LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4199

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 18 March 2021

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WAI-CHUN, J.P.

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

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

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

4200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWAN-YIU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHONG-SHING, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4201

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

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

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

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

THE HONOURABLE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S., J.P.

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

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

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE

THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL WONG WAI-LUN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT

MR HO KAI-MING, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS MIRANDA HON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

4202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in ): Good morning. Debates on motions with no legislative effect.

Mr Paul TSE will move a motion on "Examining the amendment of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance and implementing the Typhoon Shelter reclamation works".

Mr Frankie YICK will move an amendment to the motion.

This Council will proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the amendment.

Later, I will first call upon Mr Paul TSE to speak and move the motion. Then I will call upon Mr Frankie YICK to speak, but he may not move the amendment at this stage.

The joint debate now begins. Members who wish to speak please press the "Request to speak" button.

I now call upon Mr Paul TSE to speak and move the motion.

MOTION ON "EXAMINING THE AMENDMENT OF THE PROTECTION OF THE HARBOUR ORDINANCE AND IMPLEMENTING THE KWUN TONG TYPHOON SHELTER RECLAMATION WORKS"

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed. This motion seems to be a bit outdated because I recall that I proposed it in 2019. Of course, the operation of this Council had been hijacked and delayed for a long time, thus causing this motion to be put off. But President, there is still an advantage for it to be put off. Why? It is because when this seemingly outdated motion is put forward again for discussion now, it turns out that the timing is just right. Recently we have been fervently discussing the proposals on constitutional reform. One of the key points is that there will be Members from the Election Committee, and an overhaul will be conducted. Not only can this preclude attempts of breach of state order and subversion of state power, the most important or probably the real underlying LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4203 objective is that after putting right the Legislative Council and putting right the relationship between the executive and the legislature and when the Legislative Council can resume normal operation, a major objective is to enable the Government to deal with the problems of housing supply and land supply when it can operate more effectively.

President, as we can see, whether in his remarks made recently at the meeting of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference on 6 March or that of the National People's Congress on 7 March, Vice Premier HAN Zheng mentioned the same problem, that is, there is no solution to the housing problem in and no consensus can be forged, but there has to be a time to start tackling it. President, the time has come now. After improvement is made to the efficiency of the executive and legislature, it is truly important to resist individual interest groups or industries that have long been controlling many development trends or opportunities in Hong Kong, lest the real deep-rooted conflicts in land supply and housing supply cannot be addressed.

President, in proposing this motion today I hope to throw out a sprat to catch a mackerel by suggesting a swift, smart and swell approach, so that the Government will not only look at the long term but not the near term in respect of land supply. President, why do I propose reclamation at the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter? I am a Member representing the East Constituency which covers Kwun Tong. I have all along taken a close interest in the transport facilities and development in Kwun Tong and Kowloon East. The Government has sounded like these districts are most formidable, and there will be a new CBD, but the Cruise Terminal, which has been completed for years, has long been criticized for not being put to good use, and many other landmarks and tourist spots in Kowloon East have not been brought into play. Therefore, there are inherent inadequacies in respect of transport. Even though the Cruise Terminal seems to be only some 100 m away from Kwun Tong, this place is like Siberia and has no synergy effect to speak of. With regard to traffic congestion in Kwun Tong, I think it needs no further elaboration by me. On the Internet there have been unceasing criticisms of the traffic ordeals in Kwun Tong. We have talked about it many times and Members all know the traffic situation in Kwun Tong. As for Route 6, the entire design of the T2 section, for instance, has been delayed for two decades due to the restrictions imposed by the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ("the Ordinance") under discussion today. Why is it that no improvement can be made to the traffic in these districts? There must be big problems.

4204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

As I said just now, the Cruise Terminal is like Siberia, especially during the epidemic as it is literally deserted. In view of this, if we do not do something about it, we would only be taking one step closer to perishing together. As we can see from the Chief Executive Question Time yesterday, some Members asked questions about housing, and Members were all very concerned about it. Mrs Regina IP asked a question on the , and they were all pertinent questions. So, President, this is why I said that the timing is very good.

What are the advantages of reclaiming the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter? As Members who have played jigsaw puzzles will know, we are supposed to finish a puzzle based on the picture of it. The Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter adjacent to the Cruise Terminal is exactly like a missing piece of jigsaw puzzle. It means that this missing piece has caused the entire area outside the Kwun Tong pier to break off from Kai Tak, and we are here to deal with this piece of jigsaw puzzle now.

President, it has several advantages. Let me start with transport infrastructure. Certainly, it is most important to address the problem of traffic congestion in Kwun Tong. First, if reclamation works can be carried out at the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, there will be unobstructed two-way people's flow and vehicular flow in all the places from the Kwun Tong Town Centre to the area around the Cruise Terminal and , and these movements to be created will be entirely different. Second, regarding this place located some 100 m away as I said just now, actually the residents in Kwun Tong often cannot enjoy this waterfront area and they even cannot go over to the side of the Kai Tak pier. After reclamation, land can be created for construction of bridges and for use by vehicles, or even if only some simple cycle tracks and footpaths will be constructed, they can still revitalize the entire area truly for public enjoyment. Third, the new land to be created can, more importantly, provide space for the development of major infrastructure. Why is it that the long proposed environmentally friendly system has not been completed? Of course, a main reason is the shortage of land. We can draw reference to the Central-Wan Chai Bypass as it shows that the road must be able to bypass all obstacles before improvement can be made to the traffic on the Hong Kong Island as a whole. This is precisely the result that we expect to achieve in Kowloon East.

President, transport infrastructure aside, land supply in the short to medium term, as I mentioned earlier, is certainly most important. President, we have conducted a land study and put forward the Project City-E. I am most grateful LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4205 to them for their hard work in completing this study and making comments. In fact, reclamation at the typhoon shelter can immediately create a vast stretch of flat land in close proximity to the urban area, and many transport infrastructure facilities have already been completed there. Meanwhile, the reclamation works will be carried out by way of land-based reclamation, which is far more effective and efficient than the Lantau Tomorrow project that we have been discussing now, under which reclamation will be carried out in the middle of the sea to specifically create land. Compared to the Lantau Tomorrow project, this is downright a swift, smart and swell approach, and also the speediest solution in the short to medium term. This Project City-E was proposed by the Hong Kong City Development Concern Group in 2018. They pointed out that it can provide 85 hectares of land in the urban area and over 3.6 million square metres of residential gross floor area plus 70 000 residential units for Hong Kong―President, it is 70 000 units―it is a swift, smart and swell approach; it is a picture in the nearer term, not just a vision for the distant future. While Lantau Tomorrow as mentioned in the Policy Address will take two decades to produce results, this approach will immediately bear fruits in only a couple of years. The waiting time for public rental housing can then be shortened. The current waiting time of 5.7 years is actually not true as many members of the public still have not been allocated a unit after waiting for six to eight years. Therefore, we must properly improve land supply and housing supply. It is not our wish to see the Central Authorities having to intervene again, just as they did in respect of the constitutional reform in order to supervise the Hong Kong Government in carrying out its duties and supervise Hong Kong in doing many things that the Hong Kong Government and we ourselves should have the ability to handle. This is exactly why I have to emphasize once again that this is a most timely direction.

Certainly, I understand that everything has its pros and cons. Concerning the downsides of it, I very much thank Mr Tony TSE for providing an analysis of this proposal in his article on 2 July 2019. Basically, the downsides are actually simple, and there are only a few points: The first is that it will jeopardize vested interests because many cooling systems have been developed near the Kai Tak pier and lots of infrastructure investment has been made and therefore, the money that has been spent may hence be thrown down the drain. Second, it will affect the sites already sold at the lawn in Kai Tak and in particular, it will affect the so-called land supply. What interests will be affected? President, we all know too well about it. Third, the increase of a large quantity of land in the district may affect the land supply in the district and hence render the land price or vistas affected. Who will be affected? President, we know it too well. 4206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Another point is about the typhoon shelter. Of course, we hope that the agricultural and fisheries sectors as well as people who need to use the typhoon shelter will not be affected. Having said that, President―I will further talk about the problems of the typhoon shelter later if I have a chance to―put simply, how many times a year will there be a need to use the typhoon shelter? For what purposes the typhoon shelter is used now? Members who have read the news may notice that the typhoon shelter is completely occupied by triad gangs for selling or renting berthing space to yachts. This is reality. Therefore, we must understand that the main question is how we should make a choice in view of the existing land supply. No proposal will leave nobody affected, but only the overall, general direction is the direction towards which Hong Kong should head for development.

Why is it necessary to amend the Ordinance? Members may know the Ordinance quite well. It was passed hastily before the reunification in 1997, and if Members' memory is still vivid, the provisions of the Ordinance are actually very simple and can be summed up in two lines. First, it establishes the general principle of the protection of the harbour, and second, government officials or any person shall have regard to this general principle in considering reclamation. But problems arose after the Court of Final Appeal handed down a judgment. The judgment made by the Court of Final Appeal under the atmosphere back then was also simple in that it was based on the so-called overriding public interest, which means that overriding public interest has all the say, like a trump card, and some detailed tests are also provided. For instance, there must be present and compelling interest, or there is no other so-called reasonable alternative. These aside, reclamation must not be excessive in any case, which means that it must not go beyond the necessary requirements.

We are fine with these requirements, but what does it mean by overriding public interest? This is a big problem, for it has basically paralysed the entire Government. It has affected not only the T2 section which I mentioned earlier, leaving it unresolved for two decades as a result, but even the Central-Wan Chai Bypass was delayed considerably for this reason in the entire design, implementation, arrangements and completion date, not to mention the much more expensive construction costs incurred. Certainly, we understand the conservation considerations, but if the conservation work has gone too far, these problems will be resulted. Just as we all understand that when democracy or freedoms go too far or become excessive, we can see what happened during the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4207 past few years. Therefore, we need a reset now. We need to hit the button to start all over again. I hope that we can reset and make a start again structurally not only in respect of the constitutional reform. I also hope that in respect of conservation, a new mindset can be adopted, in order to think about how we can strike a proper balance between conservation and development. In view of the constraints imposed by the Ordinance, I personally think that this policy on the conservation of the harbour is not balanced. It is now time to properly and seriously review the need to undergo such stringent tests.

Moreover, for the improvement of the Ordinance, we can take into consideration two points. First, as I said just now, concerning the requirements, is it more appropriate to replace the so-called overriding interest by reasonable requirement? This is one of the directions. Second, regarding the coverage of the , how large should it be? No one will oppose that no further reclamation should be carried out at the real harbour core, that is, the core area from Central, Admiralty or Wan Chai to Tsim Sha Tsui and on the opposite side. This is most obvious. But how about the area outside the core? President, let us look back on history. In the beginning, only the core at the centre of the harbour was protected. Then in 1999, amendments were proposed to extend the area under protection to the whole of Victoria Harbour. The boundaries of Victoria Harbour can be very far: On the east, it is from Siu Chau Wan Point to Ah Kung Ngam Point; on the west, it is from the westernmost point of Island of Hong Kong to the westernmost point of Green Island and then to the south-easternmost point of Tsing Yi, and to the westernmost extremity of Tsing Yi. So, it covers a very large area. If slight adjustment can be made to the harbour area, so that we can revert to the original intention before 1997 of confining to the real core of Victoria Harbour, things will be made much easier. Therefore, under the present circumstances, I hope that through this motion, the relevant work can start in this direction.

I will respond to Mr Frankie YICK's amendment later if I have a chance to do so. This is also a major obstacle which may deter Members in this Chamber from supporting this proposal. But as I said at the outset, when we make a new start or try to strike a balance again, it is not our wish to see drastic actions taken by the Central Authorities again to address the land supply in Hong Kong. After rectifications are made politically, I hope that individual organizations concerned and people representing the interests of individual sectors will seriously do some thinking and soul-searching. If they care about their individual interests and 4208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 over-emphasize the interests of their industries at the expense of the well-being of all the people of Hong Kong, it will only result in the Beijing Central Government taking actions once again to hit Hong Kong with a hard punch. I hope that we will all learn a lesson.

Thank you, President.

Mr Paul TSE moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That this Council urges the SAR Government to examine and appropriately amend the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, so as to explore the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter reclamation project as a means of increasing short-term land supply and resolving the failure of the cruise terminal to achieve its due economic benefits owing to improper transport planning."

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

MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, I believe Mr Paul TSE moves this motion today probably because of the Project City-E proposed by the Hong Kong City Development Concern Group earlier on, which recommends that reclamation be carried out along the waters between the Kai Tak Approach Channel located on the north-eastern part of the old Kai Tak runway and the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter. It is estimated that 85 hectares of land can be created for the construction of more than 70 000 residential flats, which can help alleviate the problem of insufficient housing supply in Hong Kong. The Liberal Party does not object to providing additional land for housing construction by reclamation. In particular, there is limited flat land in Hong Kong due to its hilly terrain, hence not much land is available for development. The development of Hong Kong in the past has relied on increasing the land available for development through reclamation over the years. Yet, subsequent to the implementation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ("the Ordinance") in 1997, the additional area of land formed by reclamation has dropped considerably from 3 090 hectares between 1984 and 2000 to 791 hectares between 2000 and 2019. The land available for development in Hong Kong has greatly reduced.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4209

According to the Ordinance, reclamation can be carried out in the harbour only if there is a compelling, overriding and present need; there is no viable alternative; and there would be minimum impairment to the harbour. The Liberal Party agrees that the Victoria Harbour is a precious natural resource of Hong Kong which should be well protected and preserved. That said, the Ordinance is indeed very stringent, and it can be said that it is an "inhibiting magic spell" on reclamation.

The Government constructed the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal ("KTCT") at a cost of $8.2 billion in a bid to seize the cruise tourism market. However, since KTCT was commissioned in 2013, the flow of people was undermined due to its remote location and inadequate ancillary transport facilities, as there was only one green minibus route providing services at the very beginning. At present, apart from one green minibus route, there are two regular bus routes and one holiday bus route serving KTCT. Whilst the operator of KTCT will arrange additional shuttle buses and taxis to disperse the crowd during ship call days, the limited transport services can hardly disperse the passengers in a short time since a cruise ship carries thousands of passengers on board, and the passengers still have to wait for a long time. The infrequent transport services at times when there is no ship call have rendered it difficult to attract the flow of people, therefore leading to the poor businesses of the shops at KTCT.

To ameliorate the inadequacy of ancillary transport facilities at KTCT, I have proposed to the Tourism Commission that a pontoon should be moored to the apron of KTCT to facilitate the provision of ferry services, so as to strengthen the transport services of KTCT and increase the flow of people thereat. Although the planned pontoon would only occupy a small area on the sea surface and would not have any impact on the harbour, my proposal was dropped eventually due to the restrictions of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Liberal Party does not object to the appropriate review of the Ordinance. If there is a need to carry out reclamation in the Victoria Harbour, we think that it can be put into consideration as long as it will not affect the shoreline of the Victoria Harbour, particularly if it will not further narrow the distance between the two sides of the Victoria Harbour.

However, if the amendment of the Ordinance merely targets the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, we believe that the Government must first provide a replacement typhoon shelter with sufficient berthing spaces before deciding to alter its use. It is because when Hong Kong is hit by a typhoon, typhoon shelters 4210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 are vital to protecting the lives and properties of marine workers. Due to the geographical constraints of Hong Kong, not all shores are suitable for the development of typhoon shelters. Locating in the Victoria Harbour, the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter not only has a convenient location, but it is also protected by natural barriers as it is surrounded by hills on all sides, making it a more popular typhoon shelter with a utilization rate as high as 80%.

In fact, the Government has proposed to build a world-class water sports centre at the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, and to construct an elevated monorail Environmentally Friendly Linkage System across the sea at the entrance of the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, with a view to fostering the economic activities in Kowloon East and Kai Tak. Regarding these proposals, I have repeatedly emphasized on various occasions that the Government must first ensure that marine workers can enter the typhoon shelter without any obstacles to protect themselves from danger under inclement weather conditions or when a typhoon hits Hong Kong.

With regard to the original proposal of constructing a cross-sea connecting bridge at 21 m above the sea level at the entrance of the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, since the bridge is not high enough to allow some high-mast vessels of an average height of 40 m to 50 m to enter the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter to protect themselves from danger, I hence suggested back then that the height of the connecting bridge should be increased, and the location of the connecting bridge should be moved inward from the entrance of the typhoon shelter, so as to reduce the impact on the high-mast vessels entering the typhoon shelter. Yet, the Secretary for Development already indicated in January that the proposal would be shelved since it was not viable technically and financially. Instead, electric buses and minibuses, as well as a travellators network, etc. will serve as the transport linkage system of the district. The Liberal Party hopes that these diversified transport networks, while supplementing the development of the Area and the related road network projects, can also be extended to KTCT as far as practicable in order to achieve the objective of boosting the economic activities of Kowloon East and improving the flow of people visiting KTCT.

The Government always claims that according to the figures, the existing supply of space in the typhoon shelters, the sheltered anchorages and other anchorage facilities in Hong Kong waters can meet the demand of locally licensed vessels. Yet, among the 14 gazetted typhoon shelters, some of them LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4211 have been under-utilized due to inadequate back-up facilities and remote locations, such as the Hei Ling Chau Typhoon Shelter. It takes five to seven hours to tow a work barge from Kowloon East to the Hei Ling Chau Typhoon Shelter under inclement weather conditions. This, coupled with strong wind and waves, has increased the level of danger, which has eventually deterred marine workers from using it. In addition, there are restrictions on vessel length when using the typhoon shelters. For instance, vessels longer than 30.4 m are not allowed to enter the Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter, whereas the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter only allows vessels under 50 m in length to enter. Therefore, we cannot judge whether there are sufficient berthing spaces at typhoon shelters by simply looking at their numbers.

President, the number of yachts has been growing in recent years, but berthing spaces for yachts are in short supply. In the past, vessels only berthed at typhoon shelters when a typhoon hit Hong Kong. However, as remarked by Mr Paul TSE just now, typhoon shelters have become the berthing sites of private yachts in recent years, and the number of such yachts has been on the rise, thereby leading to the continuous decrease in the number of berthing spaces available for work vessels at typhoon shelters. When super typhoon Mangkhut hit Hong Kong in 2018, some vessels were stranded, listed or even capsized for they were unable to berth at typhoon shelters.

Due to climate changes, it is expected that the intensity of typhoons will only keep increasing in the future. Typhoon shelters are constructed to ensure that marine workers can protect themselves when typhoons and severe weather conditions affect Hong Kong. The safety of vessels and marine workers will be threatened if there are insufficient berthing spaces at typhoon shelters for various types of vessels to berth when typhoons and super typhoons hit Hong Kong. In order to alleviate the shortage of vessel berthing spaces, the Marine Department has set up a new private mooring area at the Hei Ling Chau Typhoon Shelter, and designated 15 hectares of space for the exclusive mooring of non-pleasure vessels in the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter. Despite these efforts, it still fails to meet the market demand for berthing spaces.

President, there is a strong demand for housing. The number of applications for public rental housing has soared from 145 000 cases in 2010 to 253 000 cases in 2020, and the waiting time has even increased from 2 years to 5.7 years. The situation is far from satisfactory. With the shortage of housing supply and exorbitant property prices, many young people find it impossible to 4212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 realize their aspirations for home ownership. Subdivided units which emerge as a consequence have also led to different social problems. Although the Government has identified 330 hectares of land to construct 310 000 public housing units, which will be sufficient to meet the demand for public housing units in the next decade, housing is the most important aspect among people's basic needs for clothing, food, housing and transport. Therefore, the Government must continue to identify land for housing construction so as to prepare for the future. The Liberal Party supports the Government to continue to adopt a multi-pronged approach to increase land reserves, including conducting a study on the reclamation projects of the Lantau Tomorrow Vision. As regards carrying out reclamation at the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter for the sake of development, the prerequisite is that the Government must provide replacement typhoon shelter facilities which can meet the needs of marine workers to ensure the safety of their lives and properties. As such, I hope Honourable Members will support my amendment.

To sum up, the Liberal Party supports the appropriate amendment of the Ordinance. As to whether reclamation works should be carried out at the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, it depends on the disposition of the legislature as we do not have any specific views. Nevertheless, it is vitally important that a replacement typhoon shelter must be provided if it is decided that we shall proceed with the reclamation works.

Thank you, President.

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I would like to thank Mr Paul TSE first for proposing the motion today and Mr Frankie YICK for proposing his amendment.

The motion mainly contains two proposals: first, to explore undertaking reclamation project at the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter to increase land supply in the short and medium term; second, to examine and appropriately amend the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to facilitate the said reclamation project. In this connection, I would like to clearly explain through my opening remarks that at this stage, the Government has no plan to undertake any large-scale reclamation project at the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, nor does it have any plan to amend the Ordinance.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4213

The Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, which covers an area of about 33 hectares, is located in the Kai Tak Development Area. Immediately after announcing the relocation of the Hong Kong International Airport from Kai Tak to Chek Lap Kok in the late 1980s, the Government proceeded with the re-planning for Kai Tak. The Feasibility Study for South East Kowloon Development completed in 1998 recommended reclamation development at Kai Tak, including reclaiming the entire Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter. However, due to the strong opposition to the extent of reclamation from members of the public, the Government further conducted the Comprehensive Feasibility Study for the Revised Scheme of South East Kowloon Development from 1999 to 2001, and significantly reduced the proposed reclamation area. The extent of reclamation was reduced from the entire Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter to only its northern part.

Subsequently, in response to the interpretation made by the Court of Final Appeal concerning the Ordinance in 2004, the Government commissioned the Kai Tak Planning Review in the same year to comprehensively review the Kai Tak Development. And it conducted three stages of extensive public engagement from 2004 to 2006 and reached a broad consensus in society. The relevant technical assessment confirmed the feasibility of redevelopment along the shoreline of the former airport in Kai Tak area. Now the planning, land use, infrastructure, common facilities and marine facilities of the Kai Tak Development Area are all under this framework and being actively implemented.

The Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter is currently the second largest typhoon shelter in the Victoria Harbour. It provides shelter to around 350 local vessels of various types, particularly large working vessels, during typhoons or inclement weather, so as to ensure the safety of marine workers and property. Even in days with no typhoon, there are always around 220 vessels of various types berthing at the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter.

Given the progressive development of Kai Tak, the shoreline of some 3 km along the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter has been planned for use as a harbourfront promenade. As part of the development, Kwun Tong Promenade, which is about 1 km in length, has been very popular with members of the public following its full commissioning in 2015. In the future, the Kai Tak harbourfront will become more diversified and more attractive. For example, there will be shared-trails for pedestrians and cyclists. As for water body, the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, apart from its existing marine function, is being 4214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 developed into one of the hotspots for water-based recreational activities as planned. The Energizing Kowloon East Office has conducted studies on water body co-use initiatives, including the two stages of public consultation in 2017 and 2019. To implement or take forward the proposal, they and the Marine Department have issued the Guidelines for Co-using Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, so as to facilitate the safe co-use of water body by vessels as well as water sports and recreational activities. Recently, the authorities have approved two short-term tenancy applications for establishing water activities centres along the banks of the typhoon shelter. This will hopefully bring vibrancy to the Kwun Tong harbourfront in the short term.

When the Ordinance was enacted in 1997, one very important consideration was to respond to the ardent aspirations of the public to preserve the Victoria Harbour. Pursuant to the Ordinance, the Victoria Harbour is to be protected and preserved as a special public asset and a natural heritage of Hong Kong people, and for that purpose there shall be a presumption against reclamation in the harbour.

The presumption does not mean that reclamation is banned outright. Pursuant to the judgment handed down by the Court of Final Appeal in 2004, an "overriding public need" for reclamation must be established to rebut the said presumption. At the same time, there must be evidence that "there is no reasonable alternative" before undertaking reclamation. As regards the extent of reclamation, the Court of Final Appeal also stated that it should not go beyond the "minimum" of that which is required by the overriding need. There must be "cogent and convincing" materials before the decision-maker to establish the said need.

After the delivery of the said judgment, several reclamation projects that satisfy the "overriding public need" test have been undertaken in the Victoria Harbour, including permanent reclamation along the northern shore of the Hong Kong Island mainly for the construction of the Central-Wan Chai Bypass, and temporary reclamation for the construction of the Cross Harbour Section of the Shatin to Central Link and the Central Kowloon Route. We believe that the next project involving small-scale reclamation is a boardwalk underneath the , a harbourfront project which we are actively pursuing and hope to seek funding approval from the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council this year.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4215

Before deciding to undertake any reclamation project, the Government will carefully consider the overall planning strategy for the area concerned, and take into account various factors concerned, such as whether the project complies with our overall needs and the requirements under the Ordinance.

As far as housing supply is concerned, the Government is pressing ahead with the initiatives proposed earlier by the Task Force on Land Supply, including taking forward new development areas, rezoning individual sites and seeking to undertake reclamation on an appropriate scale outside the Victoria Harbour. In this connection, we will, as encouraged by Mr Frankie YICK just now, continue to spare no effort in providing sufficient land for Hong Kong.

As regards Kai Tak, we hold that the Kai Tak Development represents a social consensus after rounds of planning and public consultation. We also hold that we should follow the recommendations of the planning review in taking forward the development of Kai Tak area. At this stage, if we try to significantly alter the planning, we will not only fail to increase short- and medium-term supply but also hinder the healthy development of the area, and affect residential and commercial floor space and other community facilities that could otherwise be provided.

President, I will carefully listen to the speeches of Members and give an appropriate supplementary response later on as necessary.

Thank you, President.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I thank Mr Paul TSE for proposing today's motion so that this Council has a chance to discuss the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ("the Ordinance") which has been a cause of concern since its enactment in 1996, and revisit the planning and transport issues of the Kai Tak Development Area.

Looking back at history, as early as at the beginning of the 1980s when I was still working in the government department, the Government has commenced an in-depth study on the relocation of the , including how to make good use of the original airport site and its surrounding land for various development purposes after the relocation. Subsequently, as there were confidence issues on the future in Hong Kong, the Government accelerated the 4216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

"Rose Garden Project" in the hope of stimulating the economy and boosting public confidence. That, coupled with the political disputes during the latter part of the transition period and the handover, resulted in the lack of comprehensive and forward-looking planning for the development of the former Kai Tak Airport site before 1997.

After the reunification in 1997, the SAR Government has considered conducting in the waters off the former airport―as the Secretary pointed out just now―reclamation projects of various scales, especially at the part of the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter where the original natural ecology has long been destroyed and the water and soil have already been contaminated, with a view to tackling the constraints on planning, transport, land use and connection to surrounding areas caused by the long-shaped runway of the former airport, so that people living in the new development area and its vicinity will have a more spacious living environment and more convenient public transport facilities.

However, as the Secretary has pointed out, in the judicial review of the Central and Wan Chai reclamation projects in 2003, the court ruled that, in accordance with the Ordinance, reclamation in the Victoria Harbour is permitted only when three criteria are met: (1) compelling, overriding and present need; (2) no viable alternative; and (3) minimum impairment to the harbour.

Although the Government eventually succeeded in the appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and could continue to complete the Wan Chai reclamation works. However, as the Court of Final Appeal did not overrule the above mentioned three criteria, the Kwun Tong reclamation project within the Victoria Harbour had to be shelved. Hence, the Kai Tak Development Area could only be planned and developed on the original site.

President, after nearly two decades, is there still room to revisit the Kwun Tong reclamation project now? First, we must deal with the constraints under the Ordinance. Those who support reclamation consider that the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter has no ecological or fishing value; and that its reclamation will not affect the water flow and width of the Victoria Harbour. On the contrary, transport and land issues will be handled more effectively. However, some people may still object to reclamation or even lodge a judicial review regardless of the economic benefits it may bring as they are worried that reclamation will set a precedent.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4217

Even if the legislation is amended immediately to make reclamation in Kwun Tong legally feasible, it may be too late. First, as I have pointed out before, a large number of public and private developments and infrastructure projects are underway in the Kai Tak Development Area and its surrounding areas. Some of them have already been completed, including the District Cooling System, various highways and link roads, as well as a number of public and private housing, commercial buildings and community facilities which have already been occupied.

Re-examining the reclamation at this stage, regardless of its scale and scope, may have an impact on the relevant infrastructure and developed projects. Should the projects under construction be suspended and amended? The views of the completed buildings may be obstructed and the Kai Tak Development, which has already been developed for 20 to 30 years, may possibly be delayed for another 10 years or so, incurring huge time and economic losses. Affected residents and property owners may also raise objection or even legal challenges.

Moreover, the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter provides a large number of berthing spaces for many local fishing vessels, yachts and other offshore operators. I believe that it will be hard to find a suitable alternative location in the short to medium term. These are precisely the concerns raised in Mr Frankie YICK's amendment.

President, although I have certain reservations about the proposal to relaunch reclamation in Kwun Tong, I will not oppose the review of the Ordinance. In fact, the Ordinance was passed hastily as a private bill before the reunification without thorough discussion, and there has been no amendment or review since then. For instance, are the three criteria laid down by the court regarding the Wan Chai reclamation case applicable to all Victoria Harbour reclamation projects? What can be considered as a "compelling, overriding and present need"? Does solving the land and housing problems in Hong Kong constitute a compelling and overriding need? Another example, as the Secretary has pointed out, is the proposal in recent years to build an elevated boardwalk connecting the waterfront on Hong Kong Island for the public to enjoy the Victoria Harbour. However, as the elevated boardwalk will cover the surface of the Victoria Harbour, will it violate the relevant legislation and be subject to legal challenges?

4218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

President, as a member of the Harbourfront Commission, I certainly support the protection of our waterfront and harbour, but at the same time, I believe that policies and regulations must not be too rigid and inflexible. A balance must be struck between the long-term interests of the entire society and those of all Hong Kong people. I so submit.

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, the National People's Congress passed the decision on improving the electoral system of Hong Kong at its meeting recently. Hong Kong's political problems can finally be resolved. But for Hong Kong to achieve social stability and prosperity for its people, many deep-rooted problems remain to be solved, and among them, housing supply definitely topped the list of such deep-rooted problems.

Mr Paul TSE has proposed the motion on "Examining the amendment of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ("the Ordinance") and implementing the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter reclamation works". Indeed, this motion is very timely. We can study the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter reclamation project and even discuss the associated land supply issue, with a view to arousing awareness in society and forging consensus. Frankly speaking, Hong Kong is already knee-deep in the housing problem. And over the past 10 years or so, the Legislative Council, amidst the political manoeuvre of "mutual destruction", major livelihood issues had absolutely no chance to be resolved. Today, we dispel the chaos and restore the order. The Legislative Council needs to get back on the right track to make all-out and serious efforts to resolve livelihood issues.

I support the motion proposed by Mr Paul TSE today. I believe the Ordinance is necessary but it is not set in stone. As the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter is situated on the inner side of the runway of the former airport, implementation of reclamation works there will not affect the appearance of the Victoria Harbour. And with a shallow seabed, the project will not cost too much. Therefore, there is no reason to forbid it. As a matter of fact, according to the study by a relevant organization, the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter reclamation project can provide 85 hectares of land for the construction of 70 000 housing units. Also, the construction period is very short and there will not be any significant impact on the water quality, so the merits of reclamation outweigh the demerits.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4219

Moreover, the increased land supply can be used for the construction of public housing, Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS") flats and flats under the Starter Homes for Hong Kong Residents ("SH") programme to help people waitlisted for public housing to attain home ownership as soon as possible and enable young people to purchase their own homes. In addition, I also agree that while reclamation projects are important, the needs of maritime operators must also be taken into consideration at the same time. Thus, it is necessary to identify another site for the construction of a new typhoon shelter to provide sufficient berthing spaces to protect the safety of maritime operators. I understand that such a project will entail considerable difficulties but if the Government is determined to resolve the deep-rooted problems of Hong Kong, it should devote its strength and energy to seriously examine whether it is feasible and, if so, it should be done as soon as possible.

To solve the housing problem in Hong Kong in the long run, we still have to rely on the Lantau Tomorrow Vision and the optimization and good use of the existing land sites. Previously, the opposition camp argued that the Lantau Tomorrow Vision would result in an oversupply of land. They were just speaking gibberish. Even if the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter reclamation project is adopted, we still need the Lantau Tomorrow Vision because, if Hong Kong is to maintain its position as an international metropolis, there must be land for housing and development, otherwise Hong Kong's development will be constrained. In fact, 20 years ago, the Government suspended land creation projects due to the fall in property prices, and has not resumed them ever since, resulting in the immeasurable repercussions being suffered today. It proves that land creation projects must be undertaken on an ongoing basis. Moreover, even if the supply of land will be "eased off", we should allow people to enjoy a bigger living space so that they can have a better life. The cramped living spaces in Hong Kong have long come under criticism. Now, many people are living in subdivided units or nano flats, where a family has to live in a unit of 100 or 200 sq ft. Indeed, it is absolutely not healthy.

President, I suggested many years ago that Hong Kong should follow Singapore's housing policy, i.e. promoting the development of public housing, so that the majority of citizens can rent or purchase public housing. Certainly, Hong Kong has its own circumstances and it is impossible to make an exact copy. For example, private housing has to be continuously increased. That said, it is a viable model to supply more public housing in order to satisfy people's needs―particularly young people's need for home ownership. Despite not having officially stated that the example of Singapore will be followed, the Government has taken numerous measures in recent years, including allocating 4220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

70% of land for public housing, introducing the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme, continuing to promote the construction of HOS flats and SH projects, which precisely reflect that the Government is pursing such a direction. I hope the Government can supply sufficient land to support the gradual implementation of the housing policy, so that in the near future, the people of Hong Kong can live in contentment and everyone has a home to live in. In a way, the disparity between the rich and the poor can be partially addressed. Thank you, President.

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Paul TSE and Mr Frankie YICK for proposing the original motion and the amendment respectively. Judging from the subject of the original motion, the content of the motion consists of two parts, namely "examining the amendment of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ('the Ordinance')" and "implementing the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter ('KTTS') reclamation works". Since they are connected by the word "and", we hold that those two parts should be considered separately. However, if the subject is read together with the content, then the objective of the motion is to amend the Ordinance for the purpose of reclaiming the typhoon shelter, so as to secure short-term land supply and at the same time resolve the issue of improper transport planning for the cruise terminal.

President, to begin with, I would like revisit the Ordinance with my fellow Members. The Ordinance was passed hastily by way of a private Member's bill prior to the reunification without extensive public consultation beforehand. As the Ordinance has been in force for over 20 years, I find it unobjectionable to examine and amend it. In particular, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") has all along advocated the development of waterfront promenades on both sides of the Victoria Harbour to enable all members of the public to "get close to" or even "embrace" the Victoria Harbour. Nevertheless, as all of you may recall, the construction of a boardwalk underneath the Island Eastern Corridor has somewhat reflected that the Ordinance is too rigid, for the project of connecting the Eastern District with the waterfront promenade had to compromise in many ways and the works were delayed time and again. Although the construction of the boardwalk could commence eventually, no one can give a 100% guarantee as to whether the works concerned have violated the Ordinance. Therefore, DAB agrees that the Ordinance can be reviewed in due course to write down more clearly the original intent of protecting the harbour and the restrictions on the works, so that government departments will know what course to take.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4221

But anyway, the application of the Ordinance passed prior to the unification―that is, the 1997 version ("the 1997 Ordinance")―in fact did not cover KTTS mentioned in today's motion because the "no-reclamation" area under the 1997 Ordinance only covered the harbour surrounded by the and Hung Hom-North Point. The stipulation that actually extended the "no-reclamation" area to cover the waters around Kai Tak came from the Protection of the Harbour (Amendment) Ordinance 1999 ("the 1999 Amendment Ordinance").

What was the 1999 Amendment Ordinance about? It sought to extend the "central harbour" and align it with the definition of "harbour" under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, that is, to extend the "no-reclamation" area eastwards and westwards, which means extending it to in the east, so as to include the waters on both sides of the Kai Tak runway. At that time, the Protection of the Harbour (Amendment) Bill 1999 ("the 1999 Bill") was supported by Members from different spectrum in the Legislative Council. When the 1999 Bill was presented to the Legislative Council, the Council did not form a Bills Committee to study it; and during the resumption of the Second Reading debate, the Committee stage and the Third Reading, it was also passed without a division.

President, in respect of protecting the Victoria Harbour, DAB's long-standing position is that the harbour is a precious resource for all Hong Kong people and should be protected to the best of our ability. For this reason, all reclamation works within the Victoria Harbour, save for those of significant public interest, should not be carried out. Based on this position, DAB back then supported the application of the Ordinance to the waters around Kai Tak; and based on the same position, DAB, in principle, disagrees in principle with the KTTS reclamation project mentioned in today's motion.

President, putting aside the Ordinance which concerns a matter of principle, I also doubt if it is possible that the Kwun Tong reclamation can provide short-term land supply. An Honourable colleague just now said that it was a "swift, smart and swell" solution, but on the other hand, he also said that traffic congestion was the most crucial problem faced by Kwun Tong at present. Such a proposal will bring harm long before it brings benefits. Firstly, the selected site is located within the Victoria Harbour. As a matter of fact, legislative amendment cannot be made within a very short time. This, coupled 4222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 with the controversy over the selected site, will only end up in a protracted dispute instead of an immediate release of land. Secondly, the selected site requires near-shore reclamation which will surely have a fundamental impact on the occupied and granted land or even the public facilities on both sides. In addition―as everyone knows―the traffic capacity and community facilities in the district have reached their capacity long ago. Any further increase in the flow of people and office space will only overcrowd Kowloon East. Lastly, the reclamation area is where the typhoon shelter is currently located. Even if reclamation is to be carried out, it is necessary to look for a replacement typhoon shelter first. I believe that, at the end of the day, such a hasty approach will only slow us down.

President, the issue of the economic benefits of the cruise terminal involves complicated factors. Improper transport planning is just one of them, and the term "improper" is used in the sense that not only is there a lack of connectivity with the , but there are also many problems with inadequate transport infrastructure, such as inadequate feeder transport to and from the Kai Tak Station of the Shatin to Central Link within the district. These problems cannot be resolved simply through reclamation and they are also difficult to resolve, so I think we should focus on the operation and positioning of the cruise terminal. This approach may be more conducive to development and has nothing to do with the land supply issue discussed today. I reckon that reclamation will not help.

President, taking a step back, even if we have to address the issue of the connectivity between the "tip of the runway" and Kwun Tong, there is no need to reclaim the typhoon shelter because this can be solved simply by constructing a monorail or other transportation links, which is justified. I believe this option can pass the threshold of "overriding public need". Therefore, we consider that the reclamation project has to be handled in a better way.

President, in fact, to address the land supply issue, I think there still exists an interactive relationship between bread and flour. The details of the 10-odd options recommended by the Task Force on Land Supply have yet to be finalized. Only by enhancing administrative efficiency, streamlining administrative procedures and expediting the vetting and approval process can land be released more quickly.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4223

In conclusion, DAB believes that there is a certain consensus in the community that KTTS should not be reclaimed, and this is also the basic position of DAB. As a Member returned by geographical direct election in Kowloon East, I am deeply convinced that local residents and workers in the district also disagree with reclamation. Therefore, we will not support the original motion today and the amendment which retains the content about reclamation.

President, I so submit.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, we have waited for so long a time before we finally have this opportunity to discuss some meaningful livelihood issues again. We have also got the decision of the National People's Congress earlier on, which is related to the amendment of the electoral legislations. I believe that apart from tackling some forces seeking the so-called "mutual destruction" and obstruction to the operation of the legislature, our direction is precisely to enhance the quality of discussion on politics in the legislature and the quality of governance of the Government. As a higher aim, we should go beyond the geographical constituencies and functional constituencies that we represent when we discussed politics. We should adopt a territory-wide mindset and even have a vision for the development of the country.

President, among the eight motions on livelihood issues that I proposed in the Legislative Council in the past, seven of them were agreed in general by Members of the opposition camp and were passed unanimously. Besides legal issues, I also have some special feelings about issues such as urban planning, water quality at the harbourfront and redevelopment of old districts. Therefore, when Mr Paul TSE mentioned the issue of reclamation in Kowloon East, especially about whether a review of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ("the Ordinance") should be conducted, I immediately thought of the brotherhood of Kowloon East and Kowloon West. I remember that Kai Tak was never missed out when we talked about "Building a New West Kowloon". Back then, Kai Tak has not yet become a part of Kowloon West. As regards Kowloon East and Kowloon West, I remember that in the past, fellow Members all along wished that we could have a continuous harbourfront. Such a concept has also been extended to Wan Chai later on, where various thematic communities have been implemented earlier than our Kowloon West and Kowloon East.

4224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

I am glad to see this kind of development, and I am also happy to see that after 10 years of hard work, the Government has finally accepted the concept of "resolving the simple issues before the difficult ones". Today, we are going to examine land development, especially the Kai Tak Area. How should we look at this issue? If we take a look at the Mainland, I wonder if Honourable colleagues are aware that the Mainland has been given the nickname "Infrastructure Giant". It is because foreigners find it unbelievable when they witness infrastructure projects being taken forward in such a fast pace in the Mainland. Whether it is the construction of cross-harbour tunnels; roads through the mountains, buildings―in Chongqing―and across the river; rural transformation to get rid of poverty, I have visited many of these cities and rural villages, their compensation packages are excellent.

I recall that when I talked about the planning of West Kowloon, I mentioned our wish for the relocation of the Yau Ma Tei Typhoon Shelter. We should set up a place similar to a "typhoon shelter industrial area", just like the Tai Po Industrial Area, and have those vessels … The area near my home (Ting Kau) also has the same problem, the water quality is very poor as it is facing the dockyard. But then, speaking of typhoon shelters, the nine motions that I proposed were the more mainstream ones. I am aware that some Honourable colleagues back then would oppose to the amendments immediately as long as we mentioned the typhoon shelters, since existing workers would be involved. I consider that if we have to embrace a grand vision, be it the Yau Ma Tei Typhoon Shelter or the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, both of them are not issues that we cannot touch upon. The question lies in whether the Government can offer an attractive compensation package.

I can see that under the compensation package for rural transformation in the Mainland, farmers may be compensated with houses and they may also be offered dividends which can be inherited. It makes them so happy. This reflects the government's courage to assist in such large-scale planning. Hainan is now enacting legislation in a bid to turn itself into a full free port comparable to Hong Kong. Therefore, we indeed have to go beyond our old way of thinking.

Speaking of Kai Tak, I served as a member of the District Council for three terms. Members of the District Councils and the Legislative Council returned by direct elections can indeed feel public sentiments and the pulse of society, as well as the grievances more directly. The Kai Tak Cruise LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4225

Terminal is like a piece of wasteland. In the past 10 years, the operator has been using the approach of running a cruise terminal in foreign countries. However, there is abundant land in foreign countries and land is not as precious as that in Hong Kong. The terminal is large but actually, the transport is very inconvenient. Even if the passengers get off a cruise ship, they still have to walk a long way to board a taxi. These are basically failures in terms of planning. There is no need to mention the current epidemic, it is difficult to do business there even if there is no such an epidemic.

Constructing such a large cruise terminal in Hong Kong with such a sizable site … I understand that the lease will soon expire as it was granted by the Government in 2012. In fact, the best solution is to have it managed by the Government, but it should not merely follow the bureaucratic way as it did before by saying that nothing could be done. It is most common in the civil service system that when people raise a question or ask them to do something, they will say that they cannot do it, or it is difficult to do so. I hope that this mantra can be changed, and not only this mantra, but also their mindset.

Therefore, in regard to the existing planning, my personal view is that the Ordinance sometimes really hinders our planning, including the factory of Green Island Cement which can never be touched upon in our planning for a continuous harbourfront. Having said that, I would also like to tell Mr Paul TSE or those Members who support the motion that we must be extremely cautious as tremendous public outcry will be triggered when it comes to the harbourfront. I have experienced that many times, everyone would take to the streets, even those from the establishment camp, not just those from the pan-democratic camp, they just acted unanimously. The time for members of the public to stand in solidarity is when the harbourfront is involved. I hence think that we have to be cautious since the harbourfront is something very rare in Hong Kong.

For this reason, on this issue, I will abstain from voting if it is suggested that reclamation should be carried out. Notwithstanding this, I also support the conduct of a study actively because even if we only want to improve the environment, we also need to review the Ordinance.

President, I so submit.

4226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I am very grateful to Mr Paul TSE for proposing the motion. In his question raised in 2019, Mr TSE once asked whether the Government had any plan to carry out reclamation works at the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter ("KTTS"). At that time, the Secretary for Development replied that there was no such intention, one of the reasons being that a feasibility study on a monorail in Kowloon East was underway, which could solve the traffic problems in the district in the future. However, last year's Policy Address has made it clear that the Kai Tak monorail project, which has been in the pipeline for 10 years, is technically infeasible and the project will not be pursued. Nevertheless, there are many large-scale commercial and residential infrastructure projects in Kowloon East―particularly in Kai Tak―including the Kai Tak Multi-purpose Sports Complex, and they are bound to bring a huge flow of people to the district. If all these facilities come into full operation, it is estimated that the ancillary transport facilities originally planned for Kowloon East will be even more overloaded. Therefore, I agree that we should study the feasibility of the KTTS reclamation on the premise that adequate berthing spaces are provided for vessels at the typhoon shelter, so as to address the traffic problems arising from the shortage of land in Kowloon East.

There have always been problems with the ancillary transport facilities in the vicinity of the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal ("KTCT"). Every time when two mega cruise ships berth there, masses of visitors go in and out the district simultaneously, causing immediate traffic chaos across the district. With a construction cost of $8.2 billion, KTCT boasts a beautiful environment and has 50 000 sq ft of commercial space. Apart from providing areas for the embarkation and disembarkation of cruise passengers, the hardware can also provide space for business, leisure and tourism purposes in the district. That said, due to poor ancillary transport facilities, the shopping mall, exhibition venue and other facilities in the cruise terminal have all along been under-utilized and the economic benefits originally envisaged have not been achieved. To turn around the current passive situation, the only way is to improve the traffic network so that the value of the cruise terminal can be fully exerted and the traffic problems in the vicinity can be resolved.

The KTTS reclamation proposed by Mr TSE is indeed one of the options worth exploring. If successful, the terminal area can be integrated with the Kwun Tong District. Apart from additional land supply, vehicles will no longer need to make a detour as they do now and the traffic problems will then be solved, which is conducive to the development of KTCT and its surrounding facilities in the long run. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4227

President, reclamation in urban areas is not simply a matter of engineering works, but comes with various controversies and is estimated to take over 10 years from study to implementation. For this reason, on top of reclamation, I also suggest that some short-, medium- and long-term measures can be considered in order to solve the existing problems with the traffic in the district and the external access of the cruise terminal.

A short-term proposal is to establish a temporary terminal facility for passenger embarkation and disembarkation near the entrance to the typhoon shelter, that is, next to the Kai Tak Runway Park. Despite the existing Kai Tak Public Pier near the former airport fire station, vessels using this pier must reach the interior of the typhoon shelter by taking a relatively circuitous and time-consuming route. At present, ferries plying between Kwun Tong and North Point need to berth there midway. Given the longer travelling time, the response from passengers has been lukewarm. During the boom of Mainland inbound tours, in order to divert the tour groups in To Kwa Wan, harbour tours for Mainland visitors also used this piers, but the response was equally lukewarm due to the relatively remote location of the pier. Even if the tourism industry recovers, it is likely that the location of this pier will lead to low patronage. If a temporary pier is provided near the entrance to the typhoon shelter, it will be able to cater for the needs of different visitors, including the Mainland tour groups participating in harbour tours as mentioned just now, passengers taking the ferries plying between North Point and Kwun Tong, passengers at the Kai Tak water taxi stop to be developed, as well as cruise passengers. Recently, organizations participating in reception of cruise passengers suggested to me that if a temporary pier could be provided at the aforesaid location, they would design several local tour itineraries for cruise passengers coming to Hong Kong to choose from, so as to enhance the attractiveness of Hong Kong in the cruise market.

President, in the face of fierce competition from the Shenzhen Bay Cruise Homeport ("SZCH") in the Greater Bay Area, the Government cannot rest on its laurels. There should be longer-term planning for KTCT, such as by increasing clearance facilities and cross-border transport services to strengthen the external connectivity of the cruise terminal and enhance its competitiveness against our neighbouring regions. The positioning of SZCH is already higher than Hong Kong in design, with the intention of becoming a comprehensive waterborne transport hub centre of the Greater Bay Area; and since its commissioning, there have already been many cruise routes to different cities such as Hong Kong, Macao and the Pearl River Delta, and the ancillary transport facilities to and from SZCH within Shenzhen City are also relatively 4228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 well-developed. Therefore, that terminal has a higher utilization rate and a very heavy passenger flow. On the contrary, the design of Hong Kong's cruise terminal started at a lower level. Considerations were only given to local traffic arrangements without taking into account cross-border transport services, and the transport to and from urban areas is also inadequate, thus causing dissatisfaction among the industry and visitors.

In fact, the existing facilities, location and hardware of the cruise terminal have already laid down some sort of foundation. The Government should make optimal use of the existing resources and re-plan the external ancillary transport facilities with a forward-looking vision, so that the competitive advantages of the cruise terminal in Hong Kong can be sustained in the long run.

With these remarks, President, I support the original motion and its amendment.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, today we are here to discuss the motion on "Examining the amendment of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance and implementing the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter reclamation works" proposed by Mr Paul TSE. I will talk about my personal feelings first. As Members all know, I have always supported a multi-pronged approach to increase land supply, including reclamation. In the past I did not have a good understanding of the urban planning or district affairs in Kowloon East, and back then I thought that reclamation at the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter would be quite good since it was a pool of murky water anyway and land supply could then be increased rapidly. But after I have recently spent time conducting community surveys in Kowloon East and listening to the views of local residents, I have come to another entirely different conclusion.

President, urban planning is not only about increasing land supply but there must also be a full range of support in respect of transport, community facilities, leisure facilities, and it is necessary to have regard to heritage conservation and make good use of natural resources, and so on. It is imperative to strike a balance in order to build a liveable community. Kowloon East used to be a community with a mixture of business/industrial and residential developments. Urban planning was lacking and the needs of the community were neglected. This explains why Kowloon East is, in general, hit the hardest by traffic congestion among all the districts in Hong Kong now, and the residents have very strong feelings of being crowded in their living. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4229

Reclamation at the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter involves not only Kwun Tong but is also related to Wong Tai Sin, Kai Tak and Kowloon City. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions was already concerned about the land use at the former Kai Tak Airport before the reunification and the planning of the revitalization works at Kai Tak River in 2004. This is a long-term plan which requires comprehensive consideration, and reclamation absolutely cannot be carried out wantonly. If reclamation is carried out hastily for the reason of increasing land supply to the neglect of the actual needs of Kowloon East, this is absolutely not a good choice. The real way out is to determine how this place can be best used.

We consider that we should optimize the functions of the typhoon shelter and improve community planning. The Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter is the second largest typhoon shelter in Hong Kong, providing berthing space for 350 vessels during inclement weather. It has a very high usage rate and is very important to marine and fishing operations. What is more, it is difficult to identify another place for developing a new typhoon shelter in Kowloon East. Apart from providing berthing space for vessels, the typhoon shelter has an even more important ventilation function, bringing fresh air from Lei Yue Mun to Wong Tai Sin and Kowloon City through the breezeway at Kai Tak River. Reclaiming this area measuring some 80 hectares between the inner part of the Kai Tak runway and Kwun Tong will block the fresh air from entering Wong Tai Sin and even the entire Kowloon East, thus producing a serious heat island effect.

Population has long reached saturation in Kowloon East. According to the projections of the Planning Department, the population of Kowloon East will be as high as 1.15 million in 2026. Kwun Tong is also the District Council district with the largest population in Hong Kong, and the Kai Tak Development Area under construction, the Anderson Road Public Housing Development as well as the development of the Quarry site will likewise lead to a surge in population. Before he put forward the proposal on reclamation, did Mr Paul TSE fully consider the transport load in the district and the adequacy of the community facilities in providing support for the new reclamation plan? I believe the public would not wish to live in a crowded district, and even in a "concrete jungle", still there has to be an oasis. Reclamation should provide a quality community for the public. It should not be carried out indiscriminately, which will otherwise result in "overloaded" community development. What we want is a liveable community, President.

4230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Preservation of the typhoon shelter actually has great value. I think it is necessary to preserve three lines: First, the ridgeline, and more precisely, the ridgeline of Lion Rock, a landmark of Kowloon East. If this plan is taken forward, many high-rise buildings will be developed, and this will interrupt the ridgeline and affect the view. Second, the coastline. The Kai Tak runway and the Kwun Tong waterfront have now formed a waterfront community where the residents carry out many activities. With a history of 96 years since its inception, the former Kai Tak Airport has borne witness to the development of Kowloon East. It is a major landmark and a most important coastline. Third, the historical line, which starts from , Sung Wong Toi, Lung Tsun Bridge to the Kai Tak runway. These places form a unique historical line with a sense of belonging towards the community. To the people of Hong Kong, these three lines are important assets, and reclamation absolutely cannot be carried out there wantonly.

Furthermore, the Government has already carried out a large amount of works on the water quality at the and even the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, such as dry weather flow interception facilities to intercept the discharge of sewage, partial dredging at seabed level of the waters, bioremediation works, and so on. The quality of the water there is no longer like that of a pool of murky water as we understood it in the past. Therefore, under the Kai Tak Fantasy, the plan to use the typhoon shelter as a water sports centre will be implemented. We should effectively utilize the water body there and encourage the public to take part in water sports activities, such as organizing dragon boat races, rowing competitions or other water activities, in order to enhance the vibrancy of the community.

The development of waterborne transport is very important too. As we all know, the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal has been criticized for its poor accessibility, which is a fact. But while this place is not easily accessible, does it mean that reclaiming this area can be a solution to the problem? Just as we always complain about the inconvenience of travelling between Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, could it be that reclaiming the whole of the Victoria Harbour can solve the problem? No. We have to practically deal with the problem by, among others, expeditiously introducing feeder transport services provided by water taxis or "walla-walla". In the long term, we hope that the Government will press on with the light rail project at Kai Tak and the construction of a cycle track across the waters that directly reaches Lai Yip Street and then MTR station, thereby connecting the transport links on both sides of the harbour. We LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4231 absolutely do not oppose the creation of land by reclamation. We consider that there must be planning, but this is absolutely not an alternative of Lantau Tomorrow either. We also consider that the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance can be reviewed at an appropriate time. But while keeping an open mind, we absolutely cannot carry out reclamation at the Kwun Tung Typhoon Shelter, for this would be penny wise but pound foolish, and utterly undesirable.

Lastly, regarding the Decision made by the National People's Congress to improve the electoral system of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and ensure patriots administering Hong Kong, Mr Paul TSE has described it as the Beijing Government hitting Hong Kong with a hard punch. Such remarks are so wrong indeed, and just as what I would say about the proposal on the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, I really have to beg to differ.

Thank you, President.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Good morning, there is a rather interesting discussion on the Internet these two days, which concerns the question of whether all the cotton trees in the vicinity of Tseung Kwan O should be cut down. It sounds like this has nothing to do with the motion under discussion, but it is in fact related. The key point is, we are living in Hong Kong, but do we know Hong Kong?

This Member's motion proposed by Mr Paul TSE is about examining the amendment of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ("the Ordinance") and the reclamation works at Kwun Tong. With the introductory remarks that I have made a moment ago, the first and foremost important issue that I wish to talk about is the origin of the Ordinance. The Ordinance did not simply originate from our consideration on how to protect the ocean of Hong Kong, that is, the outer harbour of Hong Kong. This is not the case. The provisions of the Ordinance are actually about how to protect the inner harbour of Hong Kong, that is, the Victoria Harbour.

A short while ago, some Honourable Members also mentioned the origin of the Ordinance briefly. Let me recap it here. Being a rare occurrence, the Ordinance was a private bill proposed by the then Member Ms Christine LOH in the then Legislative Council during the course of the handover of sovereignty in 1996 and 1997. It was passed as an ordinance prohibiting further reclamation 4232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 works in the Victoria Harbour. Therefore, the Ordinance itself is not simply a piece of legislation to protect the Victoria Harbour. In fact, being a rare occurrence as a private bill, it even carries a historical significance in the history of the legislature that such an event may never take place again in the future. Of course, regarding the reason why the Ordinance was passed at that time, or under the political climate back then … Why do we think it is just the other way round nowadays that the Ordinance seems to be confining our development? There are different perspectives. At that time, the Ordinance was passed perhaps partly due to the influence of China. To be honest, although some social activists or those engaged in protecting the Victoria Harbour might have played a part in it, actually the direction of development adopted by the British Hong Kong Government during the colonial era was to adopt the cheapest and most inexpensive approach that would wreak the greatest destruction to Hong Kong. And that is, to create new land through reclamation. That is to say, they had to fill up the entire Hong Kong. This is how Hong Kong Island was formed, and the entire Kowloon Peninsula was also formed in this way.

After entering the 1980s, Ms Christine LOH―some incumbent Members also belongs to more or less the same generation―realized that this should not be allowed. This was our Hong Kong, and it had nothing to do with political stance, be it pro-China or pro-British. But we would come up with this question when we were living here: Why was the typhoon shelter in Kwun Tong so dirty? The shoreline of Hong Kong had shifted increasingly outwards after numerous reclamation works, and the Victoria Harbour had almost disappeared. Not only had we lost the shoreline, even a harbour which was so gorgeous had also disappeared, and they had given rise to the problem of pollution as well.

I have spent three minutes to briefly explain the origin of the Ordinance. It is because in the 1970s and 1980s, Hong Kong people discovered for the first time a place in Hong Kong which was related to our future and closely connected with our lives, and then the Ordinance was passed as a rare occurrence before 1997 to protect our public resources, i.e. our sea. I am not going to talk about our country parks―this is not quite relevant as this is something in the MACLEHOSE era―our air, but water is not included, and other institutions which are relatively abstract, such as culture, etc. However, what is the most tangible thing before our eyes that we can protect at present? It only remains our inner harbour, i.e. the Victoria Harbour.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4233

Therefore, from this standpoint, I am sorry to say that this Member's motion cannot be supported in principle, and there is even no room for discussion. Why? This is based on how we look at the development of this place that is possibly left in Hong Kong in the past few decades or in the next score of years. I believe fellow Members would understand my stance. If we put forward some rather old-fashioned arguments, that is, the so-called "consideration taking into account the long-term interests of Hong Kong", the Ordinance is the only piece of specific legislation stipulating provisions on how to protect our only remaining public resources taking into account the long-term interests of Hong Kong. As a matter of fact, it was a private bill proposed by the then Member Ms Christine LOH. Certainly, I must emphasize that it does not imply that I would definitely support what was done at that time, because it was merely the outcome of the tug-of-war between China and Britain. If you still remember, Britain intended to take forward a desalination project in the Victoria Harbour back then, coupled with the Rose Garden project. In fact, there were political contests in the background, but I will not go into details since I do not have much speaking time left.

What is the current position of the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter? Actually, some accidents and disputes arose in the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter about two months ago, which were related to the mooring of vessels. Fellow Members may have also noticed the news that some vessels caught fire. Now, why has it suddenly become a big "cash cow"? Anyway, this is the result of the policy of the Hong Kong Government in the past two years. I recall that three years ago, we were still discussing the Lantau Tomorrow Vision, and even the development of Discovery Bay. Do you remember that? Three years ago, some miserable middle-class people who were relatively detached from reality had purchased some livable yachts in Discovery Bay. As development would be carried out there, it then became a zone of interests. As such, Discovery Bay indicated that those yachts could no longer stay there and asked them to leave. Those yachts then moved to moor at the existing Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter.

Such being the case, where else in Hong Kong can yachts be moored? Reclamation can indeed release space. I have already put forward some political principles just now. However, looking at the other way round, in the development of Kwun Tong, i.e. the so-called Energizing Kowloon East, if we look at it with a clear mind, how many large-scale commercial buildings and Grade A office buildings in the district are left vacant now? In fact, we all know that this is only the development in the past decade. How come Kowloon East 4234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 has become a big "cash cow" and then be carved up? Initially, they just intended to acquire land to construct some buildings and then sell them to make money. But to their surprise, the market was not good during this period of time and they had to put them aside. Therefore, rightly as other Members have said just now, if it is suggested that Kwun Tong should be improved, it is in fact the environment that has to be improved, and this cannot be done by creating land. I so submit. (The buzzer sounded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, please stop speaking.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, since the inception of Hong Kong …

(There was noise interference with the broadcasting system in the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-kwok, do you have your mobile phone nearby? Please move your mobile phone away.

(Mr MA Fung-kwok moved his mobile phone away)

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Since the inception of Hong Kong, the harbour has been its significant symbol. Being a valuable resource for all the people of Hong Kong, it should be cherished and protected. It is the consensus of all Hongkongers to preserve the unique and precious harbour, and the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ("the Ordinance") has established a presumption against arbitrary reclamation in respect of Hong Kong's harbour being a special public asset and natural heritage of Hong Kong people. The original intent of the legislation is not to deny all reclamation, but to oppose excessive and unnecessary works. Such being the case, reclamation and environmental protection are not necessarily in conflict with each other. For this reason, I expressed my support when the Ordinance was passed back then.

Today's motion debate concerns whether the Ordinance should be amended so as to explore the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter reclamation project as a means of increasing short-term land supply and resolving the problem about the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4235 economic benefits of the cruise terminal. I notice that the motion is very carefully worded, using the four words "so as to explore". Indeed, according to the existing Ordinance and the Court's interpretation of the provisions, exploration of reclamation within the Victoria Harbour must satisfy the test set out in the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal in the judicial review on Wan Chai Development Phase II in 2004, i.e. it must be proved that there is an overriding public need for the reclamation. By overriding, it means there is a present and compelling social need for the reclamation, and there is no other reasonable solution. In addition, the extent of reclamation must be minimal. The crux of the question is whether the protection currently provided under the Ordinance is too stringent. A number of commentators have pointed out that back then, the Ordinance was introduced in the form of a private bill without extensive public consultation. The Government might not have listened to sufficient views at that time. Certainly, the post-reunification Special Administrative Region Government did not foresee that the Ordinance would become a standard option for some groups to challenge reclamation projects and even an obstacle to all waterfront development plans. The previous reclamation projects in Wan Chai and Central have consequently been delayed time and again. The Central-Wan Chai Bypass has taken as long as 30 years from the feasibility study (i.e. 1987) to its commissioning (i.e. 2019), and many proposals for new waterfront facilities have been aborted. The Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plan has even avoided the option of reclamation, thus turning out to be a zero-reclamation project.

Mr Paul TSE mentioned that the failure of the cruise terminal to achieve its due economic benefits owing to improper transport planning was in fact also related to the Ordinance. Even the previous plan of a water sports group to develop a temporary water sports centre at the end of the Kai Tak runway was hindered by the possibility of the design of the pontoon being in breach of the Ordinance. In terms of effect and impact, the current provisions of the Ordinance and the Court's interpretation of such provisions are like a straitjacket on urban planning and development. To avoid contravening the Ordinance, the Government has simply adopted a broad-brush approach, giving no consideration to reclamation works involving the Victoria Harbour, which in effect has ruled out many possibilities of enhancing the Victoria Harbour.

I believe that discussion in society on whether the Ordinance should be amended will be highly controversial and heated. Despite the urgent need to expand urban space and the serious shortage of land supply in Hong Kong, when 4236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 public discussions and government policies involve examining whether country parks should be rezoned or a large amount of resources should be used to make planning on artificial islands, reclamation in line with sustainable development and causing minimal harm to the harbour cannot be explored at all under the present Ordinance. During the earlier big debate on land supply, it was estimated by some organizations that the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter proposal could provide in the short term 85 hectares of land for residential use, with a domestic floor area of over 3.6 million square metres available for the construction of nearly 70 000 residential units and essential community facilities. To Hong Kong society having a strong demand for housing, this would be a rare additional land supply. In considering whether there is an overriding public need for the project, should we not also take into account its contribution to society and the economy? Can it offset or even do more than making up for the limited loss caused by reclamation to the Victoria Harbour? In fact, the works period of the proposed reclamation is short and the cost is low. It will not affect the operation of the harbour, and will not have much impact on the water flow either. Moreover, it is close to the developed area where supporting transport facilities are readily available. If the overall planning is appropriate, it will be highly feasible and worthy of consideration. Of course, I do not unconditionally support reclamation in the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, but at least it should be handled and considered on a case-by-case basis in a rational and pragmatic manner.

Inevitably, to conduct reclamation in the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, it is necessary to resolve the practical problems. The one to be addressed first and foremost is precisely what Mr Frankie YICK is gravely concerned about, which is the acute shortage of berthing spaces at typhoon shelters. Especially during typhoons and inclement weather, typhoon shelters are vitally important in protecting the lives and property of marine workers. Earlier on, there have been reports about the poor management of the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter which resulted in not only accidents between vessels but even a fire which spread to the adjacent boats. Therefore, unless an equally suitable site for the typhoon shelter is identified, the reclamation proposal can start nowhere.

President, with the existing Ordinance intact, it is difficult for the Government to embark on the said exploration because if a reasonable alternative can be figured out, there will be no way to prove the overriding need for the said reclamation project. To a certain extent, it is almost an impossible task to prove that there is no reasonable alternative to a project. Under the premise of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4237 protecting the Victoria Harbour, can the Ordinance be amended to allow flexibility to take different circumstances into account? I believe this controversial issue must be examined.

President, I so submit.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, the subject for today's debate is "Examining the amendment of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance and implementing the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter reclamation works" proposed by Mr Paul TSE. Mr Wilson OR put it very well by stating clearly from the outset the opposition stance of our party. The reason is that this subject should be discussed separately.

Mr MA Fung-kwok highlighted some works in the Victoria Harbour which had been subject to judicial reviews and pointed out that the Government stepped back because the floating bridge would contravene the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). Hence, I approve of making amendments to the Ordinance, but I really beg to disagree with the motion as it proposes to amend the Ordinance so as to implement the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter reclamation works.

Why do I say so? It is because of a few arguments made by Mr Paul TSE in particular. I cannot say much in seven minutes but can give a brief account only. He began by asking how many times typhoon shelters were put into use in a year. I remember that Secretary Michael WONG used to be the Director of Marine and we have had discussions in regard to typhoon shelters. As a matter of fact, we have always criticized the Government for calculating the area of typhoon shelters by dividing the total number of vessels in Hong Kong by the total number of berthing spaces. This is equivalent to asking someone who lives in Ap Lei Chau to park his car in Sha Tau Kok and then take other transport home. Hence, we have such strong views on the Hei Ling Chau Typhoon Shelter where the vacancy rate is relatively high. Yet, the Government keeps asking people to moor their vessels there as vacant spaces are available.

The way the Government calculates berthing spaces in typhoon shelters is not appropriate as it has not introduced a home port concept and given consideration to how typhoon shelters are actually used in normal life. Why would I want to take three to four hours of transportation to get to my vessel? 4238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

There are six typhoon shelters within the Victoria Harbour and more than a dozen of typhoon shelters around Hong Kong, but berthing spaces are still insufficient. It is like asking cars with dual license plates to park in Shenzhen and return to Hong Kong in three months. The logic is not normal at all.

The SAR Government has earlier completed a consultancy report on typhoon shelters and recommended the introduction of some enhancement measures precisely at the location under discussion today. It seems to recommend that designated mooring areas for classes I, II and III vessels within the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter be set up for a one-year period on a trial basis to see if the results will be better. The Government can try to do that, but it is expected to fail. In any case, according to Mr Paul TSE's motion, reclamation should be taken forward if this arrangement works. Frankly, I do not quite agree with this approach. The prolonged shortage of berthing spaces in typhoon shelters will boost the scarcity value, as Dr CHENG Chung-tai pointed out just now. As a result, triad elements may occupy the berthing spaces for rent. This can happen. However, tearing down the typhoon shelter is not the way to deal with the situation. If we have to tear down the typhoon shelter due to the presence of triads, then the Yau Tsim Mong District will have to be torn down first. There is a housing shortage in a certain place and people are complaining, so you tear the place down and build a new housing block with the same number of units. This logic is not the solution to the so-called triad problem that he raised.

Secondly, I highlighted the shortage of berthing spaces for fishermen just now. Frankly, not so many fishermen moor in Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter because the location is not convenient for their operations. They prefer mooring outside Lei Yue Mun. However, as the Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter had been closed for many years due to the Central-Wan Chai Bypass works in the Victoria Harbour. Where were the yachts moored when the Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter was closed? Some of them moved to and Tsing Yi and some moved to Aberdeen, causing crowdedness in Aberdeen. When the Central-Wan Chai Bypass was completed, these yachts did not want to leave. As a result, a large number of yachts constantly moor in the Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter. They even gradually encroached upon the natural dividing line in the middle of the Ap Lei Chau Bridge―birds of a feather flock together. Yachts usually moor along the east side of the bridge while fishing vessels usually moor along the west side of the bridge―there are so many yachts that they even take over the west side of the bridge. A yacht worth more than $100 million can be found among a dozen fishing vessels. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4239

Fishing vessels are like potteries while yachts are like porcelains. Collisions between vessels on the sea are inevitable. Fishermen will receive a lawyer's letter in the event of a collision. Should they approach Mr Paul TSE then? How much does he charge? Fishermen are afraid of getting into trouble, so more often than not, they simple pay for the damages which can easily run up to tens of thousands of dollars. Such things did happen before. Or they may be threatened and there have been quite many such cases, too. That is why designated berthing areas have been set up in the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter on a trial basis. I opined that this measure should be implemented in Aberdeen instead of Kwun Tong, but the Government did not listen to me. Never mind. Let us see if the Government will listen when there are 90 Members in the future.

This is a matter of potteries and porcelains. Vessels rushed over there because other typhoon shelters were closed by the Government. Mr Paul TSE said the works would be completed in three years. Frankly, I do not believe that. Just think about it: previously at the Gin Drinkers Bay … it was not the Gin Drinkers Bay Typhoon Shelter, or when many other typhoon shelters are closed, or when typhoons such as Hato and Mangkhut hit Hong Kong, are typhoon shelters not important? They are important as strong wind can destroy hundreds of vessels. That is why I have been requesting the Government to build typhoon shelters, which the Government is proceeding with in an unacceptably slow speed. Therefore, I want to tell the Secretary for Development that it is fine to identify land for housing as I understand the importance of addressing the housing demand. However, we cannot close our eyes and ignore everything, thinking only about building housing. Can these 33 hectares alone solve the problem? The resumption of the golf course in North East has been proposed―I should not have mentioned this―has it been done yet? It is also not feasible. Therefore, it is not a matter of closing our eyes and looking for land. Stakeholders of land including fishermen in the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter and people affected by the sports development in North East New Territories are also very important, right? The Government cannot do whatever it wants.

Just now, Mr Paul TSE said repeatedly that everyone knew what happened there, but actually I do not quite understand what he meant. He should make it clear instead of saying "everyone knows who they are". Private properties are inviolable. An impartial legal system should protect private properties, regardless of whether they belong to the rich or the poor. However, we have to consider the demand. If the Government really wants to resume the land, it 4240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 should offer sufficient compensations. His statement can easily lead to conflicts between people and between classes, although I do not want to mention classes nor simply call it hatred towards the rich arising from the wealth gap. Transport issues cannot be solved in this way, Secretary for Development. It took six years to build another roundabout in Yuen Long. Now according to him, this can be completed in three years. I do not quite believe it.

President, I so submit.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I would like to first thank Mr Paul TSE for moving his original motion, so that we can discuss the topic of amending the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ("the Ordinance") and implementing the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter reclamation works. There is a strong demand for housing in Hong Kong society, and the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal has failed to fully realize its potential due to poor transport planning. If we can implement the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter reclamation works, we will be able to properly solve the two problems at the same time, and further enhance the transport network of the Kai Tak New Development Area. This is worthy of our serious exploration.

President, the Ordinance is by no means new to us. In 2003 the Society for Protection of the Harbour Limited invoked the Ordinance for the first time to apply to the court for a judicial review, so as to challenge reclamation involved in the Central-Wan Chai Bypass project. The High Court ruled against the Town Planning Board on 8 July of the same year, and the project approval for Wanchai Reclamation Phase II was forced to be rescinded. The judgment states that the three tests of "compelling, overriding and present need", "no viable alternative", and "minimum impairment to the Harbour" have to be met before the presumption against reclamation can be rebutted. The Court of Final Appeal handed down its judgment on 9 January 2004 in respect of the draft Wan Chai North Outline Zoning Plan, and held that the statutory presumption against reclamation in the harbour is to implement the principle of protection and preservation. It does not prohibit reclamation altogether. As a presumption, it is capable of being rebutted. The three tests laid down by the High Court were substituted with a single test of "overriding public need". The presumption against reclamation can only be rebutted by establishing an overriding public need for reclamation. Such a need is a community need, which includes "the economic, environmental and social needs of the community".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4241

As we can all see, since the full commissioning of the Central-Wan Chai Bypass and Island Eastern Corridor Link on 24 February 2019, traffic congestion on the relevant road sections of Hong Kong Island has been considerably alleviated. The social benefits are obvious. Nevertheless, the Ordinance and the said judicial review seem to have become a spell put on local infrastructure projects and development projects in association with reclamation in the harbour. For example, in July 2004 the Planning Department commenced a comprehensive planning review on Kai Tak Development with "no reclamation as the starting point". As a result, the Task Force on Land Supply basically ruled out the option of reclamation within the Victoria Harbour in its discussion of land supply strategy in 2018. As such, we should first amend the Ordinance in the light of the current social development needs and consider the need to reclaim the harbour in a flexible and pragmatic manner before we can further explore projects like the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter reclamation.

President, while placing emphasis on increasing land and housing supply, we should also pay attention to striking a proper balance. As suggested by Mr Frankie YICK in his amendment, "before implementing the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter reclamation works, the SAR Government must first provide another typhoon shelter with sufficient berthing spaces, so as to safeguard the lives and properties of marine workers". Indeed, we need to properly relocate affected industries when considering the development of land for housing production. In paragraph 85 of this year's Policy Address which concerns long-term housing strategy, the Chief Executive mentions that the land lots for increasing housing supply include a number of brownfield clusters with housing development potential, the review of which has already been completed. As regards the development and use of brownfield sites, I have relayed to the authorities through various channels the aspirations of the engineering and construction sector. They believe that the proper relocation of existing brownfield operators is very important, especially when the premises for keeping large engineering machines, which are indispensable for the operation of the industry, cannot be located on the upper floors of multi-storey buildings.

President, even if we put aside the need to properly relocate the operators concerned, it is still unlikely that land and housing supply can be increased by either reclamation of typhoon shelters or rezoning of brownfield sites or the likes. For this reason, many members of the industrial, commercial and professional sectors are glad to see the completion of the scrutiny of the "studies related to the artificial islands in the Central Waters" by the Public Works Subcommittee on 4242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

25 May 2019 and the funding approval by the Finance Committee on 4 December 2020, and also hope that the implementation can be expedited as far as possible. The reason is that this is basically a very important step towards the implementation of the Lantau Tomorrow Vision, and helps to alleviate the severe shortage of land supply in Hong Kong in the medium and long term. The first phase of the project will focus on developing the Kau Yi Chau Artificial Islands with an area of about 1 000 hectares. It is estimated that 150 000 to 260 000 housing units will be provided, 70% of which will be public housing. At the same time, the islands will be developed into the third Core Business District that can supply around 200 000 employment opportunities. Obviously, this cannot be matched by other infill or piecemeal land and housing development plans. Certainly, "distant water cannot quench a fire nearby", and the community should be open, positive and serious in considering any plans or proposals that can alleviate the shortage of land and housing supply in the short term.

With these remarks, President, I support the passage of the original motion moved by Mr Paul TSE and the amendment moved by Mr Frankie YICK.

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, I would like to thank Mr Paul TSE for proposing this motion. I support this motion. Then what is this motion about? He stated clearly that this Council "urges the SAR Government to examine"―the most important word is examine―"and appropriately amend the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, so as to explore the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter reclamation project as a means of increasing short-term land supply and resolving the failure of the cruise terminal to achieve its due economic benefits owing to improper transport planning". At the same time, I also welcome the amendment proposed by Mr Frankie YICK, which simply beefs up some criteria and factors to be taken into consideration in the course of examining the issue.

Today, we cannot be bound by old conventions, nor can we cling to routines and muddle along. The Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ("the Ordinance") came into being with good intentions. The Ordinance was introduced as a private bill by former Member Miss Christine LOH in December 1996. It underwent scrutiny in a short period of time, and passed through the Second and Third Readings on 27 June 1997. The idea back then was environment protection and protection of public assets. The harbour environment of Hong Kong is a collective memory which entails public interests. We did not object to this at all. That was a right idea. Even regarding the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4243

Queen's Pier, when the Government wanted to demolish it, a group of young people and individuals who were enthusiastic about social issues had wanted to live or die with together the Queen's Pier; some of them even tied themselves to the stone pillars of the pier with metal chains. We had also witnessed such a scene.

However, as times progresses, we ought to make the necessary improvements in response to the needs of the environment. The motion today only proposes to conduct an examination, and in fact, it is only a Member's motion, which precisely allows the executive authorities greater leeway to give full play to the executive-led regime. Now they can shake off their shackles, then why do they not revel in it? Yet they are willing to let their hands be shackled, or do they like the feeling of being abused? Actually, there is nothing wrong with examining it, isn't it? Rarely can the Council today―rightly as the President commended our Council for resuming normal before the meeting was suspended yesterday and for, in such a short period of time, dealing with the Second Reading and Third Reading of numerous bills with such efficiency. I reckon under such circumstances, just as our life has returned to normal with no more obstacles, it does not mean our Council is not performing its monitoring function.

Today, in the Council, it has been rare that the Member from the Kowloon East constituency voiced his views―of course I very much respect Mr OR's views. He rose to express that the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong objects to it. I understand that, too. However, how can we look at this matter in an unbiased way? It is still a long way from making a decision. Yet, I find it somewhat self-belittling and like self-castration to give up even the study. Why did we allow the Government to obtain more than $500 million to carry out the studies on the artificial islands in the Central Waters of the Lantau Island? Then there should be no problem to study and amend the Ordinance, right? In fact, to be fair, after the enactment of the Ordinance, the Government's plan to carry out reclamation to build the Central-Wan Chai Bypass was challenged by a judicial review. During the process, we exerted all-out efforts and employed our best wisdom to confute that the bypass project happened to fall into the exception of the Ordinance. Therefore, the point under consideration was not its merits or demerits, i.e. the pros or cons of the decision, but whether the relevant proceedings were fair and just, meaning whether the proceedings were conducted in compliance with procedures. After rounds of debates, the court finally gave the green light to the 4244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Government to build the bypass. That is why the Central-Wan Chai Bypass is in place today and people can enjoy the convenience of being able to reach North Point in less than four minutes after exiting the Western Harbour Crossing. Is this kind of smooth and seamless transport beneficial to the people? Of course it is.

Therefore, why can we not examine the amendment of the Ordinance today? Laws are often subject to amendments, including our existing electoral law. Many people said the Basic Law will not be amended and that it is impossible to amend it. You said it is impossible and yet it has happened. And the amendment to Annex I and Annex II will be made at full speed. We will have to examine the "11 March" decision next week or so… I should say we have to start examining it this Friday. Later on, after the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has announced the specific contents of the relevant legislation, we will also have to take forward the complementary work at top speed. In the collaborative process, we are not rubber stamps but we have to give full play to our best wisdom from the perspective of people and of the overall interests of Hong Kong.

Therefore, I welcome Mr TSE's request for undertaking an examination. In fact, I am delighted that Honourable colleagues can break away from the stereotype and routine concepts, so that we can truly serve the people. Besides, the Government has the courage to recover a golf course with rich historical value and a verdant environment, and then turning it into a concrete jungle. If this can be done, why can we not examine how to optimize Hong Kong's harbour? On the contrary, as regards the reversal of the resumption and development of that site, I lend my full support. How can they put the cart before the horse? They are actually willing to see verdant places being destroyed.

President, I so submit. Thank you.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, before all else, here I wish to thank Mr Paul TSE for sharing his insights on community development and planning, and for bringing some stimulus inspiring Members' thinking.

Mr Paul TSE's motion is mainly divided into two parts. The first part is about examining and appropriately amending the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ("the Ordinance"), to which we have no objection. As the Hong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4245

Kong Federation of Trade Unions has also said before, the existing labour legislation which has been in force for years should be comprehensively reviewed in a timely manner. We fully support examination and review.

The second part mentions the need for reclamation in Kai Tak on the grounds of search for land, transport and other notions. As my Honourable colleague Mr LUK Chung-hung has pointed out just now, we cannot agree or concur with this. There are several main reasons. As we all know, the Kai Tak reclamation proposal raised by Mr Paul TSE originated from the proposed "Project City-E", which was discussed in the community a decade ago. At that time the conclusion was that the public found it necessary to keep Kai Tak in its original state, and thus the proposal was not accepted. If the proposal is to be revisited now, the process will definitely take time. Amendment to the Ordinance is by no means something which can be done overnight, and controversies arising from reclamation, I believe, will also be very time-consuming.

Moreover, "Project City-E" mentioned the possibility―it was only a "possibility"―that 85 hectares of land could be obtained through reclamation, which was quite tempting. But frankly speaking, since "Project City-E" was not accepted back then, now a planning proposal for the development of Kai Tak is already in place, and this planning proposal is being put into practice. If the old proposal is revisited now, it will undoubtedly disrupt the original planning for the development of Kai Tak.

Furthermore, to a certain extent, 85 hectares is a lot of land, but I would describe this as a large-scale "infill" project. Why do I say so? By "infill", it means it will bring an extra loading to a developed area. The Kai Tak development is already well planned. If it is now forced to bear additional demands for land and housing, these will undoubtedly pose an extra loading.

The last reason is, of course, as mentioned by my Honourable colleagues just now, the heat island and wall effects will obstruct inland ventilation. It will also obstruct the public from enjoying the sight of the ridgelines at the Victoria Harbour because their front view will be blocked by the buildings. So how can they see the scenery behind? Therefore, President, if we do not want to have any more proposition of large-scale "infill", the development of Lantau Tomorrow is actually a more far-sighted plan.

4246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

President, back to the contents of the Ordinance which Members intend to examine and amend. First of all, the original intent of enacting the Ordinance is quite clear. It is to make the Victoria Harbour a common resource and asset for the enjoyment of the general public. Yet regrettably, the Ordinance is really written too rigidly. Basically, reclamation is not allowed. Although some provisions were subsequently added, and the Secretary has cited several examples, these examples are actually rather painful. Take the Boardwalk underneath the Island Eastern Corridor in the North Point District, for which I am responsible, as an example. The process was arduous and time-consuming. According to my predecessor, former Member Mr WONG Kwok-hing, the development of the waterfront in North Point has been discussed for more than 30 years. Having been in office for some 10 years, I also found it by no means easy to develop a promenade along the northern shore of Hong Kong Island, which has been discussed for more than 10 years. I remember that during the discussion on the development of the Boardwalk underneath the Island Eastern Corridor, the Development Bureau initially refused to attend the Eastern District Council meetings. It was only after our repeated invitations and requests that representatives from the Development Bureau, not senior officials but very young officers, finally attended. I was the then Vice-Chairman of the Working Group on Waterfront Development. At each meeting, we would ask how the ongoing work could avoid contravening the Ordinance. At that time no department could answer this question. We asked what could be done if someone lodged a judicial review. The departments concerned could not answer it either. They merely said that they would start studying the case only when there was a judicial review. They were unable to say anything in advance or provide any answer at the moment. Basically, we can only speculate on the scope of coverage of the Ordinance. There is no answer as to what is subjected to regulation and what is not. At that time there was an argument that taking a top-down satellite view, one would see that the Island Eastern Corridor had covered the sea. So in theory, anything could be done underneath it. However, there was another argument that even if a viaduct had been built, further construction of anything beneath it that would touch the sea was prohibited. It was indeed a very difficult process, and the government departments were unable to answer these questions in the end. At that time a lot of work was done, including public consultation spanning over three years, since three such exercises were conducted. From 2016 onwards, public consultation was carried out in three phases. Initially, the proposal was simply to build a five-metre wide road. Since we were concerned that the Ordinance would be invoked, we did not plan to construct a wider road. Later, however, since the public saw the need for more facilities such as cycling LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4247 tracks and space for activities, it was proposed to increase the width to 10 m. Eventually, the construction was given the go-ahead, but it will not be completed until 2024 at the earliest.

However, the work ahead will remain tough. Tomorrow morning, I will meet with property owners of Provident Centre, which was built along the shore. Although some residents support the construction of link roads downstairs in their housing estate, they do not want one of the link roads to be connected to the access road downstairs at Block 7 because of security concerns. I hope that the Civil Engineering and Development Department, which is responsible for the matter, will further discuss with the residents of the housing estate in detail. I hope this proposal can be put into practice. Thank you. (The buzzer sounded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK Wai-keung, please stop speaking immediately.

Does any other Member wish to speak?

(Mr Abraham SHEK indicated his wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Abraham SHEK, please speak.

MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): President, I am very grateful to Mr Paul TSE for proposing this motion today, so that we can support the Government loyally in the Legislative Council nowadays, not from the perspective of a mere rubber stamp, but in a practical and realistic manner. It is because being Members of the establishment camp, we should not challenge the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). But then, why can we raise our views in this regard and challenge the Ordinance today? Therefore, I have said just now that I have to thank Mr Paul TSE.

The Ordinance was proposed and passed before 1997. More than 20 years have passed, during which it was impossible for us to discuss the Ordinance in the Legislative Council because the opposition camp would never allow us to have a debate in such an open manner. If we had proposed it, the opposition camp would have opposed it. But we can have a formal reason to discuss the 4248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Ordinance nowadays. It is not that this Ordinance cannot be debated, nor can it not be amended. Any ordinance can be amended as long as it is in the interests of Hong Kong people.

If we look at this issue from an historical angle, the Ordinance has already fulfilled its historical mission, and we should no longer say that we cannot amend it for historical reasons because the Ordinance already existed before 1997 and is protected by the Basic Law. We should amend the Ordinance if there is a need. What does it mean by "there is a need" or "necessary"? We must examine the Ordinance now. As Dr HO remarked just now, the Government still does a lot of work even though it is not a must. Taking the golf course that he mentioned earlier as an example, why do they still do so even though there is a need for maintaining a green belt, preserving history and pursuing environmental protection? It is not a must, but they have still done so.

Having said that, when it comes to reclamation, Mr Paul TSE has also mentioned just now that there is no problem from an environmental perspective. If we carry out reclamation again … It is because in the history of Hong Kong, reclamation works were carried out starting from Queen's Road Central, and many existing places are created through reclamation. Except for some reclamation works in the New Territories, other reclamation works have been suspended upon the enactment of the Ordinance. Even though the Government initially proposed to reclaim 133 hectares of land in Kai Tak, the proposal was dropped eventually since some parties instituted a challenge at the court. Therefore, the motion proposed by Mr Paul TSE involves two aspects, namely the Ordinance and reclamation in Kwun Tong.

Honourable Members all have an answer in respect of the question about Kwun Tong, so we should not merely say that it cannot be considered. It is because taking reclamation into consideration is beneficial to Hong Kong, and it is also beneficial to the public as more land can be created to meet the demand. Such land can be created through reclamation as soon as possible, and reclamation should be carried out at a lower cost. It does not imply that I do not support the Lantau Tomorrow Vision, but this project is a matter for the future. Yet, we are now facing the problem of shortage in housing and land supply, and this is what we should take into consideration. Apart from considering this issue, in what way should we consider it? The plot ratio in Kowloon should be increased. Only by thinking out of the box in all aspects can the Government resolve the problems in Hong Kong. At present, more than 200 000 people are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4249 waiting for public rental housing. Many people are living in cubicle apartments, and many people fail to secure a good living environment. So, these are what we must do.

Therefore, the Government cannot say that it has to study everything. The Government has conducted studies on many things, but what is the outcome of these studies? To conduct another study. What is the outcome of conducting another study? To conduct a further study. How many years will it take to do so? Very simple. For Article 23 of the Basic Law alone, after 17 years of repeated studies, they still say that it is not yet the right timing. But rightly as Mr Paul TSE has said just now, it is impossible for the Central Government to allow them to conduct studies after studies. I hope Secretary WONG can make an undertaking in this regard, telling us when a study will be conducted on this matter, and how it will be handled upon completion of the study.

President, I should make a declaration, since some listed companies to which I belong may have acquired land there and carried out development projects there at the same time. But when real estate developers acquire land for development, it does not imply that they will always have a guarantee that there will be no obstruction in front of their developments. Hong Kong as a whole will come to a halt if there is this sort of guarantee. This is not the case with the Town Planning Ordinance either. Nothing can be guaranteed, and there is no absolute protection for anything forever. Hence, in this connection, we should be able to consider it. I also believe that the Government can conduct a study, but please do not touch upon the golf course―I am a member of it―A straightforward approach should be adopted in this respect to construct more public rental housing in the urban areas for the public and more Home Ownership Scheme flats for the public. In this way, we shall be able to resolve our housing problems. Thank you, President.

MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, we have in fact considered Mr Paul TSE's motion for a long time because, as you all know, it was proposed by Mr TSE long ago. But since the Council came to a standstill earlier, we have not had the opportunity to discuss livelihood issues all along. Finally, after listening to Members' speeches this morning―especially the speech of Mr TSE―we, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("HKFTU"), decide to oppose this motion.

4250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Basically, I have two points to make. First, we must state clearly that we support reviewing the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). The Ordinance is actually quite absurd and has a significant impact on some of our developments. Take the shipyards in northeast Tsing Yi as an example, it is known to all that they had to build bridges that extended into the sea whereby vessels could be hauled out of the water for repair, and bamboo poles had to be inserted into the seabed for this purpose. However, they were consequently accused of violating the Ordinance. It was because the shipyards happened to be located in the area covered by the Ordinance and such an act was deemed as reclamation in the Victoria Harbour, which is not allowed. This is truly ridiculous. The Ordinance should indeed be reviewed, Secretary for Development. Regardless of whether this motion can be passed upon voting later today, the Government cannot afford to ignore the impact of the Ordinance on our development of land, roads, housing, etc. If we still do not undertake a proper review of the Ordinance, it will have an even more far-reaching impact on Hong Kong.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

Moreover, speaking of the need to review the Ordinance, unlike what Dr CHENG Chung-tai has just said, it is not the case that such a private bill was hard to come by and there will be no more private bills in the future. This is actually not true. Just yesterday, there was a private Member's bill―that is, the Waterworks (Waterworks Regulations) (Amendment) Bill 2021 introduced by me, which is also under the purview of the Development Bureau and has its cooperation and support. Therefore, I do not think we should refrain from reviewing the Ordinance simply because it came as a rare private bill―it must be reviewed. For that reason, I hope the Secretary can give us an undertaking … Since we have not held any motion debate for too long, procedurally speaking, I wonder if the Secretary will have the opportunity to speak again later. I suppose so. I have no idea for how long we have not held any motion debate. I hope the Secretary can respond in his upcoming speech whether the Government is determined to review the Ordinance, which may have an impact on Hong Kong's development, and whether it can be conducted as soon as possible. I believe our Honourable colleagues in this Council will certainly be willing to cooperate.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4251

We oppose this motion not because we disapprove of reclamation. You all know that I am very supportive of reclamation. I―or even we, HKFTU―have always considered it imperative to solve the housing problems in Hong Kong and to increase land supply, or else such issues as subdivided flats and the long queue on the Waiting List for public rental housing will remain unresolved. But why do I say that we oppose this motion? In fact, this is not because of the wording of the motion, but because we beg to differ with our Honourable colleagues―including Mr TSE―after listening to their speeches this morning. Neither is this because reclamation affects the environment or ridgelines―this is one of the considerations, but not the most important one. The most important consideration is that if the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter ("KTTS") reclamation cannot substitute the Lantau Tomorrow Vision, we, HKFTU, will absolutely support the Government to expeditiously take forward the reclamation works for the Lantau Tomorrow Vision. Furthermore, as we have entered a new era, I believe that the Secretary needs to examine whether the preliminary study on the Lantau Tomorrow Vision can be expedited and whether the various studies can be conducted in parallel. We have to develop the artificial islands in the Central Waters at full speed and increase the land supply in Hong Kong. In this connection, say, why is the land occupied by the golf course mentioned just now not resumed promptly? This is still under consideration even to this day. And why can we not use the land on the periphery of country parks? Increasing land supply is the fundamental solution to the housing problems in Hong Kong. If the Government is still subject to such conventions, interest groups or parties with vested interests, instead of breaking through these conventions and increasing land supply by reclamation and other means to solve the housing problems, the Government will be doing a disservice to the people. Therefore, I hope the Government can carry out reclamation works expeditiously. But I have to emphasize that we must proceed with the Lantau Tomorrow Vision. It does not mean that the Lantau Tomorrow Vision can be implemented at a slow pace as long as the KTTS reclamation works are to be taken forward. This is not acceptable. We must do it quick. We are firmly convinced that the Kwun Tong reclamation cannot substitute the Lantau Tomorrow Vision and hence the latter must be carried out.

In addition, many Honourable colleagues mentioned just now that the housing problems of the public can be resolved as long as land is made available. To be frank, do you all think that after reclaiming this piece of land in Kwun Tong, the Government will really designate it as a residential site for housing development? Even if it will, I reckon there will only be luxury residential 4252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 properties. Recently, I have been thinking about the use of this piece of reclaimed land. Some people say that there is inadequate commercial land in Kai Tak. If a few more pieces of commercial land can be made available there, is it feasible to develop the entire district into a hub? Who exactly will ultimately benefit from the reclamation works, another group of parties with vested interests, another interest group, or the public? I believe we have to consider this aspect. While not all motions proposed by Members can help the public, whom exactly is the ultimate purpose of the KTTS reclamation intended to serve?

Therefore, Deputy President, although we will vote against this motion, I wish the Secretary can respond to us again later whether the Government will review the Ordinance to help us remove the various barriers and restrictions in order to increase land supply, and whether the study on the development of the Lantau Tomorrow Vision can be expedited―what about forgetting the study and commencing the works as soon as possible? We hope that the Government can really increase the land supply in Hong Kong by different means to solve the housing problems.

Thank you, Deputy President.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, you may now speak on the amendment. The time limit is five minutes.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as I am now speaking on the amendment, I, therefore, cannot say too much in response to the remarks made by colleagues earlier. Having said that, with respect to their logics, apparently it does take some effort and time to give a response. Some of them are indeed hopeless. As for those entirely illogical arguments, it is pointless for me to further refute them.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4253

I thank Dr Junius HO for clarifying the wording of the motion and making it much clearer for me but I find it most disappointing that in their speeches, the representatives of major political parties in this Council had made a fuss over the word "and" in the motion subject and put up objection when they did not even read clearly the contents or wording of the motion. Of course, I understand that probably it is because some people have limited comprehension ability or debating skills, and I am not going to speak further on this point. But it is a pity that such an interesting motion has met opposition because of this word "and".

More regrettably, some political parties and groupings opposed the motion for reasons that are neither the meaning nor direction intended by the motion. For example, I have never suggested that my proposal would be a substitute of the Lantau Tomorrow project. Nor have I ever said that reclamation serves to enable the business and industrial sectors to put up buildings. The motion only proposed to examine it, so as to explore it. If so many major political parties do not even support such a broad, generalized proposal, it is really not surprising for people to think that in Hong Kong, other than the Government's inaction, the most loyal party coalition of the Government actually has a part to play in plunging the Government into deep troubles.

Deputy President, I will come back to the amendment. I support the amendment because regarding the problem of the typhoon shelter, I have said all the time that the interests of individual persons, individual industries and individual districts have already overridden the aspirations for housing of all Hong Kong people. This is the aim of the entire debate, and a very important message from the country to the Hong Kong Government and all pro-establishment Members. We should carry out the constitutional reform not only for the sake of the constitutional reform. The underlying purpose of the constitutional reform is to achieve some objectives, and put it more precisely, to resolve what is most concerning to the public and the most deep-rooted conflict―the housing problem. If the room for discussion is denied because of the word "and" or reasons that actually do not exist, such as whether this is a class struggle or whether a conflict of interest is involved, then I think this is completely going against or rendering us unworthy of the new mandate entrusted to us by the country now. For this reason, the amendment has my full support.

Furthermore, the typhoon shelter is currently used only for the berthing of 350 vessels when, for who knows how many times a year, a typhoon hits Hong Kong or it is just hijacked by triad gangs for rent on normal days. But this has 4254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 replaced and even overridden the housing needs of all Hong Kong people. Members can weigh it up. Is there anything that is all correct and entirely beneficial? Certainly there are regrets in some respects, and sacrifices certainly need to be made in some respects. But we only have to weigh it up and we will see that the importance of this site is indisputable. Yet, it is most unfortunate that the motion wording or the interests of individual industries are used by some Members to override this proposal and this, I think, is unreasonable.

What I find even more disappointing about the Government is that the typhoon shelter probably is not for the fishermen to take shelter but rather a typhoon shelter for the Government's inaction. Over the years, have amendments been made in response to the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal ("CFA")? This is not a case involving an article of the Basic Law in which a CFA judgment made on it can hardly be overturned because we do not wish to amend the Basic Law casually. But this is a local law which can be amended right away in a simple, easy way, so that the scope of protection can be confined to the core of the Victoria Harbour and overriding interest can be replaced by reasonable requirement. Do you think that CFA judgments are untouchable? No, they are not. But you have been encumbered by this restriction over the years, doing nothing, saying that nothing is going to work, and not daring to touch anything.

The Secretary said that they are not prepared to do it and there is no plan for it. Keep on hiding in this typhoon shelter, Secretary. This Government has been hiding for ages. Whether in respect of Article 23 of the Basic Law, the constitutional reform, or even the anti-epidemic measures, you people have been hiding, not daring to do anything. We must overturn this typhoon shelter for the Government's inaction. We are not suggesting that the legislation be amended and reclamation works be carried out at once. We are only suggesting the Government to consider and explore it, and that is all. Will the Government and various major political parties please take a look at the wording first? You people are the stumbling block that is ruining the progress of Hong Kong and hindering the progress of Hong Kong.

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Members for their valuable opinions offered just now. Here I wish to add some brief remarks on several points brought up by Members.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4255

Members are concerned about the supply of berthing spaces at typhoon shelters. In this connection, the Transport and Housing Bureau ("THB") has indicated that according to the assessment conducted by the Marine Department in 2017, it is estimated that from now till 2030, all existing sheltered spaces in Hong Kong will have to be fully retained in order to sufficiently meet the needs of local vessels. If the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter is released for reclamation development as proposed in the motion, the overall supply of sheltered spaces in Hong Kong will be reduced, resulting in a shortfall in the supply of sheltered spaces for local vessels in 2025.

Deputy President, the Government understands that if the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter is to be released for reclamation development, it must first identify another site for the provision of a new typhoon shelter as proposed by Mr Frankie YICK, so as to ensure that there will be sufficient suitable locations within the Hong Kong waters for local vessels to berth during typhoon and inclement weather. During the course of identifying the new site, consideration must also be given to the views of relevant stakeholders, satisfying the navigational and berthing conditions for the vessels, compatibility with the surrounding development, environmental impact, etc. Taking all these factors into account, THB finds it difficult to identify a suitable alternative water body in the Victoria Harbour for use as a typhoon shelter.

In respect of increasing land supply, the Government considers that there is a more appropriate multi-pronged strategy to increase land supply in Hong Kong in a sustainable and steady manner. In early 2019, the Government announced its full acceptance of the recommendations of the Task Force on Land Supply. Now we are fully committed to implementing, as well as deepening and enriching the land creation strategy to accelerate land supply. This includes rezoning individual sites, pressing ahead with the new development area and new town extension projects, developing brownfield sites, land resumption and creation of land through reclamation. Some of the measures are not without controversy in society. Therefore, Mr TSE, actually we will not flinch when confronted with any problems, but after all, we have got to make a choice and set priorities. We also need to rationally assess the pros and cons of different measures.

The Government has already elaborated on the aforesaid multi-pronged land creation strategy on various occasions, so I will not repeat it here. The only point I would like to make, which has also been mentioned by Ms Alice MAK earlier, is whether the Government's study can be conducted more expeditiously. In fact, this is also our direction. We estimate that the study on the Kau Yi Chau 4256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 artificial islands will take 42 months. As I have mentioned earlier in the debate in the Legislative Council, this is already a very compressed timetable, and there may be limited room for further compression. We have another large-scale project, the New Territories North ("NTN") Development. It consists of three parts, covering about 1 400 hectares of land. The area which may be developed exceeds 800 hectares. Our study was originally scheduled at a later time in "Hong Kong 2030+" (Hong Kong 2030+: Planning Vision and Strategy beyond 2030). In response to Members' request and the needs of Hong Kong, we have substantially advanced the timetable. The study on the NTN Development will comprise different stages. We wish to consult the Panel on Development next month on the study on the three parts of the NTN Development, and the financial procedures will follow. I hope that Members who are concerned about the land supply situation will support the Government's work in this regard.

In particular, regarding measures in the short to medium term, now we are actively rezoning sites and increasing the relevant development intensity as appropriate. For the sites in the Kai Tak Development Area ("KTDA"), in response to the changing social conditions and development needs, the Government made applications to the Town Planning Board during the period between 2013 and 2015 for slight increase in the development intensity of 25 sites in KTDA and was granted approval. Subsequently, in 2016 and 2018, a total of seven private housing sites in Kai Tak were re-allocated for public housing. At present, the entire KTDA can provide a total of about 50 000 housing units, half of which are public housing, and is an important source of housing supply in the short to medium term. Meanwhile, we are examining whether it is suitable to convert five sites in KTDA originally zoned for commercial use to residential development.

Deputy President, the planning of the Kai Tak area has undergone more than 20 years of evolution and is now at the implementation stage, with the relevant development gradually taking shape. Now we are focusing our efforts on the full implementation of other proposals for the development of Kai Tak, actively rolling out the remaining infrastructure projects, and selling the residential and commercial sites in an orderly manner. Hence, at this stage, if we substantially revise the planning for Kai Tak and redo certain planning, including the proposition of reclamation in the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter highlighted in the motion, I am afraid it will cause delay to the work which is currently proceeding at full steam, thus impeding the supply of land and housing in KTDA.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4257

Members have also mentioned the need to improve the transport links around the cruise terminal. As a matter of fact, with the gradual implementation of the relevant planning, the transport infrastructure in the Kai Tak runway area has been improved in recent years. Among others, the Civil Engineering and Development Department has completed the works on vehicular accesses connecting the cruise terminal with the Kowloon Bay area, realigning and widening the relevant traffic routes into a dual two-lane distributor road. Moreover, the construction of Kai Tak Road D3 (Metro Park Section), located in the north of the former runway, is also underway and is expected to be substantially completed in 2022. This will provide direct access to the cruise terminal at the end of the former runway and the Kai Tak Station of the Shatin to Central Link at the former north apron.

As for connection outside the area, various works on Route 6 (including the Central Kowloon Route and Trunk Road T2) are in full swing. The complete connection in 2026 will provide a major trunk road linking West Kowloon and Tseung Kwan O via Kai Tak, thereby greatly enhancing the accessibility of KTDA.

Earlier on, the Government has also announced the proposal to implement a "multi-modal" Environmentally Friendly Linkage System in the area, which comprises a package of green initiatives that serve complementarily to enhance connectivity, so as to cater for the development needs of Kowloon East in a timely manner, further enhance the connectivity with the neighbouring areas, and help shape KTDA into a green community.

On examining and amending the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ("the Ordinance"), as I said in my opening speech, the Ordinance does not prohibit reclamation works in the Victoria Harbour across the board. Rather, it requires that such works be carried out only if they can meet the "overriding public need" criterion. In recent years, the Government has endeavoured to ensure that the works in various essential projects in the Victoria Harbour and the harbourfront enhancement projects can satisfy the requirements under the Ordinance.

Mr KWOK Wai-keung has specifically mentioned the Boardwalk underneath the Island Eastern Corridor. After much effort, we consider that we have now found sufficient justifications to prove that the relevant project can meet the requirements under the Ordinance. We look forward to coming to the Legislative Council later this year to seek Members' support.

4258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Deputy President, in view of the aforesaid factors, at this stage the Government has no plan to carry out reclamation at the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter or amend the Ordinance.

Although we may not share all the same views, I am still grateful to Mr Paul TSE for proposing the motion today and Mr Frankie YICK for his amendment which will be proposed in a while, as well as various Members for their speeches, which have given us an opportunity to exchange views on the relevant issues and enabled the community to have a deeper understanding of such issues.

Thank you, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Mr Frankie YICK to move an amendment.

MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move my amendment.

The amendment moved by Mr Frankie YICK (See the marked-up version at Annex 1)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Frankie YICK be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4259

Mr CHAN Hak-kan rose to claim a division.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Hak-kan has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

(While the division bell was ringing, Mr Jeffrey LAM indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeffrey LAM, what is your point of order?

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): I declare that the companies in which I serve as a director may have development projects or properties in the district under discussion today.

(Mr Abraham SHEK indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Abraham SHEK, what is your point of order?

MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): I declare that I do not know whether my companies have bid for land in Kai Tak.

(Mr Frankie YICK indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frankie YICK, what is your point of order?

MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I declare that my companies have interests in the land in that district.

(Mr Jimmy NG indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

4260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jimmy NG, what is your point of order?

MR JIMMY NG (in Cantonese): I declare that one of the companies in which I serve as a director owns land in that district.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It is for Members to judge whether they have direct or indirect pecuniary interests.

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

DEPUTY 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 CHAN Kin-por, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying and Mr Kenneth LAU voted for the amendment.

Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr Steven HO, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr LAU Kwok-fan voted against the amendment.

Mr POON Siu-ping and Mr Tony TSE abstained.

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT, Ms Starry LEE, did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4261

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Dr Junius HO and Ms YUNG Hoi-yan voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

Dr Priscilla LEUNG abstained.

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment, 5 against it and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 16 were present, 4 were in favour of the amendment, 11 against it and 1 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, she therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Since Mr Paul TSE has used up all of his speaking time, this Council now proceeds to vote on the motion moved by Mr Paul TSE.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

4262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Mr CHAN Hak-kan rose to claim a division.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Hak-kan has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

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

DEPUTY 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 CHAN Kin-por, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG and Mr Kenneth LAU voted for the motion.

Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr LAU Kwok-fan voted against the motion.

Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr CHAN Chun-ying and Mr Tony TSE abstained.

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT, Ms Starry LEE, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Dr Junius HO and Ms YUNG Hoi-yan voted for the motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4263

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the motion.

Dr Priscilla LEUNG abstained.

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present, 8 were in favour of the motion, 8 against it and 4 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 16 were present, 4 were in favour of the motion, 11 against it and 1 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, she therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Debate on motion with no legislative effect.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan will move a motion on "Supporting the unemployed and underemployed".

Three Members will move amendments to the motion.

This Council will proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the amendments.

Later, I will first call upon Mr CHAN Hak-kan to speak and move the motion. Then I will call upon Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr SHIU Ka-fai to speak in sequence, but they may not move their amendments at this stage.

The joint debate now begins. Members who wish to speak please press the "Request to speak" button.

I now call upon Mr CHAN Hak-kan to speak and move the motion.

4264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Motion on "Supporting the unemployed and underemployed"

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed. Deputy President, this motion which I proposed has waited for a long time in the sixth term of the Legislative Council. In the past, one Members' motion could be proposed each year on average. But now, it takes five years to propose one. Hence, this is really a precious opportunity.

I proposed this motion as early as half a year ago. Due to the epidemic, we only have the opportunity to discuss it now. Normally, if the discussion of a motion is delayed for such a long time, it will somehow give people the impression that it is an outdated issue. Nonetheless, it seems that the later this motion is discussed, the more obvious its urgency and importance will become.

In the legislature, Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong has repeatedly answered questions in this Chamber on supporting the unemployed and the underemployed, which is evident that the legislature attaches great importance to this subject. Though the Secretary has made repeated replies and likened himself to a human recording machine, do these repeated replies mean that the problems have been solved and policies have been formulated? It does not seem to be the case. In the legislature, Members are calling for "saving the unemployed", "retaining employment" and providing "short-term unemployment assistance", and these three things are basically the major consensus of the legislature. Yet, the Secretary has all along been reluctant to implement these measures. He keeps saying that, "I'm helping you, I'm helping you". He says that unemployment allowance has already been provided under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") Scheme and that the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS") has been introduced, which will be helpful. Nonetheless, are these measures really helpful? Had these measures been helpful, the unemployment rate would not have surged up to 7.2%. Had these measures been truly helpful, the 260 000 people would not have become unemployed.

Hence, I do not quite agree with the Secretary's repeated remarks that these measures can help the public. Let us see whether the two measures mentioned by the Secretary can really help the public. First, can ESS help the wage earners? I remember that in this Chamber, many colleagues, including myself, have pointed out that upon the completion of the first and second tranche of ESS, many small and medium enterprises ("SMEs") will close down, for they can LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4265 hardly survive, and this has indeed proved to be the case now. I do not have any examples about SMEs. Yet, UA Cinema, which Members are familiar with, announced its closure some time ago, right after receiving the two tranches of ESS, and had left 281 staff members unemployed immediately. Despite the large amount of public money allocated to ESS, nearly 300 people still lost their job upon the completion of the two tranches of ESS. How can he say that ESS can completely resolve the unemployment problem in Hong Kong? Had this been the solution, UA Cinema and the many SMEs would not have to close down. Let us look at another set of figures―the Secretary is very smart and specializes in figures. We have checked the figures of the Official Receiver's Office and found that a total of 8 693 bankruptcy petitions submitted and 449 cases of compulsory winding-up of companies were filed last year, both of which are the highest since 2016. In other words, many enterprises are unable to survive, so it seems that ESS has failed to serve its function.

Second, the Secretary also said that the eligibility criteria for unemployment assistance under CSSA have been relaxed. Yet, can this help the public? The Secretary often says that the threshold for application has already been lowered by excluding the cash value of insurance policies. Yet, is this helpful? In terms of figures, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has conducted three relevant surveys in June and August last year and January this year respectively, asking the respondents whether they have applied for the various unemployment support measures introduced by the Government. Findings of the surveys indicated that only 8%, which is less than 10%, of the respondents have submitted application. In the three surveys, 70% to 80% of the respondents indicated that they had never considered applying for the unemployment assistance under CSSA offered by the Government. Even for the some 10% of the respondents who have applied for assistance, they said the scheme did not provide them with any substantial assistance. These are the specific figures from the surveys.

On the other hand, let us look at the current number of recipients of unemployment assistance under CSSA. The number ranges from 18 000 to 19 000. Deputy President, do you still remember the number of unemployed persons I mentioned just now? There are 260 000 to 270 000 unemployed persons, yet only 18 000 to 19 000, less than 10%, have received assistance under CSSA. What about the remaining 200 000 unemployed persons? They cannot but count on themselves. In that case, can the unemployment assistance under CSSA help the public? It seems that it cannot.

4266 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Certainly, in the latest Budget, the Financial Secretary is actually very kind in introducing the "Special 100% Loan Guarantee for Individuals Scheme" within his authority. Though some people say that the Scheme may not be helpful, it has after all provided one more option for them to meet their pressing needs. In fact, providing loan services to the unemployed is somewhat stressful. As such, many people are saying that the Government does not help them despite holding a huge surplus, and even if it does, it has put up many hurdles and cannot help them much. Is this a desirable approach?

The Secretary has heard the several examples I quoted just now. I would like to tell the Secretary that the policies which he says can help the public are not helpful at all. The unemployed remain unemployed, the underemployed are still underemployed and many people are left to fend for themselves while the Secretary is sitting in this Chamber with his arms folded. Apart from lashing out criticisms, what exactly are we asking for? As pointed out earlier, it is the consensus of the legislature to request for the provision of short-term unemployment assistance, which is a "quick, decisive, precise and helpful" approach to provide direct assistance to the public. We are talking about the provision of short-term unemployment assistance of $6,000 per month for six months, which is more or less the same as the $9,000 provided under ESS. The provision of the monthly assistance of $6,000 for six months will merely incur a total of around $10 billion. Is this a big sum? No. The Government has spent over $40 billion under ESS to provide hundreds of millions of dollars for the supermarkets, yet it refuses to provide a monthly assistance of $6,000 for six months to help the people of Hong Kong. It is really ridiculous.

The Secretary also said that our proposal overlaps with many existing policies of the Government and the financial burden is beyond the Government's capacity. Moreover, it will be a drain on public funds, and turn temporary unemployment into long-term unemployment. Indeed, one can find dozens of excuses if one is unwilling to do something. Yet, if one is determined to do it, there are definitely many solutions to the problems he has raised. For instance, if he is worried about overspending, he may put a cap on the scheme, telling the Legislative Council that the authorities will merely seek $10 billion of funding and the provision of assistance will cease when all the funds are spent. In this case, the amount of spending will be capped, the budget will stop expanding and the applications will not keep coming in. As for the concern about moral hazards of undermining the desire to work, Secretary, there are loopholes in all welfare measures. We often come across fraudulent cases of CSSA or public LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4267 housing estate flats. Yet, should we stop all welfare measures and policies because of these problems? If he dares to say so, we can say nothing. Does it mean that the authorities should give up helping all those in need just because some people will cheat them out of a little money? If this is the case, I really do not have the slightest respect for the attitude of government officials.

The second comes the system of handling unemployment in the long run. Surely, there has never been such a system in Hong Kong. Yet, our economy after all is externally-oriented. When there is an international financial crisis or economic crisis, we will more or less be affected. However, Hong Kong has never considered this matter. Does it mean that we do not need to do this or we will not have the problem of unemployment? As a Director of Bureau, apart from solving the imminent problems, it is more important to facilitate the planning of long-term measures to address the situations which Hong Kong may face. The Secretary should think about the system for dealing with unemployment. Has he ever thought about that after assuming office for such a long time? Or have colleagues from the civil service helped him to consider this issue? It does not seem to be the case to me. My comment in this respect may be unfair in some way, and if so, I implore the Secretary and his colleagues to tell this Council.

The third proposal is about the creation of temporary posts. Certainly, we can see in this Budget that 30 000 short-term jobs will be created for a period of not exceeding 12 months. We also hope that the Government will implement the proposal expeditiously to provide jobs for the public, so that they do not have to apply for assistance which they have failed to obtain so far. This will definitely be a good thing.

The fourth point is about half-time jobs or half-time culture. Job sharing may be a rather new concept. Yet, I think, at a time when people in society can hardly find a job, it may be better for two people to share one job lest everyone may lose their job, so this proposal may be considered. As for the Secretary who is an official under the accountability system, I am not expecting him to solve the poverty problem of over 90 million people within a certain period of time, as our State has done. Yet, I would like to share with him some remarks on social security made by President XI recently. President XI said: Social security is precisely the most imminent and realistic interests that people are most concerned about. We should of course give regard to the conditions of our Country, explore proactively, be bold and innovative, draw on the experience of 4268 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 overseas countries in social security―Deputy President, the following line is most important―be persistent in keeping abreast of the times, adopt new approaches and innovative thinking to solve the problems in development, tear down existing barriers in the system and drive forward the social security sector.

Secretary, though we are under "one country, two systems", it does not mean that certain ideas or practices adopted in the Mainland for addressing the issues concerning social security, unemployment or poverty are certainly unsuitable for Hong Kong. If the Secretary can think boldly and innovatively to break down the barriers in the system, I believe that unemployment definitely will not be a problem. I believe many colleagues will also put forth lots of specific proposals later for the Secretary's reference.

Deputy President, I will stop here for the time being. I would like to listen to the specific views of other colleagues. As for my remaining speaking time, I will save it for my coming reply. Thank you, Deputy President.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That, due to the blow of the riots and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, the Hong Kong economy has suffered a continued decline with the unemployment rate hitting a record high time and again, reaching 6.4% which is a new high in 16 years; apart from about 260 000 people being unemployed, there are about 150 000 people being underemployed, and the six-month Employment Support Scheme ('ESS') ended in late November 2020, it is therefore generally expected in society that the waves of closures of enterprises will continue, and the unemployment and underemployment rates will also rise further; to support the unemployed and underemployed who are in financial distress to tide over the difficulties, this Council urges the Government to actively consider implementing the following measures:

(1) establishing an unemployment assistance to help alleviate the financial pressure of the unemployed;

(2) enhancing the existing Working Family Allowance Scheme and establishing an 'underemployment allowance' to provide direct support for low-income working families;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4269

(3) creating more temporary posts, including providing more internship programmes exclusively for young people and fresh graduates;

(4) after reviewing the two previous tranches of ESS and plugging its loopholes, launching expeditiously the third tranche of ESS so as to subsidize enterprises with genuine difficulties to retain jobs;

(5) implementing as soon as possible the mutual recognition system for health codes of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao to resume economic and personnel interactions among the three places on the premise of fulfilling infection control requirements, thereby boosting the Hong Kong economy to create employment opportunities; and

(6) exploring the development of a half-time 'job-sharing' culture to increase job supply in the labour market."

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr CHAN Hak-kan be passed.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am pleased to see Members raising diverse viewpoints on livelihood issues, planning and development in the legislature today. The more we debate, the clearer the truth is, so there is no need to get angry. We should demonstrate a broader mind and a greater sense of selflessness. Deputy President, I hope that the Secretary will not get angry with my ensuing speech. Among members of the Government, the Secretary is considered to have the highest IQ and ability, but this may result in certain social welfare policies not being that down-to-earth. I have repeatedly asked the Secretary and his team to open their mind, and I often say that officials should have a flexible mind. Regardless of how capable a person is, he will still have a blind spot in certain respects. I therefore hope that the Secretary can truly be down-to-earth.

Our proposal is not that excessive, especially as the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong ("BPA") does not very much agree with handing out cash frequently. I also know that the Bureau does not have too 4270 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 much funding, and thus we will not put forward any proposal to abuse public money. We are merely requesting the provision of temporary unemployment assistance of $8,000 per month for a period of half a year. I recollect that when we put forward the proposal last year, it was estimated that some $15 billion was required. The Secretary has explained time and again why our proposal is not feasible. Financial Secretary Paul CHAN, who used to be a Member, has introduced the Special 100% Loan Guarantee for Individuals Scheme for the unemployed with a total commitment of $15 billion, subject to a ceiling of $80,000 for each applicant. Based on my observations and estimates, I think that he had made reference to our proposal before introducing the scheme in his own way. Why not simply provide assistance? In fact, the Secretary's Bureau must submit a funding request.

Another thing which I believe is encumbered by the system or the mindset of officials is the $2 fare concession scheme. For the same reason of possible abuse by people, the authorities have imposed a lot of restrictions on the scheme. In fact, the Secretary can think out of the box as he is not from the civil service. I am already tired of hearing Directors of Bureaux or Secretaries of Departments who used to be civil servants saying that a various proposals are not feasible.

Today we are coping with a crisis, a major crisis in terms of the economy and people's livelihood. Let me give an example first. The Government insists on placing unemployment assistance under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") Scheme, but does it know that many people who are unemployed due to the pandemic still pretend to go to work? The application for CSSA shall be made on a household basis, but they do not want their family members to know they are jobless and need to apply for CSSA. They simply cannot face their family. The Government is very much unrealistic if it insists on placing unemployment assistance under the CSSA Scheme. As they said in their letter to me, the Government is "having its head in the clouds". They simply do not want to apply for CSSA.

This is not fully related to the Secretary. I only earnestly hope that the Food and Health Bureau can move a step forward, so that other Policy Bureaux can do a better job. As the pandemic is taking a toll on the market in general, no matter how much money the Government is going to hand out, it cannot solve the major livelihood problems. The situation nowadays is the same as that in 2008 when the Lehman Brothers incident took place. Back then, I called on the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4271

Government to introduce a loan fund for occupation switching for the unemployed and a support fund for occupation switching for the unemployed. The Government has so far introduced the Love Upgrading Special Scheme to mainly assist the grass roots, but it has regrettably failed to provide any assistance to those who are forced to retire early or switch occupations or who are unemployed. As these persons are experienced and capable, and emerging industries such as biotechnology, innovative technology, e-sports and digital marketing are in a shortage of talents, they can possibly switch occupations and return to the market or even benefit from the development of the Greater Bay Area. Many of the baby boomers I know who worked in the civil service have already retired; those in the business sector can still survive if they are highly capable; and in the political arena, more people can continue working. As these people are highly competent at work and prefer not to retire, our employment rate can be increased if they are offered a pathway.

I am not making this up out of thin air. In fact, BPA and Kowloon West New Dynamic have conducted many opinion polls indicating that the increase in the number of unemployed CSSA applicants was 49% despite a 95% increase in unemployment rate. Only 14.7% of the respondents who were unemployed would apply for CSSA for the unemployed. They would rather scrape the bottom of the barrel or even become street sleepers than let their family members know that they were unemployed.

In my remaining speaking time, I will talk about point (6) of my amendment. As I have mentioned in point (6), I hope that the Government will beef up civil service establishment, including professional posts, and extend the relevant scheme of the Employees Retraining Board. I would like to specifically tell Members here that we hope the Government will increase the number of in-house civil service posts in the departments and bureaux instead of outsourcing all services. A case in point is the Lantau Tomorrow Vision to be implemented in the future. Or, in another case, the Department of Justice, which prefers briefing out cases, hit a snag when there was opposition from the United Kingdom to David PERRY taking his appointment. I therefore hope that the Government will shoulder the responsibility, increase the number of in-house posts, and oversee massive public spending in the future, including the relevant spending of the Department of Justice, the Lantau Tomorrow Vision and even the Food and Health Bureau. Those who hold these posts must be accountable to the public.

4272 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Today the Secretary for Labour and Welfare is present while other Directors of Bureaux are not. Point (6) of my amendment refers to retraining as well. How to extend the "First-Hire-Then-Train" Scheme to more industries and job types? As far as the grass roots are concerned, I have all along supported the scheme to cover the construction industry, of which the jobs are now very popular. As regards elevator repairs, I recollect that at a Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session, I put a question to the Chief Executive about the soaring of an out-of-control elevator. It turned out that it was due to the shortage of workers, and only imported workers can cope with the needs arising from ageing elevators of old buildings.

When there is a shortage of manpower, how to make proper staffing arrangements? I think that the Government should outsource all the work. I myself come from the legal sector. As I have observed, the Government briefs out all cases. Even a Senior Counsel has asked us why the Government appointed someone from the United Kingdom rather than an in-house expert on criminal cases to represent the prosecution. Why did the Department of Justice not appoint in-house staff to take up Jimmy LAI's case? As regards how this case should be handled, it is not advisable to seek the opinion of a lawyer specializing in commercial litigation. The Lantau Tomorrow Vision will cost hundreds of billions of dollars in total, but for the $500 million already approved, are there any professionals in the civil service who can provide us with any cogent viewpoints?

I will not further speak on labour and welfare. I only hope that the Secretary will offer his viewpoints on occupation switching and seek more funding from the Financial Secretary. Apart from a loan fund for occupation switching for the unemployed, a support fund for occupation switching for the unemployed should also be introduced. In addition, regarding the staffing establishment of the Government, I recollect that Members likewise expressed many views at the Panel on Welfare Services. I hope that the Secretary will expeditiously expand the $2 fare concession scheme. As for labour and welfare needs, I hope that the Secretary will seek funding from the Financial Secretary for putting in place all administrative support, so that assistance can be provided to even market hawkers through the staffing establishment which now requires to be upgraded.

Deputy President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4273

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I rise to speak in support of the motion debate on "Supporting the unemployed and underemployed". While supporting Mr CHAN Hak-kan's original motion, I will also propose my amendment to refine the content of his motion. To start with, in his reply to a Member's question yesterday, Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong once again demonstrated his special skill in provoking people's anger. How did he provoke many workers this time? Immediately after the workers heard his reply, they sent me a message. They were very angry because Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong said that taking no-pay leave meant job sharing which could avoid layoffs. He hoped there would be mutual understanding and mutual accommodation. He has provoked two groups of people in one go. The unemployed are of the view that having no solution, he still refuses to dole out any unemployment assistance, and having no way to provide a large number of jobs, he is dragging his feet in handling the provision of temporary posts under a welfare-to-work approach. Those who are still in employment also feel angry. Buddy, how can he drag them down? They are in employment, but the Secretary encourages employers to request them to take no-pay leave so that more people can have a job. As such, is the Government leaving the problem to society without fulfilling its due responsibility? I think Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong is a capable person. I believe he has more than just a high IQ. If he could be more empathetic and more concerned, he would not have answered the question in such a way and aroused people's anger. I hope he can do some introspection.

Back to the unemployment problem in Hong Kong, which is deadly serious. Deputy President, back then, before the outbreak of the "black-clad riots", Hong Kong was really a paradise especially in terms of employment. Its low unemployment rate can be regarded as the envy of the world. From March to May 2019, which was before the occurrence of "black-clad riots", the unemployment rate was 2.8%. With full employment, there were only 114 000 unemployed people. Between January and March last year (i.e. 2020), which was six months or so after the outbreak of the "black-clad riots", coupled with the emergence of the epidemic, the unemployment rate slowly rose to 4.2%. Then this year, after a year of rocketing, the unemployment rate has reached 7.2% as announced recently. Some 360 000 people are unemployed, and the underemployment rate is 4% … Sorry, the unemployment rate is 7.2% and the number of unemployed people is 261 600. The underemployment rate is 4%, with more than 150 000 people underemployed. This is the present miserable situation.

4274 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Of course, Deputy President, the labour sector has all along stressed that this unemployment rate is an underestimation because in the wake of the "black-clad riots" and the epidemic, many people have left the labour market as they are forced to retire early or go home to take care of their families. Therefore, in the past year or so, it was very strange that while population ageing was not serious in Hong Kong, there was a sudden loss of over 100 000 people from the labour force. Why did they suddenly leave the labour market? Obviously, it was because they could not find a job, and they were in no mood to seek employment because the market was too weak. So the Government did not regard them as unemployed. Hence, Deputy President, this unemployment figure has in fact been far underestimated.

For this reason, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") has been conducting surveys for 12 months. For instance, in the latest survey released by FTU the other day, which was our 12th "Survey on Employment Status and Job Search Confidence in Hong Kong", it was found that 70% of the respondents had been laid off, had their wages reduced, were forced to suspend work or were on no-pay leave, that is, the no-pay leave proposed by Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong. The income of 76% of the respondents had reduced, some by greater amounts and some smaller. Among them, 24% had zero income, and more than 30% had suffered a pay cut of 10% to 40%. The worst part is the outlook. If the situation is bad today but they have confidence in the future, they can still hang on for a while. However, 52% of the respondents indicated that they were not confident of finding a full-time job within the next three months, and 22% of them even indicated no confidence at all. The Financial Secretary has recently introduced the Special 100% Loan Guarantee for Individuals Scheme to help the unemployed obtain an unemployment loan. We consider it an alternative way out, but after all, not everyone may find it suitable. Some people are very reluctant to take out any loan during unemployment because they are afraid that they can hardly make repayment in the future. They do not want to default on any debt to the Government resulting in a poor credit record. Therefore, according to the public views and public sentiment gauged in our survey, only half of the unemployed are willing to take out unemployment loans.

Are Hong Kong people very hardworking? Deputy President, they really are. In the meantime, Hong Kong people have made great efforts to switch to another trade and receive retraining. Retraining courses such as the Love Upgrading Special Scheme have been fully enrolled in no time, and many people have applied for a Security Personnel Permit. In the past year, the number of Security Personnel Permits in the industry has increased by more than 40 000. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4275

Frankly, the demand in the security industry is quite stable, and there will not be a sudden increase of over 40 000 security jobs. The people are simply trying to get a permit first so that they can wait and see if they can possibly have one more option.

In the face of unemployment, the epidemic and the earlier "black-clad riots", Hong Kong people have tried every means to struggle for survival. Their spirit of self-reliance is pretty strong. As a matter of fact, the number of applications for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") is low. In the present terrible situation, there are only 19 000-odd CSSA cases under the unemployment category. In comparison, in January last year, the unemployment rate was about 4% with some 12 000 cases. Now actually there is only a 57% increase, which is not proportional to the increase in unemployment. Hence, in our view, the existing unemployment support system is rather inadequate. I hope the Secretary can make up the deficiency. Otherwise, once people become unemployed, they will have to live on their savings―The Government often tells people to live on savings. Actually, living on savings is only the last resort when there is no other choice―The biggest problem is that the retirement system in Hong Kong is imperfect. People will save up their money. In particular, those who are in their forties or fifties and are planning to retire may have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars and intend to use it only when they retire. Since they are now unemployed, they may exhaust all their money in a year, disrupting their entire retirement plan. It is thus evident that we strongly need an unemployment support system.

As a matter of fact, unemployment support systems are quite common in foreign countries. Out of the 203 places and countries in the world, 98 have already set up a system providing unemployment protection of varying degrees, among which unemployment insurance is the most common, being implemented in 80 places. Among the 37 more advanced member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 35 have already set up an unemployment insurance system by 2020. Therefore, in the long run, Hong Kong needs to establish a contributory unemployment insurance system. Of course, we agree that this warrants further deliberations, but for short-term measures, we have also proposed the establishment of an emergency unemployment assistance fund. Last year, FTU conducted an experiment, using the $15 million raised to provide temporary unemployment relief to 5 000 workers, in an attempt to show the Government what can be done. FTU did not merely engage in empty talk. It did conduct a social experiment and help some people. I hope the Government will really try to work in this way. 4276 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

I hope the Secretary will come to the Legislative Council in the future to attend the meetings of the Subcommittee to Study the Setting Up of an Unemployment Assistance System in Hong Kong and focus on such topics as whether he thinks that there is any moral hazard, that the relevant amount is too high, or whether various amounts of assistance which have been discussed in society are appropriate. If he is worried that the financial burden will be like a tail which is too big to wag, should an exit mechanism be set up? Or should the amount be capped at $15 billion as proposed by FTU, or should a line be drawn based on the unemployment rate? If he is worried that without a proper mechanism, even millionaires may apply, can a lenient honour system and simple application criteria be formulated? All these can be discussed.

I hope the Secretary will not deny the entire concept of unemployment assistance on the basis of principle and for vague reasons. This is what members of the public and the Legislative Council now would like the Government to do most. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, this motion was originally scheduled for debate at the meeting of the Legislative Council on 2 December last year but has been delayed. Today, we can finally hold a debate. After three months, have the unemployment rate and underemployment rate improved or worsened? I believe Hong Kong people have a clear idea.

In fact, three months ago, the unemployment rate was 6.4%, and today it is 7.2%, the highest since 2004 with the number of unemployed people being over 260 000. The underemployed rate has also risen to 4%, the highest likewise. These numbers reflect that many enterprises failed to stay afloat since the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS") ended in November last year. Therefore, in the future if the enterprises cannot be preserved, we will naturally not be able to safeguard employment and unemployment will continue to worsen.

Suffering the successive blow of the riot and the epidemic, Hong Kong has experienced decline for almost two years. The annual Gross Domestic Product in 2020 dropped by 6.1%. Taking the retail sector for which I represent as an example, sales figures have been falling for 24 months in a row, with an aggregate annual drop reaching 25%, i.e. one fourth, the greatest drop in the history of Hong Kong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4277

During this period of time, many trades and industries have been hard hit and, in particular, medium, small and micro enterprises have fared poorly. Many employees and practitioners have no choice but to face pay cuts, no-pay leave and even unemployment. Many families are tightening their belts. Thus, under such circumstances, the Liberal Party also considers that the Government should offer further assistance to help those unemployed and underemployed weather the difficult times.

I would like to specially thank Mr CHAN Hak-kan for proposing this motion at the opportune moment to, hopefully, assist the unemployed and underemployed who are truly in need.

As regards Mr CHAN Hak-kan's original motion, I support and agree with to most of it. But I would like to make some slight changes to three points therein. The first one is "establishing an interim short-term unemployment assistance to help alleviate the financial pressure of the temporarily unemployed due to the epidemic".

It is common knowledge that, on the subject of unemployment assistance, the Liberal Party's stance has been relatively conservative because we consider that general Hongkongers should be self-reliant and help themselves while money should be saved to help those who are most in need. However, in this epidemic, as we can see, it is not that they do not want to work, but that those jobs have utterly disappeared and many industries have even been ordered to suspend operation. For this reason, we all approve of and support the establishment of an interim short-term unemployment assistance to cope with the epidemic.

Concerning the difference between short-term unemployment assistance and long-term unemployment assistance, Honourable colleagues should understand the meaning of what I have just referred to. But, as I can see that the preamble of Mr CHAN Hak-kan's original motion is mostly a description of the epidemic, I guess that he should be talking about the short-term unemployment assistance, and so his stance is similar to ours.

Of course, unemployment assistance, after all, incurs massive expenditure. As to how the Government will calculate such expenditure, I would leave it to Secretary Dr LAW and the relevant departments. Nonetheless, as Mr LUK Chung-hung has just mentioned, the Government has been evading it by citing many reasons, including moral hazard, that is, whether someone will cheat.

4278 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Earlier on, I have told Secretary Dr LAW that if he was really worried whether those receiving unemployment assistance were truly unemployed or had the intention to commit frauds, simply by looking at the 13 types of premises that were ordered to suspend operation, he would have known that they could not do business and had suspended operation for most of the time. Now, a few industries, including bars, karaoke establishments, bathhouses, nightclubs, mahjong parlours, saunas and party rooms, even suspended operation from 2 December last year to 31 March this year. Come to think about it, they had suspended operation for three or four months and how could the employees affected survive? They still have to pay rents. For these people, I think that the Government needs to take care of them and so I have proposed an amendment to suggest establishing an interim unemployment assistance.

Secondly, we know that the Government has introduced the Love Upgrading Special Scheme. Secretary, it is indeed a brilliant scheme that can support some unemployed or underemployed people in pursuing further studies or training. The idea is actually good, save only that, regarding the allowance, I know the Government has increased the amount to $225 per day, while the Liberal Party has proposed $9,000 per month. The Government has earlier increased the maximum monthly allowance from $4,000 to $5,800, which is about $223 per day on average. We hope it will be increased to $9,000 per month, i.e. approximately $350 per day. Both of us are going in the same direction, only that we hope the amount will be increased further so that the unemployed or underemployed can, while undertaking studies or training, earn a living and also support their families, or at least being able to make ends meet.

The third point of my amendment is that, apart from the Treasury, we also have the Community Care Fund. The balance of the Community Care Fund now stands at approximately $18 billion, mainly to help those in need. The Government's fiscal reserve has now dropped to $800 billion. Is it possible to bring back a certain sum from the Community Care Fund to support the unemployed and underemployed? That is the three directions of my amendment.

This time, in addition to my amendment, both Dr Priscilla LEUNG and Mr LUK Chung-hung have proposed amendments. As regards Dr Priscilla LEUNG's amendment, I agree with most of it because of its similarity with our views. Her proposals include―same as Mr CHAN Hak-kan's original motion―hoping the Government would launch the third tranche of ESS and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4279 enhance the Working Family Allowance Scheme to help more people. As regards the Anti-epidemic Fund, it should fund the creation of more time-limited posts in both the private and public sectors. We support all of these measures.

However, I wish to say that as regards Dr Priscilla LEUNG's amendment which proposes to increase the number of civil service posts, we have reservation about this and even disagree with this. The reason is that the Government's overall recurrent expenditure has increased considerably since the inception of the current-term Government. We are worried that if the civil service structure continues to expand, the recurrent expenditure will grow correspondingly. The Chief Executive has not long ago stated that the current-term Government would not create new posts―meaning zero growth. If some short-term posts are to be created, we agree; but if they are permanent posts, then I do not agree. I have not heard Dr Priscilla LEUNG explain in her speech just now whether the posts she has proposed to increase are short-term. As per my understanding, if they are permanent posts, we cannot agree.

As regards Mr LUK Chung-hung's amendment, we agree with most of it, except the unemployment assistance. Mr LUK proposed establishing a long-term unemployment assistance scheme. As I have just mentioned, we have different views on the short term and the long term.

Moreover, Mr LUK has included in his amendment some long-term labour policies, such as the continuous contract requirement (commonly known as the "4-18" requirement). As for these longstanding controversial issues, employers have many varying views. They have been brought to platforms such as the Labour Advisory Board for discussion. They cannot be included in the amendment in such haste to require us to state whether we support it or not. We may not share the same views with employers when discussing the matter with them in the future. Therefore, I cannot agree to issues such as labour policies presented in Mr LUK's amendment.

As a result, I have proposed my amendment. However, in a nutshell, as the epidemic has been raging on, many people have lost their jobs or have become underemployed. I consider that the Government should offer assistance to them in an unconventional manner. Be it half a year or three months, please give them some support.

4280 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Lastly, I wish to say that, in many meetings, I have debated with Secretary Dr LAW or expressed my views to him. Normally, the Secretary for Labour and Welfare should often go tit-for-tat with representatives of the business sector. Nevertheless, I found that in meetings over the past year―for reasons unknown―I often had to say good words for Secretary Dr LAW while labour groups which he should help often chided him.

Frankly speaking, over the past year I have seen the Secretary for Labour and Welfare accomplish a great deal of work. Simply taking ESS as an example, had the authorities not introduced such a scheme to provide employers with six-month allowances, I believe there would have been an avalanche of companies closing down. Secondly, I organized an event earlier to support the laundry industry and Secretary Dr LAW also volunteered to help and participated in it. I believe Secretary Dr LAW had a part to play in the discussion on the $10,000 cash handout. I know he has not stopped doing all these things. Nonetheless, it is a matter of timing. If the epidemic had ended in November last year, the Government would have scored 100 marks. But the problem is that the epidemic is not yet over. Hence, the Government has to come up with ways and means again. Thank you.

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr CHAN Hak-kan for proposing this motion debate, as well as Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr SHIU Ka-fai for proposing the amendments, so that I can give a brief account on behalf of relevant Policy Bureaux of the measures taken by the Government in response to the deteriorating employment environment as a result of the COVID-19 epidemic.

Latest unemployment situation

The labour market in Hong Kong is under tremendous pressure due to the impact of the epidemic. Unemployment and underemployment are aggravating. According to the statistics for December 2020 to February this year released on 16 March, the average unemployment rate (not seasonally adjusted) was 6.8% and 7.2% after seasonal adjustment. However, if those who are familiar with statistical analysis study the changes in the average unemployment rate in the moving three-month period over the past half year, they will realize that the unemployment rate in Hong Kong surged to its peak in December 2020 before showing a downward trend in January and February this year.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4281

Members may have noticed that another two sets of figures tally with the above mentioned analysis. The first set of figures is that in February 2021, the Labour Department recorded a total of 56 227 vacancies from the private sector, representing an increase of 28.2% over the figure in January and a year-on-year increase of 57.1%. The second set of figures is that according to the Social Welfare Department, the number of applications of unemployment Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") cases dropped by 26.4% on a month-to-month basis in February this year, representing a decrease of about 5.7% year-on-year. As long as we can contain the aftermath of the "gym room outbreak" in the fourth wave of the epidemic, coupled with more widespread vaccination, the economy will be able to recover gradually. We can be cautiously optimistic that the unemployment rate will not continue to rise.

Has the unemployment rate really been underestimated? The decline of the labour force is a concern of ours, but an in-depth analysis will show that about 20% of it is due to the decrease in the number of foreign domestic helpers, from the peak of 400 000 to some 370 000 at present. The second major group of people that has left the labour market are young people. The first reason is that the school attendance rate of young people has increased while the employment rate of young people has decreased. The number of full-time students working part-time or even full-time has significantly decreased. A small proportion of those who have left the labour market are young women who stay at home without hiring foreign domestic helpers. We can see that the labour force participation rate of people aged 60 or above did not decline but rose slightly instead in 2020, so there is no need to worry about a sharp decline of the working population. Another major reason for the decline of the labour force is that some people who used to live in Hong Kong and travel daily to the Mainland for work no longer live in Hong Kong. So, these people are not included in labour force. If Members look at the figures I just mentioned, they will understand that the unemployment rate has increased statistically in comparison with that in the previous year because of the excluded and declined labour force. The figures I mentioned just now will also lead to a higher unemployment rate. It is a question of denominator and numerator, but this is a statistical analysis and I do not want to go into details in the Council.

Measures for stabilizing employment

The Government adopts a multi-pronged approach to help workers and the grass roots break away from their hardships. Our measures include creating more employment opportunities, helping employees in need upgrade themselves 4282 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 or develop new job skills, strengthening job matching service for employers and job-seekers, and providing financial assistance to the unemployed and their families in financial difficulties.

Specifically, through the Job Creation Scheme under the Anti-epidemic Fund, the Government will create around 30 000 time-limited jobs in the public and private sectors within two years for people of different skill sets and academic qualifications, especially fresh graduates, in order to alleviate the deteriorating unemployment situation under the epidemic. Moreover, it has been announced in the 2021-2022 Budget a further allocation of $6.6 billion to create around 30 000 time-limited jobs.

The Chief Executive has also announced in the 2020 Policy Address that the Government would create more sector-specific job opportunities for people aspiring to join the industries, particularly young people graduating in recent years. Targeted industries include the green industry, construction industry, I&T industry, property management industry, creative industries and legal profession. In addition, the 2020 Policy Address also announced the launch of the Greater Bay Area Youth Employment Scheme to encourage and assist Hong Kong young people to seize the career development opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area.

In order to continue to support employees affected by the economic downturn, the Government has asked the Employees Retraining Board ("ERB") to launch the fourth tranche of the Love Upgrading Special Scheme in July immediately following the third tranche, which will last for six months until the end of this year, under which an additional 20 000 trainees will receive retraining and allowance during the training period. ERB will also continue to optimize the scheme by broadening programme choices and adding more online courses so that trainees can pursue distance-learning during the epidemic.

Financial support for the unemployed

The Government understands that more families need short-term financial support when the employment situation deteriorates. In this connection, CSSA Scheme has been functioning effectively as a safety net. To give more targeted support for the unemployed and their families who face immediate financial difficulties, the Government has launched the time-limited Special Scheme of Assistance to the Unemployed under CSSA Scheme to temporarily relax the asset LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4283 limits for able-bodied persons by 100%. The Government will also implement another time-limited new arrangement under the special scheme for six months from April to September 2021. Specifically, the cash value of insurance policies of able-bodied CSSA applicants will not be counted as assets during the grace period of one year.

Separately, the Government will seek funding from the Finance Committee ("FC") of the Legislative Council this week to implement another time-limited special assistance measure, with a view to substantially reducing the working hour requirements of the Working Family Allowance ("WFA") Scheme for non-single-parent households by half from 144 hours per month to 72 hours per month on a one-year basis, so that low-income households with reduced aggregated monthly working hours will still be eligible for WFA. Meanwhile, the Government will concurrently abolish the Individual-based Work Incentive Transport Subsidy Scheme and redeploy the resources to implement the arrangement concerning the substantial reduction on working hour requirements of WFA Scheme and cope with the significant increase of WFA applications in recent years, so as to ensure that households in greater need will receive timely and effective support.

The Government will also propose to FC to temporarily relax the asset limits of the Short-term Food Assistance Service Projects on a 12-month basis by pitching the asset limits to those of the WFA Scheme in order to further support people and families in financial difficulties. Subject to FC's approval, the above mentioned arrangements can be implemented in June 2021 at the soonest.

Through the proactive implementation of the above mentioned measures which cover a wide range of people, coupled with the Special 100% Loan Guarantee for Individuals Scheme proposed in the 2021-2022 Budget, we hope to help the unemployed and their families to tide over their short-term financial difficulties during the epidemic and economic downturn.

Deputy President, I will listen attentively to Members' opinions on strengthening the support for the unemployed and underemployed and give a comprehensive response after listening to Members' speeches.

I so submit.

4284 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I would like to first thank Mr CHAN Hak-kan for proposing the motion today. The debate on this motion, which should have been debated last December, has been delayed until today, but its urgency has not been affected. Over the past several months, due to wave after wave of virus infections, many businesses are already on the verge of closing down and scraping along the bottom. The number of unemployed people has been increasing month after month. The latest unemployment rate and underemployment rate announced this Tuesday are both at 17-year highs.

Even though the Government has introduced relief measures worth over $300 billion over the past year, it seems that we have yet to see a positive trend. Members of the community all eagerly expect that the Government will adopt more effective and targeted measures to tide people and businesses over this difficult period and emerge from the pandemic, so that the economy can recover early and life can return to normal. In fact, the measures to support unemployed people can simply be classified into three categories: first, providing financial assistance; second, creating temporary posts; and third, strengthening training for occupation switching.

In respect of financial assistance, the Government introduced two tranches of the Employment Support Scheme last year to prevent businesses from closing down and laying off their staff for a short period of time, thus playing a positive role in stabilizing society. However, the call in the community for introducing unemployment assistance was rejected outright in the Budget this year. Fortunately, the Government has adopted the proposal I earlier presented to the Financial Secretary to draw reference from the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme by introducing the Special 100% Loan Guarantee for Individuals Scheme specifically caters to the unemployed. As a result, the unemployed can have an additional option of applying for a loan to meet their imminent needs. I hope the Government can consider the loan ceiling of this scheme. Is $80,000 sufficient? Can it be increased? At the same time, the Government should strive for the loans to be approved and disbursed within one week from the date of application, so as to alleviate livelihood pressure on the unemployed.

The Government expects that the Hong Kong economy will resume positive growth this year and register an actual growth rate between 3.5% and 5.5%. However, variants of the virus, the actual efficacy of vaccines and vaccination rate will all bring uncertainties to the process of recovery. If the economic recovery as anticipated by the Government is delayed by another half a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4285 year, the unemployed who have drawn loans under the Special 100% Loan Guarantee for Individuals Scheme will possibly have not escaped unemployment traps. Not only will they have no money to pay the bank the interest on their loans, but they will also be hard up for money again. For this reason, I strongly urge the Government to closely monitor the data on economic recovery and formulate financial assistance plans in advance. If our economic performance data has deviated from the original forecast, the Government should immediately roll out the third tranche of the Employment Support Scheme or consider providing short-term unemployment assistance, so as to ensure social stability.

Apart from financial assistance, creating employment opportunities is also an effective way. As indicated by the Secretary, the Government spent some $6.6 billion on providing 30 000 temporary posts last year. At the end of last month, however, the Civil Service Bureau disclosed that only 18 000 posts had been filled, and the remaining 12 000 posts were still under recruitment. The Bureau then also disclosed that the Government planned to allocate another $6.6 billion to likewise provide an additional 30 000 temporary posts this year. As such, the Government should now speed up the pace of recruitment so that more people can be given an employment opportunity. At the same time, as it is now already March, fresh graduates will soon be flooding the job market. My sector has responded actively to the Greater Bay Area Youth Employment Scheme introduced by the Government, and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has joined hands with banks to offer hundreds of internship positions, which were well-received. But the number of such positions is limited after all. I therefore hope that the Government can further study creating other employment opportunities for young people.

My last point is related to strengthening the training or self-enhancement of employees and assisting employees from declining sectors with occupation switching. The Government introduced the third tranche of the Love Upgrading Special Scheme in January this year and increased the number of training places to 20 000. However, having checked the information available, we realize that many of the 28 sectors covered by courses introduced during the pandemic were already hard hit by unemployment, such as the hotel, tourism and catering sectors. The unemployment rate of the catering sector has already risen to 14.1%. These unemployed people are jobless not because of a lack of training. When businesses resume recruitment, an unemployed person seeking to engage in his original occupation should be more competitive than one seeking to engage in another occupation. For this reason, when the unemployment rate remains high, 4286 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 the Government should examine the set-up and effectiveness of training courses introduced, and assist the unemployed in selecting courses that help them to upgrade their skills or switch occupations, so as to facilitate the unemployed in landing a suitable job in the post-pandemic era.

Deputy President, the root cause of unemployment and underemployment is the economic downturn, and the root cause of the economic downturn is a pandemic that is out of control. If the pandemic is under control, we will be able to relaunch the economy. I am happy to hear the Chief Executive saying yesterday that the Government would consider providing incentives to encourage people to get vaccinated because only when we have achieved herd immunity will the economy have a chance to relaunch. I hope that the Government will expeditiously announce the details of the incentives, so that the problems associated with vaccinations can be solved as soon as possible, and Hong Kong can reach herd immunity as soon as possible.

Deputy President, I support the motion proposed by Mr CHAN Hak-kan today and all the amendments proposed by three other Members. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we are discussing in the legislature the motion on "Supporting the unemployed and underemployed" proposed by Mr CHAN Hak-kan today. Frankly speaking, this is a very important and timely motion. Rightly as Mr CHAN Hak-kan has said just now, this motion is definitely not obsolete, but it has become even more timely. Just last Tuesday, the Government announced that the unemployment rate for the latest quarter had soared to 7.2%, hitting a record high in 17 years. That means it is the highest figure in the past 17 years. The unemployment rate has risen from 3.4% at the beginning of last year when the epidemic broke out to 7.2% in merely one year, and the number of people being unemployed has reached 260 000. It is 260 000, they are individual people, an additional of 140 000 people have become unemployed. These are definitely not cold figures only, but behind them are many families in dire straits, each with a story of blood and tears.

Our office has received a lot of requests for help from the unemployed this year. Rather than the grass-roots people or those living in subdivided units that we often talk about, some of them actually used to be engaged in higher-income sectors who possess higher academic qualifications. Yet, faced with multiple LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4287 waves of unemployment, they cannot earn a living now after having lost their jobs. They would not have come to us for if they were not at the end of their rope and leading a very hard life. Some people even have to borrow money to make ends meet, and this has also led to family discord. Some unemployed men even dare not confess to their families. The unemployed are those who lack the most support at present. I think the Government has its due responsibility in helping the unemployed to survive this cold winter. But then, I would like to ask, among the measures that the Government has currently put in place at present, how many of them can truly help them after all?

The Secretary is in the Chamber today. To be honest, we have discussed this issue repeatedly in the past year. We have talked about it time and again, and I have also raised questions to the Secretary on various occasions. I believe I have a rough idea of the Secretary's earlier remarks and what he will say later. In the first place, the Secretary will definitely say that we already have the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") for the unemployed at present, and given the views we have put forward earlier on, they have made improvement and refinement. The most important point is that we should not look at the unemployed through tinted glasses―Wait a minute, Deputy President, let us take a look at the effectiveness of CSSA for the unemployed. Just now Mr CHAN Hak-kan has mentioned that more than 260 000 people are unemployed, but how many of them are receiving CSSA? The figure is 19 000, which is less than 20 000 people, accounting for less than 7% of the total. Where does the problem lie? Do they believe that it does not matter for them to be unemployed and there is no need for them to rely on that sum of money? Absolutely not. It is because they are not eligible for CSSA since the threshold remains very high, making it difficult for them to apply.

Second, I hope the Secretary would also understand that their subjective wish does not originate from whether we have a stigma attached to CSSA, but it is because they also think that CSSA has a negative stigma, thus making them unwilling to apply. This is where the crux of the problem lies. Hence, there is no such question as to whether we look at them through tinted glasses. But on the contrary, I cannot see the Social Welfare Department or the Labour and Welfare Bureau telling people that they should apply for CSSA in case of unemployment. I have not come across such publicity on the websites. Should the Government do so?

4288 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

In addition, the Secretary often tells us that an array of measures have already been put in place at present to help the unemployed, such as the Love Upgrading Special Scheme, enhancement of the Working Family Allowance Scheme and creation of more job opportunities. I definitely do not oppose these measures, and I think these are good solutions as well. Yet, is their existing coverage and strength sufficient to truly support the unemployed? Can they really solve the imminent problems? Therefore, there is a consensus among people from different political parties, camps and sectors both inside and outside the legislature. We hope that the Government can establish an unemployment assistance to help this group of unemployed people being caught in dire straits.

The key lies in whether the Government is willing to open this door amid an epidemic of the century―this is an epidemic of the century as it would only occur once―Can they open this door? The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has proposed it over and again. We are not asking for a lifelong unemployment assistance, but only for a short span, and no less than $6,000 per month will be provided for a period of three months. Let us do some calculations. It will only cost $9 billion or $10 billion. This is all that is involved after repeated calculations. Sitting on a fiscal surplus of $800 billion, does the Government have the means to help?

Secretary, I do not want to describe you as hard-hearted, but the Government has stood very firm in the past when refusing to provide an unemployment assistance. Many people say that you have marvellous inspirations and very high IQ scores, but when it comes to language skills, your creativity has sent a terrible shock to the public, or it even makes people feel that the Secretary is somewhat detached from reality. I have read the blogs written by the Secretary every Sunday. You once mentioned that the unemployment rate had reached 7%, saying that it was a seasonal adjustment. You also said that the unemployment rate did not show any signs of deterioration and it might stabilize. You then hinted that you refused to establish an unemployment assistance because you doubted whether it would indeed be merely a temporary measure by then. This really makes people step back, and we also wonder whether the Secretary understands that members of the public are now … Just imagine that they have lost their jobs, how would they feel after hearing what you said when they are watching television at home? Or, could you not treat them as some figures, or in a way just like you are studying how the Big Bang took place from an academic perspective? They are real people, Secretary.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4289

Secretary, with regard to these several points, I really hope that … You also mentioned that the Government had spent more than $80 billion last year. This is also a temporary measure. As you said before, you were worried that it would be make permanent, but now no one has asked you to make permanent the Employment Support Scheme. You have not made the $80 billion spending recurrent either, and we have not demanded so. Secretary, I understand that a bunch of details will be involved in the establishment of unemployment assistance on a temporary basis, and it will be very complicated as many different concepts will be entailed. Nevertheless, we are also willing to discuss them with an open mind. Could the Secretary make some suggestions on which we can discuss how the measure can be implemented on a time-limited basis to truly help members of the public, while making it not too complicated but simple and easy to understand? Secretary.

With one minute left, I would like to tell a simple story which has recently come to my mind. Secretary, you and I both like swimming and we participated in the Cross-Harbour Swimming Race together before. The current situation is just like a gang of people are drowning at the centre of the Victoria Harbour―which is mentioned in the previous motion―the Secretary then suggests that he would give each of them a straw to support themselves and they can survive. But those people say that it does not work, they have cramps and are dying. The Secretary then tells them, "It does not matter, I would give you a child-size inflatable arm ring for one side to support yourselves". Those people say again, "It does not work really, Secretary, it does not work indeed, the water is at our nostrils." And then the Secretary says, "Actually I have more than 300 000 life jackets on the shore of the Victoria Harbour, but I am worried that I cannot save hundreds of people. I have to send these life jackets to Sha Tau Kok to examine how to bring them here." Secretary, you are the lifeguard now. We have got into the water to help save them at the front line, but you are the person closest to them. The choices of saving them or not are only a hair's width apart, it merely depends on what you think.

Thank you, Deputy President.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr CHAN Hak-kan for proposing the motion on "Supporting the unemployed and underemployed". According to the latest statistics released by the Government, the unemployment rate in December last year to February this year increased to 4290 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

7.2%, the highest in 16 years. Analysed by sector, the unemployment rate of the consumption- and tourism-related sectors (viz. retail, catering and accommodation sectors) is even higher at 11%, while the underemployment rate reached a record-high of 7.2%. As a matter of fact, in the second half of 2019, a series of "riots", coupled with the coronavirus epidemic since the beginning of this year, many industries in Hong Kong, including the tourism industry, have recorded a precipitous fall. After four waves of outbreaks, the tourism industry is still in a frozen state and there is hardly any light at the end of the tunnel. The situation is miserable.

In response to the epidemic, the Government introduced the $80 billion Employment Support Scheme ("ESS") in two tranches to provide wage subsidies to eligible employers in the hope of "supporting enterprises, safeguarding jobs". ESS could indeed alleviate the financial pressure on enterprises and temporarily avoid massive wave of business closures. Nevertheless, there have been opinions in the society at the time criticizing ESS for not being targeted enough. One of the criticisms was that enterprises were eligible to apply for subsidies regardless of their profits or losses. Hence, some industries not affected by the epidemic, such as supermarket chains and property management companies, could also receive publicly-funded subsidies. For them, it was like icing on the cake. On the contrary, after ESS ended at the end of November, many industries, particularly tourism-related industries, such as travel agencies, hotels, aviation and cross-border transportation industries, are still operating in great difficulties and very much hope that there will be a new round of support will be provided. However, more than three months have passed since November and the Government still has no intention to introduce the third tranche of ESS. For this reason, our industry, myself included, have repeatedly urged the Government on various occasions to introduce the third tranche of ESS targeting industries in exceptional difficulties, or draw reference from overseas examples. For example, the Singaporean Government provided wage subsidies according to the degree of damage suffered by various industries; the Australian Government introduced an A$1.2 billion support scheme for the tourism industry. These schemes aim at helping the industry get out of the plight and recover speedily once the epidemic comes under control.

Certainly, as far as employee support is concerned, the Government has introduced some measures. For example, the Financial Secretary announced in this year's Budget speech that the Government will ask the Employees Retraining Board to launch the fourth tranche of the Love Upgrading Special Scheme in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4291 middle of this year, which will last until the end of this year. I agree with the idea and only the idea of this scheme as I believe that it can help employees who lost their regular income or freelancers without a regular income, such as tour guides and tour escorts, to receive retraining and earn a relatively regular allowance when they have no business and thus, no income. However, as the epidemic has lasted a long time, many people have been out of work and pay for a long time. Worse still, they do not know when this situation will end. As a result, this scheme gives people the impression that it is ineffective and unable to help the truly unemployed. Therefore, I agree with the proposal in Mr SHIU's amendment to raise the maximum monthly allowance under the Love Upgrading Special Scheme to $9,000 for a period of half a year as a transitional measure to strengthen support for the unemployed or underemployed when the Government is unable to put in place an unemployment assistance scheme.

Deputy President, Hong Kong has gone through four waves of outbreaks and is currently facing the challenge of the recent outbreak of the Sai Ying Pun gym cluster. There is still a long way to go before the epidemic comes under control. The majority of industries are still struggling. Being an externally oriented economy, it is hard for Hong Kong's economy to recover expeditiously relying solely on the local consumer market. Cross-border travel between Hong Kong and the Mainland must be resumed and travel bubbles with foreign countries must be established in order to boost Hong Kong's economy. Therefore, I agree with the proposal in Mr CHAN Hak-kan's original motion to implement as soon as possible the mutual recognition system for health codes of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao. Only then will there be a chance for resumption of cross-border travel and recovery of Hong Kong's economy. According to the Government's statistics, the value of total retail sales in January was $32.6 billion, decreased by 13% year-on-year and declined for 24 consecutive months. The Government also expects the tourism industry to remain frozen and a harsh business environment if the epidemic persists. Various industries and the general public in Hong Kong are eager to see the expeditious resumption of cross-border travel between Hong Kong and the Mainland. Therefore, we hope that different government departments, including the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, the Food and Health Bureau and the Innovation and Technology Bureau, to monitor the development of the epidemic and make proper preparations for the resumption of cross-border travel. Once the epidemic comes under control, various recovery measures should be implemented immediately. They include relaxing the restrictions on local tours organized by 4292 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 travel agencies, permitting cruise trips on the high seas, and more importantly, striving for the expeditiously resumption of cross-border travel between Hong Kong and the Mainland, as well as exploring the possibility of travel bubbles with other overseas cities on the basis of the re-launch of the travel bubble with Singapore. Only when tourism is resumed can there be a chance to solve the economic and unemployment issues in Hong Kong. I hope the Government can make clear and timely decisions in this regard so that the public will know how to meet the Government's requirements.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the original motion and all the amendments.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the COVID-19 epidemic is volatile and has dragged on for more than a year. The latest unemployment rate of Hong Kong has surged to 7.2%, with over 260 000 people unemployed, which is a record high since 2004, with the consumption and tourism industries being the hardest hit. In my view, the Government should continue to put the epidemic under strict control and encourage the public to receive vaccination. At the same time, it should also prescribe effective remedies to help the public and small and medium enterprises to tide over the difficult times arising from the epidemic as soon as possible.

Regarding the support for the unemployed, the options widely discussed in the community are cash handouts and the setting up of unemployment assistance. I think the epidemic has exerted unprecedented impact on various trades and industries, and the Government should adopt an open attitude in providing assistance as far as possible if it is able to do so.

In fact, in the past year, governments of our neighbouring regions have tried their best to "support enterprises and safeguard jobs" for most of the time. Take Singapore as an example. During the epidemic, it has introduced the jobs support scheme similar to that of the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS") in Hong Kong. Yet, unlike Hong Kong which has merely provided such allowance for six months, Singapore continues to provide additional support to various trades and industries according to the degree of impact they suffered in the epidemic. It is evident that though Hong Kong and Singapore are both facing the same problem of fiscal deficit, the key to prevent the further worsening of unemployment lies in whether the government is determined to tackle it.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4293

In my view, one of the feasible options with precedents is to review the experience of the two previous tranches of ESS as soon as possible and launch the "ESS 3.0". This new scheme should last for three to six months, paying particular attention to the support for affected trades and industries and identifying ways to help members of the public who have never received any assistance so far, in order to prevent the further worsening of the unemployment rate.

Deputy President, I have to reiterate that all trades and industries are groaning about their plights at present. We are worried if there will be another wave of large-scale layoffs and closures, causing more people to lose their jobs and affecting the livelihood of many families. In this connection, the Government should take decisive and prompt actions, including actions to "sustain enterprises and safeguard jobs" which is conducive to social stability. I hope the Government will draw reference from the previous tranches of ESS to streamline the application procedures and speed up the vetting and approval process, thereby helping various trades and industries to tie over this once-in-a-century difficult time.

In addition, the Government should proactively consider the establishment of a "loan fund for occupation switching", helping the unemployed and job seekers to upgrade themselves and switch occupations. As the saying goes, "in the midst of crisis, lies opportunity". Last week, we saw that an open job fair held by a major estate developer was well received by the public with over 10 000 people making registration and close to 30% of the job seekers were waiting for job offers. One of the characteristics of the job fair this time around is that many of the vacancies are new job types which have emerged in the course of the epidemic, which reflects that the public are willing to try to switch occupation. In my view, the Government's decision may be related to the chance for the unemployed to make a comeback. Hence, as long as the fiscal resources permit, the authorities should establish a loan fund for occupation switching to help eligible unemployed people to switch occupations, switch to self-employment or start up their own businesses.

Deputy President, in order to cope with this wave of unemployment, we are especially concerned about the employment situation of young people. On the one hand, it is because they are the future pillars of society. On the other hand, new university graduates will soon start working in society. Apart from the 4294 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 local job market, young people may also act swiftly to grasp the opportunity and set their eyes on the development in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area with a population of 70 million.

As mentioned in the Budget by the Financial Secretary last month, the Greater Bay Area is the best entry point for Hong Kong to participate in the domestic circulation of our country's economy, be it for the mutual market access for financial services and products, cooperation and collaboration in respect of innovation and technology, or people's stay and living in the Greater Bay Area.

It is evident that there are enormous opportunities for development in the Greater Bay Area, businessmen and young people of Hong Kong should grasp the opportunity to take the first step. Hence, I support Dr Priscilla LEUNG's amendment, particularly the proposal to strengthen support for local residents and professional service personnel in employment and entrepreneurship in the Greater Bay Area, with a view to further expanding the room for development of the unemployed and underemployed. I also hope that more convenience will be provided for young people who wish to start their own businesses, including providing more flexibility in renting premises. Moreover, the mutual recognition system for health codes of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao should be implemented as soon as possible, so that economic and personnel interactions among the three places can resume on the premise of meeting the infection control requirements, thereby boosting the Hong Kong economy and creating more employment opportunities.

Deputy President, I would like to point out that in view of the persistence of the epidemic, no one has a crystal ball to tell when the epidemic will end. We should balance the needs of various stakeholders while averting additional burden on employers. As we have proposed some time ago, the authorities may consider allowing early withdrawal of benefits from the Mandatory Provident Fund by employees. The authorities should not disallow such withdrawal on the ground that such contribution is for retirement purpose, for some people really cannot wait till their retirement to withdraw the money. If there is an additional sum of emergency money that can be used, they will have more flexibility and may continue to survive. I hope the Government will think out of the box and conduct another study aiming at addressing the imminent needs urgently.

Deputy President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4295

MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the volatile epidemic situation of COVID-19 has plagued Hong Kong for over a year. Since the end of 2019, the unemployment rate in Hong Kong kept rising and hovered at around 6%, but subsequent to the end of the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS"), it has now reached 7.2%. In view of the grave unemployment problem, after the extension of the Legislative Council's term of office was confirmed, I applied to the Legislative Council Secretariat to propose a Member's motion to urge the Government to set up an unemployment loan fund.

In the Budget delivered last month, the Government announced the introduction of the Special 100% Loan Guarantee for Individuals Scheme ("the Loan Guarantee Scheme") for the unemployed. This is a variation of the unemployment loan fund advocated by the Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions ("FLU") and me for years, as well as a belated response to the unemployed. As a matter of fact, seeing that the Government has no effective measures to deal with the soaring unemployment rate, many Honourable colleagues in the Council have coincidentally raised the issue of unemployment for discussion. Apart from the present debate on unemployment, the Panel on Manpower of this Council has also set up a subcommittee to look into possible proposals for the establishment of an unemployment assistance system in Hong Kong

Deputy President, to Members of the labour sector, unemployment assistance is a frequently visited issue. Apart from unemployment assistance, we have also proposed the measure of unemployment insurance in the hope of helping unemployed workers meet their pressing needs. Yet the Government has all along been indifferent to these proposals which have been brought up time and again. Hence, during the period when the SARS epidemic hit Hong Kong, causing the unemployment rate to soar, FLU, which I represent, put forward the proposal of "providing loans as assistance" to help unemployed workers resolve their immediate problems in the form of unemployment loans without imposing a heavy burden on the public coffers.

The discussion on unemployment support that we still need to conduct in the Council today can be regarded as a mere repetition of past arguments because after encountering the two financial crises and the 2003 atypical pneumonia epidemic, the Government still did not learn a lesson. This time, when Hong Kong has been plagued by the social incidents and the COVID-19 epidemic for more than a year, the Government is yet to put in place an effective system to support the unemployed and underemployed. 4296 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Certainly, over the past year, the Government has introduced some relief measures one after another. However, leaving aside the Loan Guarantee Scheme, the details of which are yet to be announced, the support measures for employees are basically a mere patchwork of ESS and targeted measures for different industries. They are ineffective and full of loopholes. Take the members of trade unions I have contacted for example. Some airport workers can keep their jobs but not their income under ESS because they have to take unpaid leave, coupled with the undesirable past trade practice of relying on overtime work to support income due to low basic salaries. Their wages have thus dropped from $30,000 to $10,000. There are also coach drivers who cannot receive the Government's subsidies for the industry because they are not recognized by their former employers. The piecemeal relief measures have failed to directly benefit unemployed workers. After all, it is because the government policies have all along been devoid of unemployment support measures in the past.

Deputy President, FLU and I have suggested in recent years that to prepare for rainy days, the Government should set up an unemployment loan fund to provide interest-free loans to the unemployed. Through elaborating on our proposal in this speech, I seek to throw a sprat to catch a mackerel and explore a long-term proposal for supporting the unemployed. To the Government, the greatest concern is that the loans granted will not be repaid, and unemployment loans serving as unemployment assistance will pose a heavy burden on the Government. We propose that if the employee's Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") can be used as a credit guarantee for the loan, in the case where the employee fails to repay his unemployment loan, the relevant amount can be deducted when he triggers the mechanism to withdraw the MPF accrued benefits. Compared with the Loan Guarantee Scheme proposed by the Financial Secretary in the Budget, this proposal has the advantage of reducing the risk of bad debt to be borne by the Government as the guarantor, while making it feasible for the measure to be sustained. Of course, the downside is that it takes time to amend the legislation, and it may not cater for freelancers who do not have any MPF accounts.

Deputy President, regarding the operation of the unemployment loan fund, the basic idea and specific proposal can be further discussed. For example, the duration of unemployment as an eligibility requirement for application for the unemployment loan, the ceiling on the total loan amount, the monthly loan LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4297 amount to be collected, as well as how to make repayment by instalment can be discussed by drawing on collective wisdom. FLU, to which I belong, has made a specific proposal before, but after repeated studies over these few years, we hope that the proposal can be improved to allay the concerns of the Government and the business sector.

Deputy President, the epidemic has been rampant in Hong Kong for more than a year. Quite a number of Members, political parties and labour groups have requested the Government one after another to provide direct assistance to the unemployed. We believe this is also the mainstream view in society, and we agree that there is such a need. The biggest difference lies in the specific details of the proposal. I hope that the Government can heed the views expressed by Members today and roll out direct assistance measures as soon as possible. Thank you, Deputy President.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): We are now discussing a Member's motion on "Supporting the unemployed and the underemployed" proposed by Mr CHAN Hak-kan. Strictly speaking, there is little leeway for opposition or discussion on the question alone. Yet, after reading the content of the motion carefully, I will unequivocally oppose the motion. I will then clearly explain why I oppose the motion in my ensuing speech.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

Regarding this motion, I implore Members to think thoroughly about one issue. For the current unemployment situation in Hong Kong, if considered in terms of figures, the latest unemployment rate is 7.2%, a record high in the past dozen of years. Yet, this figure is merely superficial. In reality, the problems of underemployment and even working poverty, which have been discussed for a long time, are more serious. The reason is simple. Jobs have become increasingly fragmented. More people tend to work on a part-time basis, which means they are doing several jobs to earn a living. This is the development trend in job types. In fact, I believe the Secretary knows very well that the unemployment problem we are now facing should neither be attributed purely to the contraction of trades and industries caused by the epidemic, nor the economic 4298 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 doldrums resulting from the standstill in economic activities between Mainland and Hong Kong during the period. It is also related to the general environment during this period of time, including the China-US relationship, as well as the constitutional or social turmoil in Hong Kong in the past two years.

In gist, we can conclude that if the unemployment at this point in time is looked at from the perspective of 2003, we may expect the economy to recover as it did in 2005 when the Individual Visit Scheme was introduced. However, most Hong Kong people, particularly local companies or businesses now do not see it this way. Even if the epidemic is to be put under control within this year, I do not think people will be so optimistic that job opportunities will reappear when passenger clearance services between the Mainland and Hong Kong are resumed and when Hong Kong reconnects with the international community after the epidemic is put under control, for our jobs have vanished at this very moment.

Let me cite some simple examples. Last year, some friends of mine were trapped in the Mainland due to the lockdown. Yet, when they were stuck in the Mainland, they came across new employment opportunities unexpectedly. Since many overseas companies―particularly those from our neighbouring regions or countries, like Singapore and Japan, which are competing with Hong Kong―have entered the Greater Bay Area, they want to recruit Hongkongers to prepare for their exploration into the Greater Bay Area and bring about the so-called job opportunities. In other words, on the issue of unemployment, most Members have merely mentioned in their earlier speeches some grass-roots jobs, particularly those in the transport, catering and service industries, yet we should broaden our horizons a bit. Currently, the gravest problem faced by Hong Kong is that the contraction of the economy does not merely lead to the vanishing of jobs but also the uprooting of the local economy, particularly the professional sectors.

Therefore, from this perspective … I am at the end of my rope. I believe the Secretary is also very distressed. We all know that the provision of unemployment relief can hardly cope with chronic poverty in the long run. This is the reality. Yet, I am not saying that we should stop helping these people. Assistance in this respect is necessary and the efforts made by the authorities are definitely inadequate. For this reason, various political parties have criticized the Secretary for not introducing unemployment relief. The logic is as simple as "my mother is a woman". If I were to take up the post of the Secretary, my LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4299 greatest worry at this very moment would not merely be the livelihood of the grass-roots, for I believe that the safety net of Hong Kong can offer some kind of support in meeting basic needs. The greatest fear now is that if we cannot revive the Hong Kong economy within these two years, that is, before 2024, when the local economy shows obvious signs of entering the doldrums from this year onwards, the situation of Hong Kong in the next 10 to 20 years will be even worse than that of Japan in the 1990s. This is a foregone conclusion. Why? For when all these things vanish, what will be the selling point of Hong Kong then? At that time, we will be advised to go to the Greater Bay Area as stated in the motion today.

On the surface, the motion today urges the Government to provide unemployment assistance. Yet, we have to look at this carefully. The most important part of the motion is paragraph (4), that is, the implementation of the mutual recognition system for health codes of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao, so that we are ready to go to the Greater Bay Area. In fact, this is a bitter pill to swallow. We saw members of the bar industry making petition last week to urge the authorities to allow them to resume operation, stating that they were willing to accept any terms and conditions in exchange. This is the political issue in times of economic recession.

In the little remaining time, I would like to explain the case to our supporters. Regarding unemployment assistance, it is for support and relief. Yet, the Government should also think over the administrative restrictions imposed on licensing in the past, be it on hawking activities in public housing estates or districts, or even on district economy. The authorities should seriously reconsider whether residents should be allowed to run such businesses freely. Hong Kong is only left with district-based stall economy, and this is the reality. Innovation and technology only facilitate Mainland companies to reap the last bucket of money from Hong Kong. When district economy is gone, we will be left with nothing.

Moreover, in the past, the Civic Passion had supported or proposed the concept relating to universal basic income. Yet, pardon me for withdrawing that remark at this moment due to the political situation. The reason is straightforward. When DAB is brandishing the banner of "Reforming Hong Kong", demanding a bigger Government and the provision of more welfare in Hong Kong, I know that they will concurrently request for the implementation of 4300 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 health codes and advocate for people to go to the Greater Bay Area. This kind of substitution is tantamount to a natural replacement of population in times of economic recession. When the people of Hong Kong are facing the plight of earning a living, they will be willing to do so. Therefore, I will oppose this motion. I so submit.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, given the triple blow from the riots, the epidemic and the suppression from the United States, Hong Kong's economy is in serious recession with the latest unemployment rate surging to 7.2%, the highest since SARS in 2003. The fourth wave of the epidemic has not yet been under control and the vaccination work in Hong Kong takes time. Personally, I am not optimistic that passenger clearance services can be resumed in a short time and the high unemployment rate is expected to continue for some time.

As for industries affected by the epidemic, apart from the tourism and the food and beverage services industries, the unemployment rate of other industries like the renovation and construction industries has also remained at double digits, with many industries facing underemployment or significant drop in income. Mr CHAN Hak-kan's motion on "Supporting the unemployed and underemployed" today, despite the fact that its debate is delayed until today due to the epidemic, I still consider it extremely appropriate.

Nonetheless, I have many doubts and reservations about the establishment of an unemployment assistance as proposed in the original motion and some amendments. For instance: What constitutes unemployment? What is the eligibility for applying for the assistance? Are self-employed persons or professionals providing consultancy services on a contract basis included? In the Budget this year, the Financial Secretary introduced a special loan scheme for the unemployed, which is fully guaranteed by the Government. Yet, some people immediately query why wage earners who have not been laid off but have been underemployed for a prolonged period, and who have been forced by their employers to take pay cuts or no pay leave are not included.

When it comes to offering assistance to the unemployed and people in need, I believe no one will oppose it. The same applies to the provision of an unemployment assistance. Yet, I think the most important part is the details. Mr SHIU Ka-fai's amendment seeks to specify that the unemployment assistance LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4301 to be established should only be "interim" and "short-term" and that it will only help those who are temporarily unemployed due to the epidemic. I think this is targeted at the problems we are now facing. The Secretary may worry that an unemployment assistance will lower the incentive to seek employment as in the case of some overseas precedents. I also think all welfare benefits will give rise to the concern that they are easy to give but are difficult to take away, and this warrants consideration. If the unemployment assistance is used to address the disparity between the rich and the poor, I think this initiative alone may not be the most comprehensive or sustainable solution.

President, early last year when the epidemic first broke out, I immediately contacted the sectors which I represent to make an appointment with government officials to see what assistance the Government could offer. Eventually, many members in the sector pointed out that what they hoped most was that the Government would not hand out money directly, but to give them jobs to maintain their livelihood, so that the sectors could become self-reliant.

As such, I have put forth the slogan of "quick, small and many", urging the Government to introduce expeditiously many more small and medium- scale construction works and consultancy projects to help the sector to tide over the difficult times. Infrastructure investment should not be reduced because of the temporary fiscal deficit or the economic downturn. Moreover, the authorities should increase the speed and frequency of the payment for works and consultancies contracts in the public sector, so as to ease the crisis of capital chain rupture faced by the sector.

As for private development projects, I have urged the Government to streamline the procedures to speed up the vetting and approval process and make greater use of innovation and technology, thereby reducing the impact of the epidemic and civil servants working from home on government efficiency. I have also requested the Government to subsidize eligible private enterprises to employ graduates and professional employees who have not yet obtained their licence, so that graduates will not become unemployed after graduation, lose their training opportunities and then fail to obtain the relevant professional qualifications, thereby creating a succession gap in the relevant professions.

The above proposals have been adopted and implemented by the Government. The Chief Executive and the Financial Secretary have reiterated a number of times that despite the fiscal deficit, the Government will invest no less 4302 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 than $100 billion a year in infrastructure and will endeavour to streamlining procedures relating to land development. Once again, I would like to express my gratitude once again and hope that the various measures will be put in place and implemented as soon as possible.

President, in his Report submitted to National People's Congress, Premier LI Keqiang has stressed that "employment is the biggest livelihood issue". Regarding the unemployment in the Mainland, the Central Government has focused its work on creating jobs through various channels. Last year, as many as 11.86 million new jobs were created in the Mainland, and the unemployment rate in urban areas at the end of the year is 5.2%, which was lower than that of Hong Kong. Given the epidemic and the suppression from the United States, these figures are definitely not easy to come by. Hence, I earnestly hope that the SAR Government will provide targeted assistance to those people who are deeply affected by the epidemic, but also implement effective measures to increase job opportunities and alleviate the unemployment situation.

People often say it is better to teach a man how to fish than to give him a fish. I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary has allocated another $6.6 billion in this year's Budget to create 30 000 temporary jobs, of which 10 000 jobs will be reserved for graduates and young people. I hope these jobs will include those in the engineering, architectural, surveying, town planning and landscape sectors, and that the employment support scheme previously introduced under the Anti-epidemic Fund will be extended to provide assistance to fresh graduates and private enterprises intended to engage in professional trades, so as to lower the unemployment rate. I think this will be better than giving cash handout every time.

President, I so submit.

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr CHAN Hak-kan for proposing the motion on "Supporting the unemployed and underemployed". This motion is in fact very comprehensive, targeting not only those who are unemployed during the pandemic but also people who are, as indicated by some Members just now, underemployed or are even taking unpaid leave and providing them with assistance. This motion has proposed a series of very specific proposals for them.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4303

In fact, I know that Mr CHAN Hak-kan presented this motion to the Council a long time ago, but, regrettably, we are only able to debate it today. More regrettably, its contents have become more and more pressing and by no means outdated. Why has the Government, despite having received the motion for some time, turned a deaf dear to it? Actually, it does not only happens to this motion but also to many other issues raised previously by my colleagues in the Council as well.

In fact, Hong Kong has been experiencing difficult and dark days since 2019. When black-clad thugs ran amok, our city was ruined; shops were attacked and vandalized, and the economy was battered. Many people dared not even come to visit Hong Kong. As we all know, the pandemic broke out afterwards. The Government has indeed failed to do a good job in controlling the pandemic. The volatile pandemic situation thus resulted has further impacted the economy. In the dealing with the aftermath of the "black-clad riots", we have implemented the Hong Kong National Security Law under the auspices of the Central Authorities. Order has been restored and society has returned to normal, but we should not rely on the Central Authorities to take action every time. When it comes to unemployment this time around, should we expect the Central Authorities to issue directives or promulgate measures to assist Hong Kong?

Let us look at the situation in the Mainland, where unemployment assistance is in place. A simple case in point is nearby Shenzhen. Unemployment insurance has long been in place in many Mainland cities, and, in view of the fact that many people are unemployed or temporarily unemployed as a result of the new coronavirus disease, many Mainland provinces and municipalities, including Shenzhen, have provided unemployment assistance. Eligible unemployed persons can apply for a one-off unemployment assistance for three to six months, subject to a ceiling of RMB 990 per month, a maximum period of six months and a maximum amount of RMB 5,940. We can actually see that, apart from an employment assistance system that is already in place, they have introduced special features in response to the pandemic. In comparison, according to the latest statistics, the unemployment rate in Hong Kong from last November to this January was 7%, a record high in 17 years. As indicated by my colleagues just now, however, those who were underemployed or were taking unpaid leave had not been taken into account. Let us take a look at the catering, retail, transport and tourism sectors in particular. The 4304 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 unemployment rates of these sectors were even higher. The unemployment rate of the catering sector was as high as 14.7%, meaning that 14 out of every 100 employees in this sector were unemployed.

Following the conclusion of the Employment Support Scheme, we have witnessed wave after wave of layoffs and business closures as well as vacant shops in some busy districts. We can hardly imagine that under such difficult circumstances, the Government still seems to be unwilling to lend a helping hand. I am puzzled as to why the Government seems to go to extremes in dealing with issues of this kind. On the one hand, it is overly cautious and stingy, thinking that everyone is evil, as if everyone who applies for assistance is trying to deceive the Government. It therefore refuses to approve their applications. On the other hand, it is overly generous in the case of the Employment Support Scheme. We had said that some businesses, such as supermarkets, were not affected, but the Government was indifferent and simply handed out the money to them. Although the Government goes to extremes in being either too stingy or too generous, the problem essentially lies in indolence. It is unwilling to think about how to do a good job, how to make its policies more targeted, or how to help the people in need. As a lot of effort or thinking is needed, or new practices have to be designed and additional work is involved, the Government is either so generous that everyone can benefit or it does not do anything for fear of trouble. The Government should, I think, properly review this problem.

Furthermore, as mentioned by my colleagues just now, the most important thing is, apart from providing unemployment assistance, to facilitate economic recovery by putting the pandemic under control. The Government has taken a step forward in introducing a health code system although the authorities deny it Then I will only talk about "LeaveHomeSafe", a mobile application that is required when entering premises. However, I hope that a more comprehensive approach can be adopted, or even a mutual recognition system can be established for Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao as soon as possible. A Member said just now that people are opposed to it as they are forced to use it during the economic downturn. I think that this is very unreasonable, and I hope that he will think twice before casting his vote. Apart from supporting ourselves, we must expeditiously reopen the border to revive the Hong Kong economy.

President, I so submit. Thank you.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4305

MS ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of the motion proposed by Mr CHAN Hak-kan, and I am grateful to him for having proposed this motion a long time ago.

After such a long delay, this motion can finally be dealt with now. As mentioned by Mr CHAN Hak-kan earlier, this can all the more accentuate its urgency and pressing need. It can also highlight the Government's evasion of work in the face of problems.

President, engaged in social work and serving as Members, we receive many requests for assistance and complaints from the public every day. In fact, since the occurrence of "black-clad riots" in June 2019, many people had lost their jobs. Businesses had been hard hit. People's income had drastically reduced, and freedom had been threatened. Then the outbreak of the epidemic in Hong Kong last year made the situation even worse. More people became unemployed or underemployed, and their family incomes fell sharply. Originally, the husband and wife each had a job and earned just enough money, but then one became unemployed and the other one, underemployed. So they have to live on their savings. Many people have told us that actually, they have had no income for a whole year, or only a quarter of the whole family's income from the past year is left. They wonder if they will have enough money to pay for school fees after paying the rent or making mortgage repayment. Families with elderly people and children simply have to live on loans.

Many people have told us that they are now so desperate that they not only have to borrow money. At first, they had to use up the credit limits of their credit cards to make ends meet. What about now? Now some of them even have to take out loans from loan sharks because they can borrow money from nowhere else and the credit limits of their credit cards have been used up. They have come to such a state. However, as we can see, the epidemic situation is still unstable. Many people are of the view that the Government is having problems in fighting the epidemic. So the unemployment situation continues to worsen. In particular, we anticipate that after the end of the Government's Employment Support Scheme ("ESS"), more companies will close down and more people will lose their jobs. We note that the unemployment rate keeps rising. This is something which we can predict and which the Government should be able to predict. We see an increasing number of bankruptcy applications, which is also predictable.

4306 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

I have received quite a number of calls from women sobbing out that they really have no way to eke out a living. What measures has the Government put in place to help them? How can it help them? Now more and more people are suffering from depression. More and more people are feeling anxious, sitting around crying every day for no reason. This is the actual predicament confronted by members of the public. When did we in the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong start to propose the establishment of an unemployment assistance? Early last year, we already proposed the establishment of such an assistance. What did Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong say at that time? He said that if a system was to be set up to identify who were unemployed and who were not, it would not be completed within a short period and would be very complicated. Consequently, no such work was done. To date, how much time has elapsed? It is now March 2021, more than a year down the line, and the Secretary told me again today that such work would not be done. Why? Because he is afraid that it will be abused. But any policy may be subject to abuse. Even judicial review is now being abused. Should it be abolished then? Every policy may be subject to abuse.

We have proposed many ways to help the public. Did the Government listen to any of them? How many of them have been listened to and put into practice? This one is considered infeasible and that one unworkable. The provision of the $2 concessionary fare for people aged 60 to 64 alone has been underway for a couple of years already, and now it still cannot be launched. I am engaged in information technology (i.e. IT). How difficult is it to set up a system? Is there no readily available platform which can handle this? However, the Government said that it had got to be a bit later. Now is the time when members of the public need the Government's help most urgently. What do members of the public find the most infuriating? It is the Government's indiscriminate handout of money. It is not bad to seek to safeguard jobs, but can it genuinely be achieved? Why do supermarkets need such a measure? It is not bad to dole out money. It is not bad to help the public. Neither is it bad to support enterprises and safeguard jobs. But the measure has got to be targeted. If the wrong target is picked, money will be squandered, and the Government will fail to help those who are really in dire straits and in need of help.

Now we can see that many more companies will close down and many more people will become jobless in the future. The Government now says that it will not consider setting up an unemployment assistance. It tells people to continue to apply for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance for the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4307 unemployed, but many people cannot meet the relevant requirements. They do not want to be labelled either. What does the community at large want to see most? It is the early dissipation of the epidemic and expeditious resumption of passenger clearance services, right? In fact, the people do not want to seek help from the Government. They prefer to be self-reliant. Such is their wish. Yet today, we are not doing good enough in preventing and fighting the epidemic. The date for the resumption of passenger clearance services remains uncertain. What can they do? The unemployment assistance requested by us is a short-term measure providing $6,000 per month for six months, while some political parties request $9,000. Let us calculate how much money is actually needed. If we calculate on the basis of the recent unemployed population, which is assumed to be 245 000, the total expenditure for three months will be some $4.3 billion to $6.5 billion. The first round of ESS has already cost $40.5 billion. Even if unemployment assistance is provided for a full period of six months, it will only cost some $10 billion. Will the Government please tell me why it refuses to do so? I have not a clue why the Government will not consider this at all.

Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong was once a Member and representative of a political party. Currently serving as Secretary for Labour and Welfare, he is responsible for helping members of the public tide over their difficulties. I can think of no reason for the Secretary not to do so. The only possible reason is to avoid difficulties. A government official who shirks his responsibilities will live a shameful life. I think this saying really suits the Secretary. If the Secretary does not want to do any work at all, he should not do it. He should not hold this post. He should let somebody else take over and resolve this problem for the public. If the Secretary holds this post but fails to help the public, the public will then blame the Government and disapprove of us. It is not that the Government lacks money. Now it has money, but it does not help those people who are really in dire straits. This is a question that I, being a Member, do not know how to explain to the public.

President, I so submit.

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr CHAN Hak-kan for proposing this motion. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, including me and many of my colleagues present today, have constantly requested the provision of 4308 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 unemployment assistance for a long time in consideration of the pandemic, but we have regrettably hit the snag every time. The latest unemployment rate announced was around 7%, and it will possibly keep increasing. In fact, I have noted that the Government may not introduce any unemployment assistance but provide help in other ways instead.

Yesterday Mr Jimmy NG raised an oral question, to which the Secretary provided a reply. But I am concerned about some of the assistance mentioned in the reply. For example, it is certainly a good thing that the Love Upgrading Special Scheme provides 20 000 training places, but how about the allocation of such places? Many people in Hong Kong have lost their jobs during this period of time. If they can upgrade their skills through these training programmes, they will be able to switch occupations in the future. The reply yesterday made no mention about the allocation of such places, namely who will participate in which type of training for occupation switching. I think it will be more desirable if the Secretary can tell us more about this.

The Government often stresses that we are in great need of manpower to take care of the elderly and children, but I wonder whether the SAR Government will provide such training through the Love Upgrading Special Scheme or the Employment Programme for the Elderly and Middle-aged. The Secretary can offer us an explanation if he has got the chance. It is certainly a good thing that the Government will increase the number of training places, but it will certainly be more desirable if it can provide us with more information and answer our question.

I am concerned about the number of unemployed persons. As indicated by Mr CHAN Hak-kan, apart from the unemployment rate standing at around 7%, the actual number of unemployed persons has exceeded 200 000. However, the several major assistance schemes proposed by the Government seem to be far from resolving the employment of these 200 000 people. For example, the Government has introduced Comprehensive Social Security Assistance for the unemployed to address the issue, but the number of applicants is now less than 20 000, which is a far cry from the 200 000 unemployed persons. It is certainly a good thing that the Government earlier provided 30 000 temporary posts. It is likewise a good thing that the Government is willing to provide an additional 30 000 posts. The problem, however, still lies in the gap between this and the overall number of unemployed persons. Nevertheless, we still need to do something to help those who have not received assistance.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4309

Some of my colleagues or the Secretary may be concerned that an unemployment assistance will be financially unsustainable if introduced. In this connection, I have raised a question in the Legislative Council and the Government has given me a reply. In fact, a low-income person is defined as one who has a monthly income of less than $9,000, and the aggregate number of the unemployed and underemployed is nearly 100 000 based on the statistics of the Government. For these 100 000 unemployed or underemployed grass-roots people who earn less than $9,000 per month, if we provide them with $6,000 per month for a period of six months as proposed by Mr CHAN Hak-kan, the total amount of money needed can be worked out. We are not making a gap, and this will not go beyond the affordability of the Government.

Certainly, I think that the Secretary has the intention to solve the problem. I will not doubt his good intention to solve the problem. But I am concerned that he is unable to introduce an unemployment assistance because of the Government's established mechanisms or practices. If he really encounters this problem, we will be willing to remove the red tape for him, so that an unemployment assistance can be introduced. I have no doubt about his intention to solve the problem. In my view, he wants to solve the problem given his current position. And we may be able to work out a solution for him should bureaucratic red tape stand in the way. If the number of people involved has to be worked out, the number I have calculated is 100 000, which can really be computed by the Census and Statistics Department. The Government has provided this figure at a panel meeting of the Legislative Council. I therefore believe that if this is the problem, it can actually be solved.

Finally, I would like to say that the Government has introduced a loan scheme for the unemployed. The Government is providing assistance in the form of unemployment loans and this assistance is necessary. Some grass-roots people have already approached me, asking whether there will be too many barriers for application as it will be difficult for them to produce income proof. The scheme is guaranteed by the Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation Limited, and it should, in theory, be flexible as banks are not the gate-keeper. It is good to provide assistance in the form of unemployment loans, but I still support what is proposed in Mr CHAN Hak-kan's motion. The introduction of a temporary unemployment assistance can better address the imminent needs of the grass roots as they are the hardest hit financially by the pandemic.

President, I so submit.

4310 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of the motion on "Supporting the unemployed and underemployed" proposed by Mr CHAN Hak-kan and the amendments proposed by three other Members. In my view, employment is the foundation of people's livelihood. It is the Government's bounden duty to support the unemployed and underemployed.

As we all know, under the impact of "black-clad riots" and the epidemic, the unemployment problem in Hong Kong has become increasingly serious. According to the latest figures released by the Census and Statistics Department on 16 March, the unemployment rate in Hong Kong has reached 7.2%, the highest since 2004. The numbers of unemployed and underemployed persons have both increased to 261 600 and 154 600 respectively.

The series of figures mean that currently, there are more than 410 000 unemployed and underemployed people in Hong Kong. These wage earners need to support their families, and many of them live from hand to mouth. Any responsible government should not turn a blind eye to such a situation. It should endeavour to provide appropriate support for these unemployed and underemployed people so as to ensure that they can meet their basic needs in living.

As for the specific ways to support the unemployed and underemployed, the original motion and the amendments have put forward many good recommendations. I will not go into them one by one. However, I would like to stress that the Government should tackle the unemployment problem at source. The best support for the unemployed is to safeguard the jobs and protect the "rice bowls" of wage earners, which is far better than providing support only after the wage earners have become jobless.

I wonder if government officials have paid attention to the work report delivered by Premier LI Keqiang. If they care to do so, they would know that although the epidemic on the Mainland has been brought under control and the economy has recovered rapidly, it is still the top priority of the Central Government to safeguard jobs. To achieve the goal of safeguarding jobs and benefiting people's livelihood, the Premier has repeatedly proposed in his report to enhance and implement the policy of tax reduction. He has also proposed to continue to provide support in fiscal and monetary policies for enterprises which do not or seldom lay off employees. I think this manifests that the Central LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4311

Authorities have always upheld the principle of benefiting enterprises and the people, being people-oriented in every aspect, and according priority to the people's well-being in the Government's work all the time.

What is most disappointing to me is that all the measures taken by the Hong Kong Government since the year before last to safeguard jobs and support the unemployed seem to provide assistance in a broad-brush manner to certain major industries or enterprises which have been hit harder by the epidemic. As regards those industries which are subjected to less impact from the epidemic but are also operating with difficulties, the Government did not take time to look after them. Neither did it give any taxation and policy support to those enterprises which had few or no layoffs.

Take the financial services industry that I represent as an example. Our industry has faced many business difficulties under the blows of "black-clad riots" and the China-United States trade war. Nevertheless, under the Central Authorities' policy of expanding mutual access, coupled with the fact that members of our industry have always been hardworking and self-reliant in adversity, we were still able to bring to the Hong Kong Government $33.2 billion in revenue from stamp duty on stock transfers despite the rough business environment last year. Moreover, with much effort, we were able to keep the "rice bowls" of 160 000 practitioners in the financial sector intact, quietly making a huge contribution to promoting local employment.

However, what is most disappointing and infuriating to me and my industry is that the SAR Government has not only failed to provide taxation and policy support for securities brokers in our industry that do not or seldom lay off employees, as the Central Government has done. On the contrary, the Government acts in the opposite direction, focusing only on the seemingly prosperous stock market turnover. Completely ignoring the business difficulties of small and medium-sized securities brokers and the strong opposition of the industry, it insists on substantially increasing the stamp duty on stock transfers by 30%. In my view, this will not only affect Hong Kong's competitiveness in the international financial market. From the perspective of safeguarding jobs, this is simply a stab in the back, dealing a blow to a group of securities enterprises which have been instrumental in safeguarding jobs. It is indeed disenchanting.

Here I would like to remind the Government again that under vicious competition arising from zero commission, local small and medium-sized securities brokers are already operating with great difficulties, and the number of 4312 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 small and medium-sized securities brokers which have surrendered their trading licences has been increasing in recent years. The Government's arbitrary insistence on substantially increasing the stamp duty will definitely dampen people's interest in investment, thus making the operation of local small and medium-sized securities brokers even more difficult. It may even trigger a new wave of closure, jeopardizing the "rice bowls" of 160 000 practitioners in the financial sector. By then, no matter how the Government mends the fold to support the unemployed and underemployed, the loss will still outweigh the gain.

Lastly, I believe that the support which the unemployed and underemployed wish to get most is not unemployment assistance. Nor is it how to provide them with subsidies. What they wish is that the Government will properly control the epidemic so that the economy can recover and they can make a living with their own hands. Hence, I hope that the Government will resolutely do a good job in fighting the epidemic so that the Hong Kong economy can recover as soon as possible, and every wage earner in Hong Kong can stay in employment and get paid every day (The buzzer sounded) …

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

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I so submit.

MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, as many colleagues of mine have said just now, they are not satisfied with the assistance provided by the Secretary or the Bureau in respect of unemployment and underemployment. My colleagues have also mentioned the proposals and recommendations that the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("HKFTU") has long been advocating, that is, we should tackle and solve the unemployment problem in several respects. First, we should introduce a temporary unemployment assistance, increase employment opportunities, and address unemployment and underemployment through retraining. I will not spend any more time on this. Let me get straight to the point. The Secretary wrote four blog posts last June to express his views and proposals on employment protection and unemployment protection. While he devoted some 10 000 Chinese characters to his lengthy posts, his conclusion was still that unemployment assistance would not be introduced.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4313

The Secretary mainly raised three points in his conclusion on unemployment assistance. First, the proposal on introducing a temporary unemployment assistance is too optimistic about our future economic and unemployment situation, and "temporary" can become "permanent". Second, no other places in the world will introduce any non-contributory and non-means-tested unemployment assistance, and the Secretary does not see why Hong Kong needs to do it. Third, as regards the introduction of a contributory unemployment insurance, we must consider whether this will reduce the commitment of employers to severance payments/long service payments, and how to minimize moral hazards and enhance employment protection. We must also consider the changes that will be brought to the ecology of the labour market, behaviour of employers and employees, and personal saving habits. More importantly, we must consider afresh the abolition of the arrangement of offsetting severance payments and long service payments against Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") accrued benefits.

Here, I would like to reiterate the proposals of HKFTU on the unemployment assistance system and respond to the aforesaid viewpoints of the Secretary. As regards the unemployment assistance system, HKFTU proposes the introduction of short-term and long-term measures. In the short term, the Government should immediately introduce a temporary cash allowance for unemployment and suspension of work, providing people who are unemployed or suspended from work with an amount equivalent to half of their monthly average wages over the past half year, subject to a ceiling of $9,000 for a half-year period, so as to tide them over this difficult period. This is exactly what the Secretary calls a non-contributory and non-means-tested emergency subsidy, the justification for which is the same as that for the Employment Support Scheme, a great invention of the Secretary. And this is a special measure to cope with the pandemic. A non-means-tested proposal is raised because the Bureau has indicated earlier that a lot of manpower and time will be needed for conducting means test. To avoid people starving to death before getting the money, we can only propose an emergency measure. Like the Employment Support Scheme, a great invention of the Secretary, this subsidy will be time-limited. There will thus be no such thing as "temporary" becoming "permanent" as referred to by the Secretary. The Employment Support Scheme was likewise invented by the Secretary, but has it been changed from "temporary" to "permanent"? The Government only rolled out two tranches of the scheme and refuses to accede to our request for a third tranche. As such, how can it be changed from "temporary" to "permanent" without the nod from the Secretary?

4314 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

The Secretary's second point is that no other places in the world will introduce any non-contributory and non-means-tested unemployment assistance, and he does not see why Hong Kong needs to do it. May I ask the Secretary why he introduced the non-contributory and instantly-approved Employment Support Scheme with zero monitoring, an unprecedented and ground-breaking great invention of his, which no other places in the world would introduce? I would like to reiterate that the short-term cash allowance for unemployment and suspension of work proposed by HKFTU is a temporary measure to cope with the pandemic. It is similar in logic to the Employment Support Scheme, a great invention of the Secretary, which aims to help with the expenses of those who are unemployed or suspended from work during the pandemic. If the Government adheres to the same standard, why can it introduce the Employment Support Scheme but not a temporary scheme to support those who are unemployed or suspended from work?

Let me raise another question. Are there any places in the world where employers are allowed to use employees' retirement benefits to subsidize the expenses of dismissing them? It does not make sense to use employees' MPF accrued benefits, which are their retirement benefits, to subsidize employers' expenses of dismissing them. This is not found anywhere else in the world but is only happening in Hong Kong. For this reason, the Secretary cannot say that we will not do something that no other places in the world are doing. The Secretary is doing many things that no other places in the world will do, and there are many things in Hong Kong that are not found in the rest of the world. The problem is that we must help the unemployed.

With regard to long-term unemployment protection, HKFTU hopes that a comprehensive and individual-based unemployment assistance system can be established in the long run. Our preliminary proposal is the provision of an allowance to the unemployed at 80% of their median monthly wages for a period of six months, with the intention of helping them with their expenses before they land a new job. As for whether it should be named unemployment insurance or unemployment assistance, whether it should be contributory, who should make the contribution, the amount of the allowance, and the time limit, HKFTU keeps an open mind and we can discuss it further. We do not mind if the Secretary, in his capacity as an academic or expert, commences a big project exploring whether we need a long-term unemployment assistance, and whether it should be called unemployment insurance or something else.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4315

If the Secretary is concerned that the introduction of an unemployment protection system will give rise to moral hazards, making it easier for employers to dismiss employees and for employees to resign, I would like to say that in reality there are no moral hazards whatsoever. When employees are faced with unscrupulous employers, are there any morals to speak of? Unscrupulous employers can start a new business by filing for bankruptcy and liquidation to avoid the problems with severance payments, long service payments and even wage defaults. This is not something that has only occurred recently. And this explains why we have established the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund ("PWIF"). The aforesaid problems, which have been aggravated under the pandemic, represent the major categories of labour cases that we in HKFTU have received. Based on the information of the Labour Department, there were nearly 1 100 applications for PWIF from June to September last year, involving an amount of $88 million. The number of claims even reached 431 this September, involving an amount of $38,350,000, a record high over the past 16 months. It is unsettling that both the number of applications and the amount involved have increased two-fold compared with the same period last year. As a result, the moral hazards as referred to by the Secretary are simply non-existent.

As my speaking time is not that sufficient, I will only add a few words although I would like to speak on some other issues as well. Members are wondering today whether we should have a heated debate with Secretary Dr LAW over the introduction of an unemployment assistance. I believe that since the Secretary is an intelligent and well-educated person, he will certainly raise quite a number of arguments in a moment to refute all Members, saying, for example, a certain proposal is unscientific or illogical. However, as a person or an official, what matters is not his educational attainment or his intelligence, but rather whether he can feel the pain of the public, care about the unemployed, and understand the pain the grass roots are suffering. In his reply in a moment, the Secretary will possibly raise a lot of viewpoints to refute us. But being able to refute us does not mean that he is brilliant, for he will only be regarded as brilliant if he can help members of the public.

President, I so submit.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ms Alice MAK for her earlier remarks. In fact, I should leave the opportunity to speak on this unemployment issue to Members of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment 4316 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") who are responsible for the employment and labour portfolio. In addition, Mr CHAN Hak-kan has also put forward a lot of measures regarding unemployment in his motion. Rightly as Mr CHAN Hak-kan has said just now, DAB supports the amendments proposed by fellow Members basically. Yet, when fellow colleagues were having a debate just now, I have some feelings that I wish to express after listening to some of the speeches. Of course, I cannot provide some precise data as Ms Alice MAK or Mr CHAN Hak-kan did. My understanding of the policies to support the unemployed is not as good as that of the Secretary either, so he may even refute our points later on.

Nevertheless, I recall that I read a lot of books when I was a kid. I did not read many articles, but I read a lot of stories. "Pulling firewood out of one's stove" (釜底抽薪) is one of the strategies illustrated in The Thirty-Six Strategies (《三十六計》), a masterpiece of literature of our country. I believe all of you would know its origin and meaning. In addition, I have also read The Scholars (《儒林外史》) before. The book, it should be the fifth chapter, depicts a social phenomenon at that time, that is, whenever a victim intends to bring a lawsuit with the officials against someone who has committed a crime, a gang of hooligans will always show up during the process to persuade him, intimidate him, comfort him, or even give him some money to buy him over. And then, the victim who intends to bring a lawsuit will eventually give up and go home. The book describes such a phenomenon as "pulling firewood out of one's stove". Do you find them similar? There are some similarities.

"Trying to stop water from boiling by scooping it up and pouring it back" (揚湯止沸) is another idiom which are comparable to "pulling firewood out of one's stove". In fact, we cannot stop water from boiling by scooping it up and pouring it back. We should instead understand the root cause and get rid of the fire. If my memory does not fail me, this sentence should come from Huai Nan Zi (《淮南子》). We are now discussing unemployment in this session, but in fact, regardless of the amount of unemployment assistance that the Secretary or the Government is willing to offer in the end, it may be merely an ineffective remedy, similar to trying to stop water from boiling by scooping it up and pouring it back.

We are also aware that, as some friends from the business sector have said, and I have even heard Mr SHIU Ka-fai mention in his speech the need to build a good economy. We have repeated some broad principles for many times, but what should be done in practice? And then, shall we not establish an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4317 unemployment assistance? Shall we not take forward other measures to tackle unemployment? In fact, we must do so. Therefore, I wish to tell the SAR Government that it can only tackle the unemployment problem in two ways: The first one concerns the "water" before us. We should stop the water from boiling by all means and "stop the bleeding" for the public by establishing an unemployment assistance. Second, we must build a good economy. The Government sometimes puts forth a lot of broad principles, saying that it will build a good economy and so on. Yet, this is actually not enough, since they may not manage to identify the "source of the fire". Is building a good economy equivalent to having the unemployment problem handled properly? The problem is that there should be some foundation under a good economy, right? There are even some problems with the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS") launched earlier on. What is the crux of the problem? In fact, we have to consider a few issues: First, our own political problems. When the SAR Government … Why is the unemployment rate so high now? The first factor is the coronavirus epidemic, and the second factor is the "black-clad violence" incidents which destroyed everything in 2019. People staged a general strike on three fronts due to the volatile political situation in Hong Kong. Since then, all the people started to lose their jobs and have spent all the money in their pockets. Faced with the coronavirus epidemic, we all have no money in our pockets, and our lives have become even worse as a result.

Therefore, we must make it clear that this matter is comprised of three aspects. First, politics; second, the economy; and third, measures. When subsidies are introduced in the meantime, the SAR Government would, also due to the volatile political situation, fear that it would be reproached by this and that party, or someone would criticized them as being unfair after the introduction of many measures. This problem arose in the second tranche of ESS. Back then, all of us said that the people of Hong Kong were indeed leading a very difficult life. We also said that we should take care of wage earners when discussing the issue of supporting employment. Yet, regarding those supermarkets which we explicitly describe as making a fortune during a calamity and amid the epidemic, the Government had to provide subsidies for them eventually. The Government then said that it did not matter and as a remedy, it would negotiate with those supermarkets requesting them to launch a lucky draw, whereas cash coupons of these supermarkets would also be given to some social welfare organizations for distribution to the poor through lottery. Only certain recognized social welfare organizations would be engaged. In fact, this is sheer duplication of efforts. They have taken a wrong approach and implemented the measure in a wrong 4318 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 way. Why did they have to do so? It is because the Government is afraid that those people on the opposite side would reproach them―not only the ordinary people―and they fear of being smeared.

Let us talk about the fact that the Government has also solved some causes of the economic problems to a certain extent when dealing with the epidemic recently. Yesterday, the Hospital Authority did an awesome job in issuing a statement to accuse certain healthcare organizations of smearing the Sinovac vaccine, condemning them for providing inaccurate data and telling people not to get a jab. Yet, let us recall that some time earlier, we had also done a lot of work when they demanded to close the border. They said that our information would be sent to China when the "LeaveHomeSafe" mobile application was launched. They also expressed worries for leakage of DNA data when universal testing was carried out. Were it not for the hindrance posed by these groups supporting "black-clad violence", would our anti-epidemic work be so difficult? Would we have to make so much effort? Would the unemployment rate rise to 7.2%? It may not be so high. We could have begun to restart our economy and build a good economy a long time ago, and then we would not have had to spend a big buck on providing an unemployment assistance.

However, my personal feeling is that the motion debate today should not be attended by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare alone. If only the Secretary for Labour and Welfare is present to discuss how we can tackle the problem by scooping the water up and pouring it back to stop the boiling, it is actually tantamount to telling the public that the Government may not understand what the crux of the unemployment problem is. This being so, should the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs and the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development attend the meeting to join our discussion? I know the President also understands that you have no say in which officials would be assigned by the Government to attend a meeting. But then, sometimes several Bureau Directors would attend some motion debates. Now that only the Secretary for Labour and Welfare who is "on the top of the water" is present, so I do not think our debate will be very effective. In the end, just like what Ms MAK suggested earlier, the Government would say again that changes cannot be made on these matters, they cannot do this and that and would not provide any unemployment relief, but the Government still has many other support measures. Therefore, should we continue to pursue some ineffective remedies like stopping water from boiling by scooping it up and pouring it back, such that we will end up failing to solve the problems?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4319

I do not intend to repeat what I have said. I agree with the suggestions set out in the motion, including the provision of an unemployment relief of $9,000 and that sort of spending to help the unemployed. I am not so well versed in these matters, but I agree with the suggestions that I have read. I will not waste fellow Members' time. I do not have enough time to speak on this occasion, so I have just presented some short stories with the hope that the Government will consider carefully how it can really pull firewood out of the stove and take some effective measures to deal with the situation.

Thank you, President.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr CHAN Hak-kan for proposing the original motion and several colleagues for their amendments. I believe that the issue of supporting the unemployed and the underemployed is of great concern to various sectors in society of Hong Kong, including the business sector and the professional sector.

As the saying goes, "it never rains but pours". Since mid-2019, Hong Kong has been hit by "black-clad violence stemming from the anti-extradition bill protest" and the coronavirus epidemic. Coupled with the outbreak of the trade war between China and the United States and the economic downturn in overseas market, Hong Kong has been under internal and external threats and the economy is declining. According to the latest statistics released by the Census and Statistics Department on 16 March 2021, for the period between December 2020 and February 2021, the seasonally adjusted unemployment and underemployment rates were 7.2% and 4.0% respectively. The unemployment situation in individual sectors is even more serious, with the unemployment rate of the construction industry being as high as 11.4% and close to 40 000 workers out of work. Despite the urgent approval of $6.4 billion for the fourth round of the Anti-epidemic Fund by the Finance Committee at the beginning of the fourth wave of the epidemic, the funding provided is but a drop in the ocean. This kind of assistance is not a matter of scarcity but equality. Though some industries are not directly affected by the tightened measures on prohibition of group gathering under the fourth wave of epidemic, their businesses have long since been affected by the epidemic. Moreover, some members in those industries have been earning zero income for a long time and are in dire need of assistance. Nonetheless, the Government has only around $800 billion in its reserve and it 4320 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 has to set aside funding to cope with all kinds of challenges ahead. Its straitened circumstance is understandable. Members of the community are gravely worried that if the epidemic in Hong Kong cannot be put under control expeditiously, there will be a more devastating wave of business closures and unemployment among wage earners. As such, society must identify ways to support the unemployed and underemployed wage earners.

First, the Government should take the lead in increasing short-term and temporary posts. The Financial Secretary, Mr Paul CHAN, said that in the financial year 2020-2021, the Government created about 31 000 time-limited jobs in the public and private sectors through the Anti-epidemic Fund, and he proposed to further allocate $6.6 billion to create around 30 000 time-limited jobs for a period up to 12 months. In my view, given the current financial constraints, though it is impossible for the Government to create a lot of permanent posts in the civil service, the authorities should address the needs of society by expediting government projects related to people's livelihood to create jobs on a short-term or contractual basis. For instance, the Government should proactively create jobs to support the anti-epidemic work, which can help address rising unemployment and shortage of manpower for anti-epidemic work concurrently.

At the same time, the Government should collaborate with various sectors to offer additional internship and training places, with a view to helping the working population employees to enhance their competitiveness and supporting the unemployed in switching occupations. Since 2015, the Employees Retraining Board ("ERB") has introduced the "First-Hire-Then-Train" Scheme, covering trades and industries like environmental services, transportation and support services, construction, healthcare services, hotel and tourism, and so on. Yet, there is still room for expansion in training quota and industry categories. ERB was entrusted by the Government to launch the "Love Upgrading Special Scheme" ("the Scheme") in October 2019 to assist the unemployed and the underemployed to upgrade their skills for self-enhancement, with a view to rejoining the workforce as early as possible. Later on, the Government announced the allocation of $2.5 billion for the launch of the second tranche of the Scheme. Then, the Chief Executive announced in the Policy Address the launch of the third tranche of the Scheme in January this year with the training places doubled to 20 000. The Scheme does not impose any academic qualification requirement on trainees and encourages them to participate in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4321 cross-industry training. Subsequently, it is announced in the Budget that the authorities will introduce the fourth tranche of the Scheme in July, which will last for six months until the end of this year, benefiting 20 000 trainees. To support young professionals proactively, the Government introduced the "Anti-epidemic Fund―Support for Engineering, Architectural, Surveying, Town Planning and Landscape Sectors" with a view to encouraging and supporting employers of private organizations to employ graduates and assistant professionals of the relevant professional sectors. The Environment Bureau has also introduced the Green Employment Scheme, which warrants further enhancement and promotion. I have repeatedly urged the Government to set up a young professionals development fund to provide employees with salary allowance and subsidize young professionals to take professional examinations and training, and so on, which will be conducive to retaining talents and nurturing successors.

Moreover, the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong ("BPA") has made repeated attempts to strive for the setting up of a time-limited unemployment assistance to provide a monthly cash allowance of not less than $8,000 to the unemployed, so as to offer direct subsidy to the unemployed who are facing genuine financial difficulties. BPA is disappointed that the Government has ignored this request. Yet, BPA supports the Financial Secretary's proposal to launch a loan guarantee scheme for individuals, which offers 100% loan guarantee subject to a cap of $80,000, to slightly ease the imminent plights of the unemployed wage earners.

Nevertheless, the above measures can at best only be a temporary solution which can slightly alleviate the plights of the unemployed wage earners. It is indisputable that the permanent cure is to strife to curb the epidemic and achieve "zero infection" as soon as possible, thereby resuming the normal passenger clearance services between Hong Kong and the three places across the Straits as well as overseas to revive Hong Kong's economy and revitalize various trades and industries. As the saying goes, "it's better to teach one how to fish than to give him a fish", so it is most important to enable the public to get a job to earn a living.

President, with these remarks, I support the passage of the original motion moved by Mr CHAN Hak-kan and amendments moved by Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr SHIU Ka-fai.

4322 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, this coronavirus epidemic of the century has, in the past year, plunged the global economy into the worst recession since the Second World War, and the job market has entered a cold winter as well. The unemployment rate in Hong Kong has doubled to 7.2% in merely one year, involving more than 260 000 people, whereas the underemployment rate also stands at 4%, involving more than 150 000 people. With the gradual roll-out of the vaccination campaign, the authorities anticipate that the economy of Hong Kong will show a relatively strong momentum of recovery in the second half of this year. Yet, many grass-roots and middle-class families have their income greatly reduced or even go without income for many months. They have to tighten their belt, and some of them are even forced to sleep on the streets for the first time. Society must not sit back and do nothing in face of these livelihood difficulties.

Like other governments around the world, the fiscal position of the Hong Kong Government is getting worse due to its anti-epidemic work. While it has to implement counter-cyclical measures vigorously with a view to revitalizing the economy, it must not neglect the support for members of the public whose livelihood have been hit hard. This is not only their integral responsibilities, but also the consensus which goes without saying among the Government, the public, employees and employers in the local community. The question is what appropriate measures should be adopted and whether the measures are properly implemented. There is only one common goal for us and that is, to support those families in genuine need to tide over the difficulties.

President, as a matter of fact, the Government has actually taken a multi-pronged approach to introduce a number of special measures, including the Employment Support Scheme under the Anti-epidemic Fund to support employment by providing subsidies for employers to pay the wages of millions of employees. It has also enhanced the work on assisting members of the public to secure employment and seek value addition by creating 60 000 temporary posts, providing 40 000 training places under three tranches of the Love Upgrading Special Scheme, as well as increasing the amount of allowances. Financial assistance for the unemployed has also been strengthened by relaxing the asset limit for applying the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") for the unemployed for one year. A year-on-year increase of 55% has been registered in the total number of CSSA unemployment cases in the previous year, and each unemployed adult can receive approximately $5,000 per month, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4323 including rent allowance, etc. The recent Budget has also proposed again the provision of a low-interest or even interest-free loan of $80,000 for the unemployed who are in urgent financial needs.

President, undoubtedly, there is still plenty of room for the Government to optimize its measures to provide practical support for those families in distress. For instance, the support on food provided by food banks serves as the first line providing very personal support. Can the asset threshold and the existing 8-week time limit on food assistance be relaxed in a timely manner? Unemployed wage earners and those who are on no-pay leave also have short-term financial difficulties. Are there any measures to cater for their needs?

In addition, enthusiastic colleagues have put forward a lot of suggestions in respect of this motion, such as creating more internship opportunities for young people and implementing the mutual recognition system for health codes of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao at the earliest possible time. These are all the suggestions that I have made to the Government previously, and they warrant active follow-up actions by the Government. However, careful considerations should first be given to more complicated proposals which have far-reaching implications on society as a whole, such as an unemployment assistance which is the most controversial in this motion.

President, many of those advocating the establishment of an unemployment assistance have criticized that the CSSA for the unemployed carries a labelling effect or its threshold is too high. President, I have never put any label on CSSA recipients. That said, if we have to establish another system due to the labels put by some people, will it further reinforce the labelling effect on CSSA on the contrary? Would it be more positive and fairer to CSSA recipients by striving to eliminate the labelling effect?

Some fellow colleagues have proposed the establishment of an unemployment assistance in respect of the motion. Among them, some have specified that it is a temporary and short-term measure, whereas some have specified that it should be a cash allowance capped at $9,000 to be provided for the unemployed and those suspended from work for a period of six months. President, to put it simply, how can we achieve sustainability if the unemployment assistance is a long-term measure? Should we follow the experience of some foreign countries to introduce another system in Hong Kong 4324 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 which requires contributions by both the employers and employees? If the Government is to provide an unemployment assistance in the short term, should we work out a lower asset threshold, or should all the unemployed be allowed to receive the assistance? While it is claimed that this will be a short-term measure, it is hard to predict how quickly the unemployment rate will fall. The authorities have also indicated that we should not be optimistic that the unemployment rate will drop to below 5% again within three years, and the epidemic situation may remain volatile. Will Honourable colleagues who support this short-term measure at present continue to support the retaining of this short-term measure by then? Will the short-term measure become medium-term or even long-term? In fact, there are already voices in society now suggesting that the unemployment assistance should be turned to a permanent scheme in the future. But going round and round, there is still the question about how sustainability can be achieved. Is it too hasty to make a decision before we can get some satisfactory answers to these key questions?

President, I do not doubt the good intentions of fellow colleagues, but we must also remember the lesson of Western economies being dragged down by welfarism in the history. We should maintain critical thinking to avoid moving towards a high welfare society, which will undermine the unique system and competitive edges of Hong Kong.

President, I so submit.

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the original motion of Mr CHAN Hak-kan and all the amendments of our Honourable colleagues. Over the past two years, under the double blow of the riots and the coronavirus epidemic, our economy has suffered a continued decline. According to the latest figures released by the authorities, the unemployment rate soared to 7.2%, a record high in 17 years, with 200 000 people being unemployed. Apart from such widely known incidents as the layoffs at Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, the sacking of supporting staff of New World First Bus Services Limited and the closure of UA Cinema Circuit Limited, all sectors are facing various unemployment issues. However, we estimate that the Hong Kong economy will still be declining and has yet to hit rock bottom. I am afraid that unemployment will keep rising.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4325

In the face of economic recession and high unemployment, the Government has launched the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS"). Leaving aside the fact that some employees of the beneficiary enterprises were still laid off or put on no-pay leave during the subsidy period of ESS, sporadic redundancy cases did occur after ESS came to an end. In short, those who benefited from ESS were generally enterprises. For the unemployed or underemployed, it achieved no immediate effect. While it failed to provide a safeguard, we should not even expect it to bring us relief. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and I feel quite disappointed and helpless at the Labour and Welfare Bureau's insistence on refusing to introduce a short-term unemployment assistance. President, regarding whether an interim short-term unemployment assistance should be established, despite cross-party support in this Council, the Government has repeatedly refused to "turn on the tap" to provide relief to the unemployed workers. Since the Bureau has explained the objectives of ESS time and again, I am not going to repeat. But now that the facts are laid before us, to help wage earners ride out the economic turbulence and the difficulties, I consider it necessary to establish an unemployment assistance.

In fact, most Hong Kong people make a living on their own and are self-reliant. Very often, they do not want to rely on others for help, and they certainly do not want to receive assistance under the Government's Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") net. Nevertheless, we do notice that the Government, apart from refusing to establish an unemployment assistance, only proposed to create more temporary posts. I have done some calculations for the Government. In its reply to a Legislative Council question in January this year, the Government mentioned that the Job Creation Scheme aimed to create 31 000 time-limited jobs, among which 14 000 jobs had been filled while the recruitment of the remaining 17 000 jobs had already commenced or would commence shortly. President, I hope the Secretary for Labour and Welfare can address people's pressing needs, think what people think, and complete the recruitment of these jobs expeditiously. As far as I understand it, 31 000 job opportunities can help 31 000 families.

We often visit the community to come into contact with different people. In the face of a double blow like this, there are indeed many people who are staying out of work or even unemployed. Worse still, they have to live on loans, and the situation where they use credit cards and borrow money from their relatives and friends occurs frequently and is very common. I think the 4326 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Government really needs to consider whether it should help them out at this juncture, and whether it can face up to or cope with this new challenge effectively by relying solely on the existing measures. Also, the Government once told me that it could at best put more effort in unemployment assistance only, but I wish to tell the Secretary that putting extra effort in unemployment assistance can hardly create a substantial effect for those people. As a matter of fact, the Secretary should understand―as he is also a Hongkonger―that most CSSA recipients are truly left with no choice. What they are facing is more than just living on loans. They also very much hope that they do not have to rely too heavily on the Government through the so-called CSSA system. But regrettably, we do not see an unemployment assistance being established despite a long wait, or what positive effect can be achieved by the so-called short-term unemployment assistance or relaxation of the CSSA thresholds. In fact, many people applied for CSSA after careful consideration and indeed faced a lot of challenges in making their applications, including the reception and arrangements by the frontline civil servants or even the numerous rules and thresholds, all of which are extremely troublesome. Therefore, I hope the Government can consider whether it should continue to require applications to be made on a household basis, and whether it can further relax the thresholds so that people can receive positive support.

President, I wish to give the Secretary a typical example that we often come across. There was a family of four living under the same roof. At first, two brothers each had his own jobs, but then the elder brother became unemployed and spent all his savings. Not only did he have no money to pay for the household expenses, to put it simply, he could not even afford the rents, and so he fretted about money all the time. If he was to apply for CSSA, he would have to face the pressure of the requirement that applications shall be made on a household basis. Therefore, I think that we really have to come up with some solutions. The Legislative Council has in fact formed a Subcommittee to Study the Setting Up of an Unemployment Assistance System in Hong Kong, of which I am also a member. But every time when I followed up on this issue, I found that the Government had the same mindset and felt that they could not come down off their high horse by looking at this issue from the perspective of the unemployed. I hope the Bureau can really consider this.

President, I wish to quote a saying that suits the occasion very well: "Nobody with a head of hair will want to look bald." As a matter of fact, many different groups we have come into contact with told us that the Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4327 should really do more. President, if we have to start with fundamentally preserving employment, I find it most important to monitor and control the epidemic situation properly and achieve "zero infection". Only in this way can the local economic activities be resumed and both the restrictions on land arrival and the Mainland's restrictions be relaxed to enable resumption of the flow of economic personnel among the three places, which will in turn stimulate the economy and restore employment. The Mainland is a good example. It managed to reboot the economy quickly after the epidemic was over, and we can see that it is the only region in the world that has achieved positive growth. The current epidemic situation in Hong Kong has yet to come under control basically, but I very much hope that the Government can put more effort in addressing the epidemic and be more decisive and wiser in making each and every arrangement. President, lastly, I wish to say that I hope the Government will step up publicity on vaccination arrangements to boost the vaccination rate and relax the anti-epidemic restrictions, so as to bring our economy out of the current doldrums.

President, I reiterate my support for the original motion of Mr CHAN Hak-kan and the amendments of Honourable colleagues. I so submit.

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, riots in society and the epidemic have dealt a heavy blow to the economy of Hong Kong, with the unemployment rate hitting a record high time and again. Mr CHAN Hak-kan finally has the opportunity to propose this motion on supporting the unemployed today. It is a bit late in terms of timing, but it is of course due to the impact of filibusters and the epidemic that we do not have the opportunity to discuss this livelihood issue of such importance until today.

The most worrying point at this moment is that the unemployment rate has not yet peaked and may remain high for a long time. Many analyses predict that while the economy of Hong Kong has gradually stabilized, we still have to wait for the end of the epidemic or the reopening of the border to achieve full recovery and market revival. Ultimately, the employment situation may only improve at the end of the year, or even early next year.

The Government launched four rounds of the Anti-epidemic Fund in the past year. Coupled with the relief measures in the Budget, it has spent some $800 billion on anti-epidemic work, reducing the fiscal surplus of the 4328 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Government to a mere of $800 billion. In fact, the Government's anti-epidemic efforts are of a great magnitude, including the Employment Support Scheme and the measures to support various trades. For those who are already unemployed, the Government has launched the Special Scheme of Assistance to the Unemployed, under which the asset limits for able-bodied applicants of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") Scheme are temporarily increased by 100%. In addition, the newly delivered Budget has also introduced a Special 100% Loan Guarantee for Individuals Scheme for the unemployed, and undertaken to create 30 000 temporary posts.

Despite the Government's strenuous efforts, it has refused to establish an unemployment assistance. Today, many Honourable Members have demanded the Government to establish an unemployment assistance, and I personally agree with them. The Government shoulders the responsibility to support the unemployed and underemployed, hence it is worthwhile for the Government to consider some temporary and time-limited assistance. In fact, the Government has already taken forward the Special Scheme of Assistance to the Unemployed on a temporary basis under the CSSA Scheme. According to the latest statistics provided by the Social Welfare Department, there are currently almost 20 000 CSSA unemployment cases. However, some people have criticized that the application threshold of the Special Scheme is too high, and it is necessary to go through the vetting and approval procedures of CSSA, which have deterred many people from making applications. I believe that the Government can refine the Scheme by, for example, streamlining the application procedures, or even detaching it from the CSSA framework, so as to enable more unemployed persons to apply. This will eventually achieve the same effect as a temporary unemployment assistance. Given its temporary nature, I believe the Government can afford it, and it is also worth considering.

Apart from temporary assistance, it is also proposed that long-term support measures should be provided for the unemployed. There are suggestions that the Government can draw reference from the practice of the United Kingdom and the United States to introduce a mandatory unemployment insurance scheme through contributions by both the employers and employees. Employees can then apply for assistance in case of unemployment. Since this proposal is mandatory in nature and requires contributions by both the employers and employees, a consensus must be reached among members of the public. Personally, I also would like to listen to more views before making a decision.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4329

The unemployment relief in the West that we often talk about is in fact a contributory unemployment insurance. Monthly contributions have to be made under this system. If such a system is to be implemented in Hong Kong, some academics have projected that each employee will have to contribute 1.5% of the monthly salaries, whereas employers are also required to share the contributions. Employees who have become unemployed can receive assistance up to half a year. In fact, this is an entirely new system, but are the employees and employers willing to contribute 1.5% each? Consultation is indeed required. Even if we are really going to implement it, we still have to go through a lengthy legislative process. Moreover, the unemployment rate has been pushed up this time due to the epidemic. The unemployment rate in Hong Kong should not be so high under normal circumstances. So, these factors are worth considering.

What is more, some people have also proposed the establishment of a non-means-tested unemployment assistance to be fully borne by the Government. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare has already made some projections: If the unemployment rate remains at a relatively high level in the future, assuming that 130 000 persons will apply for the assistance and receive $5,000 or $9,000 per month, the Government will incur an annual expenditure as high as $7.8 billion or $14 billion, which is equivalent to 13% or 23% of the salaries tax received annually. This is extremely costly and is hardly supported by taxpayers.

President, I believe that in the final analysis, it is most important to revive the economy and create job opportunities in order to help the unemployed. One of the major factors leading to the current rise in the unemployment rate is that the border between Hong Kong and the Mainland has been closed for a long time, which has greatly affected our economic activities. The economy of the Mainland and Hong Kong are closely related. Closing the border is tantamount to blocking a major artery of Hong Kong, resulting in very serious problems. Coupled with the impact of the no-gathering order, the economy has been hit hard. Therefore, our economy and the unemployment rate should both improve gradually when the epidemic subsides and the border is reopened. The Financial Secretary has proposed in the Budget delivered last month a host of measures for post-epidemic recovery and revitalization of the economy. I hope these measures will be effective and help Hong Kong overcome the difficulties as expeditiously as possible. Thank you, President.

4330 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, this motion should have been discussed last year, but since the legislature was almost in a standstill last year, the discussion of the motion was delayed time and again and can only be discussed today. Yet, regrettably, after a lapse of many months, the motion has become even more timely rather than outdated. This does not merely reflect that the unemployment problem has not only turned from serious to extremely serious, but also that the economic downturn has been affecting wage earners for a longer time and to a greater extent than SARS. Of course, Members may say that the epidemic has only lasted for about a year, but if we take into account the "black-clad violence", that is,―when people came out to cause trouble on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, a lot of people dared not go out. They dared not go out even on weekday nights, dealing a severe blow to the catering industries and the entertainment industries. President, these periods of time actually add up to two years.

Singing the same tune with the Secretary, I should say that the social welfare system of Hong Kong has all along adopted the residue model, meaning that the authorities will help people whom they considered being most in need of assistance. Yet, as far as unemployment is concerned, it turns out that the authorities are not helping the unemployed workers who are most in need. Many colleagues have mentioned that in the two previous tranches of the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS"), the authorities have offered such assistance. Employees who have not yet been dismissed would be protected under ESS, and their employers might defer or shelve their dismissal temporarily. However, for workers who were already unemployed when ESS was introduced, they would not receive any assistance. Back then, many unemployed workers felt aggrieved. They pointed out that it would not be a bad thing if the authorities could retain the jobs of those who were still in employment, for after all, all they wanted was to have a job, but they queried why no help was offered to those who were already unemployed. This is what we have heard most often at our street booths.

Of course, there are also stark contrasts in the process. Supermarkets which are reaping great profits have brought their extreme capitalist nature into full play as they still applied for the assistance. After submitting their applications, they talked back that they could also apply for ESS though they were making money. They said they would hold a lucky draw for the needy upon receiving the subsidies, which are in fact promotion activities to boost business turnover of the supermarkets. The authorities have simply turned a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4331 blind eye to such blatant "robbery". Yet, for unemployed workers who merely wish to receive unemployment assistance temporarily, the Government treats them like robbers, as if telling them, "Do not snatch anything from me, do not rob me of my money, I do not have any money and I will not give out a single cent". President, is the difference between the two too great?

If the Secretary has so many worries about the temporary unemployment assistance, it may be renamed as "long-term unemployment assistance". This is not in response to the Secretary's remarks that they have to rely on the assistance for a long period of time once they started receiving it, but that there are some people who have lost their job and remained unemployed for a prolonged period after the riots and the outbreak of the epidemic. Can the Secretary give them a hand? If he cannot provide assistance for 12 months, can he offer them small subsidies for several months? Is it also an option? Secretary, please try your best to find a solution.

Let us look at the relevant figures. The Official Receiver's Office handled about 8 693 cases last year (2020), an increase of some 500 cases compared with 2019. As regards receiving orders or bankruptcy orders, there were 1 108 cases last year, an increase of 358 cases compared with 2019. These figures reflect that business environment is very difficult. The wave of business closures, shakeouts and layoffs after the Chinese New Year is somehow expected, just that we do not know when this will come to an end. Obviously, this wave has not yet ended for the time being. As for the closure of travel agencies and cinemas, these are merely early signs or the beginning, and I believe there will be more to come.

President, wage earners have been enduring zero income for close to two years, their savings are running out. However, does the Government feel the pain? Does the Government consider it necessary to apply a Band-Aid to stop their bleeding? The most basic and humane response is to apply a Band-Aid, is it not? Compared with the SARS outbreak in 2003, a total of nearly 73 000 temporary jobs were created at that time. Now, in the face of the coronavirus epidemic, the authorities have just announced the creation of 30 000 jobs, which have not yet been implemented. Taking into account the jobs created some time ago, the total is merely 60 000 jobs―the sum of 30 000 jobs and 30 000 jobs is 60 000 jobs―and only 18 000 jobs have actually been created. The progress is really slow. The authorities refuse to provide unemployment assistance, saying jobs will be offered instead of subsidies. If jobs are to be offered instead of 4332 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 subsidies, then the authorities have to provide some 200 000 jobs. Nonetheless, the authorities have failed to provide some 200 000 jobs and only 60 000 jobs can be made available. If so, how can the some 200 000 unemployed persons meet their family needs and face their financial problems?

Moreover, it must be mentioned that when we talked about the disparity between the rich and the poor in Hong Kong in the past, fundamentally, it is assessed by income in most cases. Yet, in fact, many academics have pointed out that assets should also be one of the considerations. If I have no income but I have the assets of LI Ka-shing, then I have nothing to worry. Yet, if I have neither income nor assets, or if my remaining assets of $100,000 to $200,000 have been used up in the past two years, the uncertainty I am facing will deepen my worry and anxiety about my future. Can the Government feel this?

Moreover, regarding the loan scheme announced in the budget, of course, we have heard some wage earners saying that it is OK and can be considered. Nonetheless, the Bureau has already cautioned that we should not be over-optimistic about the future economic condition. Against this background, we definitely have to remind potential applicants that "Borrow only if you can repay". In that case, how many people can benefit from the scheme in reality?

President, finally, I would like to give some earnest advice, though it may sound like nagging. The Government has to win the hearts and minds of the people. The public is now thinking whether the Government can "fight the epidemic together" and "ride out this difficult time with them". These two slogans have been mentioned numerous times. Are the Government and the public of one mind? Are they going to ride out this crisis together? The authorities should not make the unemployed feel that they have been abandoned or that no one cares about them because they are the disadvantaged and their voices are small in the legislature. I hope the Bureau will reconsider the issue carefully. Thank You, President.

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

(Mr Paul TSE indicated his wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, please speak.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4333

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): On supporting the unemployed and underemployed, having regard to the prevailing situation, I will wrap up my speech in one sentence: return the Mandatory Provident Fund benefits. Thank you, President.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Hak-kan, you may now speak on the amendments. The time limit is five minutes.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, three Members have proposed amendments to my original motion, which mainly seek to set out some of my proposals in a more specific way, so I will give my support to them.

I would like to highlight the proposal made by Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr SHIU Ka-fai to increase the amount of allowance under the Love Upgrading Special Scheme. I also support this proposal because this measure can truly help employees upgrade their professional skills or even switch occupations. However, I understand that many courses are currently suspended due to the epidemic. Given the volatile epidemic situation, should the Employees Retraining Board ("ERB") explore a new system to flexibly arrange its courses amid the epidemic, such as switching to Zoom for some relatively theoretical courses, so that trainees will neither lose their job nor miss out on training?

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, Mr MA Fung-kwok, took the Chair)

In addition, Dr Priscilla LEUNG suggested that a support fund for occupation switching should be established to assist the unemployed in switching to other trades. I think the authorities can tie this in with the Love Upgrading Special Scheme I mentioned just now by allowing ERB to collaborate with the public and private sectors to provide job referrals and follow-up services for suitable trainees upon completion of courses, so as to render direct support to the 4334 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 unemployed in switching to other modes of employment. In this way, the Government can also have a grasp of the resource allocation in the labour market more effectively.

Deputy President, I agree to these amendments as they are not in great conflict with my original motion. Therefore, Members from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong will support my original motion and all the amendments.

I so submit.

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, once again I thank Mr CHAN Hak-kan, sponsor of the original motion, as well as Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr SHIU Ka-fai who have proposed amendments to the motion. Besides, my thanks also go to a number of Members who have spoken on the relevant issues. In fact, the provision of support for the unemployed and underemployed involves a number of policy areas. With your indulgence, I would like to give a consolidated reply on behalf of the Government.

I would like to start with the existing unemployment assistance system in Hong Kong. Many people opined that Hong Kong lacks an unemployment assistance system. This is factually incorrect and conceptually confusing.

The Government introduced the Public Assistance Scheme in 1971 to provide cash assistance for families in financial need, including the unemployed. Severance payment and long service payment were then introduced under the Employment Ordinance in 1974 and 1986 respectively. In 1992, the Employees Retraining Board ("ERB") was established to offer training and training allowance to employees who need to switch to other trades. These, coupled with adjustments and improvements over the years, have constituted the prevailing three-tier unemployment assistance system in Hong Kong today.

The first tier is severance payment/long service payment. The second tier is the allowance provided during retraining or in-service training. The third tier is the safety net under the existing Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") Scheme, providing financial assistance for families who are unable to maintain a basic living due to the lack of financial means during unemployment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4335

The Research Office of the Legislative Council Secretariat has submitted an Information Note on Unemployment Insurance Systems in Selected Places ("Information Note") to the Subcommittee to Study the Setting Up of an Unemployment Assistance System in Hong Kong under the Panel on Manpower. I highly recommend it to Members, and I hope that Members will read it carefully. Members who do not have time may take a look at the related PowerPoint.

Citing a study conducted by the International Labour Organization in 2019, the Information Note pointed out that in developed countries, the median severance pay is less than 10% of the monthly salary, whereas ours in Hong Kong is two thirds of the monthly salary, which means more than 6.5 times of the median severance pay in these countries. This information shows us two obvious facts: First, quite a large number of developed countries have both unemployment insurance and severance payment systems whereas in Hong Kong, there is only severance payment/long service payment system. Second, the level of severance payment/long service payment in Hong Kong is far higher than that in other countries. If we analyse the systems in different countries in greater detail, we will find that the level of severance payment/long service payment in Hong Kong is higher than the aggregate level of payment in many developed countries where both unemployment insurance and severance payment exist. Therefore, the view that Hong Kong compares unfavourably with these countries in terms of unemployment assistance does not tally with the facts.

Of course, Hong Kong is a low-tax regime and yet, our social security system is not inferior to its counterparts. The Labour and Welfare Bureau will continue to work hard for improvement. Totalling over $100 billion, the estimated recurrent expenditure on social welfare for 2021-2022 represents an increase of 61.7% over the actual recurrent expenditure in 2017-2018, making social welfare the largest recurrent expenditure item among all policy area groups. This has also reflected the efforts that we have made over the past few years.

On the overall strategy of the Government to cope with rising unemployment, as I already pointed out in the beginning of this debate, the Government's overall strategy is to tackle rising unemployment at three levels. The first level is the creation of employment opportunities. We will provide over 60 000 temporary jobs altogether, plus another 2 000 jobs under the Greater Bay Area Youth Employment Scheme. Secondly, we will increase the number 4336 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 of retraining and in-service training places as well as the amount of the training allowance. Thirdly, we will relax the eligibility criteria for CSSA on a time-limited basis. Added to these are the time-limited downward adjustment of the number of monthly working hours for the Working Family Allowance ("WFA") and the Special 100% Loan Guarantee for Individuals Scheme introduced by the Financial Secretary for the unemployed.

With regard to the proposal of setting up an emergency or temporary unemployment assistance, it was put forward by Members of the Legislative Council as early as in the latter half of 2019. At first it was proposed to be a monthly payment of $5,000 for up to three months. Subsequently there were views that it should be increased to $6,000, $7,000, $8,000, $9,000, $15,000, $16,000, and up to $17,500 for a maximum of six months.

However, in this discussion, obviously there is a confusion of concepts over one point and that is, the meaning of "temporary" as in the so-called temporary unemployment assistance. Does it refer to the time limit for a recipient to receive the assistance or that for implementing the fund? If the fund is implemented with a time limit of six months, the recipients may not necessarily receive the assistance for up to six months. To illustrate, an unemployed person applying for the assistance in the sixth month upon the fund's establishment will only receive the payment for one month at most. This fully shows that it is neither practicable nor policy-wise justifiable to set up a so-called time-limited temporary unemployment assistance. Why is it that a person losing his job in the first month can receive assistance for up to six months whereas for those who are out of job two or three months later, the maximum number of months for receiving assistance will be less? It is most difficult to explain to the public why people losing their jobs in the seventh month cannot receive the same assistance as that for people who become unemployed a few months earlier. Is the setting up of a time-limited temporary unemployment assistance intended to encourage people to lose their job the sooner the better, or else they will not receive the assistance? If the term "temporary" means that each recipient of unemployment assistance can only receive assistance for a maximum of six months, this temporary unemployment assistance will be a "perpetual" one.

The second type of "temporary" proposal suggests discontinuing the unemployment assistance when the unemployment rate drops to a certain level. Of course, we do not have a crystal ball to foretell the future trend of the unemployment rate but we can draw reference to past experience. During the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4337 outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ("SARS"), the three-month seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose to the peak of 8.5% in April to June 2003. It took 2 years and 11 months, i.e. in March to May 2006, for the figure to drop to 4.9%, and it took 4 years and 5 months, i.e. in September to November 2007, for it to fall below 4%, i.e. 3.7%. The unemployment rate still failed to recede to 3%, a level corresponding to theoretical "full employment", when the financial tsunami hit us in 2008, and even reached 5.5% in June to August 2009. It was not until September to November 2017, i.e. after 14 years and 5 months altogether, that the unemployment rate of 3% was achieved. All these are historical facts. Judging from the long-lasting global impact of this epidemic, the end is not yet in sight. Will the unemployment rate in Hong Kong fall below 5% in three years just as it did after the SARS outbreak? We can hardly be optimistic.

The third type of views is to cap the expenditure at, say, $15 billion. This proposal will face broadly the same problems as those of setting a time limit for the fund, and I am not going to repeat them.

There are views that under such exceptional circumstances where unemployment is exacerbated by the epidemic, the Government should make exceptional arrangements to deal with the issue, just as many other countries have made adjustments to their unemployment assistance systems due to the pandemic during these difficult times.

Members who have read the aforementioned Information Note of the Legislative Council Secretariat will know that the temporary measures taken by these countries during the epidemic are founded upon their existing unemployment assistance systems. The measures adopted by these countries mainly include the time-limited relaxation of the criteria for claiming unemployment insurance benefits, the maximum number of months or weeks for claiming unemployment insurance benefits, or the maximum level of claimable unemployment insurance benefits.

The strategies adopted by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is no different from those of other countries in that they are also founded upon the existing unemployment assistance system. For instance, under ERB's Love Upgrading Special Scheme, the eligibility for application has been relaxed to cover trainees who have bachelor or even doctoral degrees, trainees enrolled in part-time courses are also eligible for training 4338 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 allowance, and the cap of the monthly training allowance has been increased; and under the CSSA system, the asset limits for able-bodied applicants have been relaxed on a time-limited basis, and the cash value of insurance policies will not be counted as assets. Besides, the working hour requirements for the Basic Allowance and the Medium Allowance under the WFA Scheme have been reduced, so that low-income earners who have to take some unpaid leave can still be eligible for WFA.

Moreover, there is the view that when the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS") can be brought to an end six months after its inception, why can we not provide a temporary unemployment assistance for six months? Regarding why an unemployment assistance cannot be "temporary", I have already explained it in detail in my earlier remarks and I will not make any repetition here. As to why ESS has to stop six months after its introduction, I also gave a response clearly in my reply to the first oral question yesterday on 17 March, and I am not going to repeat it.

I hope that Members can take a look at the other lessons learned from international experience. Since 2019 when Members of the Legislative Council proposed the setting up of an unemployment assistance by the Government, I have continuously pointed out that no country in the world would set up a non-contributory and non-means-tested public unemployment assistance, which is evidenced in the Information Note of the Legislative Council Secretariat. What we have to pay attention to is not the very fact that no country has done such a thing, but we must understand why no country has done it.

The Information Note of the Legislative Council Secretariat has also cited some studies revealing that 30% of the unemployment cases in the United States ("US") were due to the unemployment insurance benefits. Members who have paid attention to the changes in the US unemployment rate during the epidemic will notice that the US unemployment rate rose sharply from 4.4% in March to 14.7% just one month later in April 2020. Members who have read the relevant news may have noticed that many unemployed workers in the US spent over a month in vain trying to approach the relevant agency to apply for unemployment insurance benefits. It is because the drastic increase in the number of unemployed workers has caused the workload to become overwhelming. The US system is a contributory unemployment insurance system, and under a contributory system, moral hazard is also a major concern. Members can imagine how high the moral hazard will be under a non-contributory and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4339 non-means-tested system. If we have in place such a system today and if a projection is made based on the findings of international studies, our latest unemployment rate will not be 7.2% but most likely exceeding double digits.

A point of concern in international discussions on unemployment insurance systems is, as stated in the Information Note of the Legislative Council Secretariat, the considerable administrative costs incurred to prevent fraud. The Labour and Welfare Bureau and the Labour Department have had internal discussions in this connection. If the unemployment assistance payment is set at $3,000 a month, the administrative costs will be about $1,000. A study in US has found that a 10% increase in unemployment insurance benefits will increase layoffs by 18%. If the unemployment insurance payment is $9,000 or even $17,500, Members can imagine the layoff situation as well as how much administration costs will be incurred in fraud prevention.

Why is the payment set at $3,000 per month in the internal analysis of the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the Labour Department as mentioned above? This is the current level of unemployment insurance in the United Kingdom ("UK"), which is just roughly equivalent to CSSA payment in Hong Kong. It is because the payment is at such a basic level that the moral hazard of this unemployment insurance known as the Jobseeker's Allowance in UK is very low. Apart from making contributions, recipients are required to meet with the welfare officers regularly to ensure that the recipients have looked for a job and do not refuse new job offers unreasonably. I do not have information on the administrative costs involved under this system up my sleeves, but I can still imagine that the costs are exorbitant. Should we adopt this system, Members can imagine that if we have to handle 200 000 cases a month and if each case manager can handle 100 cases, we will have to recruit 2 000 workers and rent an office area of 6 000 sq m. Certainly, this is more like a project for creating jobs. I think if the same amount of resources can be channelled for creating more constructive posts in the public and private sectors, the cost effectiveness as well as the socio-economic benefits will be higher.

I very much welcome the policy proposals put forward by Members and political parties. However, I hope that Members can draw reference to the pros and cons of overseas experience and identify ways for setting up a system that suits the situation of Hong Kong and benefits its long-term socio-economic development.

4340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

In response to the other parts of the original motion of Mr CHAN Hak-kan, concerning the proposal of enhancing the WFA Scheme, we will put forward a proposal to the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council to substantially lower the working hour requirement on a time-limited basis to assist the underemployed working families. On the creation of more temporary posts, the Financial Secretary has given a response and proposed to further create 30 000 jobs. Regarding the views on ESS, I already gave a response in reply to the first oral question yesterday, and I will not make any repetition here.

The Government will work towards the expeditious implementation of the mutual recognition system for health codes of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao. The Innovation and Technology Bureau has also made preparations for this system, and it can be achieved naturally through negotiations with Guangdong and Macao so long as the epidemic situation is brought under control and the vaccination programme is successfully taken forward in Hong Kong.

With regard to the proposal of developing a half-time "job-sharing" culture mentioned in Mr CHAN Hak-kan's motion, as I pointed out in reply to the first oral question yesterday, the labour market in Hong Kong is flexible, and the arrangement of no pay leave much criticized by the labour sector is precisely a "job-sharing" culture. Think about this: If an enterprise asks its employees to take one or two days of no pay leave per week, and assuming the employees work five days a week, such an arrangement is tantamount to five employees sharing four posts or five employees sharing three posts, or else this enterprise will have to lay off 20% or 40% of its employees. The Government does not have plans to promote a "job-sharing" culture.

As for the other proposals made by Dr Priscilla LEUNG, with regard to assisting the unemployed in switching to other trades, becoming self-employed or starting their own businesses, all these are currently the work of ERB, and Members can take a look at ERB's website to find out more. Regarding the other proposals pertaining to ERB, such as extending the "First-Hire-Then-Train" scheme, this is exactly a key area of work in which ERB is putting in a lot of efforts. The Labour Department has also raised the cap of on-the-job training allowance for employers under various employment programmes, and I will not go into detail. An additional retention allowance is also provided on a pilot basis under these schemes.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4341

Please do not be mistaken that ERB provides training only for elementary jobs. ERB also offers many courses on innovation and technology, such as courses on blockchain.

With regard to providing employers with salary subsidies for employees, so as to encourage employers to hire young people who are pursuing professional qualifications, this is precisely the objective of the Engineering Graduate Training Scheme for engineering graduates organized jointly by the Vocational Training Council and the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers. The Development Bureau has also provided similar schemes for young architects, surveyors, etc. under the Anti-epidemic Fund. If other professions have come up with concrete schemes, they are very much welcome to put them forward to the relevant Policy Bureaux, or contact the Labour and Welfare Bureau or the Civil Service Bureau.

The proposal to provide support for local residents in employment and entrepreneurship in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") is fully in line with the Government's work plan in the Greater Bay Area. A case in point is the Greater Bay Area Youth Employment Scheme that has been introduced recently. At the two plenary meetings held in 2019, the Leading Group for the Development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area also introduced 24 policy measures to offer convenience to Hong Kong people in developing their careers, working and living in the Mainland cities of the Greater Bay Area, as well as enhance the convenient flow of people, goods, and so on, within the Greater Bay Area, which included measures supporting the development of professional services in the Greater Bay Area, covering such professions as lawyers, architects, and so on.

On the proposal of allowing the unemployed to apply for CSSA on an individual basis, as I said before in my past replies, this proposal should never be implemented. Such a precedent will not only prejudice the entire welfare system in Hong Kong, including policies pertaining to social security, education, healthcare and public housing, but also undermine the prevailing familial function of mutual assistance among family members. Such a social policy direction may bring about irreversible disruption to the family system which is the very foundation of the future Hong Kong society. We cannot afford not to think twice.

4342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Mr LUK Chung-hung's proposal of lowering the working hour requirement for the Higher Allowance under the WFA Scheme from 192 hours to 72 hours is not acceptable to the Government. WFA is fundamentally designed to reward hard work. The monthly requirement of 192 hours means an average of about 44 working hours per week. Lowering the working hour requirement for the Higher Allowance to 72 hours will defeat the original purpose of the WFA Scheme.

Regarding the proposal to review the "4-18" requirement for employees employed under a continuous contract (i.e. employee who has been employed continuously by the same employer for four weeks or more, with at least 18 hours worked each week) under the Employment Ordinance, despite discussions by the Labour Advisory Board a few years ago, no consensus has yet been reached. The Labour Department is now conducting a survey, and this issue will be raised again for discussion upon completion of the survey.

On the suggestion of increasing ERB's statutory cap of retraining allowance to $9,000 per month, I wish to point out that the original intention of this allowance is to help trainees meet the travelling and meal expenses arising from attending ERB's retraining courses, in order to encourage them to take up retraining. Increasing the allowance to $9,000 is in effect just handing out cash, which will deviate from the original intention of the retraining policy and is twisting the retraining policy. The Government has decided not to accept it.

Mr SHIU Ka-fai proposed to utilize the resources of the Community Care Fund to help the unemployed and underemployed. First, the Community Care Fund will likewise face the same problem as that of the so-called temporary unemployment assistance as mentioned above, requiring the Government to make the same consideration as I have explained earlier on. Second, with less than $8 billion available, the Community Care Fund is not sufficient to meet the minimum level of an unemployment fund proposed by various parties and groupings.

The COVID-19 epidemic has posed unprecedented challenges to the economy of Hong Kong and people's livelihood. The Government will put in extra efforts to contain the epidemic and revive the economy, and at same time support the grass roots by creating more jobs, increasing training and retraining opportunities and providing financial support as appropriate. I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4343

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Dr Priscilla LEUNG to move an amendment.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move my amendment.

The amendment moved by Dr Priscilla LEUNG (See the marked-up version at Annex 2)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Dr Priscilla LEUNG be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(A Member raised his hand)

Mr SHIU Ka-fai rose to claim a division.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-fai has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

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

(After the division bell had been rung for five minutes, the President observed that a quorum was not present in the Chamber)

4344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

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): 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 Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr LAU Kwok-fan voted for the amendment.

Mr Martin LIAO and Mr Tony TSE abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted for the amendment.

Dr CHENG Chung-tai voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4345

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present, 18 were in favour of the amendment and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 14 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment and 1 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already been informed that as Dr Priscilla LEUNG's amendment has been passed, Mr SHIU Ka-fai has withdrawn his amendment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, as Dr Priscilla LEUNG's amendment has been passed, you may move your revised amendment.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move my revised amendment.

The revised amendment moved by Mr LUK Chung-hung (See the marked-up version at Annex 3)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr LUK Chung-hung's revised amendment 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)

4346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Dr CHENG Chung-tai rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr SHIU Ka-fai voted against the amendment.

Mr Martin LIAO abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted for the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4347

Dr CHENG Chung-tai voted against the amendment.

Mr Paul TSE abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present, 15 were in favour of the amendment, 4 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 15 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment, 1 against it and 1 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Hak-kan, you still have 2 minutes 55 seconds to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, all Members have talked about the lofty principle of helping the underemployed and unemployed. Since it was so tense early on, let me tell the Secretary a short story.

The Secretary should have heard of Lord Mengchang who had 3 000 retainers. His salary was not quite sufficient to support so many people, so he lent money to people in his territory and earned interest to maintain his entourage. However, more often than not, people did not have money to repay him or even pay the interest. So, he told FENG Huan, one of his retainers, to collect the debts for him. When FENG arrived at the territory, he gathered all the debtors and held a party. He asked those who had money to pay off the debts and took away the loan receipts of those who had no money and burnt the receipts. After learning that, Lord Mengchang scolded him, "What is wrong with you? I asked you to collect the debts, but instead you burnt the loan receipts?" FENG Huan then told Lord Mengchang, "Lord Mengchang, I actually did you a favour by burning the loan receipts because those who had no money would not be able to pay you back regardless of how much you pressure them or even drive them to their deaths. Now that I have burnt their loan receipts, they will all be thankful to you and praise you for observing people's feelings."

4348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

What is this story about? It is about buying benevolence with money. Lord Mengchang cared about money, but FENG Huan said, "If you can observe people's feelings, you will gain people's support." Secretary, you have been the Secretary for Labour and Welfare for a long time. Yet, you only know how to talk about figures. Have you really observed people's sentiments and feelings? Lastly, I would like to tell you this: "The key to governance lies in reassuring the people; and the way to reassure the people lies in observing their sufferings". Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr CHAN Hak-kan, as amended by Dr Priscilla LEUNG and Mr LUK Chung-hung, 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)

Dr CHENG Chung-tai rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai 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.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4349

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion as amended.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr SHIU Ka-fai voted against the motion as amended.

Mr Martin LIAO abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted for the motion as amended.

Dr CHENG Chung-tai voted against the motion as amended.

Mr Paul TSE abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present, 15 were in favour of the motion as amended, 4 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 15 were present, 13 were in favour of the 4350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 motion as amended, 1 against it and 1 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion as amended was passed.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 24 March 2021.

Adjourned accordingly at 3:24 pm.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4351

Annex 1

The marked-up version of the amendment moved by Mr Frankie YICK (Translation)

That in response to the strong demand for housing in society and the under-utilization of the cruise terminal, this Council urges the SAR Government to examine and appropriately amend the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, so as to explore the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter reclamation project as a means of increasing short-term land supply and resolving the failure of the cruise terminal to achieve its due economic benefits owing to improper transport planning; the existing acute shortage of berthing spaces at typhoon shelters (especially berthing spaces in the Kwun Tong District) has resulted in threats to the lives and properties of marine workers during typhoons and inclement weather, and for this reason, before implementing the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter reclamation works, the SAR Government must first provide another typhoon shelter with sufficient berthing spaces, so as to safeguard the lives and properties of marine workers.

Note: Mr Frankie YICK's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.

4352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Annex 2

The marked-up version of the amendment moved by Dr Priscilla LEUNG (Translation)

That, the unemployment rate in Hong Kong had all along remained at a low level of below 4% from 2011 to 2019, but due to the blow of the riots and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, coupled with the impacts from the uncertainties in overseas markets, the Hong Kong economy has suffered a continued decline with the unemployment rate hitting a record high time and again, reaching 6.4% which is a new high in 16 years; apart from about 260 000 people being unemployed, there are about 150 000 people being underemployed, and the six-month Employment Support Scheme ('ESS') ended in late November 2020, it is therefore generally expected in society that the waves of closures of enterprises will continue, and the unemployment and underemployment rates will also rise further; to support the unemployed and underemployed who are in financial distress to tide over the difficulties, this Council urges the Government to actively consider implementing the following measures:

(1) establishing an unemployment assistance to help alleviate the financial pressure of the unemployed;

(2) establishing a support fund for occupation switching to assist the eligible unemployed in switching to other trades, becoming self-employed or starting their own businesses;

(3) enhancing the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme by waiving for the unemployed who are living with family members the requirement that applications must be made on a household basis, so that they may apply on their own, and at the same time further relaxing the asset limits, thereby lowering the application threshold;

(2)(4) enhancing the existing Working Family Allowance Scheme and establishing an 'underemployment allowance' to provide direct support for low-income working families;

(3)(5) creating more temporary posts, including providing more internship programmes exclusively for young people and fresh graduates; LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4353

(6) expediting the promotion of different government projects and further increasing the number of related civil service posts (including professional posts), and extending the 'First-Hire-Then-Train' Scheme of the Employees Retraining Board to more industries and job types, so as to increase employment opportunities;

(7) establishing a youth professional development fund to provide employers with salary subsidies for employees, so as to encourage employers to hire young people who are going to acquire professional qualifications by examination;

(4)(8) after reviewing the two previous tranches of ESS and plugging its loopholes, launching expeditiously the third tranche of ESS so as to subsidize enterprises with genuine difficulties to retain jobs;

(5)(9) implementing as soon as possible the mutual recognition system for health codes of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao to resume economic and personnel interactions among the three places on the premise of fulfilling infection control requirements, thereby boosting the Hong Kong economy to create employment opportunities; and

(6)(10)exploring the development of a half-time 'job-sharing' culture to increase job supply in the labour market; and

(11) strengthening the support for local residents (especially professional service personnel) in employment and entrepreneurship in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, so as to expand the room for development of the unemployed and underemployed.

Note: Dr Priscilla LEUNG's amendment is marked in bold and italic type or with deletion line.

4354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

Annex 3

The marked-up version of the amendment moved by Mr LUK Chung-hung (Translation)

That, the unemployment rate in Hong Kong had all along remained at a low level of below 4% from 2011 to 2019, but due to the blow of the riots and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, coupled with the impacts from the uncertainties in overseas markets, the Hong Kong economy has suffered a continued decline with the unemployment rate hitting a record high time and again, reaching 6.4% which is a new high in 16 years; apart from about 260 000 people being unemployed, there are about 150 000 people being underemployed, and the six-month Employment Support Scheme ('ESS') ended in late November 2020, it is therefore generally expected in society that the waves of closures of enterprises will continue, and the unemployment and underemployment rates will also rise further; to support the unemployed and underemployed who are in financial distress to tide over the difficulties, this Council urges the Government to actively consider implementing the following measures:

(1) establishing an unemployment assistance to help alleviate the financial pressure of the unemployed;

(2) establishing a support fund for occupation switching to assist the eligible unemployed in switching to other trades, becoming self-employed or starting their own businesses;

(3) enhancing the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme by waiving for the unemployed who are living with family members the requirement that applications must be made on a household basis, so that they may apply on their own, and at the same time further relaxing the asset limits, thereby lowering the application threshold;

(4) enhancing the existing Working Family Allowance Scheme and establishing an 'underemployment allowance' to provide direct support for low-income working families;

(5) creating more temporary posts, including providing more internship programmes exclusively for young people and fresh graduates;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021 4355

(6) expediting the promotion of different government projects and further increasing the number of related civil service posts (including professional posts), and extending the 'First-Hire-Then-Train' Scheme of the Employees Retraining Board to more industries and job types, so as to increase employment opportunities;

(7) establishing a youth professional development fund to provide employers with salary subsidies for employees, so as to encourage employers to hire young people who are going to acquire professional qualifications by examination;

(8) after reviewing the two previous tranches of ESS and plugging its loopholes, launching expeditiously the third tranche of ESS so as to subsidize enterprises with genuine difficulties to retain jobs;

(9) implementing as soon as possible the mutual recognition system for health codes of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao to resume economic and personnel interactions among the three places on the premise of fulfilling infection control requirements, thereby boosting the Hong Kong economy to create employment opportunities;

(10) exploring the development of a half-time 'job-sharing' culture to increase job supply in the labour market; and

(11) strengthening the support for local residents (especially professional service personnel) in employment and entrepreneurship in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, so as to expand the room for development of the unemployed and underemployed;

(12) introducing immediately a cash allowance for unemployment and suspension of work, subject to a ceiling of $9,000 for a six-month payment period, and establishing an unemployment assistance scheme in the long run;

(13) lowering the Working Family Allowance ('WFA') Scheme's monthly working hour requirements, including adjusting the requirement to 72 hours or more for Higher Allowance, 54 to less than 72 hours for Medium Allowance, and 36 to less than 54 hours for Basic Allowance, so that more underemployed households will be eligible for WFA; 4356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 March 2021

(14) lowering the application threshold for the unemployment support scheme under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, including extending the grace period for owner-occupied residential properties in the asset test and exempting the cash value of insurance policies;

(15) adopting a welfare-to-work approach to create more employment opportunities for hiring the unemployed, including having the Government take the lead to increase the number of short-term posts, and providing more internship programmes exclusively for low-skilled workers; and encouraging public and private organizations to recruit additional staff;

(16) reviewing the provisions on continuous contract under the Employment Ordinance to strengthen protection for the rights and benefits of part-time employees and casual workers;

(17) substantially increasing the number of various types of vocational training courses and the number of places and amount of subsidies, such as raising the maximum amount of allowance under the existing Love Upgrading Special Scheme to HK$9,000; and actively conducting job matching to help the underemployed and unemployed to upgrade their skills, so that they can switch to other trades when necessary; and

(18) on the premise of perfecting various schemes for supporting low-income families, creating more jobs in their communities with flexible working hours, whereby women and carers can work to help their families make ends meet, and at the same time exploring the impact of the development of a half-time 'job-sharing' culture on the employment market and the livelihood of employees, so that more targeted support measures for the unemployed and underemployed can be formulated in the future.

Note: Mr LUK Chung-hung's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.