If the employment visas of these helpers are to be cancelled, the daily lives of many families in Hong Kong will be seriously affected.

I so submit.

2376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, it has been three years since the Philippine hostage incident. Recently, it seems that the dark clouds have been cleared, and there are some gradual progress. Under the support of the Central Government, the SAR Government started to hold discussion with the higher officials of the Philippines. Although Mr James TO and I have different political opinions, I do agree with the conclusion he has just made, that is, the strong support of the Central Government has brought significant progress on the hostage incident. However, while there is progress, it does not mean that the situation is optimistic.

As viewed from various perspectives, the President of the Philippines AQUINO III is rather immature and arrogant in dealing with political affairs. In handling the hostage incident, he broke the established international diplomatic practices by disclosing something concerning his discussion with the Chief Executive which both parties had agreed not to disclose. The Philippine side had also unilaterally made public some views which they considered to be correct; as a result, Hong Kong people were furious with President AQUINO III.

Regarding today's motion, similarly, although Mr Albert CHAN and I have different political opinions, I do respect his strong attitude. I also hope that the SAR Government can adopt a tougher stance in dealing with the shameless Philippine Government. Just like the Japanese who deny the Nanjing Massacre, the Philippine Government is an ostrich, fooling others and making a mockery of itself. Therefore, the SAR Government should, backed by the Central Government and with the support of all people of Hong Kong, adopt an unyielding attitude in putting forward to the Philippine Government our four demands in respect of the hostage incident.

Although Chief Executive Mr LEUNG Chun-ying announced earlier that unless substantial progress was made within one month, sanction measures would be imposed. I am not sure what kind of sanctions the Government will impose. Today we are discussing some sanction measures in this Council. I agree with the proposal of Mrs Regina IP to suspend immediately the visa-free arrangement for Philippine visitors. This measure has immediate and direct effect on Philippine people. When they know that Hong Kong people are extremely angry, they would put pressure on the high-ranking officials of their Government.

Although a Manila City Councillor had recently come to Hong Kong, saying that compensation and apology would be offered, as pointed out by Mr LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2377

James TO just now, the demands of the victims' families have not been fully met, and the demand of Hong Kong people for apology and compensation from the Philippine Government has also not been met. As such, I think the SAR Government should take proactive actions and propose some options for discussion with the Philippines; otherwise the issue will just drag on. The Philippine Government even asks its people to donate money for compensation. In my view, compensation is secondary, dignity is of utmost importance. Therefore, the SAR Government should stand firm and ask the Philippine Government to conduct a government-to-government negotiation expeditiously, and reach an agreement on compensation. Otherwise, we need not negotiate any more. It is thus very important to impose more forceful sanctions.

Just now, I heard some Members criticizing the SAR Government for being feeble, incompetent and idiotic. In handling the Philippine hostage incident, I believe different political parties and affiliations should unite together and point our guns outward, only in this way can fruitful results be attained. Take for example the incident of a Taiwanese being shot. Different sectors in Taiwan supported its Government to negotiate with the Philippines; the Taiwan Government thus had strong bargaining power. Hence, if progress is to be made by the SAR Government in handling the hostage incident, apart from the support of the Central Government, people from all walks of life should support the Government for further actions.

President, I am in support of the amendments proposed by Mrs Regina IP and Mr IP Kwok-him. I so submit, thank you.

MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): Once I speak on this subject, I cannot help recalling some painful memories. That is because in the hostage incident, Mr Ken LEUNG, Jason's father, was both my friend and my schoolmate in the university. When I saw on television the cheeky grin of the Philippine President and how the whole incident was handled, I was especially furious given my relationship with the deceased and the injured. I definitely understand that the Government has been putting in efforts, and I am glad that at least some progress has been made. I hope that the Government can be more forceful.

I do not understand why the President of the Philippines repeatedly said that he would not apologize for the fault of others. I hope that my Honourable colleagues can explain to me, should a president represent the Government of a 2378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 country, and should the Government in turn represent the people of the country? How then can a president say that there is no need for him to apologize for the mistake made by someone in his country, as if this has nothing to do with him? I totally fail to understand what kind of logic it is.

In respect of the incident, I of course support the motions and amendments proposed by Mr Albert CHAN and some other Members. We should take some strong and forceful measures. I also heard from the Chief Executive that he would take some steps and measures if no substantial progress was made within one month. The Liberal Party will support whatever steps and measures to be taken.

Our Party Chair Ms Selina CHOW has expressed the stance of the Liberal Party on the incident. The Liberal Party proposes to mobilize the general public to exert pressure on the Philippine authorities. Apart from the "one person, one email" action within our Party, we also hope that the public can impose their own sanctions by not travelling to the Philippines or buying Philippine products. Both the business sector and the Government can procure from other places the products or goods that are now procured from the Philippines.

The Liberal Party does not support forbidding the employment of Philippine domestic helpers or non-renewal of their contract as this will affect the livelihood of the Philippine people. We consider it unfair to punish the people for the fault of their President and the Government. Therefore, we are basically in support of the motion and all amendments today, except the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen because his amendment restricts the employment of Philippine domestic helpers and their renewal of contract.

President, I so submit.

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): The Philippine hostage tragedy has plagued Hong Kong for three years. We feel sad and indignant. I would like to take this chance to thank Mr James TO for his efforts in representing the victims' families and the injured to fight for fair and reasonable compensations during this period. I think Mr James TO has put in a lot of attention and efforts.

The fact that the SAR Government could recently meet with the President of the Philippines AQUINO III has undoubtedly demonstrated the strength of our LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2379 country. Today, the Chinese people are no longer the sick men of East Asia more than a century ago. The Chinese people have risen in power. Hong Kong people are members of the Chinese family, and with the powerful China as our backbone, Hong Kong people can stand firm.

During the negotiation process, I notice that the media has proposed sanctions on certain products, such as San Miguel Beer. I agree that we do have to take effective measures, but not directing against products exported to Hong Kong for foreign remittance, but against the arrogant, rude and inhumane Philippine Government. Sanction measures should not harm others without benefiting ourselves. Forbidding Philippine domestic helpers from working in Hong Kong is a case in point. Instead of penalizing the relevant Philippine leaders, this measure will adversely affect Philippine people as well as the general public of Hong Kong. Therefore, we should consider carefully before imposing any sanction measure.

As regards whether we should impose trade sanctions, we can conduct further study in this regard as Hong Kong is the seventh or eighth major exporters of the Philippines. In addition, I also support Mrs Regina IP's proposal of suspending the visa-free arrangement for Philippine visitors, as this will be a more effective measure. When we raise this proposal, the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines reacted immediately, implying that this measure has hit the mark. The authorities should examine carefully if this measure can forcefully and effectively penalize the Philippine Government for their arrogant attitude and inhumane practices.

I will support the original motion and other amendments except the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen about sanction measures against Philippine domestic helpers which is inappropriate.

Thank you, President.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, three years has passed since the Philippine hostage incident in which eight Hong Kong people were killed and seven injured. The SAR Government has been very slack in handling the incident, in particular Donald TSANG who had done nothing at all. One of the survivors in the incident, Ms LEE Ying-chuen, described the attitude of the SAR Government in dealing with the incident as being lax. She also said that 2380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 the Government acted as if it were a post office. In other words, it plays the role of a messenger. When the bereaved families pursue claims for compensation, the SAR Government passes the message to the Philippine Government and then passes the message of the Philippine Government to the families. This is a totally lax role. Therefore, it is laughable to ask us to support the SAR Government in continuing with the work in this respect.

However, we have also seen the remarkable strength of the survivors and the bereaved families in this hostage tragedy. We are touched by the perseverance of the family of the deceased tour escort, Masa TSE. TSE Chi-kin, his elder brother and TSE Chi-hang, his younger brother have steadfastly strived for doing justice to their brother, and the "Hong Kong Letter" recently read by their mother are all very touching. TSE Chi-kin continues to fight on. Recently, when LEUNG Chun-ying paid a visit to the districts, he repeatedly asked the Chief Executive what he would do. Finally under the pressure of public sentiment and public views, the Chief Executive finally took more proactive actions. Recently he even said that sanctions would be imposed on the Philippines if no progress was made within one month. LEUNG Chun-ying should have done so long ago. When he smiled obsequiously at AQUINO III who grinned like a Cheshire cat, I was gravely ashamed.

Apart from the family of Masa, we also feel deeply sorry for YIK Siu-ling. It has been reported that she has undergone over 30 operations to reconstruct her lower jaw and these efforts have been futile so far. Recently she received the diagnosis and assessment from the head of the School of Medicine of Chang Gung University in Taiwan. They said that there was over 90% chance that they could reconstruct her lower jaw successfully but the surgeries would cost about $1 million. She does not have the money and our SAR Government has not done much to help her. Here I earnestly urge the SAR Government to help YIK Siu-ling. She has a five-year-old son. Seeing other mothers embrace and kiss their children when they pick their children up at school, she truly hopes that one day she can take off her mask and kiss her son when she picks him up at school. I earnestly request the SAR Government to help her fulfil such a simple aspiration. As her badly deformed lower jaw continues to deteriorate, it is hard for her even to kiss her son.

Another remarkable person is LEE Ying-chuen, a survivor in the incident. I was struck with horror when I read her article about what she went through during the hostage-taking ordeal. I hope that everyone will read her article when LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2381 they have the chance and they will see that she is affectionate and righteous, sagacious and reasonable. Please also read her article written in 2012 titled, "Do justice to the deceased and the injured, and not come down on the weak". I think that it is the spirit that we should have in dealing with the Philippine hostage incident. We seek to do justice to the deceased and the injured, and of course we demand that the cheeky AQUINO III should apologize to the bereaved families and the survivors in that incident on behalf of his entire Government. She quoted Lu Xun's words in her article, "When the courageous is angry, he comes down on the one stronger than he, but when the coward is angry, he comes down on the one weaker." She hopes that the people of Hong Kong will not come down on the weaker ones.

Recently, she has written another article titled "Before putting down, please take up first", which concerns our proposal to sanction against the Philippines. We certainly agree to impose economic sanctions on the Philippines but our target is the Philippine Government, not its people. In the article, she says that we should step up the diplomatic pressure and impose sanctions on its commercial activities, but there are voices in the community proposing to sanction Philippine domestic helpers. She then says, "These foreign domestic helpers have to leave their families, go to a foreign place and toil day and night to support their families because of the incompetence of their Government, the Philippine Government. How can we bear to use them as scapegoats and a bargaining chip? They are ordinary people like us. They have their basic rights … We do not want to use another group of underprivileged people as a bargaining chip." I also want to point out that many handicapped people in Hong Kong have to rely on the help of these foreign domestic helpers and they have built a deep relationship. Foreign domestic helpers have all along provided help to these handicapped people and know how to take care of them. We should never lightly terminate or do anything to affect the employment of these foreign domestic helpers already in Hong Kong. We should never come down on the weak.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I wish to send my regards to the bereaved families in the incident and hope that their physical and psychological wounds have already been healed. I also wish to take this chance to tell these families that Hong Kong people's care and concern for them has not 2382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 lessened. A member of the cultural sector, the well-respected writer Ms LUK Lei has made computer-printed posters and posted them in various places with her friends to collect signatures. Hong Kong people's care and concern for these families will only increase. It has not diminished over time although three years has passed.

However, the Government has done little in the past three years. When the incident happened, Donald TSANG, the then Chief Executive, phoned the Philippine President but he was lashed severely afterwards for his sub-diplomatic efforts, having bypassed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Subsequently, Donald TSANG immediately halted all actions and did not dare go any further. I consider that this was one of the few correct moves that Donald TSANG made during his term of office, that is, phoning the Philippine President to request him to follow up the incident. However, under the restriction of the "one country, two systems" principle, Hong Kong cannot engage in any diplomatic activities independently beyond the scope of the Basic Law. Hence, little progress has been made in the past three years.

A few months ago, a Taiwanese fisherman was shot, murdered actually, by the Philippine coast guard. The Taiwanese president, under the pressure of the people's widespread indignation, acted tough and soon resolved the incident after receiving the apology and compensation from the Philippine Government. Perhaps the Central People's Government was worried that Hong Kong people would compare the Taiwan Government's way of handling the matter to that of the SAR Government. The people did make a comparison. Perhaps owing to the aforementioned reason, the Central People's Government seemed to allow the SAR Government to follow up the matter on its own. Premier LI Keqiang also mentioned about the need to follow up the incident at an international convention. Hence we have seen significant progress made this month. It shows that the attitude taken by the Central People's Government is crucial and we need its support to take a step forward.

Recently we have seen on television the arrogance and haughtiness of the Philippine President and we have also seen the Philippine and Indonesian authorities joined hands in suppressing news coverage by Hong Kong journalists during the meeting and treated the Hong Kong journalists in the most uncivilized way. They barred them from covering the event and also forbade them from going back to their hotel, which was no different from deporting them.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2383

Hong Kong people were angered to see the uncivilized acts of the two Governments. Many people said they lost the interest to tour those countries and a boycott was staged voluntarily by the people. The Labour Party agrees to sanction the Philippines but we hope that it starts from the inter-governmental dealings and the trade level at the present stage, rather than from the level of foreign domestic helpers.

As Ms LEE Ying-chuen, a survivor in the hostage incident, said in the "Hong Kong Letter", Philippine domestic helpers have to leave their families, travel to a foreign land and toil day and night to provide for their families at home. They also fall victim to the rule of their incompetent and corrupt Government and have to sell their cheap labour. As someone who has gone through such an ordeal, Ms LEE Ying-chuen still has empathy and great mercy. She also said she hoped that we would understand while seeking for justice, we could never only care about ourselves but forsake the basic principle of social justice, which was caring and protecting the right of the underprivileged. Therefore, I hope that when we propose to sanction against the Philippines, we should do so through political, diplomatic and financial channels. First, we suspend all official dealings and exchanges, and we can also suspend the trading and cultural co-operation that are under discussion or already underway.

Next, I want to talk about the position of the Hong Kong Government. As Dr Fernando CHEUNG has said, the Hong Kong Government is just like a messenger to convey the views of both sides. It seems that it has never taken the lead. In the face of such a weak Government which only relies on the community and on Mr James TO to negotiate with the Manila City Councillor, and depends on the bereaved families to meet with the government officials and lodge their demands, we can see that the SAR Government officials have done too little. Today, on this solemn and a little sad occasion, I hope that Members will unite together. I no longer wish to criticize the government officials. But I still want to say that what they are now doing adds to the humiliation of the people of Hong Kong.

Finally, I wish to talk about the medical expenses. About two weeks ago, Mrs Regina IP proposed to set up a fund to help the injured survivors to pay their medical expenses. Actually, the SAR Government is financially capable of paying the medical expenses for the survivors before they get the compensation. Even in the case they fail to get the compensation in the future, the SAR Government is still fully able to bear all the expenses. I believe that the SAR 2384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Government will have the full support of the people in Hong Kong in spending this money.

Thank you, President.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I witnessed the Philippine hostage incident on television three years ago. It was dinner time for many Hong Kong people. After watching how the incident developed, we could hardly eat. At that moment, we found it hard to swallow food, and even more, the whole incident was too much for us to swallow. Today, I am still angry.

Over the past three years, our impression of the SAR Government is that it has done nothing, or, as described by other Members, it just plays the role of as a messenger. Secretary LAI Tung-kwok, who is present today, was the Under Secretary at that time. He went to the Philippines to handle the incident. I do not believe that he felt indifferent when he saw what had happened and I believe he had done everything he could. However, as foreign affairs were involved in the incident, I am not sure if this was the reason that the SAR Government could not do anything. And the former Chief Executive even gave people the impression that he was slack and indifferent. Given the current situation, I hope Secretary LAI Tung-kwok can do his best to handle the incident, particularly the incumbent Chief Executive has clearly announced that the SAR Government will impose sanctions on the Philippines if it does not offer reasonable response within one month. I also hope that the sanctions imposed by the SAR Government will not disappoint the public.

However, no matter what the circumstances are, and disregarding the measures proposed by Members, we should consider whether these measures are feasible. Take for example Mrs Regina IP's proposal of suspending the visa-free arrangement of Philippine people, businessmen or tourists to Hong Kong. Although Mr YIU Si-wing has just expressed grave concern about the impact on tourism and even on catering, consumer trades, and so on, we are not totally forbidding their entry. We only request them to apply for visa and this will pose some inconvenience for them. Hence, the impact on Hong Kong's economy will not be significant. Moreover, take tourism as an example. I have many friends in the tourism sector. Though no tours to the Philippines have now been organized, they have never complained or asked the Government to relax the black travel alert for the Philippines. Therefore, for the business sector, such as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2385 the wholesale and retail industry represented by Mr Vincent FANG and the catering industry represented by Mr Tommy CHEUNG, all our friends do not mind losing some businesses with the Philippines. That is really no big deal. They are not really interested to do business with the Philippines, considering how nasty and abominable their President is. I believe that such insignificant portion of business will have no impact on the business sector, and I support the amendments proposed by Mrs Regina IP.

As for Philippine domestic helpers, we understand that we should not penalize the disadvantaged helpers, but the Philippine authorities seem unconcerned about our proposal sanction. This is because they know clearly that we do not have a choice. Currently, more than 100 000 households in Hong Kong hire Philippine domestic helpers and we rely heavily on them. If we have other options, will they be so arrogant? Therefore, I visited the Consulate General of Myanmar in Hong Kong two weeks ago. I asked him if the Myanmar Government allowed its people to come to Hong Kong and work as domestic helpers. He indicated that this was welcomed by the Myanmar Government. I also asked Secretary LAI Tung-kwok, from the perspective of the SAR Government, were there any difficulties in admitting Myanmar domestic helpers? The SAR Government indicated that it was not difficult. So, I believe that once we have other options, of course I do not intend to replace Philippine domestic helpers with Myanmar helpers, Hong Kong people will be benefited and the Philippine Government will be aware that we do have other options.

Hence, I reiterate that the Liberal Party supports all amendments except the one proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen which imposes restrictions on the employment of Philippine domestic helpers.

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

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, regarding the Philippine hostage incident in which people were killed, my feeling is that human lives are worthless in the Philippines. Many people may know that the former Mayor of the City of Manila has the nickname of "Dirty Harry". Why? Like what happened in the Hollywood movie, he gunned down people to enforce the law and has gone on the run. This reflects that in the Philippines, human lives, and the lives of ordinary people in particular, are considered worthless. As I 2386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 have said before, I once went to the Philippines to gather evidence, and I found that several hundred to one thousand ordinary people were killed by soldiers or policemen without undergoing trial every year.

Where does the problem lie? Many people will now say that the crux of the problem is … Last time when we criticized the Government for not taking any actions, people pointed their fingers at us, saying that we should not make such unreasonable comments. Well, I would like to know, when the people of Hong Kong were watching the live broadcast of the hostage incident, had the SAR Government and the Chinese Embassy taken any actions at that time. That was actually the most critical moment. I asked the Government whether it had taken any action then. LAI Tung-kwok, who was the Under Secretary then, certainly said he could not tell me. In that case, how can we hold him responsible? We cannot hold the Government responsible for what it had done. Later on, and I do not know why, "Covetous TSANG" took the initiative to handle the matter himself. He was reprimanded and most of the people who reprimanded him then were the pro-communist people. They asked him, "Are you trying to handle foreign matters, buddy?", so he did not do anything anymore. That is what really happened.

I think if we are to comment on a government, we have to consider the maritime disaster that happened on 1 October. It has been 14 months since the incident. Is that right, Secretary LAI? I heard some family members of the deceased say that if the Government kept on doing nothing, they would not be able to claim compensation. They hope the Government would speed up the investigation and let the families know the results once they are available. Considering that the Government has not even properly dealt with this incident, I find LEUNG Chun-ying shameless in saying that he would adopt a target-oriented approach and he had plans but could not reveal them to us. What other strategies do we have for discussion today? Other than imposing sanctions, what else can we do? Can we send troops to attack the Philippines?

Alright. Let us consider how the Hong Kong Government has been treating its own people. How many people were killed and injured in the maritime disaster on 1 October, Secretary LAI? A double-digit figure, more than 80 people were involved, and among them, more than 30 died. The bereaved families in the Philippine hostage incident are now trying to achieve four targets ― imposing severe punishment, pursuing responsibilities and accounting for the incident; making improvements; offering apologies and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2387 awarding compensation. Buddy, a year and two months (that is, a total of 14 months) have passed after the maritime disaster, what has the Chief Executive done with regard to the government departments that he has full control of? How can he convince me that he will get things done now? If he can exert pressure on the Philippine Government, will I pressurize him? Can I stop paying remuneration to him? I would like to ask Members who are now in this Chamber whether they would pass a motion, stating that if Secretary LAI or LEUNG Chun-ying cannot properly handle the hostage incident, they will not get pay. I have proposed to stop their remuneration when I was filibustering. How can you ask me to show solidarity in supporting him? I will show solidarity in supporting him to deal with the maritime disaster on 1 October first.

What does the whole incident tell us? Since the Philippine Government is totally unreasonable, civilian sanctions can be imposed. To put it simply, in the past when we had powerful labour movements, sanctions were not even necessary and the matter could be dealt with by putting on strikes. Workers at the piers would not unload cargoes which came from the Philippines. That was it. If cargoes would not be unloaded, how could goods from the Philippines import into Hong Kong? Alternatively, if we do not export goods to the Philippines, it will already cause them big trouble. Therefore, from the Government's point of view, if the Chinese Communist Party does not show more concern, how can the matter be dealt with, buddy?

At present, as there are sovereignty arguments in relation to the Nansha Islands, a tougher stance can be taken. In the past, when it was hoped that the number of members of the Association of SouthEast Asian Nations would be increased from six to 10, why would there be anything to argue about? Therefore, it is pointless for you to reprimand me. Now I would ask Secretary LAI and he would have to respond to this question: Has the Chief Executive given you any instructions? Is there anything you have to do? We are now discussing whether or not to forbid the entry of Philippine domestic helpers into Hong Kong, and probably, the measure will not be implemented, but have we mentioned anything about prohibiting the import and export of goods to and from the Philippines? Have these measures been proposed? I do not think so. Such measures should not be proposed by us. Let him respond later, and just a sentence in response will do. Now I ask him in public. In relation to the Philippine hostage incident, does the SAR Government have to obey the orders of the Central Government? If so, just tell me so. In that case, I will not reprimand LEUNG Chun-ying because I know what kind of a person he is and it 2388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 will be useless to reprimand him. Do you think a dead pig will jump if you pour boiling water on it, buddy?

However, if the Secretary honestly tells the people of Hong Kong that the SAR Government has to obey the orders of the Central Government because policies of foreign affairs are involved, then he will not have to suffer the pressure. But he has to handle foreign affairs secretively. Handling foreign affairs secretively is like that, buddy. Therefore, I think it is useless for the Legislative Council to discuss what sanctions should be imposed. The crucial question is whether the Central Government would allow the SAR Government to impose sanctions at this stage. Please ask him to answer the two questions of how he is going to handle the maritime disaster on 1 October and whether he has to comply with the orders of the Central Government. That is all.

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

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, two weeks ago I proposed to have an adjournment debate on how the SAR Government can better handle the four reasonable demands made by the bereaved families and the injured in the Philippine hostage incident. As that debate was an adjournment debate, it has provided an opportunity for Members to express different opinions.

The debate held a fortnight ago was actually in tune with the debate we are having tonight. Over the past few weeks, people from different sectors and groups, as well as Honourable colleagues of different political parties and groupings have unceasingly and clearly demanded the SAR Government to adopt a tougher attitude and take a more decisive approach than what it had done in the past three years. This is particularly important, especially when we recently saw how the President of the Philippines AQUINO III has time and again hurt the feelings of Hong Kong people and the bereaved families by his attitude, tone, expressions and posture. He has repeatedly rubbed salt into their wounds.

Therefore, it would be useless for us to spend three years after three years, and another three years conveying messages repeatedly, only to be messed around and made fun of by the other party. If we cannot reach an agreement on a sanction measure or a series of sanction measures in this debate tonight, so as to render genuine help to the bereaved families to obtain justice in the future, we LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2389 would break faith with the people. Therefore, with this kind of spirit, whether you call it the spirit of solidarity, the determination to pursue justice for the families or the desire to express our strong condemnation to the rascal-like and shameless Philippine Government and its President, we should stand united tonight. There are actually many common grounds in the views expressed by Members of different political parties and groupings and we have to try and adopt them.

Two days ago, the Chief Executive said he would give the Philippine authorities a time limit of one month, and decisive actions would be taken if no progress was made within one month. His words seem to have responded to the demands of the people including myself, which are, to adopt a tough attitude and to set a time limit. One cannot voice out his demands repeatedly only to be messed around. However, the specific actions involved are still a mystery to us. As Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has said just now, if you ask Members to stand united with one vision, on what basis are you asking them? Directions and objectives of certain actions have to be formulated and one should not merely ask Members to wait.

However, I believe after certain proposals have been passed in this Council by colleagues of different political parties and groupings, the SAR Government will take the initiative to explain to us what exactly it will do at meetings of this Council, the House Committee or even the Panel on Security after one month. That is my understanding. We would certainly follow up on this incident. After a month, when the deadline is due, we should, as a society, examine the actions to be taken to show that we stand united, and we stand united on the four demands made by the bereaved families.

President, there are some misconceptions in this matter. We may have read comments on the press that there are no cases in which the president of a country tendering an apology to victims of an accident who happened to be foreigners. These writers then rashly concluded that the people of Hong Kong were so arrogant and opinionated, thinking that they were more important than other people that they wanted to hold people accountable even for such kind of accident. I would like to take this opportunity to point out in this open forum so that it can be heard by everyone that these comments or remarks are truly ill-informed. Three years ago when the hostage incident happened, both the Philippines and Hong Kong were shocked. The legislature of the Philippines held a discussion and passed a resolution to conduct an investigation and pursue 2390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 responsibilities, so that similar incidents would not recur. Certainly, some colleagues may say that the Philippine Government has always acted in that manner and suggest that we let things lie. But, since the Philippine authorities have told us what they would do, we should make sure that they honour their pledge.

It should be noted that after the hostage incident, it was the Philippine authorities that issued two investigation reports which concluded that they should be responsible. It is not that we have arbitrarily put the blame on the President of the Philippines AQUINO III, and questioned why he had not apologized and paid compensation. We are only asking him to honour what he has promised. We are only asking him to penalize the officials who were found to be responsible after thorough investigation, so that they would not get away scot-free and muddle along, as if nothing had happened. Therefore, people have recklessly commented that we are proud and opinionated before understanding the well-known important historical events. That is very unfair to us and even more so to the bereaved families.

Regarding this motion tonight, Mr Alan LEONG, the leader of the Civic Party, has already delivered his speech. Actually, I would very much like to see if Members would include what sanctions the Chinese Government has imposed on the Philippines in the original motion and amendments. AQUINO III visited China two or three years ago and signed a series of co-operation agreements with China in respect of trade and industry and other areas. The monetary amount involved is huge. If the Central Government is willing to stop certain co-operation plans and suspend some trade agreements within this month to dovetail with the demands made by Hong Kong, I think the impact will be greater and the direction will be clearer. That will once again show that although Hong Kong has no right in dealing with foreign affairs under the "one country, two systems" framework, we can still, with the support of the Central Government, obtain justice for those people affected in the hostage incident, as well as for the people of Hong Kong.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2391

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, due to various reasons, I am afraid our "golden time" has past. Considering the Taiwan incident, the Taiwanese were very quick in their response. The incident happened on 9 May 2013 and MA Ying-jeou had already taken many actions in their government authorities by 11 May and demands of the first and second stages were made in May. Certainly, some people would say that since Hong Kong is not a sovereign state, it often has to "spare the rat to save the dishes". Hence, whenever foreign affairs are involved, we tend not to take any actions despite Article 151 of the Basic Law has stipulated what actions Hong Kong can and cannot take. It seems that we have given up our rights for fear of touching on sensitive areas. We should really undertake a proper review in this respect. Hong Kong has always had a strong influence on the international world. However, after the reunification, it seems that we have given everything up. Not only are we afraid to state our case, once the so-called sub-diplomatic level is involved, we seldom step forward to face the world and do what we should and can do. I hope that this incident will give the Government a chance for introspection.

More importantly, President, I think we can draw on the experience of the Taiwan incident. Initially, the Philippine authorities adopted their habitual stalling tactics. They did not admit their wrong-doings and would not tender an official apology, and only send some inappropriate people to handle the matter on behalf of the Government. Members can take a good look at how the incident has developed.

As I said earlier, Taiwan has responded to the incident very quickly with concerted efforts. Not only has MA Ying-jeou taken actions, people from various political parties and groupings have responded to the incident as well. I even noticed that TSAI Ying-wen, SU Tseng-chang and some community groups were reported to have expressed their views. Certainly, we are grateful to Mr James TO for his efforts made all along. However, it seems to us that Members belonging to the Democratic Party other than Mr James TO have not participated much in the matter, not to mention the other political parties and groupings. Is it because individual victims prefer to have one person handling the matter, are there other reasons which make them reluctant to receive support from other parties and groupings or even the more extensive support from society? I believe we have to review the matter. Should we rely on the efforts of an individual, or the efforts of one political party or many political parties or groupings, or should we even look forward to the participation of all bodies and groups in Hong Kong in the matter?

2392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

After the Guang Da Xing No. 28 incident, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung had demonstrated outside the office of the Consulate General of the Philippines in Hong Kong with a fishermen organization and the New Territories Association of Societies. Although that was an incident which involved Taiwan, the people of Hong Kong had participated by way of a demonstration. However, in this matter which concerns the people of Hong Kong, it seems that we have not adequately made use of the support from the political parties, groupings and other bodies which should be given. The Taiwan Government has, through the co-ordination of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, published news to the world. It even mobilized the world media to send messages to the global community which explained clearly what happened and even condemned the Philippines. This move had not only indirectly caused the United States to indicate its stance, which was hoped for by everyone, it had also resulted in responses from the United Kingdom, the European Union and many other countries, condemning the Philippines for killing a totally unarmed fisherman in the open sea. I think we should learn from this experience and refrain from relying on the strength of a single Member. Although the SAR Government has started to make some efforts, should we also try and make use of this opportunity to liaise with different political parties and groupings or even enlist the power of the international media to make this a hot topic again?

President, I would like to talk about some alternative approaches. Netizens in Hong Kong are very creative, powerful and zealous nowadays. Perhaps it is unnecessary for us to target the SAR Government all the time and demand it do this and that; maybe we should target the Philippine Government for the sake of justice. Why do I say that? In Taiwan, information technology is also very popular. I notice from some reports that because of this incident in which a fisherman was killed, the Taiwanese netizens had tried very hard to hack into the website of the Philippine Government to embarrass it in many ways. Can we also adopt any creative approach to assist in the matter without breaking the law?

In addition, President, I hope we can do something to manage our expectations. I heard Mrs Regina IP say that some colleagues have criticized her for deleting the four demands and said that she should only delete the third and the fourth demands. Certainly, we can "quote unreasonable prices with an intention to drive a hard bargain", but if we really want to be pragmatic in getting some results, I would say the third and fourth demands are really hard to achieve. It is difficult enough to demand the Philippine Government to apologize and pay LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2393 compensation, not to mention to demand for it to penalize the persons concerned and to adopt measures to protect the safety of visitors after a lapse so many years since the incident. Since the nation of the Philippines was founded, it has not even been able to protect the safety of its own residents all these years, not to mention the safety of visitors. What measures to be adopted will we consider acceptable? I am afraid the rather abstract and general demands are not easy to meet. Therefore, I think we can make demands, but we should focus on obtaining compensation for the bereaved families and the injured.

President, we have to understand the background leading to the killing of a Taiwanese fisherman. Many similar incidents in which fishermen were killed happened before which caused strong reactions in the community. Taiwan has the support of the United States in negotiations behind the scene and we may certainly be aware of the relationship between the Philippines and the United States. Therefore, although we should strive to achieve our objectives, we have to manage our expectations appropriately. If not, the greater the expectation, the bigger the disappointment. Thank you, President.

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

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, Mr Christopher CHEUNG of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong has spoken just now about the efforts made by the communities and the business sectors of both places in addressing this matter. Therefore, I did not intend to speak but after hearing the speeches of some Honourable colleagues just now, I feel that I have to get something out of my chest.

First, Mr Frankie YICK mentioned Mr Ken LEUNG, he was Mr LEUNG Kam-wing, the same person whom I mentioned two weeks ago when I moved a motion for the adjournment of the Council in accordance with rule 16(4) of the Rules of Procedure to discuss the Philippine hostage incident. He was a school friend of mine and Mr Frankie YICK's. Mr LEUNG Kam-wing probably graduated from the Department of Engineering of the University of Hong Kong in 1977. I graduated in 1976 and Mr Frankie YICK graduated in 1978. Am I right? It should be 1979. So, we were school friends who graduated within a couple of years.

2394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

Mr LEUNG Kam-wing was an outstanding engineer, a self-made man who made a name of himself in the industrial sector. In this incident, he had no regard for his own safety and sacrificed his own life for the lives of other hostages. His two daughters were also killed while his son, Jason, was badly injured and has not fully recovered yet. Therefore, whenever someone brings this incident up, Mr Frankie YICK and I both feel deep sorrow. I mourn those who lost their lives, who showed forth the fine qualities of the Hong Kong people in this incident.

Second, why should I want to get something out of my chest? That is because tonight I hear the comments about "bringing shame and dishonour" again just like two weeks ago. I lament those comments. In the past three years after the incident, has the two terms of the SAR Government handled this incident well? No. But has it brought shame and dishonour to Hong Kong? While we criticize the Philippine President for deliberately humiliating our Chief Executive and officials, some Members join hands in continuing to insult our officials. What on earth is the matter?

Two weeks ago, I quoted some poems. Here I would like to borrow two lines from KUO Moruo's poem. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, the two lines of KUO Moruo's poem is as follows, "Confounding humans and demons, right and wrong, the monk was kind to foes and vicious to friends"3 Some Members here may see the SAR Government as a foe but I hope that they will distinguish between foes and friends. While we criticize the SAR Government for its inadequacies, we should call a spade a spade. The incumbent SAR Government is dealing with the incident now and we need to monitor it to make sure that it will do better. If it has any inadequacies and has not disclosed information that should be disclosed, even though we do not agree to that, it does not mean that we should treat it as a foe; otherwise, what is the difference between us and the Buddhist monk in the Tang Dynasty "confounding humans and demons, right and wrong"?

As Mr IP Kwok-him proposes in the amendment that it is most important at present to call on the various sectors in the society to unite and support the SAR Government in holding negotiations with the Philippine Government on the Philippine hostage incident, I think it is very important that we point our gun outward. When the Chief Executive solemnly stated, "If no substantial progress is made within one month, we will impose sanctions," he did not only say those

3 Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Maoist Documentation Project LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2395 words to the Hong Kong people, but more importantly, to the Philippine Government. But I find it strange that some colleagues could come up with some outrageous ideas and link these words to the incident about the issuance of the free-to-air television licence, claiming that the Chief Executive was trying to divert people's attention. Their imagination is so rich that totally amazed me. This is not an attitude that we should have when we unite against some foreign foe. Once again it shows that they, like the Buddhist monk in the Tang Dynasty "Confounding humans with demons, right with wrong". I appreciate what Dr Kenneth CHAN said just now. He stressed that we should all unite together, irrespective our political parties or groupings. For things that should be done, we will do it, and that, I think, is the right attitude.

President, we also hope that through this debate we can see what we can do or in what aspects we need to strongly declare our stance. We solemnly demand that the Philippine Government should positively respond to the four demands of the victims' families, namely, to apologies, to compensate, to punish those responsible and to ensure tourists' safety. We must all unite together. When the SAR Government acts right, we should show our support. We must then monitor what the SAR will do next in respect of this incident. However, if Members in this Chamber are already seriously divided, I doubt how we are going to unite against our foe.

Thank you, President. I so submit.

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

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I had no intention to speak originally but after hearing what Mr Paul TSE said, I think that it is necessary for me to make some clarifications.

Mr Paul TSE mentioned that many Hong Kong people are very familiar with the information technology and know how to hack into the website of the Philippine Government, if I did not hear it wrong. I wish to warn Mr TSE; perhaps he is not too familiar with information technology. But I cannot think of any ways that enables us to hack into any Government's websites legally. I think I have the responsibility to warn the public not to do way whatsoever.

2396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

In fact, we have other feasible ways. For example, some information technology companies will outsource its jobs, especially programming or customer telephone service, to the Philippines. I believe that calling upon these companies to stop outsourcing similar jobs to Philippine companies is a feasible means of commercial sanction that is worth our consideration. However, the public should never hack into other people's computer systems. We always warn people not to hack into Hong Kong's computer systems and the SNOWDEN incident earlier had also aroused great controversy. We should never give others the impression that Hong Kong is a place that exports computer invasion crimes.

As I said at the adjournment debate moved by Dr Kenneth CHAN, members of the information technology sector can make some positive efforts in this respect. I have mentioned my two good friends who are experts in information technology security, responsible for catching computer hackers. Although they know how to hack into other people's computers, they will never invade the computer systems of the Philippine Government or any other foreign Governments. They have voluntarily set up a Facebook page known as "all people for the sanction against the Philippines" and call upon people to boycott Philippine products and services.

I think that this is a right move and I agree to their approach. I call upon people to look for my friends' Facebook page titled "all people for the sanction against the Philippines" and share with the netizens on that webpage ways available in the community to impose sanctions against Philippine businesses, and that approach, I think, should be encouraged.

Let me relay another proposal of theirs. The Philippines is still a very dangerous place for tourists. I hope that the Government will keep the black travel alert for the Philippines. I do not intend to repeat the dangers involved but all in all we can see that the situation has not improved so far.

Third, I wish to reiterate one point and I hope that the Secretary will respond later on today. When compared with American and European countries or some other advanced places, Hong Kong's Outbound Travel Alert System is rather backwards and the information provided also lags behind the current situation. As such, I hope that the Secretary can tell us after the publication of the report, what specific improvement measures have been taken to ensure that the people of Hong Kong understand the situation in the Philippines and other countries. I hope that the people can access the real-time and comprehensive information about the crimes, terrorist attacks and natural disasters of different LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2397 places through the information technology and the Internet. I hope that the Secretary will not merely tell us that the websites in Hong Kong have been linked to the relevant websites in the United States, Australia, and so on. In my opinion, the Hong Kong Government should have the capacity to make greater efforts in updating more frequently the Outbound Travel Alert System and the information provided by the relevant websites regarding the places where people may encounter troubles and places of concern to them.

Finally I reiterate that even out of good intention, the public should never take any illegal actions against the Philippines, whether it is its people or its Government.

Thank you, President.

(Mr Paul TSE stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, what is your point?

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): I just wish to clarify. I believe that Mr Charles Peter MOK has misunderstood what I said. I made it very clear that it was under lawful circumstances. I will never encourage anyone to break the law. We have not incited anyone to besiege the Legislative Council Complex, as Mr Charles Peter MOK said.

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

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I did not want to argue. I was just saying that I could not think of any ways to invade a foreign country's computer system without breaking the law. Thank you, President.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

2398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, you may now speak on the various amendments. The speaking time limit is five minutes.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I thank the 24 Members who have spoken, including those who have proposed amendments. This marathon debate has gone on for two consecutive days. The fact that 24 Members have spoken despite the fact that it is already late at night indicates that many Members are indignant at the Philippine hostage tragedy and the treatment of our officials by the cheeky, foppish President of the Philippines, and their determination to do justice to Hong Kong. Therefore, I also believe that all the amendments today will be supported by Members in this Chamber.

Just now, some Members from the pro-establishment camp called upon all Members to unite together. While they were calling for solidarity, they were criticizing some Members of their actions. I want to point out that it was a contradiction. If they called for solidarity, they should refrain from attacking and rebuking others. It was inappropriate for them to attack others while calling for solidarity. They got the order upside down.

President, concerning the amendments, I want to point out that the People Power basically supports Miss Alice MAK's amendment. As regards the amendments of Mr IP Kwok-him and Mr SIN Chung-kai, we will abstain from voting, the reason being one major point proposed by Mr IP Kwok-him is to "support the SAR Government in holding negotiations with the Philippine Government on the Philippine hostage incident". Given the Chief Executive's poor performance last time and that the Government is still unwilling to give a clear account and explain the demands made, as well as the relevant tone and strategy of the negotiation, we find it hard to accept a blank cheque issued under the circumstances where no explanation is made and no bottom line given. I believe that it is difficult for the Government to justify its actions to the general public and the victims in the incident. However, to show a loose stance, we will not oppose Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment.

As regards Mr SIN Chung-kai's amendment, because he has deleted many words in our original motion, especially the phrase "the progress is hardly acceptable", I think that is an attitude and a stance of him and hence we cannot accept his amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2399

As regards Mrs Regina IP's amendment, we will oppose it because we consider that her proposal is far too mild and she has not proposed other more effective measures. Besides, by deleting many of our wordings, she may send out a wrong message that she does not accept our reference of Taiwan and the four demands of the victims' families. We find her deletion of all those words totally unacceptable and we also have to oppose her amendment.

President, we welcome the Government's change in attitude. At first, the People Power proposed to impose economic sanctions, especially using the entry arrangement for the Philippine domestic helpers as a bargaining chip and a sanction measure. Initially the Secretary clearly and openly opposed this measure, saying that there was no such need, but today, the Secretary finally adopts a more open attitude and says that he will listen to views of all sectors in the community. We welcome the Secretary's change in attitude in this respect.

President, after the motion is passed today, I truly hope that the Government will adopt a more open attitude and deal with the negotiation with higher transparency. If it wants Hong Kong people to support the negotiation, it must give people the confidence. If it thinks its measures and strategy work, just like Taiwan which announced 11 measures right at the beginning and finally forced the Philippines to apologize, we call on the Government to enhance the transparency in this respect to show forth its courage and determination. We hope that it will, with the full support of the people in Hong Kong and this Council, do justice to Hong Kong and the victims in the incident, give us back our dignity, and show the foppish President that the people of Hong Kong have the confidence to get back the compensation and justice that we deserve.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I thank the 20-odd Members who have spoken on today's motion or their valuable views and suggestions. I will give an integrated response to the views of Members as follows.

We very much agree to the amendments of Miss Alice MAK and Mr IP Kwok-him and hope that the various sectors in society will unite together in support of the SAR Government in holding negotiations with the Philippine Government on the hostage incident. The Chief Executive clearly stated on Tuesday morning that although some progress had been made in the past month, 2400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 it was still a far cry from solving the incident satisfactorily. We fully understand the disappointment of the bereaved families, the injured and the whole community. The SAR Government will continue with the negotiation and at the same time urge the Philippine Government and/or the Manila City Council to put forward appropriate proposals in response to the demands of the bereaved families and the injured. In order to resolve the incident expeditiously and satisfactorily, the Chief Executive had announced that unless significant progress was made within a month, the SAR Government would impose necessary sanctions.

Many Members supported Mrs Regina IP's amendment to suspend the visa-free arrangement for Philippine visitors, and even tighten the arrangements for issuing visas to Philippine passport holders, except the visas for foreign domestic helpers.

At present, the SAR Government and the Philippine Government have agreed, through their respective administrative arrangements, to allow Philippine passport holders to visit Hong Kong visa free and stay for 14 days and vice versa for SAR passport holders.

In 2012, over 700 000 Philippine passport holders visited Hong Kong, representing 5% of all non-Mainland visitors. Among them overnight visitors spent a total of over $3 billion in Hong Kong, equivalent to 1.75% of the total spending of all overnight visitors in Hong Kong. It is estimated that if the visa-free arrangement is suspended, there will be a significant decrease in the number of Philippine visitors.

On the other hand, if the SAR Government suspends the visa-free arrangement for Philippine visitors, we expect that the Philippine Government may also suspend the visa-free arrangement for SAR passport holders. According to the statistics of the Philippine Department of Tourism, close to 120 000 Hong Kong people in total visited the Philippines in 2012. After the Security Bureau had issued the black outbound travel alert for the Philippines in August 2010, travel agencies in Hong Kong stopped organizing group tours to the Philippines, hence we believe that Hong Kong people visit the Philippines mainly for commercial activities, family visits or travelling on their own. Given that there are substantially fewer Hong Kong residents visiting the Philippines than Philippine people visiting Hong Kong, and coupled with the fact that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2401 spending of Philippine visitors only accounts for less than 2% of the total spending of all overnight visitors, the impact on Hong Kong will be relatively small.

Regarding employment visas to Philippine passport holders, excluding visas for foreign domestic helpers in 2012, the Immigration Department granted over 1 100 applications for employment visas by Philippine nationals, who were mainly singers, performers and mechanical engineering professionals. As a relatively small number of these people are involved, it is believed that this measure will not have a big impact on Hong Kong as well.

According to a report by a foreign news agency, the spokesperson of the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines called upon Hong Kong to handle the hostage incident separately from issues such as the visa arrangements. The Department of Foreign Affairs pointed out that Hong Kong and the Philippines were an important tourism destination for the people in either side and it hoped that the frequent exchanges of tourists between the two places would continue. On Tuesday, the Chief Executive announced that unless significant progress was made within one month, the SAR Government would impose necessary sanctions. The Office of the Philippine President and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs subsequently said that they were working silently in handling the hostage incident and trying to seek a solution that would satisfy both sides. We understand that tightening or suspending the visa-free arrangement for Philippine visitors will inevitably cause inconvenience to the people of Hong Kong as well as the Philippines. Therefore, we hope that the Philippine side will put forward an appropriate and specific proposal to respond to the demand of the bereaved families and the injured as soon as possible.

As regards domestic helpers, many Members have spoken on Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's proposal to impose sanctions on Philippine domestic helpers. At present there are about 163 000 Philippine domestic helpers, representing over 50% of all foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong. It is obvious that Hong Kong employers have great demand for Philippine domestic helpers. In 2012, the Immigration Department issued employment visas to about 52 000 newly-employed Philippine domestic helpers, accounting for 51% of the total. There is a rather strong opposition in the community to the proposal of banning the entry of Philippine domestic helpers. On the one hand, many middle-class families and intermediaries in Hong Kong will be seriously affected, and on the other hand, many people opine that we should not ask Philippine domestic 2402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 helpers to bear the responsibility of their Government. Therefore, we agree with many Members that the Government must carefully consider the impact caused by this proposal.

There are views that Hong Kong should allow the nationals of other countries to work as domestic helpers in Hong Kong, so as to reduce our dependence on Philippine domestic helpers. As a matter of fact, apart from the nationals of Afghanistan, Cambodia, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Nepal and Vietnam, the entry arrangement for foreign domestic helpers is applicable to the nationals of all other overseas countries. However, owing to various reasons, including language, culture, background and custom, Philippine nationals still account for the highest percentage of foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong.

Besides, Mr SIN Chung-kai proposes to suspend Hong Kong's official dealings with the Philippine Government in areas such as air freedom rights, trade, cultural and arts activities, and he calls on the Hong Kong community to boycott Philippine goods; some other Members also suggest the Government to impose other economic sanctions on the Philippines. All Members advocating such measures have the same goal, which is to express Hong Kong people's strong resentment against the Philippine side's procrastination in properly responding to the four demands of the bereaved families and the injured in the hostage incident.

As stated by the Chief Executive earlier, the SAR Government has only one goal, which is do its level best and adopt all possible and effective means to negotiate with the Philippine Government in a reasonable and beneficial manner, with the right pace, plans and strategies, in the hope that the four demands of the injured and bereaved families will be satisfied expeditiously.

In the past month, the Chief Executive had an official meeting with the Philippine President during the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation Economic Leaders' meeting and the negotiation on the Manila hostage incident had been activated. The senior officials of both sides have embarked on the negotiation. More than 10 days ago, the representative of the Manila City Council came to Hong Kong and submitted a resolution for apology. The SAR Government actively negotiated with him and also assisted the representative of the bereaved families to engage in face-to-face dialogue with him. Two days ago, the Chief Executive further announced that unless significant progress was made within a month, the SAR Government would impose necessary sanctions. We will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2403 adamantly demand the Philippine side to do justice to the victims in the incident in a responsible manner.

President, the Chief Executive has clearly stated our stance on the sanction but at the present stage, I am not in a position to make public the specific plan, pace and content, lest the efficacy of the negotiation will be compromised. Again I would like to thank Members for proposing this motion and speaking on it. We will thoroughly consider the views expressed by Members in the debate and suitably adjust our action plan.

Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Miss Alice MAK to move the amendment to the motion.

MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Albert CHAN's motion be amended.

Miss Alice MAK moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add "and the Incident Investigation and Review Committee which was set up under the instruction of the President of the Philippines AQUINO III also categorically pointed out the blunders of the relevant authorities in the incident," after "since the Philippine hostage incident,"; to delete "even adopting an extremely poor attitude" after "at all," and substitute with "with its attitude, especially that of its President, being extremely poor"; and to add "calls on the public to unite and hold the Philippine Government responsible, and" after "this Council"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Miss Alice MAK to Mr Albert CHAN's motion, be passed.

2404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the amendment passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already been informed, as Miss Alice MAK's amendment has been passed, Mr IP Kwok-him has withdrawn his amendment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SIN Chung-kai, as Miss Alice MAK's amendment has been passed, you may now move your revised amendment.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Albert CHAN's motion as amended by Miss Alice MAK be further amended by my revised amendment.

Mr SIN Chung-kai moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Miss Alice MAK: (Translation)

"To add "; this Council considers that the incident has seriously hurt the feelings of the victims in the hostage incident, their families and Hong Kong people, and that the Philippine Government should be condemned in this regard; the relevant sanction measures should include: (1) the Hong Kong Government to suspend the procurement of Philippine products; (2) the Hong Kong Government to suspend the new round of negotiations on LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2405

areas such as air freedom rights and trade, etc.; (3) except for the hostage incident, the Hong Kong Government to suspend all its dealings with the Philippine Government; (4) the Hong Kong Government to suspend inviting Philippine cultural organizations to Hong Kong to participate in the cultural and arts activities organized by the Hong Kong Government; (5) the Hong Kong Legislative Council to suspend its friendship exchanges and liaison with the Congress of the Philippines; and (6) the Hong Kong Government to call on the Hong Kong community and commercial sector to suspend their commercial and cultural exchanges with the Philippines, and call on the public to boycott Philippine goods" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr SIN Chung-kai's amendment to Mr Albert CHAN's motion as amended by Miss Alice MAK be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the amendment passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Regina IP, as the amendments by Miss Alice MAK and Mr SIN Chung-kai have been passed, you may now move your revised amendment.

2406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Albert CHAN's motion as amended by Miss Alice MAK and Mr SIN Chung-kai be further amended by my revised amendment.

Mrs Regina IP moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Miss Alice MAK and Mr SIN Chung-kai: (Translation)

"To add "; this Council also urges the SAR Government to consider suspending the visa-free arrangement for Philippine visitors, and even tightening the arrangements for issuing business and employment visas to Philippine passport holders (excluding visas for foreign domestic helpers) until the Philippine authorities have formally responded to the demands of the victims and their families for an apology and compensation regarding the hostage incident, taken truly effective measures and put forward ways to properly resolve the issue" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mrs Regina IP's amendment to Mr Albert CHAN's motion as amended by Miss Alice MAK and Mr SIN Chung-kai be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2407

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Mr YIU Si-wing voted against the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Andrew LEUNG and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok abstained.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted for the amendment.

Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted against the amendment.

Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr Paul TSE, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Gary FAN abstained.

2408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 24 were present, 20 were in favour of the amendment, one against it and three abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 21 were in favour of the amendment, two against it and four abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Imposing economic sanctions on the Philippines and restoring Hong Kong people's dignity" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG be passed.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

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 ─ 7 November 2013 2409

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.

I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Imposing economic sanctions on the Philippines and restoring Hong Kong people's dignity" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already been informed, as Mrs Regina IP's amendment has been passed, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has withdrawn his amendment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, you may now reply and you have five minutes and three seconds.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I would like to thank Members for their speeches and support for the fundamental spirit and principle of my motion. Basically, the contents of the speeches of the 20-odd Members are 80% similar. They only differ in respect of some technical and strategic views.

President, lastly, let me just give the Government a piece of advice. Over the years, we have rarely seen such a strong consensus reached in this Chamber, with relatively few sparks flying between different parties or groupings during the debate. Given such a strong consensus, the Government should be filled with power in negotiating with and exerting pressure on the "Foppish President". I hope that LEUNG Chun-ying will not smile foolishly or look reverently at the other party again; instead, he should demonstrate dignity and power, and manifest the determination of Hong Kong people, in order to seek justice for the deceased and injured, and completely shed his previous image of being humiliated or degraded.

This aside, President, I am gravely concerned about LEUNG Chun-ying's "hypocritical rhetoric" ― it is "hypocritical", a variant of "hypocrisy". I am 2410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 extremely concerned about the substantial progress mentioned by him a couple of days ago. This is because, as far as he is concerned, any procedural progress made by the Philippines, including perhaps the arrangement for a ministerial meeting, an opportunity for a further meeting with the Philippine President or the conduct of certain negotiations, may readily be interpreted by him as a substantial progress, and as a consequence, he can further extend the one-month warning deadline or lower this bottom line at will. He is already "well known" in this regard. In the earlier saga of unauthorized building works and numerous other fiascos, he invariably deceived the public by his "hypocritical rhetoric".

Of course, comparing with the Chief Executive, I have more confidence in Secretary LAI. However, the handling of the entire issue is still led by "689". With the Central Authorities' support, backing and supervision, better progress and achievements may be made. But then, I wish to make it clear that the four demands repeatedly referred to by Members and the Government have never met with any objection from the Hong Kong public at large, results of public opinion polls, this Council, or the Government itself, including "689". Moreover, "689" has also reiterated them time and again on many public occasions. I would like to put on record that these four demands are indispensable regardless of what substantial progress are made. The Government should never say that we should give up any of the four demands because of any substantial progress.

The four demands are: firstly, to apologize to the victims' families. If it is an apology from the City Council, we will not accept it, because from beginning to end, we have been demanding an apology from the Philippine Government rather than a particular city council, city councillor or mayor; secondly, to offer compensation to the victims' families; thirdly, to penalize the relevant officials for dereliction of duty in the Philippine hostage incident. The "Foppish President" has already let some officials off the hook. So we must demand the Philippine authorities to seriously handle this issue, as their own report also points out who should be held responsible; fourthly, to implement measures to protect tourists' personal safety. If "689" tried to give up any of the demands on any pretext, he would be totally disregarding the consensus of this Council, disregarding the demands of Hong Kong people, and disregarding the dignity of the victims' families and the justice they deserve. Therefore, to do them justice and restore Hong Kong people's dignity, it is imperative for the Philippines to implement and accept these four demands.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 November 2013 2411

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Albert CHAN, as amended by Miss Alice MAK, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Mrs Regina IP, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion as amended passed.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11 am on Wednesday 13 November 2013.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.