LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7197
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 27 May 2020
The Council met at Eleven o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P.
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE 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 PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S., J.P.
7198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7199
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, S.B.S., J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN
THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK
THE HONOURABLE JIMMY NG WING-KA, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE JUNIUS HO KWAN-YIU, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING
THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING
THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING
THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN
THE HONOURABLE WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN, J.P.
7200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG
THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI
THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG WING-SHUN, M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN
MEMBERS ABSENT:
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7201
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE
THE HONOURABLE JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, S.B.S., P.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
THE HONOURABLE FRANK CHAN FAN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING
THE HONOURABLE ERICK TSANG KWOK-WAI, I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS
MR ANDY CHAN SHUI-FU, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
7202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber)
LAYING OF PAPERS ON THE TABLE OF THE COUNCIL
The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:
Subsidiary Legislation Legal Notice No.
Arbitration (Parties to New York Convention) (Amendment) Order 2020 ...... 83 of 2020
Inland Revenue (Double Taxation Relief with respect to Taxes on Income and Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidance) (Macao Special Administrative Region) Order ...... 84 of 2020
Air Pollution Control (Air Pollutant Emission) (Controlled Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulation 2020 ...... 85 of 2020
Property Management Services Ordinance (Commencement) Notice 2020 ...... 86 of 2020
Property Management Services (Licensing and Related Matters) Regulation ...... 87 of 2020
Pleasure Grounds (Amendment) Regulation 2020 ...... 88 of 2020
Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2020 ...... 89 of 2020
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7203
Intercountry Adoption (Contracting States) (Amendment) Order 2020 ...... 90 of 2020
Control of Chemicals Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 2) Order 2020 ...... 91 of 2020
Antiquities and Monuments (Declaration of Monuments and Historical Buildings) (Consolidation) (Amendment) Notice 2020 ...... 92 of 2020
Employees Retraining Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 2) Notice 2020 ...... 93 of 2020
Other Papers
The Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 73 of February 2020
Report No. 1/19-20 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments
Report of the Bills Committee on National Anthem Bill
Report of the Bills Committee on Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill 2019
Report of the Bills Committee on Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation (Amendment) Bill 2018
Report of the Bills Committee on Fire Safety (Industrial Buildings) Bill
Report of the Bills Committee on Discrimination Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018
Report of the Bills Committee on Occupational Retirement Schemes (Amendment) Bill 2019
7204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
ADDRESS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Address. The Chief Secretary for Administration will address the Council on "The Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 73".
The Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 73 of February 2020
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): President, I lay on the table at this Council today the Government Minute responding to the Public Accounts Committee ("PAC") …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary, please put on your microphone.
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): President, sorry about that. President, I lay on the table at this Council today the Government Minute responding to Report No. 73 of PAC which was presented to the Legislative Council on 26 February this year.
I welcome the PAC Report and am grateful for the time and efforts devoted by the Chairman Mr Abraham SHEK and members of PAC. The Government accepts PAC's various recommendations and sets out in detail the specific responses of the relevant bureaux and departments in the Government Minute. PAC has conducted public hearings on the Chapters of "Planning, provision and management of public toilets by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department" and "Provision of consultancy, research and development and training services by the Hong Kong Productivity Council" in Report No. 73. I would like to highlight the key measures taken and progress made by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") and the Hong Kong Productivity Council ("HKPC") in response to the recommendations.
Provision of clean and hygienic public toilets is an important public service. FEHD has taken the initiative to gradually upgrade public toilets under its management in recent years. These measures include implementing the Enhanced Public Toilet Refurbishment Programme to which over $600 million has been allocated, and expediting refurbishment works. FEHD will also LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7205 continue to make use of technology and step up collaboration with relevant departments to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of public toilet management and maintenance.
Specifically, FEHD completed in February 2020 a data-collection exercise on the utilization rate of its public toilets. FEHD would plan and manage public toilets on the basis of the data collected, including reviewing the mode of cleaning services for individual toilets, the frequency of cleaning services, the male-to-female compartment ratio, and the timing for refurbishment. In addition, FEHD has put on trial a visitor feedback system in November 2019 for users to provide feedback on their level of satisfaction on the overall cleanliness and maintenance of the toilet facilities. We agree that views of the public have positive value on the enhancement of public service. FEHD will consider extending an enhanced version of the system to other public toilets as appropriate, taking into account the cost-effectiveness and results of the trial. FEHD aims to come up with a specific plan in 2020 (i.e. this year) to further collect views from the public.
The Innovation and Technology Commission ("ITC") and HKPC accept the findings and recommendations made by the Audit Commission and PAC on HKPC's provision of consultancy, research and development and training services. ITC and HKPC have immediately taken appropriate follow-up actions to implement the recommendations.
To more effectively measure and monitor HKPC's performance in various aspects, including the provision of consultancy and manufacturing support services, ITC and HKPC have completed a comprehensive review on HKPC's key performance indicators ("KPIs"), and have formulated 19 new KPIs for implementation starting from 2020-2021. Separately, ITC and HKPC have completed a review on the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangements on the Administration of the Subvention for the Hong Kong Productivity Council ("MAA"), and have agreed to specify in the revised MAA that prior agreement of the Council and the Commissioner for Innovation and Technology has to be obtained by HKPC for any proposed change of a certain KPI or its definition or target.
HKPC has also taken follow-up actions on its inability to achieve full cost recovery for some consultancy projects. HKPC has strengthened its project management and will closely monitor the costs of consultancy projects. Separately, ITC has reviewed whether the full cost recovery principle should be 7206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 applicable to all HKPC's activities, taking into account HKPC's public mission. ITC considers that for HKPC to better serve the community, it could deviate from the principle when it is engaged for Government consultancy projects involving public interests, provided that specified conditions are met. In this regard, HKPC has formulated guiding principles when accepting such Government projects. Meanwhile, HKPC has implemented various improvement measures on its contract management, such as strengthening its review on the risk assessment of consultancy projects, as well as strengthening the protection of HKPC's interests by setting out clearer terms in its consultancy project proposal and contractual agreements.
HKPC is planning to conduct a review on its mode of operation, future business direction and mode of subvention. The Innovation and Technology Bureau and ITC will participate in the review and provide views, while maintaining communication with HKPC and continuing to offer views on HKPC's development strategies to ensure that HKPC's work is in line with its mission and functions and supports government policies.
President, I would like to thank the Chairman and members of PAC again for their efforts and guidance. The concerned bureaux and departments will strictly adhere to its responses in the Government Minute to implement improvement measures as soon as possible.
Thank you, President.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. First question. Mr HO Kai-ming has informed me in advance that Mr LUK Chung-hung will ask the question on his behalf. I now call upon Mr LUK Chung-hung to raise the question.
Assistance provided for the unemployed
1. MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, quite a number of people have become unemployed due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic. In view of this, the Government has implemented, under the existing Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme ("CSSA"), a "Special Scheme LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7207 of Assistance to the Unemployed" with relaxed asset limits, which is applicable for the six-month period from 1 June to 30 November this year. Recently, I have received quite a number of requests for assistance from unemployed persons applying for CSSA. They have relayed that the relevant application procedure is cumbersome and the eligibility criteria are stringent, and some officers of the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") made things difficult for them, displayed poor attitude, and even persuaded them to give up their applications. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of CSSA applications received from the unemployed by SWD in each of the past 12 months and, among such applications, the number of those in which the applicants did not comply with the original asset limits but would have complied with the relaxed asset limits;
(2) of the procedure for SWD to vet and approve CSSA applications from the unemployed, as well as the number of such applications and when the vetting and approval of all such applications will be completed, as envisaged by it; whether it will consider expediting the vetting and approval procedure so that the unemployed may obtain the assistance as early as possible; and
(3) of the current staffing establishment of SWD for processing CSSA applications; whether SWD will, in the light of the aforesaid view, review the workload of the relevant officers and consider increasing the manpower, so as to improve the services and raise the efficiency of vetting and approval of CSSA applications from the unemployed; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") Scheme provides a safety net to help persons and families who cannot support themselves financially to meet their basic needs. The Scheme is non-contributory, but applicants have to pass a means test to ensure public resources are used on those who are genuinely in need.
Having considered the unprecedented challenges posed by the coronavirus disease 2019 ("COVID-19") in Hong Kong, the Chief Executive announced on 8 April 2020 the second round of anti-epidemic measures including the provision 7208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 of a time-limited unemployment support scheme through the CSSA system, with a view to providing timely and basic assistance to the unemployed during this difficult time. The Finance Committee ("FC") of the Legislative Council approved the related funding on 18 April. The Social Welfare Department ("SWD") will temporarily relax the CSSA asset limits for able-bodied persons (including able-bodied adult singletons and able-bodied adults and children under family cases) by 100% for six months. The relevant scheme will be effective from 1 June to 30 November (i.e. the asset limits will revert to the normal level on 1 December). Separately, under the existing CSSA arrangement, the value of an owner-occupied residential property of households with able-bodied persons will be disregarded for a grace period of the first 12 months. This arrangement will also apply to applicants under the six-month unemployment support scheme.
The 2019 Policy Address has also announced a series of measures to improve CSSA. These measures include increasing the maximum rent allowance significantly, raising the maximum level of disregarded earnings substantially from $2,500 to $4,000 per month, strengthening the employment services, and extending a range of supplement and special grants to eligible non-elderly able-bodied recipients, etc. The relevant proposal has already been submitted to FC for approval, following which the Government will implement the measures as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the Government adjusts CSSA payment rates according to the price index movements every year to maintain the purchasing power of the payments. During the period between 2011 and 2019, the CSSA payments registered a cumulative increase of about 40%. The Government has submitted a proposal to FC this year to increase the CSSA payments by 3.6% from 1 February 2020. Upon FC's approval, the relevant increase will take retrospective effect from 1 February.
Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in the community, the Government has implemented a series of disease control measures in view of the development of the pandemic. These measures include special work arrangement for civil servants and various arrangements to minimize social contact, etc. In this connection, the Social Security Field Units ("SSFUs") of SWD has put in place restrictive measures on public services involving face-to-face contact since early February 2020 to reduce the risk of community infection. Nevertheless, SWD has been implementing special measures, such as facilitating applicants to make use of the application drop boxes outside SSFUs, or to provide application information by post and email, etc. to ensure timely processing of applications for CSSA and timely disbursement of the relevant payments to eligible applicants and existing recipients. SSFUs have also continued to arrange meetings with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7209 individual applicants as necessary in order to actively process their applications without delay. In view of the Government's announcement on the gradual resumption of public services made on 28 April, all SSFUs of SWD have resumed opening to the public starting from 4 May.
SWD will keep in close view the development of the pandemic and adjust its arrangements as appropriate. I must also stress that SWD is committed to serve those in need and provide various social welfare services for them. The Government believes that most of the unemployed CSSA recipients are only in need of temporary assistance to tide over the difficulties. During this difficult time, the society should lend a helping hand to those in financial needs by providing them basic assistance.
My reply to the Member's question is set out below:
(1) The number of CSSA applications under the unemployment category received by SWD in the past year (i.e. from May 2019 to April 2020) is set out in Annex. The six-month unemployment support scheme will be effective from 1 June to 30 November 2020.
(2) Generally, if CSSA applicants or their guardians/appointees provide all the necessary information, the application procedures can be completed in four weeks. During the period when SSFUs shortened their opening hours in response to the pandemic, SWD has continued to process CSSA applications in a timely manner with the aforementioned special measures.
(3) At present, SWD has more than 1 300 social security grade officers working in various SSFUs in the territory. They are responsible for processing and approving applications and cases of CSSA and Social Security Allowance (including Old Age Allowance, Old Age Living Allowance and Disability Allowance). To cope with the recent and anticipated increase in workload related to the CSSA Scheme, SWD has adopted a two-pronged approach to step up the manpower of SSFUs starting from May 2020. SWD has assigned additional staff to share the workload through temporary internal redeployment, and engaged over 70 experienced retired social security grade officers under the Post-retirement Service Contract Scheme to assist in processing and vetting CSSA applications.
7210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Annex
Number of CSSA applications under the unemployment category in the past year
Number of applications under the unemployment category 2019 May 503 June 445 July 506 August 561 September 613 October 664 November 611 December 633 2020 January 479 February 724 March 1 821 April 3 957
MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has, as always, displayed instrumental rationality, reflecting his ignorance of real life. To put it simply, he is out of touch with reality.
Given an increase in CSSA applications by seven times to almost 4 000 applications in April, how can SWD complete the vetting and approval of all these applications in four weeks simply by engaging dozens of retired officers? The picture portrayed by the Secretary in his reply is very much different from the actual situation that we have learnt. Moreover, the unemployment rate is as high as 5.2%. Even the 5 000 quotas for financial aid offered under the emergency fund for the unemployed set up earlier by The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") have been exhausted in half a day. This is an indication of how serious the unemployment problem is.
In view of this, we have suggested to the Government the setting up of an emergency unemployment assistance as it is the best way to address the unemployment problem. However, the Government has stubbornly refused our LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7211 suggestion but only agreed to relax the CSSA Scheme slightly. Secretary, can you please relax one more eligibility criterion? Our suggestion is that, during this critical period, CSSA applicants should be allowed to be means tested on an individual basis. The rationale is that family members living under the same roof may not necessarily share their money and the two generations are often in conflict. So they may live on their own income. If one member of a family loses his job while another member of the family remains employed, the unemployed one may not be eligible for CSSA if he is means tested on a household basis, and he will then be unable to maintain his living. Can SWD exercise its discretion during this period to allow those unemployed to apply for CSSA on an individual basis?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): As we all know, according to the recent figures, the unemployment rate rose to 5.2% in the past three months. Having regard to various analyses and the economic situation across the globe, we expect the unemployment problem to persist for a considerable period. So, there is no such thing as short-term measure in the present situation. Any initiative, once taken, may go on for years to become a long-term measure. Therefore, when Members' suggestions have implications on the existing systems, the authorities can hardly see them as short-term measures.
As for the argument that CSSA applicants should not be required to apply on a household basis, if we allow this change of eligibility criteria, it would mean that we no longer recognize the importance of mutual support among family members under the welfare system. I think this proposed change warrants a serious discussion and a study of its impacts on society as a whole.
MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, according to the Annex to the Secretary's main reply, the monthly average number of CSSA applications increased from about 500 last year to more than 1 800 in March and further to more than 3 900 in April this year. These figures show that the unemployment problem is getting worse. Even so, the Secretary has said that CSSA applications can still be vetted and approved in four weeks' time simply by hiring dozens of officers.
7212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
My question is: Will the frontline staff of SWD be overwhelmed by the significant increase in workload caused by the surge in CSSA applications? Is the four-week processing time for CSSA applications a service pledge endorsed by the Secretary? In case this pledge has resulted in overtime work or excessive workload for frontline staff, what would the authorities do to reduce their workload?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, the surge in CSSA applications is not the only reason for the increase in SWD's workload. Some of the initiatives which I mentioned in the main reply were supposed to take effect on 1 February, but they are still pending the approval of FC. So, we will later have to handle a lot of disbursements of the so-called "back pay", which means to pay back the increment in allowance effective from 1 February. The workload will then be very heavy. As such, we are considering reducing some routine work. For example, for CSSA cases due for review in the period between 29 January 2020 and 30 November 2020, arrangements will be made to automatically extend their eligibility period for 12 months in order to reduce the review workload. This will save a considerable amount of work.
Currently, we mainly replenish manpower by engaging retired colleagues because they are comparatively familiar with the job requirements. On the contrary, new recruits may not be of much help given the time required for training them and we may even have to deploy our existing staff to provide coaching for them. We will do our utmost to reduce staff workload in order to cope with this huge challenge.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): As shown in the data, the number of CSSA applications under the unemployment category surged in March and April this year, totalling over 5 000. Just now, the Secretary stated in the main reply that the CSSA asset limits would be relaxed starting from June. In this connection, my question for the Secretary is: If an unemployed CSSA applicant submitted his application in March or April, will he be subject to the asset limits relaxed in June or the original asset limits? As many applicants are believed to be in financial hardship, I urge the authorities to exercise discretion in handling the applications submitted before 1 June.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7213
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, given that the relaxation of assets limits will take effect on 1 June, only the applications handled on or after 1 June will be vetted and approved according to the relaxed criteria. However, for applications which are submitted in late May, as their approval procedure will be completed in June rather than by the end of this month, the applicants concerned will be subject to the new eligibility criteria.
MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, at present, the unemployment situation is so bad that the unemployment rate has hit 5.2%. SWD has thus increased its manpower considerably under the leadership of the Secretary, but is it possible that such additional manpower will be able to cope with the future workload? It seems unlikely to me. According to some experts―I am not referring to the Secretary―the unemployment rate will continue to rise. I certainly do not want to see the unemployment rate surpass that of 2003. However, if the unemployment rate continues to rise, the number of CSSA applicants may later exceed the figure of 3 900-odd recorded in April as announced by the Government. Although SWD has engaged over 70 experienced retired social security grade officers to assist in vetting CSSA applications, will they be able to cope with the future workload?
President, the Government is now so generous that it does not only relax the asset limits but also increase its manpower. However, it always refuses to consider the public call for unemployment assistance. When it increases its manpower, it is meant to give the unemployed a hand, right? Many kaifongs have told me that they lost their job in March and do not know when they can find another job; and if they get a job, they will not rely on the financial support of the Government. However, President, applications for unemployment CSSA will receive a means test on a household basis and take a month to be approved. How can the unemployed receive financial assistance timely?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, generally speaking, the vetting and approval process for CSSA applications is expected to be completed in four weeks' time. However, should any applicants have urgent financial needs during this period, SWD will provide assistance or make referral based on their needs. For instance, SWD will refer families who are unable to afford sufficient food to subvented food banks for assistance.
7214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): President, just now, the Secretary did not respond to the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong's suggestion of providing an unemployment assistance, which is the best way to give financial support, as many unemployed persons cannot benefit from the existing CSSA Scheme.
As pointed out by some Honourable colleagues earlier, the number of CSSA applications in April was so high that it almost reached 4 000, or is eight times of the past figure. On this point, I would like to first urge SWD to increase its manpower for vetting and approving CSSA applications. Second, following the relaxation of asset limits in early June, the number of CSSA applications will definitely go up. Will there be additional support from the authorities? Earlier on, the Government stated that it would provide 10 000 more quotas under the Love Upgrading Special Scheme. Will the authorities also consider enhancing the Support for Self-reliance Scheme to assist the newly unemployed to go back to the job market?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, it is always part of our integrated service to provide the unemployed CSSA recipients with employment support. Depending on our workload, we will study how to provide assistance. Moreover, SWD has recently enhanced collaboration with social service units, the Employees Retraining Board and the Labour Department on information and operation issues. Through enhanced collaboration, we hope to help the unemployed persons get a job as soon as possible.
MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, the Annex to the Secretary's main reply shows a significant increase in the number of CSSA applications from the unemployed. The epidemic has also lengthened the time needed for vetting and approval of CSSA applications. In the past few months, our Members' offices received many requests for assistance from the unemployed as they could not make ends meet while awaiting CSSA approval. We tried to help them apply for emergency assistance from charity organizations but all the quotas were full. The operation of food banks was also affected due to the epidemic.
My original question for the Secretary was how he would provide the unemployed with short-term assistance. However, I have just heard the Secretary say in reply to Mr LUK Chung-hung's supplementary question that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7215 there are long-term considerations in the provision of unemployment assistance, including how to promote the value of mutual support among family members. According to a recent government survey, both the unemployment and underemployment rates are on the rise. The employment survey conducted by FTU regularly also indicates that 70% of unemployed persons do not think they can get a new job in the next three months and, worse still, 34% of respondents do not have any income at all. In the view of the Secretary, is it unlikely that this situation will improve in the short run? If the answer is yes, can the authorities provide unemployment assistance by setting up an unemployment assistance scheme in addition to the interim measures currently in place? While I understand that there are long-term considerations involved, including the role of family as stated by the Secretary just now, I want to ask the Secretary: From the perspective of labour rights, is there a gap in the provision of unemployment assistance in Hong Kong right now? Is it necessary to kick-start a study of the long-term planning in this respect? If he thinks so, we may discuss the issues mentioned by him just now one by one. Can the Secretary please tell us: Against the backdrop of a surging unemployment rate and the worsening employment situation, in the long run, should Hong Kong fill up the gap in labour rights by formulating a long-term unemployment assistance scheme?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I do not think we can say that there is currently a gap in the provision of assistance to unemployed persons. On the issue of unemployment, severance payment and long service payment are available in Hong Kong to deal with severance cases and certain dismissal cases. Take severance payment for example, an employee who has been in employment for two years being dismissed on grounds of redundancy is eligible for severance payment which is set at two thirds of a month's wages. The basis for calculation of severance payment and long service payment adopted in Hong Kong is more or less on par or even more generous than those adopted by its overseas counterparts, such as the United Kingdom which has established an unemployment protection system. Therefore, we cannot say that there is a gap in the system of Hong Kong in this respect. Of course, if the entire system has to be revamped, we will have to consider and discuss the roles of the Government, employers and employees.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second question.
7216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Preventing the emergence of home-grown terrorism
2. MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, when making public in March this year the overall law and order situation of Hong Kong in 2019, the Police indicated that during the "anti-extradition amendment bill incidents", online publicity materials had already "turned into weapon-making handbooks or even guides to kill police", and the violent acts concerned also involved the use of petrol bombs, corrosive liquids, genuine firearms and bullets and explosives. "In order to express their dissatisfaction with society and the government, rioters chose to hurt the public and cause social panic, which exactly is the behaviour of home-grown terrorism." The Police have repeatedly pointed out that the community must vigilantly guard against the emergence of home-grown terrorism. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)
(1) whether it has assessed the risk of attacks by home-grown terrorists in Hong Kong at present; if so, of the assessment outcome;
(2) whether it has adjusted its counter-terrorism strategies in response to the changes in the aforesaid risk of attacks; if so, of the details; and
(3) of the measures in place to raise public vigilance against home-grown terrorism, e.g. educating youngsters with immature minds to say "No" clearly to violence, so as to prevent home-grown terrorism from taking root in Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, my consolidated reply to the three parts of Mr LIAO's question is as follows:
Because of the incident of anti-legislative amendment, a series of processions and public assemblies have been staged in Hong Kong and ended up in violence since June last year. There were even some 10 cases involving explosives and firearms, which were extremely alarming in both destructive LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7217 power and quantities. These cases are similar to overseas terrorist activities in terms of their modus operandi, showing signs of the breeding of local terrorism in Hong Kong.
First, the various types of explosives seized by the Police include TATP (triacetone triperoxide), ANFO (ammonium nitrate/fuel oil), HMTD (hexamethylene triperoxide diamine), DNT (dinitrotoluene) and black powder, which are very powerful explosives commonly used in overseas terrorist attacks. Examples are the bombing at a federal building in Oklahoma of the United States in 1995, the serial bombing of the underground and buses in London of the United Kingdom in 2005, the bombing at government buildings in Oslo of Norway in 2011, the serial bombing at an airport and a metro station in Brussels of Belgium in 2016, the serial bombing at churches and hotels in Sri Lanka in 2019, etc. These terrorist attacks took place in different corners of the world and led to severe casualties.
Second, the detonation methods intended to be used by the persons involved in these cases resemble those commonly used in attacks by different terrorists around the world. For example, the Police seized a bomb made of a pressure cooker and nails; the same kind of pressure cooker bomb was used by terrorists in the marathon bombing in Boston of the United States in 2013, which resulted in three deaths and 260 injuries. Besides, the Police seized detonating devices made of mobile phones; similar remote devices made of mobile phones were used in the serial bombing in New York and New Jersey of the United States in 2016, which resulted in 34 injuries. The Police also seized pipe bomb (which could be hurled like hand-grenades), and similar bomb was used in the bombing in New York subway station in 2017, which resulted in three severe injuries.
Third, the Police seized extremely toxic and highly flammable chemicals of alarming types and quantities, which include potassium nitrate, ammonium nitrate, sulphuric acid, sulphur, acetone, strong acids, ethanol, cyanide, zinc cyanide, etc. If these raw materials are used for launching attacks, they will cause severe injuries and deaths.
Besides explosives, the Police seized five genuine guns and a large quantity of bullets in their operations, including a semi-automatic rifle. The same kind of rifle was used in the mass shooting on a crowd of concertgoers in Las Vegas of the United States, which resulted in over 50 deaths and 500 injuries.
7218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
The Police are conducting full investigation into relevant cases, identifying sources of the items concerned and whether organized crimes were involved in the acts of committing the offences, and closely monitoring the risk regarding the threat of local terrorism. Currently, the terrorist threat level of Hong Kong is "moderate". The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") Government is keeping a close watch over the situation and enhancing the gathering of intelligence, and does not rule out the escalation of the terrorist threat level.
The HKSAR Government will combat terrorism with the most stringent laws. If sufficient evidence is found upon investigation, the Police and the Department of Justice will consider prosecution under the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance ("UNATMO"), and will also consider freezing the related property to cut off their funding sources and thereby prevent them from recruiting members. Regardless of whether UNATMO is used, cases of explosives and firearms per se are very serious offences and infringe the Crimes Ordinance, the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, etc. with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
To prevent and combat terrorist activities, the HKSAR Government set up the Inter-departmental Counter-terrorism Unit ("ICTU") in 2018, comprising members from six disciplinary forces, namely the Police, Immigration Department, Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED"), Correctional Services Department, Fire Services Department and Government Flying Service. The Government's counter-terrorism ("CT") strategy covers four areas, namely prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. The setup of ICTU provides an inter-departmental CT platform on top of the existing CT framework so that various departments can collaborate to take forward a series of initiatives, which include establishing a CT intelligence exchange mechanism and work platform for various departments to enhance integration and analysis of intelligence; conducting inter-departmental CT exercises and training to ensure preparedness at all times, as well as strengthening the cooperation and synergy among various departments.
In light of the numerous cases of explosives and firearms, the HKSAR Government has enhanced the internal CT preparedness. Departments and agencies concerned have devised relevant action plans to ensure immediate and effective responses in the event of terrorist attacks.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7219
Terrorist attacks pose harm to everyone in society, and CT is an issue concerning all members of society. Bombs are indiscriminate and will, once exploded, harm people around by killing, causing physical disabilities and destroying buildings. No one in the vicinity can escape from the explosion should it occur. Members of society should stay vigilant to guard against the breeding of local terrorism by, inter alia, heightening alertness, reporting to the Police under safe conditions, and cooperating with the Police in their law enforcement duties. The HKSAR Government will enhance CT awareness among members of the public through public education. Law enforcement agencies will also educate the public through exercises on the strategy of "Run, Hide and Report", i.e. running away from the scene as soon as possible or hiding at sheltered places, and reporting to the Police under safe conditions.
Regarding youngsters, the Government will continue to instill among them correct values through various youth programmes so that they can say no to violence. The Government will also emphasize the law-abiding awareness to help students understand that they need to take responsibility for their own behaviour, and that the consequence of having a criminal record for life will have a profound impact on their future, so that they can realize the importance of law compliance.
MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary mentioned in the main reply that "the HKSAR Government will combat terrorism with the most stringent laws". In fact, terrorism is a social cancer in anywhere of the world that causes people to turn pale upon hearing it. Every society will seek to eradicate it with the most serious attitude and the greatest efforts. The SAR Government has noticed an emerging sign of home-grown terrorism in Hong Kong, and vowed to eliminate it at its formative stage. Home-grown terrorism has evolved gradually from last year's disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments and "black violence" bearing the characteristics of a colour revolution. Yet, given that the SAR Government lacks the experience in handling complex and acute situation, the general public is concerned whether the authorities are adequately equipped to eradicate home-grown terrorism.
The Secretary said previously that, in order to more effectively cut off the funding sources of these terrorists, freeze their property and prevent them from recruiting members, the Government was considering to invoke UNATMO. May I ask what the progress is in this regard?
7220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we will act resolutely in combating terrorism. We are all aware of the damages that terrorism does to society, so it is absolutely necessary to cut off the funding sources of terrorists. We hope to achieve this by securing all the necessary information through investigation and gathering of intelligence, and by invoking the legal powers conferred under UNATMO. In fact, in the existing laws, apart from UNATMO, the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance gives law enforcement agencies the power to confiscate and freeze property, and the anti-drug trafficking legislation also gives law enforcement agencies the power to freeze the property of drug traffickers. Therefore, generally speaking, Hong Kong has different laws for different crimes, under which the authorities may apply to the court to freeze and confiscate the funds of criminals. If there is sufficient evidence, we will of course actively invoke such powers to prevent terrorist activities from taking root in Hong Kong.
Regarding the current targets of investigation, we will investigate whether they have any association with foreign countries. According to UNATMO, any person who has association with terrorists or terrorist organizations designated by the United Nations is a terrorist associate, and UNATMO will then apply. Therefore, in the investigation of terrorist activities, we will conduct in-depth discussions and studies on each and every possibility and resort to all legal means to pursue responsibilities.
MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in response to the main question of Mr Martin LIAO, the Secretary mentioned that the explosives and bullets currently seized were very powerful, and that such acts which would endanger Hong Kong people's lives might be related to some international terrorist activities.
Despite the seizure of so many powerful weapons in Hong Kong, a few people have not only refused to condemn these acts, but have even given support behind the scene. I would like to ask the Secretary if he will investigate along this line, particularly whether they have colluded with foreign forces or overseas terrorist organizations. Most importantly, where did those powerful weapons or explosives come from? Were they transported in bulk to Hong Kong and then distributed to the ignorant students, or were the explosives intended to be used in an organized manner to harm the people of Hong Kong? I hope the Secretary can explain in detail because members of the public are very worried about this. A vast majority of Hong Kong people have condemned these acts and are very worried about their wealth, life and property.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7221
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): First of all, any person who advocates violence and uses violence to create a sense of terror in society should be condemned because the provocation of violence has thrown society into chaos. If such violence involves terrorism, we should even hold these people socially and morally accountable in this regard, though we are unable to pursue their legal liability. According to the Police's preliminary findings, these acts only involve local people who instigate actions. That said, we will certainly investigate whether they are associated with certain foreign organizations. Furthermore, we will trace the source of the explosives and firearms in each case.
There are a lot of information online about the making of bombs, and just now Mr LIAO also mentioned that apart from the information on bomb-making being circulated on the Internet, there is also a lot of evil information on how to use violence and cause the greatest harm to people. In this connection, we will work hard to bring the people concerned to justice. However, information that teaches Hong Kong people or people with terrorist inclination around the world how to make explosives is easy to find on the Internet, and the raw materials required are likely to be available in local shops selling chemical materials. Therefore, in this connection, what we need to do is to work with different departments. Even for materials that can be purchased or used on a limited basis under normal circumstances, they may be used to make bombs if they fall into the hands of terrorists or law-breakers.
With regard to firearms, we have also imposed very stringent control. Of course, as Hong Kong is a free port, we enforce stringent checks on all items that are carried by people or transported via mass transit to Hong Kong. In this regard, C&ED takes on a strict gatekeeper role and makes use of advanced technologies, including X-ray detectors or infrared devices used for inspecting contents of sealed items, to detect the presence of explosives or firearms.
Of course, we have noticed that criminals may transport component parts of firearms in bulk to Hong Kong. In this connection, C&ED will carry out stringent inspections on all suspicious goods that are prone to such risks. We have also noted that through the use of intelligence and risk assessment, C&ED has detected different types of cases under different circumstances, including drug trafficking and smuggling cases, and some of them even involve firearms.
7222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
After obtaining the relevant intelligence, as I told Members just now, ICTU will conduct exchanges and analysis on the situation before taking stringent actions.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I would like to remind Members to try their best to put their questions concisely because there are 17 Members waiting in the queue to ask questions.
(Mr Jeffrey LAM indicated that his supplementary question has not been answered)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeffrey LAM, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): Just now I asked where the bullets and firearms came from, but the Secretary has not answered me.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): As I have pointed out just now, inspections will be carried out when goods are imported so as to plug all possible channels as far as possible. However, in a recent case, the Police discovered a local bullet making factory which used imported or converted machines to try to make their own bullets in Hong Kong. Therefore, we will keep an eye on all the channels. As for the gathering of intelligence, efforts will be made by each and every department.
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, terrorist attack is no longer homogeneous, but is changing all the time. Sometimes it is like guerrilla warfare, which can be waged in both the urban areas and in the jungles. Nowadays, terrorist organizations continually evolve their tactics, creating disruption everywhere.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7223
The situation in Hong Kong will also change after the Central Authorities enact the national security law in Hong Kong. As mentioned earlier, in the past, there may have been large-scale storming and people engaging in acts of vigilantism. Today, the Police have detected a few cases of hurling of petrol bombs or laying of caltrops on the roads.
The situation facing the SAR Government has now changed because the real culprit behind the scene has adopted a different tactic. The law-breakers now are teenagers aged 15 or 16. The reason behind it is that the real culprit behind the scene can control the minds of these people. In fact, these little lost lambs are the victims. May I ask what tactics the SAR Government will use to arrest the real culprit behind the scene who has kept his hands clean? As this requires a system for gathering intelligence, does the SAR Government have sufficient resources? Does it have sufficient talents as well?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, this is definitely the direction of police investigations of terrorist activities or serious acts of violence, because we do see a large number of young people taking part in cases of violence. Today, the Police have arrested more than 10 people in various places and most of them are young people in their teens. The offences include possession of offensive weapons, possession of instrument fit for unlawful purposes and some other offences involving public order.
Although young people are, to a certain extent, influenced to commit unlawful acts of violence and are therefore victims themselves, they must understand that everyone should be responsible for their actions. As such, the community at large, including the SAR Government, the education sector, members of the public and even social workers, should teach young people to abide by the law and assume their own legal responsibilities. As I have just said, a criminal record lasts a lifetime.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
7224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Just now I asked the Secretary specifically if there were sufficient talents, resources and strategies. On the other hand, the terrorist attacks I mentioned earlier …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, you have already pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered.
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): … including throwing of caltrops and petrol bombs in the streets will indiscriminately affect everyone. If a petrol bomb explodes, the consequence will not be the same as in the case of the "21 July" incident as described by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, but will be truly indiscriminate.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, you have already pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. Please stop speaking. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, with regard to strategies, I believe the four areas I just mentioned are sufficiently covered. However, there is always pressure on manpower as the numbers of crimes and criminals that we are facing are substantial and scattered across different districts.
Despite the enormous pressure on the Police's manpower, I am very grateful that the Police have all along been doing their best and we can see that they are capable of controlling the current situation that needs to be dealt with. On the aspect of resources, I will continue to work hard. As for manpower pressure, I hope that the request for additional resources in this area, which will be submitted in due course, will have the support and consent of the Legislative Council.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Sixteen Members are still waiting for their turn to ask questions, but the time limit for this oral question is up. Will Members please follow it up on other occasions.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third question.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7225
Issues related to news coverage work
3. MS ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it has been reported that some people wearing press cards or reflective press vests committed improper or illegal acts (e.g. insulting police officers with coarse and sexual harassment languages during live broadcasts, obstructing police officers in law enforcement, and even attempting to rescue persons who were being arrested) at the scenes of public events. Moreover, a junior secondary school student aged only 12 covered news in the capacity of a student journalist for an online media at the scene of an unforeseen incident. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it will enact legislation to regulate online media by expressly specifying the qualifications and minimum ages required for, and the professional conduct to be observed by, their editors and reporters, and set up a monitoring body to monitor the operation of online media;
(2) given that press cards are currently issued by various media organizations or associations on their own, making it difficult for law enforcement officers to ascertain the identity of the cardholder as a journalist, whether the Government will comprehensively review the existing system for issuing press cards (including whether there is a need to designate an authorized organization to issue such cards, the criteria for issuance and the mechanism to prevent abuse), and consider afresh setting up an official organization to centralize the issuance of press cards; and
(3) whether it will draw up a code of practice and guidelines on news covering to specify that at the scenes of crimes and large-scale public events, journalists are not allowed to cross the cordon lines set up by the Police, and they should cover news in the press areas set up by the Police, etc.?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, after consulting the Security Bureau, the Home Affairs Bureau and the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, our consolidated reply to Ms Elizabeth QUAT's question is as follows:
7226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
(1) and (2)
Freedom of the press, as expressly guaranteed under Article 27 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") of the People's Republic of China, is a core value of Hong Kong. Under existing legislations, the operation of different media in Hong Kong is subject to some forms of regulation. For example, television and sound broadcasters are subject to licensing under the Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap. 562) and the Telecommunications Ordinance (Cap. 106) respectively. Printed media, be they newspapers or magazines, are required to be registered under the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance (Cap. 268). Besides, they are also subject to the general law such as in respect of publication of obscene or indecent articles, copyright protection, defamation, etc. The HKSAR Government is committed to maintaining a facilitative environment in which the media industry can develop under appropriate regulation, allowing reporters to cover and report news, and fully enabling it to exert its function as the fourth estate. To facilitate media reporting work, the Government currently does not have any plan to conduct central registration of journalists and does not intend to regulate and vet media practitioners' qualifications for reporting. However, as major providers of news and information for the community, media organizations should act responsibly and observe the law in the dissemination of news, irrespective of whether it is through the electronic mode or printed platform.
(3) The HKSAR Government respects the work of reporting by media practitioners, and believes that professional and bona fide journalists would not participate in illegal acts or intentionally obstruct police enforcement while covering events. The Police have a duty to safeguard public safety and public order. This duty is a statutory one which the Police must discharge. During operations and where circumstances permit, the Police will endeavour to facilitate the work of the media on the basis of mutual understanding and respect so that both sides can perform their respective functions. Indeed every possible effort has been made for reporters' convenience provided that police operations will not be affected. The Police LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7227
have also kept reminding reporters that they should pay attention to police instructions and maintain appropriate distance from the police officers to ensure the safety of both sides.
To enhance communication and explore how to foster the mutual understanding and respect between policing and reporting work, the Commissioner of Police met with representatives of four media associations (Hong Kong Journalists Association, Hong Kong Press Photographers Association, Hong Kong News Executives' Association and Hong Kong Federation of Journalists) on 21 May. Concerns of both sides were discussed, including the recent observations about difficulty for law enforcement officers to ascertain the identity of journalists in respect of persons carrying press cards.
Among the 52 recommendations made by the Independent Police Complaints Council ("IPCC") in its thematic study released on 15 May, two of them cover relevant matters, i.e. (1) to review how to facilitate the work of reporters in major operations without causing undue hindrance to the Police's enforcement actions; and (2) to review the need for engaging media representatives to draw up a Code of Practice allowing the Police and media to fulfil their respective duties and for ensuring the safety of all concerned. The Security Bureau has already set up a task force to follow up with the IPCC's recommendation. The Secretary for Security will personally supervise the task force.
MS ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I believe many members of the public will find this kind of ostrich-like and Buddhist-style reply of the Government very unsatisfactory and unacceptable. At present, there obviously are problems with online media, why does the Government pretend not to notice them and fail to take any regulatory action? Television and sound broadcasters, newspapers and magazines in Hong Kong are currently subject to regulation, but online media are subject to no regulation at all. Thus, I hope that the Government will carefully consider how to respond to the demands of Hong Kong people.
7228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Besides, the problems about journalists are very serious. Currently, journalists would outnumber police officers or rioters at the scenes of riots; and it would be difficult to ascertain the identities of many journalists who would obstruct the Police in law enforcement. In many countries and cities in Europe and the United States, there are established registration systems for journalists. In the United Kingdom, the UK Press Card Authority is the authority for issuing press cards. The UK Press Card Authority, which is composed of 19 authoritative media organizations, is responsible for oversight. It clearly stipulates the qualifications required of journalists and the definition of journalists. Full-time or part-time journalists must earn most or all of their incomes on the news business. They must provide documents to prove their identities (including proof of residential address), and must submit samples of their published journalistic work, etc. from time to time. In fact, journalists are subject to requirements and regulatory supervision all over the world. Why do we not draw reference from Europe and the United States, e.g. the system in the United Kingdom, to improve the management of journalists in Hong Kong, so as to maintain their standard and protect the safety of bona fide journalists at the scene of news reporting?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Director of Bureau will answer this supplementary question? Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, please reply.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I would reiterate here that freedom of the press has all along been a much treasured core value in Hong Kong and it has been the policy direction of the Government to enable journalists to freely cover and report news with a minimum level of regulation. We hope that we can enable journalists to exert their function as the fourth estate in monitoring all aspects of the society and the Government.
Certainly, we also understand that a balance has to be struck. If there is excessive regulation, news coverage or freedom of the press may be restricted to a certain extent, which is something we would not like to see. Thus, after balancing various considerations, the Government still hopes that it can avoid interfering with freedom of the press as far as possible, so as to enable journalists to exercise their monitoring function so that the public can access information as much as possible. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7229
I have responded to the suggestion of centralizing the registration for journalists in the main reply and I shall not repeat it.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Elizabeth QUAT, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered? Please point it out specifically.
MS ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Has the practice of issuing press cards in the United States and the United Kingdom affected freedom of the press in these countries? The answer is in the negative. I asked the Secretary whether online media should be regulated, but he did not answer my question in the main reply.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms QUAT, you have clearly pointed out the part of your supplementary question which has not been answered. Which Director of Bureau will answer it? Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, please reply.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I think the situation in each place may vary. In Hong Kong, we have balanced various factors, including freedom of the press. Under the premise of enabling journalists to cover news in a facilitative environment as far as possible, we hope that regulation can be as non-restrictive as possible. Furthermore, it is not true that the Government has imposed no regulation at all. Under the existing legislation, journalists still have to comply with the relevant statutory provisions while covering news.
MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, journalists engaging in news reporting are worthy of respect and journalists are a profession, but the media have undergone changes and become completely different from what they were in the past. Some online media often spread rumours on certain issues, reverse black and white and even incite people to commit certain acts, etc., and their actions are outrageous. Will the Government enact legislation to regulate online media by expressly specifying the 7230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 qualifications and minimum ages required for (e.g. considering that a 13-year-old youngster has claimed to be a journalist), and the professional conduct to be observed by, their editors and reporters, as suggested by Ms QUAT; and will the Government set up a monitoring body to take action against online media which have acted unlawfully?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Director of Bureau will answer this supplementary question? Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, please reply.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as I mentioned in the main reply, it is not true that there is no regulation at all at present. The Government has established licensing systems and registration arrangements for regulating the media, and media organizations have to observe the law in general, including the situation mentioned by me that if a media organization is involved in publication of obscene or indecent articles, infringement of copyright protection, defamation, etc., it will still be sanctioned by law. Thus, if the media are involved in such unlawful acts, I believe the situations are already covered by the existing legislation. Perhaps I would ask the Secretary for Security to supplement my answer.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security, please give a supplementary reply.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the reply just now has made it clear that the media and police officers have different functions to perform. The Government's stance is to identify an approach satisfactory to both sides under the principles of mutual respect and allowing both sides to perform their functions.
In the past, there were indeed cases of passing off fish eyes for pearls. The Police seized some fake press cards and found out that such cards were available for sale at some shops. The media organizations involved with the alleged registration indicated that they never issued such press cards. There was LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7231 a YouTuber from overseas who clearly admitted that he was not a journalist, but had easily obtained a yellow vest and claimed to be a journalist to cover news so that he could experience the violent situation in Hong Kong. Besides, some people joined crowds of journalists in order to harm police officers; and some people in yellow vests prevented victims at the scene from leaving or protecting themselves from attacks. In some TV footage, I saw people in yellow vests rescuing persons who were being arrested. I understand that while professional bona fide journalists have to cover and report news, police officers have to enforce the law. In striking a balance between the two, I believe neither side should unilaterally decide on what the other side should do. Instead, I think both sides should consider how to deal with this problem so that professional bona fide journalists can cover news safely without affecting the law enforcement actions of the Police. The Police have no need or intention to get into unpleasant situations with professional journalists as a result of their law enforcement actions.
As we mentioned earlier, the Commissioner of Police has met with the relevant associations and the report of IPCC has also seriously and clearly pointed out that there is a need to address the issue. Thus, the main reply says that I will follow up on the two recommendations made by IPCC in the task force under my supervision. I hope that by adopting a pragmatic approach of mutual respect, we can identify a solution which will facilitate both sides in fulfilling their respective duties.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the reply of the Secretary indicates that he clearly knows that there are many non-mainstream reporters and some people even impersonate reporters at the scenes of public events. According to the main reply, the Commissioner of Police has recently met with four media associations, namely, Hong Kong Journalists Association, Hong Kong Press Photographers Association, Hong Kong News Executives' Association and Hong Kong Federation of Journalists. As these four are official associations, it will be a feasible approach for the authorities to reach a consensus with them and draw up a code of practice in the future so that the two sides can provide assistance to one another. The problem is, reporters of online media, school reporters, or even child reporters at the scenes of public events sometimes outnumber police officers or even protesters, and that has really happened. On some occasions when police officers are enforcing the law, protesters suddenly hide behind reporters. Thus, when police officers use 7232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 pepper sprays against the protesters they are trying to arrest, reporters may be sprayed too. Consequently, the "Chief" of the Police Force apologized to the media associations earlier for the relatively rough actions taken by some police officers.
These things happened because the authorities have not imposed regulation. In many countries, e.g. the United Kingdom, press cards are centrally issued by the UK Press Card Authority which is the responsible authority; if any problems arise, people can discuss with the UK Press Card Authority. Are the four media associations mentioned earlier by the Secretary vested with the full authority for issuing press cards? No.
In fact, many mainstream media feel very aggrieved at present. When their workers were filming events, they were blocked by many reporters of unknown background. The media workers would not have the nerve to reproach those people, but they privately complained to me that they found it annoying. So, …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, please raise your supplementary question directly.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Will the Secretary seriously consider establishing a centralized department or organization responsible for issuing press cards?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Would Members please speak as concisely as possible because seven Members are still waiting for their turn to ask questions. Which Director of Bureau will answer this supplementary question? Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, please reply.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as I pointed out in the main reply, we hope that we can facilitate the media and journalists in covering and reporting news so as to exert their function as the fourth estate as far as possible. At present, we have no plans to centralize the registration of press cards.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7233
Indeed, the Secretary for Security has just said that apart from centralizing the issuance of press cards, another feasible approach is to reach a consensus with the media industry to specify the circumstances under which journalists are required to identify themselves as members of the press. This will facilitate the Police in enforcing the law and journalists in carrying out their work.
The meeting of the Commissioner of Police with the four media associations is only a first step. I believe later on, there will be communications with other relevant groups each year with a view to reaching a consensus, thereby facilitating the smooth conduct of the work of both sides and protecting the safety of all concerned. Would the Secretary for Security have anything to add?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security, please give a supplementary reply.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I think we can work with the media industry to identify an approach based on mutual understanding and mutual respect which is agreeable to both sides. The supplementary question of the Member clearly pointed out a fact, namely, we have to deal with the question of what is the definition of "journalists" at the scene. There are professional journalists at the scene who have been trained. As they must comply with the professional ethics of journalists, the Government has made special arrangements to enable them to do their work. However, if there are some 50 to 60, or even 500 to 600 "journalists", how should we deal with the situation? That is a practical problem. I believe we can find a way to better protect the professionalism of professional journalists. These are some of the positive ideas under consideration.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Seven Members are still waiting for their turn to ask questions, but owing to time constraints, this Council has to proceed with the next question.
(Mr Paul TSE indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
7234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, what is your point of order?
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): I would like to raise a small point of order or make a suggestion. As Members may notice, only three Members could ask questions on such an important question and all of them belong to the same political party. I am very dissatisfied with this kind of arrangement because not all Members can have a fair chance to ask questions. In dealing with this kind of important questions, I understand that more than one Director of Bureau will be present to assist in answering the questions, but if the Directors of Bureaux just take turns in giving very similar replies, some Members will not have the chance to ask their questions. Deputy President, in inviting Members to ask questions and Directors of Bureaux to answer them, could time be better managed?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I understand Mr Paul TSE's suggestion. In inviting Members to ask questions, I have made my decisions in strict accordance to the number of times a Member has asked questions in this legislative session, as well as the order in which Members have pressed the "Request to Speak" button. Since the subject of this oral question has aroused much concern from Members and the public, I have reminded Members and the Directors of Bureaux a number of times to be as concise as possible in asking and answering questions, and Members also clearly understand that they can follow the matter up on other occasions.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fourth question.
Retail prices of auto-fuels
4. MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, a report in 2010 pointed out that the land costs of petrol filling station ("PFS") sites in Hong Kong were double of those in Tokyo and nearly six times of those in London. Last year, a PFS site was granted at a land premium of $620 million which, when amortized over a 21-year lease term, amounted to as high as $80,000 per day or $316 per square foot per month. There are comments that high land cost is the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7235 main cause for the persistently high retail prices of auto-fuels ("pump prices"), and with Hong Kong's economy having been hard hit by the epidemic in recent months, reduction in pump prices can reduce the operating costs for commercial vehicles and the commuting costs of members of the public. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the criteria adopted by the authorities for determining the locations and the lease terms of PFSs; whether they have considered making available more PFS sites and shortening the lease terms so as to maintain flexibility in land uses and enhance competition in the fuel market; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) given that since April 2018, the Government has published the tender amounts of unsuccessful tender submissions on an anonymous basis after the completion of the transaction procedures in relation to the successful bid under the Land Sale Programme, whether such arrangement is applicable to PFS sites put up for sale by tender; if not, of the reasons for that; and
(3) given that in early years, the Government granted sites at nil land premium for setting up 12 dedicated auto-liquefied petroleum gas ("LPG") filling stations, with a cap placed on LPG retail prices at such filling stations which is set according to a prescribed pricing formula, whether the authorities will consider adopting such approach in granting PFS sites, with a view to reducing pump prices; if so, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Environment Bureau's consolidated reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:
In considering whether it is necessary to reserve land for petrol filling station ("PFS") in area development, the Government will make reference to the relevant pointers in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, as well as the development plan and traffic volume of that area. In selecting specific locations as PFS sites, factors such as land use compatibility, traffic, environmental and fire safety, etc. have to be taken into account.
7236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
As for the lease term of PFS sites, according to the decision of the Executive Council on 15 July 1997 on land leases and related matters, currently the lease term of land approved for sale by the Government for PFS use is 21 years.
The Competition Commission ("the Commission") published a Report on Study into Hong Kong's Auto-fuel Market in May 2017, which sets out recommendations to enhance competition in Hong Kong's auto-fuel market, including putting up more PFS sites. Given that the existing PFS sites can meet the current market demand for auto-fuel, and also in view of the land shortage in Hong Kong and the Government's policy to encourage the public to use public transport more and reduce reliance on private cars, we do not see a strong case for providing more land for PFS use at this stage.
Notwithstanding the above, in the light of the Commission's view that there are at present difficulties in converting privately-held land to PFS use, we have introduced facilitative measures to help the private sector convert privately-held land to PFS use, with a view to enhancing competition. In this connection, if the Environment Bureau receives a proposal to convert privately-held land to PFS use, we will provide one-stop service, which includes coordinating communications between the applicant and the relevant government departments, as well as the provision of technical advice by government departments to the applicant, during the process of planning permission/amendment of plan application (if applicable) and related land procedures. We believe that such an arrangement can save applicants' time in liaising with individual government departments, and help them respond to the views of the relevant departments more effectively.
In addition, where appropriate, the Environment Bureau plans to split some of the larger PFS sites into smaller ones, so as to increase the number of PFSs and promote competition. We are studying with relevant departments the feasibility of several PFS sites with potential for splitting, from the perspectives of traffic, fire safety, gas safety and the number of PFS in the vicinity, etc.
In terms of tendering arrangements, PFS sites are largely the same as Government land in general. Liquefied petroleum gas ("LPG") filling stations adopt a different approach because it is necessary to achieve the policy objective of converting diesel taxis and public light buses to auto-LPG ones as soon as possible in order to improve air quality. Therefore, a pricing formula and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7237
"zero-land-premium" are adopted to quickly set up an LPG filling network with a reasonable coverage, and to keep the price of auto-LPG at a competitive level. This special policy background and consideration does not apply to PFSs.
Hong Kong is small and densely populated. In urban areas where development is concentrated, roads are narrow and traffic is particularly heavy. The Government's policy is to encourage the public to use public transport more and reduce reliance on private cars. Although the Government does not use land premium for PFSs as a measure to control the growth of vehicles, if the price of auto-fuel products is substantially reduced owing to lower than market value or even zero land premium for PFSs at the expense of government revenue, this is in fact using taxpayers' money to subsidize private vehicle owners, and may also indirectly encourage more people to own vehicles and motorists to make more unnecessary trips. This may worsen the traffic congestion problem and undermine the effectiveness of measures to improve roadside air quality. Hence, any proposal to change the existing tendering arrangements must be carefully considered from various policy perspectives such as environment, traffic, tax and land use.
As for publishing the tender amounts of unsuccessful bidders on an anonymous basis after completion of the transaction procedures in relation to successful bid for land sale sites, it is currently applicable only to public tenders for residential, commercial and industrial sites.
Deputy President, Hong Kong being a free market economy, the retail prices of auto-fuels have all along been determined by the market itself. The role of the Government is to make its best effort to ensure a stable fuel supply, enhance the transparency of the prices of fuel products, and remove barriers to market entry, thereby promoting competition. We appreciate that the public is concerned about the auto-fuel market, and thank Mr Chan Han-pan for his suggestions. The Environment Bureau will study with relevant Policy Bureaux and departments to see if there is a need to further adjust existing policy measures.
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, after listening to the main reply of the Government, we believe that the Government is solely to blame for the problem of high land premium and the problem of high pump prices today. With international oil prices coming to a trough and even going negative, why 7238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 has the pump price in Hong Kong not gone down? This is because, as the Secretary has said earlier, if the Government grants PFS sites at a lower value at the expense of government revenue, this is in fact subsidizing vehicle owners. I consider this viewpoint very ridiculous.
As for public transport, more than 90% of the members of the public use public transport in Hong Kong. I would like to ask the Government what percentage of public transport patronage will be considered justifiable to allow members of the public to purchase vehicles. What is more, the expenses on petrol for the vehicles currently used by officials are all met by public money. While members of the public are facing high pump prices, the Government is reluctant to reduce the fees for leasing PFS sites. The current fee for leasing a PFS site is $80,000 per day. In other words, the revenue received from refueling the first 200 to 300 vehicles every day will all be used for paying the cost for land leasing to the Government. PFS operators can only derive profits from the turnover made afterwards. That is why pump prices cannot go down.
Due to the current epidemic, the living cost of the public has risen incessantly. Why can the Government not provide concession in land premium for PFS sites, so as to allow pump prices to be adjusted downwards moderately? I would like to ask: What level of pump price does the Government think is reasonable? Is $50 per litre reasonable? In fact, the current price of $16 per litre is already very expensive. When comparing Hong Kong with Singapore, the current pump price in Singapore is $13 per litre, while the pump price in Hong Kong is $16 to $17. Why does the Government make Hong Kong's pump price so high? I would like to ask the Secretary: What level of pump price does he think is reasonable?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr CHAN for his suggestions. First of all, I have indicated clearly in the main reply that the Government does not use pump prices to control the growth of private vehicles. Had the Government brought pump prices down proactively and deliberately as what Members have said, this would have given rise to a series of consequences which many people in society might not agree to. This is an objective analysis. Nevertheless, as I said in the last paragraph of the main reply, we appreciate that some people in society are concerned about the problem of pump prices. Therefore, the Government will follow up on this complicated LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7239 issue with relevant Policy Bureaux and departments, and will modestly listen to the suggestions of the public and Members for taking appropriate follow-up actions.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Han-pan, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered? Please point it out accurately.
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. Just now I asked about the level of pump price which he thought was reasonable. Can the Secretary provide a reasonable price for our reference?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as I have said in the main reply, we will examine pump prices from various perspectives, such as adequacy of fuel supply, and enhancing the transparency of the fuel market. This is the overall policy direction of the Government.
MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, pump prices in Hong Kong are quick to go up but slow to come down. Also, the market is imbalanced and not functioning properly. These are widely known in the world. When the Secretary answered our questions just now, he was like staying in the sky, and could not see that pump prices were quick to go up but slow to come down, or there might be price fixing among oil companies.
Deputy President, recently, international crude oil prices have been reducing significantly. In May, New York Crude Oil Futures Price once dropped to negative. It is a pity that, from my observation, no matter how significantly oil prices have dropped, our vehicle owners and serving drivers still fail to benefit from the drop in oil prices and enjoy a lower pump price. The fuel price in Hong Kong is still high. In my view, oil companies are quick in raising but slow in reducing pump prices, and there may even be price fixing among oil companies. The Government must really think of ways to tackle the problem. 7240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
The Secretary only nodded his head, meaning that he heard our suggestions and understood what we wanted to say. However, Deputy President, I want to raise a follow-up question with the Secretary: Since pump prices are closely related to the public, and are directly related to people's livelihood, can the Secretary, being a government official, be more committed to performing his supervisory role? I often say that if the Government refuses to take any actions now, the public will lose trust in the Government even more. My question is: While oil companies are not willing to disclose more data on costs, is the Secretary really capable of properly examining the tax regime, land premium and even data on fuel prices, so as to break the deadlock of pump prices being quick to go up but slow to come down, or solve the puzzle of possible price fixing among oil companies.
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr OR for his questions. I would like to reiterate here that we appreciate that some people in society are highly concerned about this issue. Therefore, we will modestly listen to the suggestions made by the public and Members, and will follow up on this complicated issue with relevant Policy Bureaux and departments. This is what I have said in the main reply.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify something. Recently, people have been concerned about the auto-fuel price monitoring analysis published by the Consumer Council on 21 May. This article has stated clearly that in recent years, there has been no sign of "quick going up, slow coming down" in respect of pump prices. This is an objective analysis conducted by the Consumer Council. However, many people have many other suggestions. For example, they request that oil companies should enhance their transparency because, given the great variety and complexity of discount types, vehicle owners may not be able to clearly analyse the price discounts even if they are available. We have heard the views of various parties, including the Consumer Council and Members. We will take follow-up actions as appropriate with relevant departments.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Wilson OR, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered? Please specify.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7241
MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): The Secretary has evaded my question completely. He has not answered me. He was just diverting attention. I asked the Secretary whether the Government could be more committed to following up the problem of pump prices, and whether the Secretary was willing to study this problem.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank the Member for his suggestions. In my opinion, there are two aspects for this issue: first, at the stage when we fight the virus together, the Government is willing to help the public tide over the difficult times, so the Anti-epidemic Fund launched by the Government has catered for the needs of the relevant industries. There are many transport industry-related measures under the Fund, which help the people in the industry through different ways. This is what we have to do in the short term, and we will try our best to do so. If Members have further suggestions on this aspect, we will listen to them. Second, on the monitoring of pump prices, Members also understand that this is a complicated issue, and we need time to handle it. We have heard the views of Members, and we will follow up and deal with these views with various departments. Nevertheless, in the short term, we have provided assistance as far as possible to the relevant sectors through the Anti-epidemic Fund.
MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the first thing I want to tell the Secretary is that, from the discussion with my old classmates this morning, I learnt that the current pump price in Australia is A$0.829 per litre, amounting to HK$4.3. Just now, Mr CHAN Han-pan told us that the pump price in Singapore was around $13 per litre. This is the first point. Second, I believe the Government must consider whether petrol is a necessity or a consumer good. I think for many citizens in Hong Kong, petrol is a necessity. Third, the Secretary has earlier quoted the analysis of the Consumer Council which we mentioned in the last meeting, but I remember Chairperson Anna WU once said "market failure". Fourth, the Secretary has mentioned in the main reply that if the Government grants PFS sites at a lower than market value premium or nil land premium, foregoing the government revenue which should have been generated, this is in fact subsidizing vehicle owners. I have 7242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 repeatedly proposed to the Government that prices should be set according to a formula. We have not requested the Government not to charge land premium, but we only hope that the Government will engage surveyors to determine the land premium, so that all the bidders can adopt the same land premium, and the land premium will not be pushed up. Then, the successful bidder will be the one with the lowest tender price or retail price. Only by doing so can a level playing field be provided for market players.
Of course, I understand that this represents an entire change in the concept. As I said in the last meeting, this is not a problem that the Environment Bureau can handle unilaterally. I hope that, through this question today, senior government officials can lead various Bureaux to handle this issue. The pump price in Hong Kong has been the highest in the world, and this situation has not changed so far.
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr Frankie YICK for his suggestions. As I indicated earlier in the main reply and my replies to Members' supplementary questions, the Government appreciates that some people in society are motorists such as vehicle owners, and they were highly concerned about the issue of pump prices. I have said earlier that in the short term, we will provide assistance to the affected industries under the Anti-epidemic Fund.
Regarding this complicated issue, the Environment Bureau will consider Members' suggestions together with relevant Policy Bureaux and departments. As far as Hong Kong is concerned, Mr Frankie YICK's suggestion is quite new. The findings of our study show that globally, it is rare for governments to interfere with the auto-fuel market except for a few places. In this connection, we will modestly listen to Members' views; and at the same time, we will see if there are overseas places with an environment similar to Hong Kong and draw reference from the their practices. While we are willing to follow up on the relevant issues with an open mind, we cannot underestimate the complexity of the issue because it involves environment, transport, and a large number of citizens and vehicle owners who are public transport-oriented. We need to consider how to strike a balance among these various aspects. We are willing to listen to and follow up on Members' views in collaboration with different departments.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7243
MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): All along, people got an impression that pump prices are quick to go up but slow to come down. High pump prices have put pressure on the operating costs of the transportation and logistics industries. The Secretary has said in the main reply that the Commission has put forth recommendations to enhance competition in Hong Kong's auto-fuel market, including putting up more PFS sites. However, for various reasons, the Government said that it will not provide new land for PFS use. It only agreed to provide one-stop service when the Environment Bureau receives a proposal to convert privately-held land to PFS use.
As the Secretary said just now, the Environment Bureau plans to split some of the larger PFS sites into smaller ones. I do not know what the progress is. I would like to ask the Secretary whether the Government has estimated the number of applications for converting privately-held land to PFS use, and the number of applications that have been handled with the assistance of the Environment Bureau.
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): I will give a simple answer to this question. According to my information, over the past 10 years or so, there have been 10-odd applications for such conversion, and over half of them can satisfy the relevant planning conditions.
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we should have known what the problem is when the Secretary for the Environment is designated to answer this question. In fact, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau or other Policy Bureaux should be more concerned about this issue.
For this issue, I understand that the Secretary has to consider how to protect the environment and encourage the public to use public transport. However, the reply of the Secretary seems to be somehow contradictory. On one hand, he said that he would not provide more new land for PFS use and would restrain the growth of vehicles by adopting a high land premium policy. On the other hand, he said that upon receipt of a proposal to convert privately-held land to PFS use, the Environment Bureau would process the application expeditiously. Does the Government want to protect the environment by encouraging the public to use public transport, or is this a repackaged high land premium policy to help the Government make money?
7244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr TSE for his questions. When discussing this issue, we have to refer to objective statistics. Among the major cities in Asia, when comparing Hong Kong with Singapore, Tokyo and Taipei in terms of the proportion of PFSs to vehicles serviced, the proportion of vehicles serviced by PFSs in Hong Kong is the highest among the aforesaid Asian cities.
As everyone knows, Hong Kong is small and densely-populated. The proportion of PFSs in Hong Kong is higher than those in Tokyo and Taipei. In Hong Kong, about 3 000-odd vehicles are serviced by one PFS approximately, which is similar to the case of Singapore. In Tokyo, more than 4 000 vehicles are serviced by one PFS. In Taipei, about 8 000-odd vehicles are serviced by one PFS. Therefore, we need to understand that these statistics can provide us with a more objective perspective in forming an opinion on whether the Government's policy is reasonable.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Two Members are still waiting for their turn to ask questions. I would like to ask them to follow up the matter on other occasions.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth question.
Livelihood initiatives
5. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, regarding various livelihood initiatives, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as the Government announced in January this year that it would lower the minimum eligible age of the $2 transport fare concession scheme from 65 to 60, whether the Government will expeditiously, and before the end of the current session of the Legislative Council, submit the funding proposal to the Finance Committee so that persons aged 60 to 64 could enjoy the $2 transport fare concession as early as possible;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7245
(2) as the Government indicated in October last year that before the completion of the study on a scheme of providing cash allowance on a regular basis for low income households not living in public rental housing and not receiving Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA"), it would invite the Community Care Fund to provide two rounds of one-off living subsidy for those households in 2020-2021, of the latest progress of such work and the anticipated dates on which the subsidy will be disbursed; and
(3) given that the Government has offered a time-limited unemployment support scheme under the CSSA Scheme to render assistance to those persons who have recently become unemployed due to the epidemic, whether the Government will waive, for the unemployed persons, the requirement that CSSA applications have to be made on a household basis, so that they may apply for CSSA on their own, and whether it will disburse an additional allowance to those unemployed persons who are currently receiving CSSA?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, having consulted the relevant Policy Bureaux, my reply to the Member's question is set out below:
(1) The Chief Executive announced in January 2020 the proposal of lowering the eligible age of the Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities from the existing 65 to 60. The Labour and Welfare Bureau and Transport Department have requested the consultancy firm to come up with practical options for full implementation of the proposal in their ongoing comprehensive review. The consultancy firm will complete their review and submit the consultancy report in around mid-2020. Upon receipt of the completed consultancy report, the Government will study carefully the recommendations and announce the implementation details of the proposal.
(2) According to information provided by the Home Affairs Bureau, the Commission on Poverty approved funding, via the Community Care Fund, for the disbursement of two rounds of "one-off living subsidy" to low-income households who are not living in public housing and 7246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
not receiving Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") in 2020-2021. The total estimated expenditure of the programme is $2,565.91 million. It is expected that about 105 500 households (or around 272 000 persons) and about 137 150 households (or around 353 600 persons) will benefit from the first round and second round of disbursement respectively. Applications are handled in phases according to the household size. Applications for the first round of subsidy will start on 2 July until 30 November 2020. Applications for the second round of subsidy will commence in January 2021. The subsidy amount for each of the household size groups for the two rounds of disbursement is the same, i.e. $4,500 for one-person households, $9,000 for two-person households, $12,500 for three-person households, $14,500 for four-person households and $15,500 for five-or-more-person households. For those applications with all the required information duly submitted, it is estimated that the subsidy may be disbursed within two months from the date of application.
(3) The CSSA Scheme provides a safety net to help persons and families who cannot support themselves financially to meet their basic needs. The Scheme is non-contributory but applicants have to pass a means test to ensure public resources are used on those who are genuinely in need. The means test of the Scheme is conducted on a household basis, which is in keeping with the concept of promoting mutual support among family members. Under special circumstances, such as an individual having no economic ties with other persons in the same household as verified by the Social Welfare Department ("SWD"), the department will consider allowing him/her to apply for CSSA independently on a discretionary basis.
Having considered the unprecedented challenges posed by the coronavirus disease 2019 ("COVID-19") in Hong Kong, the Chief Executive announced on 8 April 2020 the second round of anti-epidemic initiatives including the provision of a time-limited unemployment support scheme through the CSSA system, with a view to providing timely and basic assistance to unemployed persons during this difficult time. The Finance Committee of the Legislative Council approved the related funding on 18 April 2020. SWD will temporarily relax the CSSA asset limits for able-bodied LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7247
persons (including able-bodied adult singletons and able-bodied adults and children under family cases) by 100% for six months. The relevant scheme will be effective from 1 June to 30 November 2020 (i.e. the asset limits will revert to the normal level from 1 December 2020). Separately, under the existing CSSA arrangement, the value of an owner-occupied residential property of able-bodied households will be disregarded for a grace period of the first 12 months. This arrangement will also apply to applicants under the six-month unemployment support scheme.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
There are currently no mechanisms/systems in place to disburse unemployment assistance funds promptly in Hong Kong. These mechanisms/systems include: (1) a pay-as-you-go income tax system; (2) a contributory social insurance system; or (3) a central provident fund system. It will take time if we were to establish such a mechanism/system, and imminent needs cannot be relieved expeditiously. As an expedient measure, the Government will launch the six-month unemployment support scheme mentioned above through the CSSA system. In addition, employees are qualified for severance payment or long service payment if they satisfy the conditions stipulated in the Employment Ordinance. Meanwhile, under the Love Upgrading Special Scheme of the Employees Retraining Board, the maximum amount of monthly allowance per eligible trainee (who are unemployed or underemployed) during the training period has been increased to $5,800 with effect from 25 May 2020.
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary may have the highest IQ among all Directors of Bureaux, but he must have quick thinking and be down to earth because many unemployed people do not want to become CSSA recipients, especially those aged between 60 and 64. Many people ask me when they can enjoy the $2 transport fare concession in Hong Kong but the Secretary's answer is that this issue needs to be considered further. The Secretary should not expect that something said is something done. Taking the $10,000 cash handout for all permanent residents as an example, the most important thing of concern to all is speed. Nothing in the world is difficult for one who sets his 7248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 mind on it and I believe the Secretary is a capable person; can he consider including those aged between 60 and 64 under the existing mechanism so that they can enjoy the $2 transport fare concession even if they are not Personalized Octopus holders? Can they switch to using the Silver Age Card which may be introduced or special Octopus after the Bureau has completed the study? At this difficult time, it is most important to be down to earth, and speed really matters when the initiatives are related to people's livelihood and well-being.
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, the review on the $2 transport fare concession has been in progress for more than a year and the authorities have conducted extensive consultations and have discussions with different stakeholders. It is not just a matter of simply lowering the eligible age from 65 to 60 because this will only be advantageous to some people and a small change may affect everything in all systems. I would like to give an example; if we lower the eligible age from 65 to 60 without putting appropriate initiatives in place to address the question whether the $2 transport fare concession scheme should cover red minibus, I believe the operation of red minibus will be substantially affected and the operators may soon be out of business. Therefore, policies have intricate details and holistic consideration is necessary. The problem cannot be simply solved by making efforts and consideration must be given to whether a temporary measure will be made permanent; if so, the desire to resolve or reduce abuse under the current scheme will never be realized.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): The Secretary said that this was a "temporary" measure. However, as he has agreed to proceed with it, he should not say that the matter needs to be considered further. The Secretary also talked about abuse. My question is how the $2 transport fare concession scheme can be implemented expeditiously. He keeps saying that the matter needs to be considered further but he is just procrastinating and fails to meet the needs of the public.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7249
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, we have not procrastinated and we are conducting a review as planned.
MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary is known for his high IQ. Our observation is that elderly people aged between 60 and 64 have all along been neglected. In fact, retirement starts at 60 for most people. Mr LEUNG Che-cheung and I from DAB have suggested earlier that a subcommittee be set up under the Panel on Welfare Services to study issues relating to the silver age card. I would like to ask the Secretary, in addition to giving people aged between 60 and 64 the $2 transport fare concession, can he comprehensively consider what can be done for this group? Does he have any specific ideas?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, we must consider the age range when we review the transport fare concession scheme. Everybody knows that Senior Citizen Card holders enjoy some concessions provided for the elderly. In the future, can people aged between 60 and 64 enjoy these concessions through Personalized Octopus or by other means? Will they be entitled to the concessions for elderly people aged over 65? These are issues which the authorities should consider and examine in a holistic manner.
MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, I would like to follow up on part (1) of Dr Priscilla LEUNG's main question. The $2 transport fare concession is a very good policy that can encourage the elderly to go out. However, I do not agree to calling them "elderly people"; how can people aged between 60 and 64 be called elderly people? We have also suggested to the Government that the coverage of the concession scheme for the elderly should be extended to cover other modes of public transport, including red minibuses, kaito and residents' buses. We hope that the industry can be covered by the scheme so long as it is willing to comply with certain requirements. In the past, the Transport Department said that the fares of some modes of public transport were not subject to regulation by the authorities, so they were not included in the 7250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 relevant scheme. However, I have relayed to the Government that the industry is willing to adopt the usual minimum fares as the basis for government subsidies so that the issue of "seafood prices" can be neglected. I hope the Government can seriously consider that because many supplementary modes of transport are facing operational difficulties. If they are left out, competition will become more intense and their business will be closed sooner. During the review, I hope the Secretary will consider the modes of transport that I just mentioned.
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. This is indeed our concern and the authorities will draw a conclusion as to whether different public transport service providers can be included in the fare concession scheme when we review the entire scheme in the future. The study is approaching completion and the Transport Department will have discussions with the stakeholders concerned and make arrangements that are acceptable to all, so that not only the various public transport service providers can participate in the scheme, but the elderly and people with disabilities already covered by the relevant transport fare concession scheme can also be benefited. The work is in progress.
MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, the Government said in reply that the arrangement for adjusting the standard payment rates under the CSSA Scheme has been submitted to the Finance Committee but I have noticed that the agenda item on Funding Support to the Ocean Park Corporation has been inserted before the item on adjusting the standard payment rates under the CSSA scheme, which gives an impression that saving the Ocean Park is more important than saving the unemployed.
Social Security Field Units are closed during the epidemic. Only the non-governmental "food banks" continue to provide services to the public in dire straits. The public will inevitably criticize SWD for not caring about the sufferings of the people.
President, a member of the public complained to me that he wanted to apply for CSSA because he lost his job but his application was rejected owing to the excessively high rent he was paying and he was also asked to relocate to another flat with lower rent. I would like to ask the Secretary if it is the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7251 established policy of the CSSA scheme to require an applicant paying excessively high rent to relocate before filing a CSSA application. Will a person be ineligible for CSSA because he is paying excessively high rent? Can the rental cap amount be disclosed?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, my answer is simple: there is no such requirement. However, we use public money to assist people in need. There is a case in which a CSSA household of four persons currently receiving $16,000 but they can surprisingly afford a monthly rent of $30,000. Why can they continue to rent a flat for $30,000 a month if they receive a CSSA payment of $16,000? The Social Security Field Unit has reasons to understand the situation before approving applications.
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, nothing in the world is difficult but I am afraid the Secretary with a high IQ cannot understand the sufferings of the people. In fact, the Government has agreed to consider our silver age card proposal. The Secretary has just expressed worries that the business of red minibus operators may be closed if the authorities do not consider the matter carefully. Red minibus operators actually have various other considerations about whether to install the Octopus system. We cannot deprive elderly people who have reached 60 of the $2 transport fare concession just because red minibus operators may have some difficulties. If elderly persons cannot live in a more dignified manner or enjoy the concessions provided by the Government due to this reason, we will be very sorry.
The Secretary mentioned just now that if elderly persons are allowed to enjoy the $2 transport fare concession, it may lead to the closure of business of red minibus operators. Can he tell us clearly what will be considered so that we can analyse more carefully whether the Secretary's concerns are valid.
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I hope that Members will not get me wrong because the review on the transport fare concession scheme has been in progress for some time and there are quite a lot of factors to be considered including eligible age. At the beginning of this year, the Chief Executive made a decision on this and one of the important factors being considered in the review of the related polices is the so-called "finalized proposal". 7252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
However, there are many other factors that have to be considered in the review including the modes of transport that should be covered by the scheme. I have just cited the example of red minibus to illustrate that a small change affects everything under a system. Since making a certain change may affect other things, we must conduct a comprehensive review.
Therefore, the red minibus is not the major factor for consideration. We have to consider the long-term direction of policy implementation before giving an account of the overall design and improvement methods.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Han-pan, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. Just now I asked the Secretary why the implementation of this policy will lead to the closure of business of red minibus operators. The Secretary has not explained …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): The Secretary just said that the implementation of this policy might lead to the closure of business of red minibus operators, right?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you have pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered, please sit down. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): Can the Secretary make an explanation?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): First, this is not the most important factor for consideration. The authorities need to consider a basketful of factors. However, if the scheme is extended to cover people aged LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7253 between 60 and 64 so that they will also be entitled to the $2 transport fare concession, whereas red minibus is not included in the scheme, the number of people taking red minibuses may decrease by around 30% to 40%, which will have considerable impacts on their operation.
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, the $2 transport fare concession scheme has been introduced for some time. The problem does not lie in the ideas or specific details of the scheme but in the slight relaxation of the age limit. Although Mr Frankie YICK said that this age group should not be regarded as elderly persons, I have unknowingly become an elderly person and I may be benefited. What we are talking about is not new.
The Government wants to stimulate the local market because there are not many tourists. There are many things waiting to be done and many people have become poor and looking for help from the Government, and there are many other factors for consideration … Although the Secretary has made thorough considerations and he is concerned that a small change affects everything, can he assist the silver hair group and benefit the whole society? Although many members of the silver hair group are aged over 60, they are still very healthy and they can go out and promote consumption which may benefit the retailing and catering sectors etc.
In this general environment, the Government and Policy Bureaux have to consider many policies clearly, including the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance or legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law which has been stalled for 23 years. For the trifling matter of slightly lowering the eligible age for the $2 transport fare concession, the authorities need to engage a consultant to study whether a small change will affect everything and a review is also needed.
I would like to ask the Secretary how much have to be spent? Who will be engaged? What policies will be formulated? Will this small change affect everything?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I thank the Member for raising this supplementary question and giving me the opportunity to clarify the matters again. We promised to conduct a comprehensive review when the relevant policy was implemented. So we 7254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 conducted a review in 2019 covering the scope of application of the policy, the safeguards against abuse and how to determine reasonable pricing if other public transport service providers are included, etc.
The decision announced by the Chief Executive on 14 January this year only involves a small part of the comprehensive review. Therefore, Members cannot say that we have taken so much time to review the eligible age for the concession only. We promised to conduct a comprehensive review and we will complete the comprehensive review soon.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last oral question.
Enacting legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law
6. MR DENNIS KWOK: In January this year, the Director of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("the Liaison Office") published an article in a newspaper, stating that "… we will, as always, continue to support the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in establishing and perfecting the legal system and enforcement mechanism of the Special Administrative Region to safeguard national security …" In addition, some political figures in Hong Kong have recently initiated an online petition to urge the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") to expeditiously enact legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether there have been, since January this year, officials from the Liaison Office and other offices set up by the Central Government in SAR, or local political organizations and figures, expressing to any official of the SAR Government the view that there is a pressing need at present for SAR to enact legislation on Article 23; if so, who have put forward such a view and of the relevant details;
(2) whether it has assessed the impacts, to be brought about by the SAR Government's embarking, at the present moment, on the legislative exercise for Article 23, on Hong Kong's political and economic LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7255
situations and social atmosphere, as well as on the relationship between Hong Kong and the international community; if it has assessed, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) whether the Chief Executive will undertake that the current-term Government will not commence the legislative exercise on Article 23 within the remainder of its term; if not, of the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, regarding the issue of enacting legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law ("BL 23"), my consolidated reply in view of the deliberation of the draft Decision on establishing and improving the legal system and enforcement mechanisms for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to safeguard national security ("the Decision") recently announced at the third session of the 13th National People's Congress ("NPC") is as follows:
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China. Safeguarding national sovereignty, security and development interests is the constitutional requirement of HKSAR, the duty of the HKSAR Government, and also in the interest of all Hong Kong residents. The Special Administrative Region ("SAR") has the constitutional obligation to enact legislation on BL 23. While it has been almost 23 years since Hong Kong's reunification with China, for various reasons, SAR still has not enacted legislation on BL 23 and this is very disappointing. Different parties may put forward their views on this matter to the SAR Government and we will not disclose the details.
Different countries have enacted legislation to safeguard national security, …
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point of order?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount.
7256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
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): Secretary, please continue with your reply.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, different countries have enacted legislation to safeguard national security, covering the legal system and enforcement mechanisms in respect of national safety. By way of web search, it would be easy to find the laws of different countries which are related to national security; for example, the United States has at least 20 relevant items of such laws, which include the National Security Act, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot) Act, Logan Act, Homeland Security Act, Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Foreign Agents Registration Act, Foreign Missions Act, Alien Registration Act and Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, etc. As regards other jurisdictions, examples include the Treason Felony Act, Official Secrets Act, Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, and Security Service Act of the United Kingdom; the National Security Act, Criminal Code, Access to Information Act, Secure Air Travel Act, Canada Elections Act and Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act of Canada; as well as the National Security Law Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act, Criminal Code Act, Crimes Act and Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act of Australia. This shows that every country has laws and duty to safeguard its national security and sovereignty.
Safeguarding national sovereignty and security is essential to building a stable and safe society. It is only with a stable and safe society that members of the public can live safely and peacefully, the economy can develop steadily, and prosperity can be sustained. The SAR Government maintains that establishing and improving the legal system and enforcement mechanisms for safeguarding national security is beneficial to Hong Kong's economic development and the livelihoods of our people, beneficial to maintaining Hong Kong's long-term prosperity and stability, and beneficial to Hong Kong's fundamental interests.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7257
On the 22nd of this month, at the third session of the 13th NPC, the deliberation of the Decision was announced. Legislation on national security is undoubtedly within the purview of the Central Authorities. Just as it is in any other country in the world, it is the authority of the country to legislate on its own national security. NPC is the highest organ of state power, and its decisions have the highest authority with legal effect. The SAR Government supports NPC's deliberation of the Decision, and it is necessary to highlight the following key points regarding the Decision:
First, the SAR Government is firmly committed to safeguarding national security, and legislation is of greatest urgency. In view of the increasingly pronounced national security risks faced by HKSAR, to legislate on BL 23 has been stigmatized and demonized, and there is difficulty for the executive and legislative authorities of SAR to complete on their own legislation for safeguarding national security in the foreseeable future. The violence associated with the disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments since June last year has been escalating, with the emergence of various incidents involving explosives and firearms, which amounts to a risk of terrorist activities, seriously threatening personal and public safety. During this period, organizations advocating "Hong Kong independence" and "self-determination" incited protesters, especially young people, to desecrate and burn the national flag openly, vandalize the national emblem and storm the Central People's Government's office in Hong Kong, and made plans to mobilize the so-called "international support" to interfere with Hong Kong's affairs. These acts smeared the implementation of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong and openly challenged the authority of the Central Government and the SAR Government. Further, some of the political parties' members proclaimed many times that they would paralyse the SAR Government. Some other people begged for foreign countries to interfere with Hong Kong's affairs and even to impose sanctions on Hong Kong. Such behaviour has crossed the baseline of "one country", threatening China's sovereignty and national security, and challenging the authority of the Central Authorities and the Basic Law. Although these despicable acts subsided earlier when the epidemic was severe, as the epidemic eases, rioters have returned to the streets of Hong Kong three days ago (Sunday) causing road blockage, criminal damage, arson, beating and chasing citizens, attacking the Police, spilling harmful liquids, etc. causing at least 10 people being injured and sent to hospital. Moreover, those advocating "Hong Kong independence" flagrantly waved flags at the scene. This manifests the 7258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 necessity and urgency for establishing and improving the legal system and enforcement mechanisms to safeguard national security, so as to effectively prevent, curb and punish acts that threaten national security.
Second, …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, please finish your reply as soon as possible.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I know that, but I must clearly expound on this serious issue.
Second, the Decision will ensure the enduring success of "one country, two systems". "One country" is the prerequisite for and foundation of "two systems". Establishing and improving at the national level the legal system and enforcement mechanisms for HKSAR to safeguard national security will be conducive to safeguarding national security as well as Hong Kong's development, long-term prosperity and stability. Only when national security is safeguarded can "one country, two systems" be faithfully implemented, then the advantages of "one country, two systems" can be fully utilized to better develop the economy and improve people's livelihood, thereby better protecting the legitimate rights and freedoms of all members of the public in Hong Kong.
Third, the Decision only targets acts of secession, subverting state power and organizing and carrying out terrorist activities that seriously threaten national security, as well as activities interfering with HKSAR's affairs by foreign or external forces. These are exactly the situations which the political and business sectors in Hong Kong and members of the public have been extremely worrying about over the past year. The situations have prompted the public to have a deeper understanding on the importance of national security, and also urge the SAR Government to respond proactively. The Decision only targets the small minority of criminals jeopardizing national security, while the overwhelming majority of members of the public who are law-abiding will be protected.
Fourth, legislation for national security will endeavour to safeguard the lawful rights and interests of people in Hong Kong. The protection enjoyed by Hong Kong residents under the Basic Law and other laws, including freedom of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7259 speech, press, assembly, demonstrations, processions, etc., will not be affected. The legislation also will not affect the independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, exercised by the Judiciary in Hong Kong.
The Decision does not amend the Basic Law, nor does it replace or exclude the provisions of BL 23. As stated in the Decision, "the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region should legislate as soon as possible to safeguard national security as required by the Basic Law of Hong Kong". HKSAR, therefore, still has the obligation to legislate as required under BL 23 as soon as possible.
Upon passage of the Decision, the HKSAR Government will fully support the work of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") and discharge its responsibility of safeguarding national security to ensure the long-term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong under "one country, two systems".
MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I would like to put a brief supplementary question to the Secretary. As mentioned by the Secretary in the main reply just now, the deliberation of the Decision was announced by the 13th NPC on the 22nd of this month. Has NPC notified the SAR Government before its announcement? If yes, when has NPC done so?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, as I stated in the main reply just now, many people have been communicating and exchanging opinions with the SAR Government on certain issues from time to time. We will not disclose the relevant details.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. My question was very simple: Has NPC notified the SAR Government of the deliberation of the Decision before its announcement? If yes, when has NPC done so?
7260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I have just answered the Member's supplementary question.
MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): He has not answered my supplementary question.
MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): President, NPCSC has submitted to NPC the Decision on legislation to safeguard national security in Hong Kong. WANG Chen, Vice Chairman of NPCSC, has clearly stated that the Decision would not replace the requirement for Hong Kong to enact legislation on BL 23. The Secretary has just clearly stated in the main reply that SAR still has the constitutional obligation to enact legislation on BL 23. Although the Central Government has placed trust in Hong Kong to legislate on BL 23 on its own to safeguard national security and has been waiting patiently for 23 years, the legislative exercise has not yet completed.
Does the SAR Government have any plan or timetable for enacting legislation on BL 23 to fill the gap? The SAR Government often said that it would expeditiously enact the legislation in due course and would create favourable conditions for legislation. However, what really are the favourable conditions? Does the Security Bureau have any timetable, and does the SAR Government have any plan to legislate on BL 23?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, as I stated just now, the SAR Government has failed to fulfil its constitutional obligation to enact legislation on BL 23 almost 23 years after Hong Kong's return. This is far from desirable, and we have been very disappointed. In fact, it is the obligation of SAR, not solely the Government, to enact legislation on BL 23. Under BL 23, HKSAR should enact laws on its own. While the SAR Government must of course be held responsible, we must not forget that this is actually the obligation of the entire SAR. That being said, we will keep up our efforts.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7261
As I also said just now, the legislation for BL 23 has been unbelievably stigmatized and smeared by many people. They have not even mentioned a word about the national security laws enacted in foreign countries. I spent quite some time citing examples of foreign laws just now. However, there were so many examples that I nearly had to drink some water before I could continue to speak. While they have been tight-lipped about the fact that various national security laws enacted in foreign countries have never created any problems, they have been smearing BL 23. As a result, the national security risks now faced by SAR have become increasingly pronounced. In view of this, the Decision has clearly required the SAR Government to enact legislation to safeguard national security as soon as possible. This is the constitutional obligation which we must fulfil.
Nevertheless, we are well aware of the local legislative process and the actual situation pertaining to the enactment of the legislation in Hong Kong. Can the legislative exercise on BL 23 be taken forward in view of the current situation in Hong Kong? Is it feasible to legislate on BL 23 when some people have blatantly vowed to paralyse the Government? Is it feasible to legislate on BL 23 when some people have blatantly disrupted the operation of the Legislative Council? All these are the practical issues we are facing. Amid increasingly pronounced national security risks in Hong Kong, the move to improve Hong Kong's legislative mechanisms at the national level is intended to safeguard Hong Kong's overall interests and fundamental interests.
President, please let me add one vital point. It is stated in the explanatory document to the Decision that an important principle for NPCSC to follow when enacting the forthcoming legislation is substantially safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of Hong Kong residents; any work and law enforcement efforts related to safeguarding national security in the future must be conducted strictly in accordance with the law as well as statutory powers and legal procedures, and must not infringe on the legitimate rights of Hong Kong residents, legal persons and other organizations.
It can be seen from the Decision that the country attaches great importance to and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Hong Kong residents. The explanatory document to the Decision further states that the legislation is aimed to punish the small minority of criminals who jeopardize national security so as to protect the safety of lives and property of law-abiding members of the public, thereby better protecting fundamental rights and freedoms.
7262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): About 20 Members are still waiting for their turn to raise questions. Will Members please be as concise as possible when asking questions. Secretary, please also keep your answers concise.
MS CLAUDIA MO: The official who replies is simply pathetic. He talks about foreign countries, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia having national security laws as well. So, the message is "What is the big deal about Hong Kong having one?" What he fails to mention is that those foreign countries also have, on top of real separation of powers, robust press and robust online journalism.
The Secretary sounds simply morally repugnant and politically dishonest. I do not call him a liar. I call him politically dishonest. Is he actually employing double standards?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, the Member who spoke just now has double standards. I even think that she has not only applied double but multiple standards, or she basically has no standard at all. Why do I say so? Many foreign countries have already enacted various national security laws …
(A number of Members talked aloud in their seats)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): … Hong Kong has currently reached a stage where legislation on BL 23 is necessary. I noticed on the Internet yesterday that a member of the opposition camp had made an about-turn and requested that the Government enact legislation on BL 23 locally. Was it Mr LEUNG? We all know full well about who had obstructed the Government from legislating on BL 23 in the first place, but now they are requesting that we enact legislation on BL 23 as soon as possible. As I explained just now, we will certainly take on the obligation. Yet, I have to stress one vital point, which is also the reason why I accused Ms MO of adopting multiple standards just now. She seemed to have forgotten what I just said.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7263
First and foremost, the Decision does not amend the Basic Law, nor does it touch on any provisions contained therein. As such, all of the fundamental rights and duties of residents laid down in Chapter III of the Basic Law will be retained. Why has she not mentioned a word about this? I clearly stated just now that NPCSC must follow a principle when enacting the subsequent legislation, and that is, substantially safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of Hong Kong residents.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kwok-fan, please state your question.
(Ms Claudia MO spoke loudly in her seat)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, now is not your time to speak. Please sit down. Mr LAU Kwok-fan, please speak.
MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, the Government has failed to enact legislation on BL 23 over the years. Meanwhile, "Hong Kong independence" and local radical separatist forces have become increasingly rampant in Hong Kong. Furthermore, the opposition camp has often colluded with Europe, the United States and Taiwan independence forces to intervene and undermine the interests of Hong Kong and the country. Hence, it is necessary and urgent to establish and improve the legal system and enforcement mechanisms of SAR to safeguard national security.
Regarding the legal system and enforcement mechanisms I referred to just now, once the national security law for HKSAR or the law on BL 23 is formally implemented in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Police Force will likely be one of the main teams responsible for enforcing such laws.
In terms of organization and staffing establishment, has the SAR Government or Security Bureau made any preparation to cope with the implementation of the legal system and enforcement mechanisms?
7264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, we should understand that the Decision, which is being deliberated by NPC, seeks to authorize NPCSC to enact the relevant law. Since the draft Decision is still at the deliberation stage, the proposed legislation has not yet moved into the next stage of legislative process. It is still too early to discuss what the future legal provisions will be. However, I must point out a question of principle, and that is, the SAR Government has made it clear that we have the obligation to safeguard national security. To safeguard national security, the SAR Government will at least undertake the following tasks: first, to consider the resources, manpower, talent and training required for the relevant law enforcement duties; second, to consider ways to establish a foundation for cooperation, communication and interaction with the relevant units.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Oral questions end here.
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Land premium arrangements for the housing projects of the Hong Kong Housing Society
7. MR ANDREW WAN (in Chinese): President, the Government revised in January 2019 the arrangements for payment of land premiums by the Hong Kong Housing Society ("HKHS") for its housing projects, namely (i) for its rental estates: reducing from one third of the full market value of land premium ("FMVP") to a nominal premium at $1,000, (ii) for the domestic portions of subsidized sale flat ("SSF") projects: reducing from one half to one third of FMVP and (iii) for the non-domestic portions of SSF projects: maintaining the arrangement of charging FMVP. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the year in which the Government started charging land premiums equivalent to one third of FMVP for the rental estates developed by HKHS, the justifications for pitching the amount of land premiums at that rate, and the reasons for not charging premiums at a lower rate at that time;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7265
(2) given that HKHS and the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") alike build public rental housing units, whether the Government will waive the land premiums charged to HKHS for its rental estates so as to align the land premium arrangements for the two bodies; if not, of the reasons for that;
(3) of the year in which the Government started charging land premiums equivalent to one half of FMVP for the domestic portions of SSF projects developed by HKHS, the name of the first housing court for which a land premium at that rate was paid, the justifications for pitching the amount of land premiums at that rate, and the reasons for not charging premiums at a lower rate at that time;
(4) of the date the FMVP of which is used as the basis for calculating the land premiums payable by HKHS for its SSF projects;
(5) given that HKHS has to pay land premiums for its SSF projects, whereas HA only has to pay land costs (the actual amounts of which are lower) and a nominal premium at $1,000 for such type of projects, whether it has assessed if this situation was the primary reason leading to the higher per-square-foot prices for the relevant units sold by HKHS as compared with those of the units sold by HA; if it has assessed, of the results;
(6) as some members of the public have pointed out that low income families have found those units under HKHS' SSF projects unaffordable given their relatively higher prices, whether the Government will consider amending the land premium arrangements for the housing projects of HKHS to align them with those for HA;
(7) whether it knows the following details of each of the housing projects developed/to be developed by HKHS in the past five financial years and in the next three financial years respectively (set out in a table):
(i) category to which the project belongs (namely rental estate, Flat-for-Sale Scheme or SSF project),
(ii) name of the housing estate/court,
7266 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
(iii) district in which the housing estate/court is located,
(iv) financial year in which the site concerned was/will be handed over by the Government,
(v) date/prospective date on which public applications were/will be accepted for occupancy/purchase,
(vi) number of units,
(vii) prices/prospective prices (if applicable),
(viii) land premium payable (in million dollars), and
(ix) average land premium per unit (in million dollars); and
(8) whether the Government will consider, where the non-domestic portions of HKHS' SSF projects include social welfare and community facilities, waiving the land premiums concerned or charging a nominal premium only?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Hong Kong Housing Society ("HKHS") is an important partner of the Government's housing policy and plays an active role in providing low to middle-income families with rental units and subsidized sale flats ("SSF"). HKHS has been developing subsidized housing projects on a self-financing basis on sites granted to HKHS by the Government at concessionary land premium.
Having consulted the Lands Department, my consolidated reply to the question is as follows:
(1) and (3)
The Government had been charging land premium at one third of the full market value ("FMV") for HKHS' rental estate projects since 1950s. The then Government considered that the relevant concessionary premium was adequate in enabling HKHS to provide rental units at low and affordable rent to low-income families. As LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7267
for SSFs, the Government had been charging land premium at one half of FMV for HKHS' SSF projects since 1980s. The then Government considered that the relevant concessionary premium was adequate in enabling HKHS to break even while selling SSFs at below market value. The first site granted for HKHS' development of SSF project at such concessionary premium is Clague Garden Estate in Tsuen Wan.
(2), (5) and (6)
The Government announced on 29 June 2018 the new pricing mechanism for the Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS") under the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA"). Under the relevant mechanism, the selling price of HOS units is determined based on the affordability test which uses the median monthly household income of non-owner occupier households as the reference point, and ensures that at least 75% of units are affordable. Since HKHS generally makes reference to the discount rate provided in the preceding HOS sale exercise in formulating pricing for its SSFs, under the new HOS pricing mechanism, HKHS may need to offer a correspondingly higher discount rate for its SSF. This may lower HKHS' income and affect its financial sustainability.
Against the above background, the Government reviewed the land premium arrangements for HKHS' subsidized housing projects and revised the arrangements in January 2019 as follows: from the previous one third of FMV to a nominal premium at $1,000 for HKHS' rental estates; and from the previous one half of FMV to one third of FMV for domestic portion of HKHS' SSF projects, while maintaining the existing arrangement of charging FMV for non-domestic portion of the SSF projects. The Government believes that the revised land premium arrangements would help mitigate the financial impact of its new HOS pricing mechanism on HKHS, and strengthen HKHS' long-term financial sustainability. This will enable HKHS to continue to provide rental units and SSFs at affordable rentals and prices to address housing needs of the public.
7268 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
HA and HKHS assumes different yet complimentary roles in providing public housing. HA is the major organization responsible for developing public rental housing and SSFs, whereas HKHS plays the role of "housing laboratory" apart from providing rental units and SSFs. The two organizations also differ in structure and mode of operation. Therefore, the Government does not consider it necessary to adopt entirely the same land premium arrangement for subsidized housing projects of the two organizations.
As mentioned above, under the existing mechanism, the discount rate and selling price of SSFs are determined based on the affordability of the applicants, and are not linked to the land premium. The selling price of respective SSF projects and units are affected by various factors, including the location of the project, orientation and views of the flat, fittings and facilities provided in the flat, etc. Hence, direct comparison of the selling prices of different projects may not be appropriate.
(4) The land premium payable by HKHS for respective SSF project is calculated by the Government based on the market value of the land at the time of the grant to HKHS.
(7) Information on subsidized housing projects completed by HKHS in the past five financial years and estimated to be completed in the coming three financial years are set out at Annex.
(8) According to information provided by the Lands Department, under the existing mechanism, the Government would grant land by private treaty ("PTG") at nominal, concessionary or full market premium for specific uses in justified circumstances, in accordance with the relevant policies in meeting the economic, social and community needs of Hong Kong. All PTGs for specified uses are subject to consideration by relevant departments from technical perspectives, scrutiny by relevant Policy Bureaux for giving policy support on a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7269
case-by-case basis, and approval by the Chief Executive-in-Council ("CE-in-C") or its delegated authority. The Government would charge full market premium unless approval by CE-in-C was obtained for granting concessionary or nominal premium with the support by the relevant Policy Bureau. This arrangement also applies to the portion used for social welfare or other community facilities under sites granted to HKHS for subsidized housing development. In general, if support is given by the relevant Policy Bureau, the portion used for social welfare or other community facilities may be granted at nominal premium.
Annex
Subsidized housing projects completed by HKHS in the past five financial years and expected to be completed in the coming three financial years
*
Date of Selling Financial accepting Type of Name of price District year of rental/ housing project ($ million land grant purchase (M)) portion) ($) domestic application Number of Number flat (unit) and non - Land premium paid by HKHS paidLand by premium for the entire development (including development entire domestic Completed in past five financial years (2015-2016 to 2019-2020) SSF Greenview Kwai 2001-2002 December 988 About About Villa Tsing 2012 2.46M to 377M 5.15M Rural Public Sha Tau Kok North 2014-2015 September 140 Not 1,000 Housing@ Chuen Ying 2016 applicable (nominal Hoi House premium) SSF Greenhill Villa Sha Tin 2014-2015 February 1 020 About About 2016 2.60M to 1,130M 6.27M 7270 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
*
Date of Selling Financial accepting Type of Name of price District year of rental/ housing project ($ million land grant purchase (M)) portion) ($) domestic application Number of Number flat (unit) and non - Land premium paid by HKHS paidLand by premium for the entire development (including development entire domestic SSF Terrace Tuen 2016-2017 November 290 About About Concerto Mun 2017 1.92M to 175M 4.78M SSF Mount Verdant Sai Kung 2016-2017 November 330 About About 2017 2.19M to 307M 6.23M Estimated to be completed in coming three financial years (2020-2021 to 2022-2023)^ Senior Citizen Lee Kung Kowloon 2018-2019 To be 300 Not 1,000 Residences Street City determined applicable (nominal Scheme premium) Rental Estate Ming Wah Dai Eastern Not To be 1 000 Not Not Ha applicable determined applicable applicable Redevelopment (Phase 1)# Rental Estate Jat Min Chuen# Sha Tin Not To be 100 Not Not applicable determined applicable applicable
Notes:
* The Government does not compile figures on the respective land premium for domestic and non-domestic portion. The Government is thus unable to provide figures on the average land premium per residential unit.
^ According to the estimation by HKHS as at 19 March 2020. Number of units is rounded to the nearest hundred.
@ HKHS' Rural Public Housing projects are rental housing provided with the aim to resettle indigenous residents affected by rural redevelopment. Under the prevailing policy, the Government charges nominal premium for the projects.
# The projects concern redevelopment/provision of additional units on existing sites under HKHS. No additional land grant is involved.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7271
Teaching of the Chinese history in schools
8. MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that a teacher for the subject of General Studies ("GS") for primary education turned the truth upside down when teaching the history of Opium War online earlier on, arousing concerns among various sectors in the community about whether wrong perspectives of history would be instilled into students. In respect of teaching of the Chinese history in schools will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of complaints about the contents of Chinese history taught by teachers which were received by the Education Bureau ("EDB") in the past five years, and the details (such as the contents, relevant dates and outcome of handling) of such complaints;
(2) of the current mechanism put in place to monitor the teaching in class in respect of the subject of Chinese History for secondary education and the Chinese history contents embedded in the GS subject for primary education;
(3) whether EDB has provided schools with a teaching guide, which is based on objective historical facts and historical perspectives that are generally accepted by the academia, for teachers to follow when teaching the significant events in different periods of Chinese history, so as to prevent students from being misled by biased views; if so, of the details; if not, whether EDB will examine the provision of such a guide;
(4) of the channels through which parents may lodge complaints when they uncover incidents of teachers deliberately distorting the facts when teaching Chinese history to students and, where the complaints have been found substantiated, the penalties to be imposed on the teachers concerned (and whether cancellation of teachers' registration is among such penalties); and
(5) whether EDB will, same as the practice adopted late last year for the subject of Liberal Studies for senior secondary education, deploy officers from the Curriculum Development Institute to conduct, in collaboration with inspectors from the Quality Assurance Sections, 7272 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
curriculum development visits cum focus inspections in respect of the teaching of Chinese history, so as to ensure the quality of the teaching of Chinese history in primary and secondary schools?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, under the current school curriculum, students learn Chinese history in General Studies ("GS") at primary level and Chinese History at secondary level respectively. In response to "reinforcing the learning of Chinese history and Chinese culture", a major renewed emphasis in the Secondary Education Curriculum Guide, the Education Bureau implemented Chinese History as an independent compulsory subject at junior secondary level in the 2018-2019 school year with a view to enabling students to learn Chinese history and culture in a holistic and systematic manner. The curriculum aims and learning objectives of both curricula of Chinese History at secondary level and GS at primary level are to nurture students' sense of belonging to their own nation, ethnicity and society through learning Chinese history, as well as to help students respect, appreciate and inherit the Chinese culture so as to develop in them positive values and proactive attitudes towards life.
Our reply to the five-part question raised by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan is as follows:
(1) In the school years from 2015-2016 to 2018-2019, the Education Bureau did not receive any complaints involving the contents of Chinese history taught by teachers. In the 2019-2020 school year (as at 30 April 2020), the Education Bureau has received three related complaints, two of which involve biased reading materials and certain part(s) of the worksheet(s) not belonging to the discipline area of Chinese History. After investigation, both complaints are found unsubstantiated. The other case involves an online teaching video that has distorted historical facts, which is still under investigation.
(2) and (5)
Under the principle of school-based management, it is the responsibility of the school management to understand and monitor the implementation of all subject curricula (including Chinese LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7273
History at secondary level and GS at primary level) in the classroom, including the content and quality of school-based teaching materials, effectiveness of classroom learning and teaching, etc., to ensure that teachers are implementing the curricula and conducting lessons in alignment with the curriculum aims and objectives. The Education Bureau has been monitoring the quality of learning and teaching of schools through such means as inspections and curriculum development visits. In conducting Focus Inspections ("FI") on Chinese History in secondary schools and those on GS in primary schools, in addition to scrutinizing relevant documents, inspectors also conduct lesson observations to see if the teaching content and strategies are aligned with the curriculum aims and objectives, whether teachers could develop students' positive values and attitudes, as well as how students perform in their learning, etc. After lesson observations, inspectors will conduct professional exchange with the teachers to help them enhance classroom learning and teaching effectiveness. Apart from evaluating the subject performance, inspectors also provide schools with specific professional advice for their continuous improvement in the implementation of the subject curriculum. Should the quality of learning and teaching of a school fall short of satisfaction, the Education Bureau will take follow-up actions in accordance with the established mechanism, including urging the incorporated management committee/school management committee to make improvements based on the inspection report, encouraging the school to apply for school-based support services of the Education Bureau, and if necessary, arranging a follow-up inspection to ensure that the school is implementing the relevant recommendations. The Education Bureau understands the public concern about the implementation of Chinese history education in schools and will consider stepping up monitoring as necessary by, for example, increasing the frequency of FI on Chinese History in secondary schools and GS in primary schools or conducting curriculum development visits-cum-focus inspections.
(3) With regard to the teaching of Chinese history at primary and secondary levels, schools should make reference to the Chinese History Curriculum Guides and General Studies Curriculum Guide for Primary Schools. The guides, which are the official curriculum 7274 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
documents provided for schools, were discussed, examined and finally endorsed by the Curriculum Development Council and its committees composed of scholars, experts from the tertiary institutions, school principals and experienced teachers. Curriculum aims, learning objectives, curriculum framework, curriculum planning, learning and teaching, assessment, learning and teaching resources, exemplars of learning and teaching strategies and assessments are clearly illustrated in the curriculum guides for the reference of Chinese History teachers and GS teachers at the primary level. As such, the curriculum guides are important basis for the teaching of Chinese history in schools. Teachers should adopt effective teaching strategies with expertise and professional attitude to teach Chinese history with the aim of ensuring that the learning and teaching, as well as assessment tasks in school are in line with the relevant curriculum aims and objectives.
One of the curriculum aims of the primary level GS and Chinese History Curriculum guides is to nurture students' sense of national identity through understanding major historical events and deeds of significant historical figures in China. When teaching different Chinese history topics, teachers could provide a wide range of historical sources and views for students. The sources must be accurate and complete, and in alignment with the curriculum aims and learning objectives of the curriculum documents. Teachers should be objective, rational and impartial in teaching Chinese history. Teachers should also guide students to explore historical phenomena and issues, and formulate standpoints and arguments with sound evidence and unbiased attitudes. When learning Chinese history, students should also show empathy regarding the honour and shame, as well as pain and joy experienced by their own nation.
To enhance teachers' understanding on how to effectively achieve the curriculum aims and learning objectives set out in the curriculum guides, the Education Bureau, together with scholars and experts, continue to provide professional support for the frontline GS teachers at primary level and Chinese History teachers at secondary level, including the development of diversified leaning and teaching resources (e.g. including e-learning resources, teaching materials LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7275
designed for the field studies of relevant topics) and the organization of a range of professional development programmes, such as workshops on curriculum interpretation, learning, teaching and assessment strategies, knowledge enrichment series and Mainland visits, to enhance the learning and teaching of Chinese history.
(4) Teachers play a vital role in passing on knowledge and nurturing students' character. Not only should they possess solid professional knowledge, but also high standards of morality. When selecting teaching materials and conducting lessons, teachers should thoroughly consider whether the teaching materials are suitable, and assist students in making analyses from multiple perspectives as well as expressing their opinions in an unbiased and rational manner. Teachers should definitely not allow their personal political stance to affect their teaching, or even mislead students and instill negative values into them.
If anyone suspects a teacher to have violated the professional conduct, he/she can file a complaint to the school, school sponsoring body and the Education Bureau. Upon receiving such complaints, the Education Bureau conducts investigation according to the established procedures, and thoroughly considers the facts, evidence and representations from the teacher concerned. If any allegation is found substantiated, the Education Bureau will take appropriate follow-up actions having regard to the gravity of each case. These include issuing an advisory, warning or reprimand letter to remind the teacher concerned of the need to uphold professional conduct for meeting the expectations of parents and the general public for teachers. For serious misconduct cases, the Education Bureau may consider cancelling the registration of the teacher concerned pursuant to the Education Ordinance.
Schools, as employers of teachers, are responsible for monitoring their teachers to ensure that their teaching and words and deeds are in line with the principles of education professionalism, and meeting the expectations of society (especially parents). Schools are also responsible for conducting investigation upon receiving complaints alleging teachers to have violated the professional conduct (e.g. teaching incorrect subject contents or concepts, misleading 7276 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
students, instilling negative values into students, etc.) and taking appropriate disciplinary actions against them pursuant to the Employment Ordinance, the Code of Aid, and the terms of their employment contracts with regard to the nature and gravity of the cases.
Relief measures
9. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, in February and April this year, the Government injected $30 billion and $137.5 billion respectively into the Anti-epidemic Fund for launching two rounds of relief measures. However, quite a number of members of the public, including professionals, whose livelihood has been hit by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, have indicated that they have not benefited from the relief measures. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed the impacts of the epidemic on the accounting profession; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) of the reasons why no targeted measures are in place in the two rounds of relief measures to provide assistance for the business operators and practitioners of the accounting profession; and
(3) whether it has plans to launch a new round of relief measures to provide targeted assistance for those members of the public who have been hit by the epidemic but have not benefited from the first two rounds of relief measures; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President, the response to Member's question is as follows:
(1) The Government has been maintaining close liaison with the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants and members of the profession in order to assess the impact of the coronavirus disease LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7277
2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the accountancy sector, and introduced targeted measures to provide the sector with the appropriate support over the past few months:
(a) Due to health and safety concern, coupled with travel restrictions, some accounting firms encountered difficulty in conducting audit work for Hong Kong listed companies with Mainland operations. As a result these listed companies might not be able to meet the deadline specified in the listing rules for publishing their results announcements agreed by auditors, which could lead to suspension of trading in their shares. In view of the practical difficulty and pressure faced by the listed companies concerned in fulfilling their financial reporting obligations, the Securities and Futures Commission and the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited issued guidance in February and March 2020 respectively. Listed companies with financial year ending on 31 December, which because of the pandemic were unable to publish their preliminary results announcements agreed by auditors on or before 31 March 2020 as originally required, were allowed continual trading in their shares by publishing preliminary results announcements without auditor's agreement or specified material financial information by the deadline. Subsequently, as the pandemic has continued, the relevant temporary measure also applies to listed companies with financial year ending on 31 March, which are required to publish their preliminary results announcements with their auditors' agreement on or before 30 June 2020, so as to help allay the practical difficulty reflected to us by the sector.
(b) In order to facilitate members of the accountancy sector to travel to the Mainland to conduct backlogged audit work due to the pandemic for Hong Kong listed companies with Mainland operations, the Chief Secretary for Administration has designated, in accordance with section 4(1)(b) of the Compulsory Quarantine of Certain Persons Arriving at Hong Kong Regulation (Cap. 599C), that certified public accountants (practising) of registered practice units, who are required to travel to the Mainland to conduct audit work for 7278 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Hong Kong listed companies with Mainland operations to assist those companies to fulfil their obligations under relevant Ordinances or other regulatory instruments, can be exempted from the compulsory quarantine arrangement. The Government will continue to provide the sector with timely assistance to tackle the impacts of the pandemic, having regard to factors such as the development of the pandemic in and outside Hong Kong, the need of the sector and the relevant public health risk, etc.
(2) and (3)
In addition to the relief measures in the 2020-2021 Budget costing $120 billion, the Government has rolled out two rounds of Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF") measures, committing in total $287.5 billion to tackle the unprecedented challenges caused by the pandemic. Apart from supporting the hard-hit sectors including aviation, tourism and others which have been directly affected by the Government's anti-epidemic measures, many other relief measures have comprehensive coverage to benefit the majority of citizens and enterprises (including the accountancy sector) for the goals of supporting enterprises, safeguarding jobs and at the same time paving the way for post-pandemic economic recovery.
Measures which benefit the accountancy sector include the Employment Support Scheme totalling $81 billion, the enhancement of the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme, the launch of the Distance Business Programme to support enterprises to continue business with technology adoption and related training, and the provision of matching grant for skills upgrading of staff in the public and private sectors, etc.
Accounting practitioners may also benefit from concessionary measures rolled out by the Government and a number of public organizations, including the $10,000 cash payout to Hong Kong permanent residents aged 18 or above by the Government, deferrals of tax payments, support to the MTR Corporation to provide a fare discount, and relaxation of the Public Transport Fare Subsidy Scheme threshold. These measures, together with others LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7279
introduced by the Airport Authority Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Insurance Authority, will support businesses and members of the public at large.
In formulating the specific plans under the two rounds of AEF and the Budget initiatives, the Government has strived to balance the interests of various sectors and the general public as far as possible. We hope that these measures can help address the imminent needs of the hard-hit enterprises and people. The Government will continue to closely monitor the pandemic and social situation, and consider further support measures as necessary.
Privacy issues related to virus testing
10. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, to tackle the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, the Department of Health ("DH") has collected hundreds of thousands of deep throat saliva samples for virus testing since January this year. Some members of the public are worried that the authorities and relevant organizations may obtain from the saliva samples the DNA sequence information of Hong Kong residents and even establish a database using such information, thereby intruding on the privacy of members of the public. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of samples collected by DH since January this year for testing, with a breakdown by (i) the locations where such samples were collected (e.g. the airport and private clinics) and (ii) whether or not the persons from whom the samples were taken were Hong Kong residents;
(2) of the testing items included in DH's testing service, and in respect of the personal data obtained from such testing service, their (i) categories, (ii) retention period, (iii) storage methods (including whether the data have been anonymized when being processed and stored, as well as the information security measures taken), and (iv) whether such data have been used for purposes other than the purpose of preventing the occurrence or spread of an infectious disease or contamination (e.g. establishing a DNA database and preventing or detecting crimes); if so, of the details;
7280 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
(3) whether DH has disclosed since January this year, in accordance with the Personal Information Collection Statement issued by it to data subjects, the personal data (including biometric data) collected from the virus testing to any bureaux, other government departments or relevant organizations; if so, of the number of occasions of such disclosure and the number of data subjects involved; and
(4) whether it will amend the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) to classify certain categories of personal data (including biometric data such as DNA sequences) as "sensitive personal data", and make more stringent provisions for protecting sensitive personal data, so as to prevent the authorities from using the biometric data collected on a large scale for monitoring and control purposes?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, my consolidated reply to the various parts of the question raised by Mr Charles Peter MOK is as follows:
Enhancing testing for the Coronavirus Disease-2019 ("COVID-19") is a crucial element of the Government's work in prevention and control of the outbreak and can help achieve "early identification, early isolation and early treatment". Following a risk-based approach, the Government has continuously expanded the Enhanced Laboratory Surveillance Programme with a view to identifying COVID-19 infection cases as early as possible. To further prevent imported cases, the Government has mandated all asymptomatic inbound travellers arriving at Hong Kong from overseas and those who have been to Hubei Province in the past 14 days prior to arriving at Hong Kong via land boundary control points (i.e. Shenzhen Bay Port and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Port) to undergo virus testing, with an aim to identifying infected but asymptomatic people as early as possible.
The Department of Health ("DH") has set up a Temporary Specimen Collection Centre ("TSCC") at the AsiaWorld-Expo to speed up the collection of specimen from asymptomatic inbound travellers arriving at Hong Kong for conducting testing for COVID-19. All asymptomatic inbound travellers arriving at the Hong Kong International Airport are mandated to wait for the test results for COVID-19 at a designated location after collecting their deep throat saliva LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7281 samples at TSCC. Depending on the arrival time of flights and taking into consideration factors such as infection control, crowd control and testing time, etc., DH will arrange those asymptomatic people who need to wait for test results overnight to be temporarily accommodated at the Holding Centre for Test Result set up in a hotel. Furthermore, DH has also started to provide relevant persons with an extra specimen collection container and request for their collection of deep throat saliva samples during the home quarantine period for another round of virus testing. After receiving the extra specimen collection container, the relevant persons have to collect their deep throat saliva sample on a designated date before the completion of the 14-day compulsory quarantine at home or at a designated place, and then arrange to deliver the specimen to a collection point on the same morning the specimen was collected by a family member, friend or door-to-door specimen collection service. Specimen collection containers are also provided to asymptomatic inbound travellers who have been to Hubei Province in the past 14 days prior to arriving at Hong Kong via land boundary control points for collection of their deep throat saliva samples at their dwelling places. They need to deliver their deep throat saliva samples via the aforementioned methods for undergoing testing as soon as possible.
From 1 January to 19 May 2020, the Public Health Laboratory Services Branch ("PHLSB") under DH's Centre for Health Protection ("CHP") and the Hospital Authority had performed over 202 900 COVID-19 tests, or over 27 000 tests per million population. The statistics on COVID-19 tests have been uploaded to the CHP website at
All samples obtained for conducting tests for COVID-19 are solely used for preventing and controlling the occurrence or spread of infectious disease. Personal information related to virus testing is stored in PHLSB's laboratory information system and can only be accessed by personnel authorized by PHLSB. The relevant information is appropriately stored, processed and protected in accordance with the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) ("PDPO") and DH's established guidelines. So far, DH has not disclosed any sample or personal information obtained for conducting tests for COVID-19 to other bureaux, departments or related organizations.
According to PDPO, all kinds of personal data are currently protected under the Data Protection Principles ("DPPs") of Schedule 1 to and relevant provisions of PDPO, under which no distinction is made between sensitive 7282 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 personal data and other kinds of personal data. According to DPP 4, data users should take all practicable steps to ensure the personal data they hold are protected against unauthorized or accidental access, processing, erasure, loss or use, having particular regard to "the kind of the data and the harm that could result if any of those events take place". Therefore, data users should adopt stricter data security measures for sensitive personal data.
In the light of advancements in information technology, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data recognizes that the collection and use of personal data of a more sensitive nature, such as biometric data and genetic data, will become more common. In this connection, it has published the Guidance on Collection and Use of Biometric Data to put forward a number of measures and recommendations for data users handling sensitive biometric data on minimizing the risk with regard to collection of the relevant data. In the course of reviewing PDPO, the Government will consider whether it is necessary to strengthen the regulation of sensitive personal data.
Impacts caused to the environment by anti-epidemic measures
11. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic has been rampant in Hong Kong in recent months. Regarding the impacts caused to the environment by the various anti-epidemic measures adopted by members of the public, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as pointed out by some press reports, the fact that discarded face masks can be seen everywhere in country parks in recent months shows that the problem of haphazard disposal of face masks by members of the public is serious, whether the Government has stepped up law enforcement; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) whether it has stepped up cleaning and disinfection work targeting refuse collection vehicles, refuse transfer stations and landfills; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(3) given that members of the public have, during the epidemic, dined out less frequently and made more takeaway orders, whether the Government has stepped up publicity among members of the public LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7283
on bringing their own tableware and minimizing the use of disposable tableware; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(4) how the quantity of disposable tableware disposed of in the first four months of this year compares with that in the same period of last year;
(5) given that a number of villages have not been connected to public sewers and have only been installed with septic tank systems, and the effluent therefrom seeps through the surrounding soils which may eventually pollute rivers, whether the Government has stepped up efforts to call on the households concerned to avoid pouring undiluted bleach into toilet bowls; and
(6) given that members of the public have used a large quantity of bleach for anti-epidemic purposes in recent months, whether the Government has assessed the impacts of such a situation on the ecological environment, and measured the changes in the concentrations of the relevant compounds in the seawater of the Victoria Harbour; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, my specific reply to the various parts of the question raised by Mr CHAN Hak-kan is as follows:
(1) As many members of the public visit our countryside such as country parks in recent days, relevant departments including the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") have strengthened promotion efforts and taken follow-up actions. Taking AFCD as an example. It has stepped up inspections and cleaning of venues through flexible deployment of manpower. At the same time, publicity work at various fronts has been enhanced, such as displaying publicity banners and posters in country parks with high visitor flow, urging countryside visitors to maintain environmental hygiene on radio programmes, and conveying relevant messages through the networks of partner organizations. When patrolling country trails, AFCD staff also remind hikers to bring their litter 7284 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
home and will take necessary enforcement action if littering (including reckless disposal of face masks) is found. For the first fourth months of this year, AFCD prosecuted a total of 60 offenders for littering in country parks.
(2) At present, municipal solid waste ("MSW") is mainly collected by refuse collection vehicles and then sent to landfills for disposal through refuse transfer stations. The process of waste handling at the transfer stations is mainly operated by machinery and the staff at the stations do not need to contact and handle the waste manually. The contractors of the transfer stations are required to regularly clean the waste tipping hall, the floor at the stations, the waste conveyor system and machinery, as well as the containers and trucks used for waste transfer, while all refuse collection vehicles are required to have their bodies washed before leaving the transfer stations and landfills so as to stay clean and hygienic. We have also strengthened anti-epidemic measures at the transfer stations and landfills, and have disseminated health information and guidelines from the Centre for Health Protection ("CHP") under the Department of Health ("DH") to the contractors and on-site staff at the transfer stations and landfills to keep them alert to environmental hygiene and anti-epidemic issues so as to fight the virus together.
In addition, to help the MSW transfer sector increase resources to enhance the provision of workers' personal protective equipment and strengthen the disinfection of refuse transport vehicles, the Environment Bureau has launched a scheme offering a one-off relief subsidy of $8,000 to each eligible refuse transfer station account holder so as to support the sector in coping with the challenges, as well as curbing the risk of virus transmission and maintaining environmental hygiene.
(3) Amid the epidemic, we understand that more members of the public will opt for takeaways to avoid leaving home. That said, while we join hands in fighting the virus, we should also minimize the use of disposable tableware wherever practicable, such as not asking for plastic bags or disposable tableware when ordering takeaways. Meanwhile, EPD and the Environmental Campaign Committee have put forward a number of promotion initiatives. They include:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7285
- using social media such as Facebook and Instagram to remind the public to go green in fighting the virus, and holding online activities to encourage them to practise the idea of "Plastic-Free Takeaway";
- disseminating the message of "plastic-and-disposable-free" via various online platforms and mobile applications (e.g. HK01, ON.CC, Openrice and Yahoo.com) as well as bus/tram/outdoor advertising;
- proactively arranging with property management companies and the Housing Department to display publicity posters in both private and public housing estates to urge members of the public to practise "Plastic-Free Takeaway" in daily lives for joint efforts in waste reduction; and
- launching programmes themed on plastic-free and other green practices via different channels such as TV stations (e.g. TVB and ViuTV), online social platforms and video sharing platforms (e.g. YouTube and the ViuTV mobile application), thereby providing the public with everyday guidelines on waste reduction during the epidemic to foster the culture of "Food Wise" and "Waste Reduction" and promote less use of disposable plastic tableware, so that all sectors of the community will stay green while fighting the virus.
(4) It is not the right timing to conduct any survey on waste separation in order to reduce the risk of spreading of the virus. We are thus unable to confirm whether the quantity of disposable plastic tableware disposed of is increasing. However, the overall disposal volume of MSW in Hong Kong in the past four months has slightly decreased as compared with the same period last year. Our preliminary analysis is that this might be related to the overall drop in economic activities in recent months.
(5) CHP under DH has issued a guideline on the Use of Bleach
household cleaning and disinfection, and that overuse of bleach will pollute the environment and disturb ecological balance and should thus be avoided.
(6) When going through sewerage systems, used household bleach will be largely diluted and the residual chlorine therein will also undergo chemical reactions with organic substances in the pipelines and be degraded, thus causing no adverse impact to the marine ecology in general. According to the water quality monitoring data collected for the first quarter of 2020, the overall state of Hong Kong's marine waters and rivers is comparable to that of the same period in the past and no abnormality has been detected in the water quality of the Victoria Harbour.
Operation of the Radio Television Hong Kong
12. MS ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, regarding the operation of the Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK"), will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the average TV ratings of the programmes broadcast on RTHK's TV 31 and TV 32 channels during the prime time (i.e. from 7:00 pm to 11:00 pm), as well as the average hourly production cost of such programmes, in each of the past two years; whether the Government will request RTHK to consolidate the programmes concerned, so as to release a channel for other purposes; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) given that the Office of the Communications Authority has received a number of complaints about RTHK's TV programme "Headliner" broadcast on 13 March this year, whether the Government knows the progress of the Communications Authority on following up such complaints;
(3) given that the Charter of Radio Television Hong Kong ("the Charter") was made in as early as 2010, whether the Government has plans to review the Charter in order to ensure that its contents keep pace with the times; if so, of the details (including the review direction); if not, the reasons for that; LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7287
(4) of the procedures adopted by RTHK for granting copyright licences covering its programmes; the number of programmes in respect of which a licence was granted by RTHK in each of the past three financial years, and set out, by programme name, (i) the name of the organization granted the licence, (ii) total programme hours and (iii) the income so generated;
(5) whether it has reviewed if RTHK's directorate establishment is commensurate with the relevant officers' workload and work efficiency; whether it has plans to downsize the directorate establishment;
(6) as it has been stipulated in the Charter that the RTHK Board of Advisors ("the Board") shall maintain regular communication with RTHK management, and that the Director of Broadcasting ("the Director") may seek advice of the Board on matters pertaining to the editorial principles, standards and quality of RTHK programming, and on community participation in broadcasting, of (i) the matters on which the Director sought advice of the Board, (ii) the details of the advice given by the Board to the Director, and (iii) the follow-up actions taken by the Director on the advice so given, in the past three years; if there were matters on which follow-up actions had not been taken in accordance with the advice so given, of the details and the reasons for that;
(7) given that while it is stipulated in the Charter that the Board should, through receiving reports on the performance evaluation of RTHK and RTHK's compliance with performance evaluation indicators, advise the Director on matters such as the adoption of appropriate performance evaluation indicators and ways to improve service delivery, and that RTHK should produce an annual report no later than six months after the conclusion of the year reported on, the Director of Audit pointed out, in his value for money audit report on "Radio Television Hong Kong: Provision of programmes" issued in November 2018, that RTHK had neither submitted any performance evaluation report to the Board, nor prepared any annual report, whether the Government has gained an understanding from RTHK of the reasons for that; and
7288 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
(8) of RTHK's mechanism in place to follow up the complaints against its programme staff for allegedly having a biased stance and disseminating inaccurate statements, etc.; as the Government has pointed out that the presentation of RTHK in its programme "The Pulse" broadcast on 28 March this year breached the One-China Principle and the public purposes and mission stipulated in the Charter, of the details of the follow-up actions taken by RTHK and the programme staff of the programme on the matter?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") is both a public service broadcaster and a government department. The roles that RTHK should play and the objectives that it should achieve are clearly stipulated in the Charter of RTHK ("the Charter"). RTHK enjoys editorial independence, but not without any restraints. The Charter specifies that RTHK, as a public service broadcaster, should comply with the relevant code of practices issued by and complaints handling mechanism of the Communications Authority ("CA"), and attach great importance and give due consideration to the views of the RTHK Board of Advisors. As a government department, RTHK is under the policy purview and housekeeping oversight of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. RTHK and its staff are subject to all rules and regulations applicable to government departments. The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau has all along been handling RTHK matters in accordance with the Charter.
Our reply to the various parts of the question raised by the Member is as follows:
(1) For RTHK TV 31 programmes, the average rating in 2018 and 2019 was 0.1 (8 000 viewers) and 0.3 (19 600 viewers) respectively. As regards RTHK TV 32 programmes, the average rating in 2018 and 2019 was 0.0 (1 400 viewers) and 0.5 (32 700 viewers) respectively. RTHK has no separate breakdown of ratings of digital television ("TV") channels by period.
Regarding production costs, the cost per transmission hour on RTHK's digital TV channels in financial years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 was $25,150 and $19,390 respectively.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7289
RTHK TV 31 offers programmes of diversified topics, covering current and public affairs, education, arts and culture and minority interests. RTHK TV 32 mainly broadcasts Legislative Council meetings, news, press conferences and sports events, etc. As the two channels have different positioning, there is no plan to consolidate the channels.
(2) According to the Charter, RTHK should ensure that all its TV and radio programmes should comply with the relevant codes of practices issued by CA for regulating the programme standards of broadcasting licensees. In accordance with the established mechanism, CA adopts consistent standards and procedures in handling complaints against programmes of commercial and public service broadcasters.
As regards the RTHK TV programme Headliner broadcast on 14 February 2020, CA received over 3 300 complaints, and announced its decisions on 19 May 2020. CA took the view that the complaints in respect of accuracy of factual contents, denigration of and insult to the Police, and expression of a sufficiently broad range of views in personal view programmes were substantiated, and decided that RTHK should be warned to observe more closely the relevant provisions in the Generic Code of Practice on Television Programme Standards ("the Code"). Given that RTHK, as a public service broadcaster, had been repeatedly ruled to have breached the various provisions in the Code, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau took the view that the situation was very serious and had asked RTHK to undertake the following response:
(1) to state clearly the acceptance of CA's decision regarding complaints against the programme Headliner and to offer an apology;
(2) to examine whether there is any negligence and error committed by staff and personnel in the course of the programme production and editorial processes, and, if so, to follow up or take disciplinary actions; and
7290 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
(3) to conduct a full review of the programme production and editorial mechanism in order to ensure that all RTHK programmes fulfil in full the public purposes and mission specified in the Charter.
RTHK indicated that it accepted the CA's ruling and would follow up seriously. RTHK apologized to the people being discontented with RTHK and the police officers feeling offended due to the series of events. Furthermore, RTHK had decided to immediately pull the episodes involved in the CA's rulings from the shelves, cease production of Headliner after the broadcast of this season, and immediately launch the review on that programme.
As regards the RTHK TV programme Headliner broadcast on 13 March 2020, CA has received five complaints, which are being processed.
(3) After comprehensive discussion and consultation, the Government promulgated the Charter, which was announced in August 2010 and signed by the then Chief Secretary for Administration, the Chairman of the Broadcasting Authority and the Director of Broadcasting. The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau will examine whether there is a need to review on the Charter, having regard to the views of the public and stakeholders.
(4) Any organization or individual who plans to broadcast RTHK programmes on its own platform may approach RTHK for acquiring the content licence of RTHK programmes. RTHK will set a fee in accordance with the price scheme and the copyright required by the user.
Information on the content licences issued by RTHK in the past three years is as follows:
Number of Income Programme Year Organizations ($million) hours 2019-2020 39 2.52 About 110 2018-2019 26 2.34 About 50 2017-2018 26 2.32 About 160
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7291
The relevant organizations have a wide coverage, including TV stations, online media, news agencies, airlines, libraries, film makers, universities, record companies, publishers, mobile application companies and non-governmental organizations, etc. The content of the programmes include news, current affairs, documentaries, archive footages, dramas, music, arts, literature and interviews, etc.
Due to the confidentiality clause in the contract, RTHK cannot disclose the details of the fees charged for the content licence of individual programme, but the relevant fees are determined in accordance with the established price scheme of RTHK. Having regard to the recommendations of the Director of Audit's Report No. 71 ("Audit Report") on RTHK's provision of programmes published by the Audit Commission in October 2018, RTHK conducted an in-depth review on the procedures of issuing content licences (including setting guidelines on how to determine the fees and stipulating the factors to be taken into consideration in determining the fees, which include programme genre, scale of production, licence period and licensing terms involved, etc.), and implemented the relevant recommendations in 2019.
(5) The existing directorate establishment of RTHK meets the actual operational need of the department, and we will review it from time to time.
(6) and (7)
According to the Charter, the RTHK Board of Advisors advises the Director of Broadcasting on matters pertaining to editorial principles, programming standards and quality of RTHK programming, service performance evaluation, service improvement and community participation in broadcasting, etc., and receives reports on complaints against editorial principles, programming standards and quality of RTHK programming.
The current Board of Advisors has provided advice on various aspects with regard to the areas mentioned above. The relevant discussions and recommendations are recorded in details in the 7292 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
minutes and the Board of Advisors Annual Reports, which are uploaded onto RTHK's website. RTHK indicated that it attached great importance to the advice tendered by the Board of Advisors, and would certainly relay the views to the production sections concerned for discussion, review and follow-up.
Audit Report recommended that RTHK should submit the reports on performance evaluation of RTHK and its compliance with performance evaluation indicators to the Board of Advisors regularly; and to prepare an Annual Report for public inspection in accordance with the requirements of the Charter. RTHK implemented the relevant requirement in 2019.
(8) Regarding the concerns arising from an interview with an official of the World Health Organization in RTHK programme The Pulse, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau holds the view that the presentation in that episode has breached the One-China Principle and the purposes and mission of RTHK as a public service broadcaster as specified in the Charter. The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau has urged the Director of Broadcasting and RTHK to fully abide by the Charter and that they must handle all programmes in a professional and vigilant manner as required.
RTHK indicated that it had carefully examined and humbly listened to the views of all parties. The management has repeatedly reminded and called on RTHK staff to abide by the One-China Principle which is not to be breached.
Registration as electors for the Information Technology Functional Constituency
13. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, the 2020 Legislative Council General Election is tentatively scheduled for 6 September. Some people who have submitted applications for registration as electors for the Information Technology Functional Constituency ("ITFC") have relayed to me that owing to the implementation of special work arrangements and curtailment of certain public services by a number of government departments in recent LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7293 months due to the epidemic, the progress of processing the relevant applications have been slow. They are worried that the processing of their applications cannot be completed before the publication date of the Final Registers of Electors (which must not be later than 25 July under the law), which will render them unable to vote in this election. Regarding the processing of applications for registration as electors for ITFC, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of applications for change of the functional constituency to which the applicants belonged to ITFC, which were received, approved and rejected by the Electoral Registration Officer in each month within the cycle for electors to change their registration particulars (i.e. from 3 June 2019 to 2 April 2020), as well as the current number of such applications awaiting to be processed;
(2) of the respective numbers of applications for new registration as electors for ITFC, which were received, approved and rejected by the Electoral Registration Officer in each month within the cycle for registrations of new electors (i.e. from 3 July 2019 to 2 May 2020), as well as the current number of such applications awaiting to be processed;
(3) whether, as envisaged by the Registration and Electoral Office ("REO"), it can complete the processing of all applications for registration as electors for ITFC before the publication date of the Provisional Registers of Electors (which must not be later than 1 June under the law); if not, of the expected number of applications the processing of which cannot be completed in time, and whether it will continue to process such applications after the publication of the Provisional Registers of Electors;
(4) given that upon receiving applications for registration as electors for ITFC, REO will issue letters to the applicants requesting them to submit proofs of academic qualifications, professional qualifications and employment, of the length of time given by REO to the applicants for submitting the relevant documents; whether REO has, in the light of the special work arrangements implemented earlier, given sufficient time to the applicants for submitting the documents, and informed them in a timely manner the progress of processing 7294 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
their applications; whether REO has put in place measures to ensure that the processing of all applications for registration as electors for ITFC will be completed before the publication of the Final Registers of Electors; and
(5) of the current number of REO staff members responsible for processing applications for registration as electors for ITFC; whether REO has plans to recruit additional manpower to enhance its capacity in processing applications for registration as electors, so as to ensure that no eligible electors will be disqualified from voting in the ITFC election because their applications for registration as electors have not been processed in time; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, our consolidated reply to Mr Charles Peter MOK's question is as follows:
(1) to (3)
Insofar as the 2020 voter registration ("VR") cycle is concerned, in accordance with section 10A(12) of the Electoral Affairs Commission (Registration of Electors) (Legislative Council Geographical Constituencies) (District Council Constituencies) Regulation (Cap. 541A) and section 26A(12) of the Electoral Affairs Commission (Registration) (Electors for Legislative Council Functional Constituencies) (Voters for Election Committee Subsectors) (Members of Election Committee) Regulation (Cap. 541B), the deadline for registered electors to change the registration particulars is 2 April 2020 and the deadline for new registration is 2 May 2020. The Registration and Electoral Office ("REO") must handle applications for change of particulars and new registration received according to the relevant statutory deadlines, with a view to reflecting the relevant registration particulars in the 2020 provisional registers ("PRs") to be published on or before 1 June 2020 and the 2020 final registers ("FRs") to be published on or before 25 July 2020 respectively pursuant to section 32(1) of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap. 542) in a timely manner. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7295
REO is working at full steam to handle applications received before the deadlines for change of particulars and new registration in the 2020 VR cycle. Given that the 2020 PRs and FRs have not been published yet, REO at the moment is unable to provide any relevant data in respect of the 2020 VR cycle regarding the change from the respective functional constituencies ("FCs") to the Information Technology FC ("ITFC") and new registration.
(4) In view of the concern of the community about the eligibility of electors of ITFC, starting from the 2017 VR cycle, REO issues letters to the relevant specified body of the applicant and the applicant himself/herself requesting their provision of proof to substantiate the applicant's eligibility under ITFC, for example, the documentary proof of the applicant's relevant academic and/or work experience, etc., for each new application intended to register as an elector of ITFC. In general, REO requests that an applicant must provide the relevant documentary proof within 14 days from the date of issuance of the letter (the period will be changed to 5 days for applications received approaching the deadline of new registration) with a view to handling the relevant application expeditiously. Apart from issuing letters, REO will also contact the applicant by telephone. In the event that an applicant fails to provide documentary proof before the specified deadline, the Electoral Registration Officer will decide not to process further the relevant application and will notify the applicant of the decision concerned by letter according to the relevant law.
(5) It is now the peak season for the work of 2020 VR cycle. REO has arranged a team of 128 civil servants and about 570 contract staff who are working at full steam in handling the work of VR in this cycle.
Applying neck restraint technique by police officers
14. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Chinese): President, in 2012, a taxi driver who struggled when being arrested was dragged into a police car by a police officer by means of a chokehold, which caused the driver to suffer from a cervical vertebra dislocation and die after hospitalization for about one month. 7296 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
It has been reported that on the 7th of this month, some passers-by witnessed that a police officer, when arresting a man suspected of having criminally damaged vehicles, pinned down that man by kneeling on his neck for more than two minutes. Subsequently, that man was sent to the hospital for treatment and died on the following day. On the 10th of this month, a police officer held a journalist by a chokehold for about 20 seconds when subduing her, causing her to pass out for a while; and another police officer pinned down a Member of this Council by kneeling on his neck when arresting him, who was subsequently sent to the hospital for treatment. There are comments that police officers using the "neck restraint" ("NR") technique such as a chokehold and kneeling on a person's neck will easily cause serious bodily harms (e.g. serious damage to the anterior throat structures, cervical vertebra dislocation and fractures) or even death by asphyxiation to such person. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the Police have formulated guidelines setting out the principles for using the NR technique; given that the Hong Kong Police Force Procedures Manual sets out the options of force to be used corresponding to six levels of resistance, of the level(s) of resistance that has been mounted by a person after which police officers may apply such technique to that person;
(2) of the number of occasions in the past five years on which police officers used the NR technique for making arrests, and the number of cases in which the arrestees concerned sustained injuries or died as a result, with a breakdown by nature of such cases;
(3) of the number of complaints about police officers' improper use of NR received in the past five years by the Complaints Against Police Office ("CAPO") of the Police; among such cases, the number of those found substantiated, and the penalties imposed on the police officers concerned; and
(4) whether it knows, in respect of the reportable complaint cases involving the use of NR, (i) the number of occasions on which the Independent Police Complaints Council ("IPCC") raised queries to and requested clarification or provision of more information from CAPO, and (ii) the number of cases in which the investigation results were eventually not endorsed by IPCC, in the past five years?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7297
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, according to section 10 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232), the Police have the responsibility to adopt lawful measures to maintain public safety, public order, as well as safeguard people's life and property. The Police will, in light of the circumstances at the scene, make assessments and exercise professional judgment to take appropriate actions, including using the minimum force as necessary, to ensure public safety and public order.
My reply to various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) The Police have established guidelines on the use of force, including the response to different levels of resistance. Force is used by the Police in response to the prevailing circumstances at the scene, and how it is used depends on the resistance perceived by police officers based on the threat and circumstances at the time.
It is not appropriate to disclose the concrete details of the use of force in order to avoid affecting the effectiveness of the Police's enforcement. However, police officers must comply with the use of force principles when using force, i.e. they may use minimum force as appropriate only when such an action is absolutely necessary and there are no other means to accomplish the lawful duty. Police officers will give verbal warning prior to the use of force as far as circumstances permit, while the person(s) involved will be given every opportunity, where practicable, to obey police orders before force is used.
Every newly recruited or serving police officer has to go through rigorous training on the use of force in order to fully understand how to use different levels of force in a safe and effective manner as a means to achieve the relevant lawful purposes. Police officers will exercise a high level of restraint at all times and cease to use force once the purpose is achieved.
(2) According to the Police's guidelines, if an arrestee is injured at the scene of crime or during arrest, treatment will be arranged for that person. In addition, as prescribed under the Coroners Ordinance (Cap. 504), there are 20 types of deaths which must be reported to the Coroner, including deaths which occurred during the course of 7298 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
the discharge of duty by a person having statutory powers of arrest or detention. The Police have always strictly complied with the statutory requirements.
In the past five years (2015-2019), there was one case in which a suspect died while being subdued by a police officer. The man in the case attempted to attack a staff member of a shop with a knife. After giving warnings but in vain, a police officer fired a shot at the man. The Police have submitted a death report to the Coroner. Given that the judicial proceedings are still underway, it is not appropriate for us to comment on the details of the case.
The Police do not maintain the statistics requested in the question.
(3) and (4)
Overall speaking, from 2014-2015 to 2018-2019, the Independent Police Complaints Council ("IPCC") received investigation reports of a total of 8 435 new reportable complaints from the Complaints Against Police Office ("CAPO"). During the same period, IPCC endorsed the investigation results of 8 719 reportable complaints involving 15 593 allegations, among which 330 were "substantiated" allegations. Among the cases endorsed by IPCC, a total of 615 police officers in 443 cases were subject to disciplinary proceedings or other internal actions.
During the above period, IPCC raised a total of 4 381 queries to CAPO, among which 1 401 involved IPCC seeking clarification on the information in investigation reports (e.g. requesting CAPO to provide more information on the background of the complaint). During the same period, there were no investigation results of complaints that were not endorsed by IPCC.
CAPO categorizes the allegations involved in the complaints as follows:
(1) Neglect of duty;
(2) Misconduct/improper manner/offensive language;
(3) Assault; LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7299
(4) Unnecessary use of authority;
(5) Threat;
(6) Fabrication of evidence;
(7) Police procedures; and
(8) Other offences.
The Police do not keep statistical records of the category mentioned in the question.
Smuggling of shark fins
15. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that the Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED") detected two smuggling cases of shark fins in April and May this year, which involved a total of 26 tonnes of fins from 38 500 sharks of controlled endangered species. Both the weight and value of the seizures have broken the past records, and the weight doubled that for the whole of 2019. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of smuggling cases of shark fins detected by C&ED in each of the past five years, and set out the following information on each case by the date on which it was detected:
(i) total value of the cargo,
(ii) cargo weight,
(iii) shark species involved,
(iv) mode of trade (i.e. import, export or re-export),
(v) countries involved in the trade (including the place of origin and destination of the cargo),
(vi) means of transport,
7300 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
(vii) number of persons prosecuted (if any), and
(viii) penalties imposed on the convicted persons (if any);
if it cannot provide such information, of the reasons for that; and
(2) whether it has studied the causes for the substantial increase in the quantity of smuggled shark fins seized in this year as compared with those in previous years; if so, of the details; whether it has reviewed the effectiveness of the measures currently adopted for combating the activities of smuggling shark fins; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, our reply to the question raised by Mr LEUNG is as follows:
(1) The number of cases and details of the annual seizures of controlled shark fin products in the past five years (2015 to 2019) are tabulated below:
Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Number of 6 4 11 8 28 Cases Estimate 0.38 0.65 1.92 0.52 20.7 Value ($ million) Shark Species Oceanic Oceanic Oceanic Oceanic Oceanic (Weight/kg) Whitetip Shark Whitetip Shark Whitetip Shark Whitetip Shark Whitetip Shark (283.5) (0.3) (1 263.1) (143.3) (604.2) Controlled Controlled Controlled Controlled Controlled Hammerhead Hammerhead Hammerhead Hammerhead Hammerhead Sharks (215.4) Sharks Sharks Sharks (464.4) Sharks Whale Shark (1 035.4) (1 382.7) (2 143.2) (12) Silky Shark (2 138) Thresher Sharks (1 566.7) Mode of Import Import Import Import Import Trade LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7301
Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Countries Seychelles (1) Madagascar India (1) Peru (1) Morocco (1) Involved Panama (1) (1) Egypt (1) Indonesia (2) Mexico (9) (Number of Nicaragua (1) Somalia (1) Kenya (1) UAE (1) Madagascar Cases) United Arab Panama (1) Peru (2) Madagascar (1) Emirates unknown (1) Senegal (1) (1) Venezuela via ("UAE") (1) Guatemala (2) Kenya (1) Mainland Peru (1) Indonesia (1) Costa Rica (1) China (1) Morocco (1) Somalia (1) Sri Lanka (1) Sri Lanka (4) UAE (1) Panama (1) Democratic Republic of the Congo (1) UAE (1) Somalia (1) Pakistan (1) Kenya (2) Senegal (1) Suriname (1) Philippines (3) Mode of air (4) air (2) air (1) air (3) air (15) Transportation sea (2) sea (2) sea (10) sea (5) sea (12) (Number of land (1) cases) Number of 0 0 0 0 5Note Persons Prosecuted Fine ($) NIL NIL NIL NIL 6,000 and 8,000
Note:
A total of five cases involving illegal import of controlled shark fin were prosecuted in 2019, two of which have been fined, and the remaining three cases will be tried at the District Court.
(2) The Government is committed to protecting endangered species and implements the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ("CITES") in Hong Kong through the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) ("the Ordinance"). The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department has been working closely with the Customs and Excise Department to combat illegal import and export of endangered species, including controlled shark fin. The Government has stepped up efforts to combat smuggling activities in recent years, which resulted in an increase in the number of illegal shark fins seized. In addition, in line with CITIES, Hong Kong has added four shark species (i.e. three species of Thresher 7302 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Sharks and Silky Shark) commonly seen in the trade for regulation under the Ordinance since 1 November 2018. The new control measures may also lead to more seizures of illegal shark fins in 2019 than in the past. Besides, the import of dried shark fins in Hong Kong has decreased from 2 805 tonnes in 2015 to 2 012 tonnes in 2019, which may partly reflect the effectiveness of conservation measures.
Office accommodation for the Radio Television Hong Kong
16. MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that on the 12th of this month, the Education Bureau wrote to the Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") requesting it to vacate and hand back the Educational Television Centre at Broadcast Drive by September this year. Besides, it is learnt that the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation has planned to resume the premises located in the InnoCentre at Tat Chee Avenue which is currently used as the office of the General Programmes Section of RTHK's Television Division. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) when the authorities made the decisions to resume the aforesaid properties and the justifications for that, the uses of such properties after resumption, and the estimated total amount and a breakdown of the expenditure to be incurred for the new uses; whether the authorities will give RTHK more time for making arrangements to move out;
(2) of the number of RTHK staff members currently working in the aforesaid properties, and the total amount of expenditure, as envisaged by RTHK, to be incurred on the relocation, renovation of new offices and studios, as well as procurement of equipment; whether RTHK will be provided with additional funding to meet the relevant expenditure;
(3) of the current locations of RTHK's offices, and set out, by property name in a table, the following information: (i) the address, (ii) the unit(s) of RTHK stationed in the property, (iii) the number of staff members (broken down by department), and (iv) the monthly rental expenses (if any);
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7303
(4) whether RTHK has secured new sites for rehousing the affected staff members and equipment; if so, set out in a table the relevant information according to the items mentioned in (3);
(5) of the respective current utilization rates of the various studios under RTHK (i) from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, (ii) from 6:00 pm to midnight on weekdays, and (iii) from 9:00 am to midnight on weekends; the impacts of handing back the aforesaid properties, as envisaged by RTHK, on the quantity, pace and quality of its programme production; and
(6) of the expenditure items (including rents, repair of facilities and relocation of offices), and the amount of expenditure on such items, of the various subheads under Head 160 (RTHK) of Government expenditure, in each month since the 2016-2017 financial year?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, our reply to the various parts of the question raised by the Member, prepared in consultation with the Education Bureau and the Innovation and Technology Bureau, is as follows:
(1) to (4)
The information of properties where offices and production facilities of the Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") are located, is as follows:
Monthly Number Property Address RTHK Department Rental of Staff Expenses Broadcasting 30 Broadcast - Radio and 328 Not House Drive Corporate applicable Programming Division ("R&CP") - Production Services Division ("PSD") 7304 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Monthly Number Property Address RTHK Department Rental of Staff Expenses - Departmental Administration Unit ("DAU") - Corporate Communications and Standards Unit ("CC&SU") Television 1A - R&CP 229 Not House Broadcast - Television and applicable Drive Corporate Businesses Division ("TV&CB") - PSD - CC&SU Educational 79 Broadcast - R&CP 99 Not Television Drive - TV&CB applicable Centre ("ETC") Queensway 66 - R&CP 26 Not Government Queensway - CC&SU applicable Offices InnoCentre 72 Tat Chee - TV&CB 119 The Avenue landlord does not agree to provide One Mong 1 Mong Kok - PSD 69 About Kok Road Road - DAU $390,000 Commercial - Finance and Centre Resources Unit - Systems Review Unit
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7305
As the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation will reposition InnoCentre as a hub for supporting financial technologies and digital commerce-related technologies as well as nurturing start-ups, it informed RTHK in July 2018 not to renew the tenancy for the offices in InnoCentre upon expiry. RTHK will move out after the expiry of tenancy agreement in March 2021, and has rented appropriate properties in the Kwun Tong District to reprovision the offices and production facilities.
Furthermore, RTHK has all along been producing school educational television ("ETV") programmes for the Education Bureau since 1976. To facilitate programme production, the Education Bureau has shared the use of its ETC with RTHK. Following the change in mode of production of ETV programmes in light of the recommendations made in the Director of Audit's Report in 2018, annual financial provision is no longer allocated to RTHK for production of a certain number of ETV programmes. As a result, the original purpose and service need for RTHK to use ETC no longer exists. There is also a need for office accommodation within the Education Bureau arising from its own service development. Hence, the Education Bureau formally requested RTHK on 11 May 2020 to return the offices currently being used by RTHK in ETC, to meet its service and office space needs. RTHK is discussing with the Education Bureau on the arrangement and timetable of vacating ETC in order to meet the operational needs of both parties.
The expenditure involved in the aforementioned reprovisioning plan will be absorbed by existing resources.
(5) In 2019-2020, the average utilization rate of RTHK's four studios in weekday daytime, weekday nighttime, and weekend are 76%, 52% and 52% respectively. RTHK expects that the aforementioned reprovisioning plan has no significant impact on programme production.
(6) From 2016-2017 to 2019-2020, the expenditure of Head 160 is at Annex.
7306 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Annex
Breakdown of Expenditure under Head 160
Capital Operating Account Account General Departmental Expenses (including salaries of non-civil service General contract staff, Non-recurrent Total Personnel outsourced Expenses Plant, Year Personal Expenditure Related services (Community Equipment Emoluments ($'000) Expenses (e.g. Involvement and Works ($'000) ($'000) cleansing, Broadcasting ($'000) security, Fund) electrical and ($'000) mechanical repairs, etc.), rental and facilities repairs, etc.) ($'000) 2016-2017 368,611 14,677 509,999 6,119 86,033 985,439 2017-2018 398,254 20,044 510,218 6,405 73,479 1,008,400 2018-2019 421,548 26,321 517,949 8,025 63,742 1,037,585 2019-2020 445,170 31,503 496,444 8,000 61,926 1,043,043 (Revised Estimates)
Use of force by police officers when making arrests
17. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that on the 7th of this month, a drunken man suspected of having criminally damaged vehicles put up resistance while being arrested. As such, he was pinned down by police officers who knelt on his neck, back and hands, and beat him with batons. After being subdued, that man was sent to the hospital for treatment and died on the following day. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7307
(1) of the reasons why the Police, before conducting any investigation into the aforesaid incident, claimed in reply to media enquiries on that night that the force used by the police officers was "appropriate force";
(2) whether the Police have embarked on internal and criminal investigations into the incident; if so, whether the investigations have been completed; if so, of the outcome, including whether any police officer has been punished (e.g. interdiction) or transferred; if so, of the ranks and number of the police officers involved, as well as the details of the punishments; if no police officer has been punished, of the reasons for that;
(3) given that the Hong Kong Police Force Procedures Manual sets out the options of force to be used corresponding to six levels of resistance, of the level of resistance to which the force used by the police officers in the aforesaid incident corresponds;
(4) given that the Police guidelines on the use of force stipulate that police officers may use minimum force as appropriate only when (i) such an action is absolutely necessary and (ii) there are no other means to accomplish the lawful duty, whether the Police have assessed if the use of force by the police officers in the aforesaid incident complied with such principles;
(5) given that in 2012, as a taxi driver became agitated and kept struggling when being arrested, he was dragged into a police car by a police officer by means of a chokehold, who thus suffered from a cervical vertebra dislocation and died after one month, and a Coroner's Court handed down a judgement in 2018 that the driver had been "unlawfully killed", whether the Police have, in the light of that incident, (i) improved the relevant codes and guidelines governing police officers' handling of persons who have lost their self-control ability (e.g. that police officers should refrain or be forbidden from pressing the vital parts of the body (such as the neck) of the persons they intend to arrest), and (ii) provided relevant training to police officers, so as to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents; and
7308 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
(6) whether there are relevant provisions and codes in the existing Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232) and the Police General Orders that (i) instruct police officers on how to handle persons who have lost their self-control ability under the influence of alcohol, and (ii) prohibit police officers from using force in the form of a chokehold (including air choke and blood choke) on any person in the course of making an arrest; if so, of the details?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, according to section 10 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232), the Police have the responsibility to adopt lawful measures to maintain public safety, public order, as well as safeguard people's life and property. The Police will, in light of the circumstances at the scene, make assessments and exercise professional judgment to take appropriate actions, including using the minimum force as necessary, to ensure public safety and public order.
My reply to various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) to (4)
In the afternoon of 7 May, uniformed officers of Yau Tsim Police District were being asked for help by pedestrian(s) about an alleged criminal damage by a non-ethnic Chinese male when patrolling along the Nathan Road. The man was later stopped and searched by police officers. During the process, the man resisted and struggled violently, and attacked the police officers. Finally, the police officers, with the help of pedestrians, brought him under control by using appropriate force and carried him to the police car for further search and investigation. The man was arrested on suspected criminal damage, possession of drugs and attack on police officers. As the man was feeling unwell, the police officers called an ambulance and had him sent to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital for treatment. The man was certified dead on 8 May.
The case is being investigated by the Regional Crime Unit of Kowloon West. The Police have arranged for a Forensic Pathologist to perform an autopsy on the deceased. Initially, neither fractures nor damages to the internal organs of the deceased LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7309
were found. The cause of death is subject to further toxicological testing and investigation. The Police will submit the investigation report to the coroner for handling and scrutiny after completing the investigation. The report will include the cause of the deceased's death and the circumstances of the police officers' use of force.
In order not to prejudice the investigation and judicial proceedings in future, it is inappropriate for us to comment on the details of the case.
(5) The jury of a death inquest in 2018 recommended that police officers be trained on the techniques of carrying arrested persons to police cars.
Currently, every newly recruited or serving police officer must undergo rigorous training on the use of force, including how to handle suspects resisting arrest as well as the basic techniques and methods for carrying arrested persons under general circumstances.
(6) The Police have established guidelines on the use of force, including the response to different levels of resistance. Force is used by the Police in response to the prevailing circumstances at the scene, and how it is used depends on the resistance perceived by police officers based on the threat and circumstances at the time.
It is not appropriate to disclose the concrete details of the use of force in order to avoid affecting the effectiveness of the Police's enforcement. However, police officers must comply with the use of force principles when using force, i.e. they may use minimum force as appropriate only when such an action is absolutely necessary and there are no other means to accomplish the lawful duty. Police officers will give verbal warning prior to the use of force as far as circumstances permit, while the person(s) involved will be given every opportunity, where practicable, to obey police orders before force is used.
Every newly recruited or serving police officer has to go through rigorous training on the use of force in order to fully understand how to use different levels of force in a safe and effective manner as a 7310 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
means to achieve the relevant lawful purposes. Police officers will exercise a high level of restraint at all times and cease to use force once the purpose is achieved.
Management of public toilets
18. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Chinese): President, amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, the Government urges members of the public through numerous channels to wash hands frequently and, after using the toilet, put the toilet lid down before flushing to avoid spreading causative agents. However, I have received complaints in recent months alleging that the Heung Che Street Public Toilet in Tsuen Wan, even after the completion of its enhancement works, unexpectedly had no flush water supply, and it was only after I made a referral of such complaints that the problem was resolved. In fact, I lodged a complaint with the Government in as early as 2019 about problems such as insufficient supply of liquid soap and damages to wash hand basins in the Tsuen Wan Multi-storey Car Park Building Public Toilet that had occurred soon after the completion of the refurbishment thereof. There are comments that although the Government has planned to spend about $600 million for implementing the Enhanced Public Toilet Refurbishment Programme over a five-year period starting from 2019-2020, the Government's monitoring ability is open to doubt, and similar problems may still plague public toilets, making it impossible to achieve the objective of enhancing the hygiene condition of public toilets. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of (i) routine and (ii) surprise inspections on public toilets conducted by the staff of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department in each month of last year, and set out in a table, by District Council ("DC") district, the average number of inspections conducted on each public toilet;
(2) of the number of complaints about public toilets received by the Government in each of the past three years, with a breakdown by DC district and the major subject matter of the complaints; and
(3) as the Government has indicated that it has taken additional measures in response to the epidemic to enhance cleansing of public toilets, of the effectiveness of such measures?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7311
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, the Government has allocated additional resources for implementing the Enhanced Public Toilet Refurbishment Programme to speed up the refurbishment of public toilets managed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD").
My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) Generally speaking, FEHD staff conduct inspections of public toilets with high usage rate or at tourist spots at least once a day, and on average once a day or every other day for those with lower usage. For public toilets located in remote areas and with low usage, FEHD will determine an appropriate inspection frequency having regard to the circumstances.
On top of routine inspections, FEHD staff conduct surprise inspections to monitor the contractors' performance of cleansing services against the standard stipulated in the contracts.
The number of inspections of public toilets conducted by FEHD last year (January to December 2019) by District Council ("DC") district is tabulated in Annex 1. Separate breakdown of the number of routine and surprise inspections is not readily available.
(2) In 2017, 2018 and 2019, FEHD received 2 913, 2 626 and 2 367 complaints about public toilets respectively, mainly relating to services and management of public toilets as well as odour. A breakdown of these complaints by DC district is tabulated in Annex 2.
(3) In accordance with the health advice issued by the Centre for Health Protection of the Department of Health, FEHD has taken effective measures for disinfection and cleansing of public toilets by using 1:99 diluted household bleach every two hours for toilets with attendant services and at least twice daily for toilets without attendant services.
7312 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Annex 1
Number of Inspections of Public Toilets Conducted by FEHD in 2019
District Number of Public Toilets Number of Inspections Central & Western 36 18 264 Wan Chai 18 12 071 Eastern 13 9 148 Southern 23 10 104 Islands 68 21 563 Yau Tsim Mong 20 13 502 Sham Shui Po 10 6 472 Kowloon City 15 10 675 Wong Tai Sin 6 3 859 Kwun Tong 10 6 360 Kwai Tsing 19 7 446 Tsuen Wan 32 11 293 Tuen Mun 47 16 453 Yuen Long 183 16 618 North 137 15 748 Tai Po 72 16 278 Sha Tin 30 10 316 Sai Kung 60 16 034 Total 799 222 204
Annex 2
Number of Complaints about Public Toilets Received by FEHD in 2017
Services and District Odour Total Management Central & Western 301 0 301 Wan Chai 98 0 98 Eastern 144 0 144 Southern 123 0 123 Islands 136 1 137 Yau Tsim Mong 301 5 306 Sham Shui Po 148 1 149 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7313
Services and District Odour Total Management Kowloon City 88 0 88 Wong Tai Sin 23 2 25 Kwun Tong 77 1 78 Kwai Tsing 82 6 88 Tsuen Wan 88 1 89 Tuen Mun 123 0 123 Yuen Long 471 0 471 North 165 1 166 Tai Po 193 0 193 Sha Tin 124 0 124 Sai Kung 195 0 195 Others* 15 0 15 Total 2 895 18 2 913
Note:
* Complaints without specifying which public toilet.
Number of Complaints about Public Toilets Received by FEHD in 2018
Services and District Odour Total Management Central & Western 220 0 220 Wan Chai 122 0 122 Eastern 101 0 101 Southern 87 1 88 Islands 131 0 131 Yau Tsim Mong 186 2 188 Sham Shui Po 122 0 122 Kowloon City 91 0 91 Wong Tai Sin 19 0 19 Kwun Tong 76 7 83 Kwai Tsing 56 5 61 Tsuen Wan 118 0 118 Tuen Mun 105 0 105 Yuen Long 432 0 432 North 213 1 214 Tai Po 182 0 182 7314 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Services and District Odour Total Management Sha Tin 117 1 118 Sai Kung 209 0 209 Others* 22 0 22 Total 2 609 17 2 626
Note:
* Complaints without specifying which public toilet.
Number of Complaints about Public Toilets Received by FEHD in 2019
Barrier-free Services and District Odour Access Total Management Facilities Central & Western 230 0 0 230 Wan Chai 115 2 1 118 Eastern 95 0 0 95 Southern 60 0 0 60 Islands 94 0 1 95 Yau Tsim Mong 176 8 8 192 Sham Shui Po 135 0 1 136 Kowloon City 79 2 0 81 Wong Tai Sin 16 0 0 16 Kwun Tong 79 0 0 79 Kwai Tsing 65 15 0 80 Tsuen Wan 97 0 0 97 Tuen Mun 76 0 0 76 Yuen Long 349 0 0 349 North 254 1 0 255 Tai Po 131 0 0 131 Sha Tin 69 0 0 69 Sai Kung 162 0 0 162 Others* 45 0 1 46 Total 2 327 28 12 2 367
Note:
* Complaints without specifying which public toilet.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7315
Business difficulty of the public light bus trade
19. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Chinese): President, as various trades have been hit by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, the Government has rolled out two rounds of relief measures. The first-round measures include the provision of a fuel subsidy to public light buses ("PLBs"), and the second-round measures include the provision of a one-off subsidy to owners of red minibuses ("RMBs") and operators of green minibuses ("GMBs") and the provision of a subsidy to RMB drivers. However, quite a number of members of the trade have relayed that as their income has dwindled substantially amid the drop in patronage but the aforesaid subsidies are inadequate to compensate for the loss, they are still facing much difficulty in their businesses. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows, in each month since January this year, (i) the respective numbers of RMBs and GMBs which were left idle (with a breakdown by name of operator (if any) and the first and last stops of the route), and (ii) the respective numbers of RMB and GMB routes the patronage of which has decreased as compared with that of the same period of last year, with a tabulated breakdown by groups to which the rates of decrease belong (i.e. 20% or below, 21% to 40%, 41% to 60%, 61% to 80% and 81% or above);
(2) of the details of the applications lodged by GMB operators to the Transport Department ("TD") since January this year for reducing the trip frequencies of GMB routes due to a decrease in patronage, including (i) the route numbers, (ii) the first and last stops of such routes, (iii) the original trip frequencies as well as the reduction in trip frequencies proposed and approved respectively, and (iv) the implementation dates of the reduction in trip frequencies;
(3) of the details of the applications lodged by GMB operators since January this year for reducing the operating hours, including (i) the route numbers, (ii) the first and last stops of such routes, (iii) the original operating hours as well as the reduction in operating hours proposed and approved respectively, and (iv) the implementation dates of the reduction in operating hours;
7316 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
(4) of the implementation progress of the measures introduced under the two rounds of relief measures that are applicable to the PLB trade, including the number of applications received and the amount of subsidies disbursed;
(5) whether TD has gained an understanding from PLB operators of their financial situation (including whether they have sufficient liquidity to cope with the business difficulty), and whether there are operators who have indicated the intention to close down their businesses or give up operating certain routes; if so, of the details; and
(6) whether it will relax the operation restrictions on RMBs and GMBs (e.g. relaxing or rescinding certain prohibited zones and passenger pick-up/drop-off restricted zones for RMBs), so as to allow PLBs to better play their role as a supplementary mode of transport on the one hand and increase the operational flexibility and income of PLBs on the other hand, with a view to assisting the PLB trade in coping with the business difficulty?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, due to the continuous public order events in the second half of last year and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") this year, there has been a drastic fall in patronage and income of the public light bus ("PLB") trade, including green minibuses ("GMBs") and red minibuses ("RMBs"). To assist the trade in coping with the operational pressure under the current economic environment, the Government has introduced a series of relief measures through the two rounds of Anti-epidemic Fund.
My reply to the various parts of Mr WU Chi-wai's question is as follows:
(1) In respect of the situation of PLBs left idle, the trade estimated that approximately 30% of GMBs and RMBs are left idle, and the Transport Department ("TD") has not kept the statistics on the number of idled minibuses of individual routes. As to the patronage, there is a fall of around 40% in the average daily patronage in the first quarter this year as compared with the same period last year for GMBs in Hong Kong. A table showing the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7317
number of routes according to the extent of fall in patronage is at Annex 1. As for RMBs, since the operators are not required to provide their operating data, TD does not have the relevant information regarding their patronage.
(2) and (3)
As of 18 May this year, the operators of 94 GMB routes applied to TD for adjustments to service frequency and/or operating hours due to the epidemic. When processing such applications, TD would take into consideration the passenger demand and actual operating situation, while ensuring that the particular route will be able to maintain sufficient service. So far, temporary adjustments to the frequency and/or operating hours of 82 routes have been approved and implemented. Details of the applications in respect of individual routes are at Annex 2.
(4) Under the two rounds of Anti-epidemic Fund, the measures introduced to support the PLB trade and the implementation progress are as follows:
(i) Offering a $1 discount per litre of liquefied petroleum gas ("LPG") for LPG PLBs and reimbursing one third of the actual fuel cost for diesel PLBs, for a period of 12 months. TD is in active discussion with oil companies to finalize the implementation details, and aims to roll out the initiative by July this year;
(ii) Providing a one-off non-accountable subsidy of $30,000 per vehicle to the registered owners of RMBs, as well as per GMB to the passenger service licence ("PSL") holders who have been approved to operate relevant packages of the GMB routes. The subsidy scheme for GMB PSL holders started to receive applications since 28 April this year. As of 18 May this year, TD has received 142 applications from GMB operators, involving 2 900 GMBs and subsidies of around $87 million. TD shall disburse the subsidy within two to three weeks upon verification of the relevant applications;
7318 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
(iii) Providing each eligible active RMB driver with a monthly subsidy of $6,000 for a period of six months (from 1 April 2020 to 30 September 2020), and disbursing a lump sum of $7,500 to RMB drivers who may not fully meet the eligibility requirements. TD is currently developing an electronic platform for processing the relevant applications and plans to accept applications starting from mid-June this year. The subsidies can be disbursed within one month upon receipt of the applications and completion of the necessary verification procedures;
(iv) The Employment Support Scheme ("ESS") is applicable to employees of GMB operators who are under the age of 65, or who are aged 65 or above but with Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") voluntary contributions made by GMB operators. Under ESS, the Government will provide eligible employers with wage subsidies for a period of six months for the purpose of payment of salaries to employees with a view to maintaining employment during the epidemic. The subsidies will be disbursed in two tranches. Applications for the first tranche have started since 25 May this year, with the aim of making the first payout to employers within June to help them pay the wages for June to August 2020. Application dates for the second tranche will be announced in due course, with payment to be made in September this year for paying the wages of September to November 2020. The amount of subsidy for an employer would be calculated on the basis of 50% of the actual wage paid to each "regular employee" aged between 18 and 64 at a "specified month", with a wage cap at $18,000 per month (i.e. maximum subsidy is $9,000 per month per employee) for six months; and
(v) For each eligible employee aged 65 or above employed by GMB operators, if their employer have not made voluntary MPF contributions for them, the Government will provide the GMB operators a monthly subsidy of $6,000 for a period of six months under the sector-specific scheme. The implementation timetable of the scheme is similar to that of ESS mentioned in item (iv) above.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7319
(5) Currently, GMB operators are required to submit annual financial accounts to TD in accordance with the Conditions for the Operation of Public Light Bus (Scheduled) Service under PSL. The submission shall include information on fares and other income, as well as various costs and expenses, but exclude information on liquidity. TD will analyse the annual financial accounts in order to understand the overall change in costs of the GMB trade and take them as reference when processing fare adjustments for GMBs. At present, except for the GMB operator of the package of Kowloon Routes No. 2 and No. 6 that ceased operation on 12 April this year, TD has not received any proposals from other operators to end the operation or give up operating any route. Regarding RMBs, as TD does not regulate their services, including the operation and fares, TD does not have the relevant information on their financial situation.
(6) In the light of the latest epidemic situation, TD assesses and approves applications from GMB operators for temporary service adjustments as stated in parts (2) and (3) above. In addition, TD has all along been working with GMB operators on the timely adjustment of fleet size according to operational need, the rationalization of routes, and the relocation of passenger pick-up/drop-off points, etc. so as to tide the trade through the current operating pressure. As for the operation of RMBs, having regard to the request of the trade and taking into account the actual situation of individual locations, TD has relaxed or rescinded some passenger pick-up/drop-off restricted zones and prohibited zones where practicable. An example is the relaxation of the PLB prohibited zone at Sugar Street, Causeway Bay. Indeed, TD has further relaxed the restrictions on RMBs in their use of expressways in recent years. Apart from the West Kowloon Corridor and certain sections of the Island Eastern Corridor, RMBs are also allowed to operate on certain sections of Kwun Tong Bypass, East Kowloon Corridor and Tsing Sha Highway. TD will continue to explore and liaise with the trade with regard to the possibility of relaxing or rescinding other passenger pick-up/drop-off restricted zones and prohibited zones in order to facilitate their business operation.
7320 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Annex 1
Rate of Decline in Patronage of GMB Routes from January to March 2020 Compared with the Same Period Last Year
Rate of Decline in Patronage* Number of Routes Involved# ≤20% 104 21%-40% 233 41%-60% 61 61%-80% 16 >81% 2 Total 416
Notes:
* Comparison of the average daily patronage from January to March 2020 with that from January to March 2019
# Excluding new routes that commenced operation this year and routes for which the operators have not provided relevant patronage
Annex 2
Details of Applications to Temporarily Adjust Frequency and/or Operating Hours of GMB Routes under the Epidemic (As of 18 May 2020)
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 1 HK Island N4C Shek Pai To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Wan- non-peak hours from originally approved 2 March onwards to Causeway 15-20 minutes to 30 minutes 24 May, and application Bay (Cannon to extend proposal will Street) be reviewed as appropriate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7321
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 2 HK Island 5 Aberdeen - To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Centre- peak hours from originally 15 approved 6 April onwards to Causeway minutes to 20 minutes 24 May, and application Bay (Cannon to extend proposal will Street) - To adjust the frequency during be reviewed as non-peak hours from appropriate originally 15/20 minutes to 30 minutes 3 HK Island 5M Grantham To suspend the service on Proposal Implemented from Hospital- Saturdays, Sundays and public approved 22 February onwards to Wong Chuk holidays 24 May, and application Hang Station (Service between 3:45 pm and to extend proposal will 7:10 pm) be reviewed as appropriate 4 HK Island 10 Cyberport- 5 April to 3 May 5 April to First application: Causeway - To adjust the frequency during 3 May Implemented from Bay (Jaffe peak hours from originally Proposal 5 April onwards to Road) 10-15 minutes to 20 minutes approved 3 May
- To adjust the frequency during 4 May Revised application: non-peak hours from onwards Implemented from originally 10-20 minutes to Proposal 4 May onwards to 20-30 minutes approved 24 May, and application to extend proposal will 4 May onwards be reviewed as - To adjust the frequency during appropriate peak hours from originally 10-15 minutes to 15-20 minutes
- To adjust the frequency during non-peak hours from originally 20-30 minutes to 20 minutes 7322 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours - To adjust the time of last Proposal departure on weekdays from approved originally 9:30 pm to 7:30 pm
- To suspend the service on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays (Service between 6:30 am and 9:30 pm) 5 HK Island 13 Sai Wan To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from Estate-Sai departure from originally approved 20 April onwards to Ying Pun 11:35 pm to 10:30 pm 24 May, and application to extend proposal will be reviewed as appropriate 6 HK Island 22S Central Ferry - To adjust the frequency from Proposal Implemented from Piers-Pok Fu originally 10-15 minutes to approved 18 February onwards to Lam Gardens 15-25 minutes for departures 3 May after 8:00 pm - To adjust the frequency from Proposal Implemented from originally 10-15 minutes to approved 4 May onwards to 15-25 minutes for departures 17 May and resumed after 9:00 pm original service on 18 May 7 HK Island 27 Aberdeen - To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Centre-Ap peak hours from originally 4-5 approved 20 April onwards to Lei Chau minutes to 5 minutes 24 May, and application (Wai Fung to extend proposal will Street) - To adjust the frequency during be reviewed as non-peak hours from appropriate originally 9-10 minutes to 10 minutes 8 HK Island N27 Aberdeen To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Centre-Ap non-peak hours from originally approved 20 April onwards to Lei Chau 20 minutes to 30 minutes 24 May, and application (Wai Fung to extend proposal will Street) be reviewed as appropriate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7323
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 9 HK Island 28A Central (Ice To suspend service Proposal Implemented from House (Mondays to Fridays (except approved 14 April onwards to Street)- public holidays) at 6:30 pm, 22 May, and application Causeway 7:00 pm, 7:30 pm) to extend proposal will Bay (Sun be reviewed as Wui Road) appropriate 10 HK Island 29 Ap Lei Chau To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Estate-Shum non-peak hours from originally approved 20 April onwards to Wan 15-20 minutes to 25 minutes 24 May, and application to extend proposal will be reviewed as appropriate 11 HK Island N31 Tin Wan To suspend service Proposal Implemented from Estate- (Operating hours from 11:20 pm approved 5 April onwards to Causeway to 1:00 am) 24 May, and application Bay (Jaffe to extend proposal will Road) be reviewed as appropriate 12 HK Island 32 Kornhill To adjust the time of last Not applicable The operator has not Garden-Shau departures from Kornhill Garden provided the required Kei Wan and Shau Kei Wan from supplementary Station originally 10:55 pm and information before the 11:10 pm to 10:00 pm and specified date, thus the 10:20 pm respectively application will be cancelled 13 HK Island 33 Kornhill To adjust the time of last Not applicable The operator has not Garden-North departures from Kornhill Garden provided the required Point (Marble and North Point from originally supplementary Road) 11:30 pm and 11:45 pm to information before the 10:00 pm and 10:20 pm specified date, thus the respectively application will be cancelled 14 HK Island 39M Yue On To adjust the operating hours Proposal Implemented from Court (Ap from originally between 6:25 am approved 25 March onwards to Lei and midnight, to between 24 May, and application Chau)-Tin 6:30 am and 10:00 am to extend proposal will Hau Station be reviewed as appropriate 7324 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 15 HK Island 40 Causeway To adjust the frequency of Proposal Implemented from Bay-Stanley overnight service from originally approved 2 March onwards to Village 4 departures every hour to 2-3 24 May, and application departures every hour to extend proposal will be reviewed as appropriate 16 HK Island 51A Wah Kwai - To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Estate-Tin peak hours from originally 7-8 approved 1 April onwards to Wan Estate minutes to 15 minutes 24 May, and application (Circular) to extend proposal will - To adjust the frequency during be reviewed as non-peak hours from appropriate originally 8-12 minutes to 15-20 minutes - To adjust the time of last The time of departure from midnight to last departure 8:00 pm adjusted to 9:00 pm 17 HK Island 54 Queen Mary - To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Hospital- peak hours from originally 8 approved 25 February onwards to Central Ferry minutes to 15/20 minutes 24 May, and application Piers to extend proposal will - To adjust the frequency during be reviewed as non-peak hours from appropriate originally 8/10 minutes to 20 minutes 18 HK Island 54M Queen Mary - To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Hospital- peak hours from originally approved 24 February onwards to Kennedy 12/15 minutes to 15/20 24 May, and application Town Station minutes to extend proposal will be reviewed as - To adjust the frequency during appropriate non-peak hours from originally 12/15 minutes to 15/20 minutes 19 HK Island 54S Mount Davis To adjust the operating hours Operating Implemented from ＞ Kennedy from originally between 7:30 am hours adjusted 6 April onwards to Town and 5:00 pm to between 7:30 am to between 24 May, and application Station; and 9:00 am 7:30 am and to extend proposal will Kennedy 9:00 am, and be reviewed as Town Station between appropriate ＞ Queen 4:30 pm to Mary 5:00 pm Hospital LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7325
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 20 HK Island 55 Queen Mary - To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Hospital- peak hours from originally 5/6 approved 24 February onwards to Central minutes to 12 minutes 24 May, and application Station to extend proposal will - To adjust the frequency during be reviewed as non-peak hours from appropriate originally 5/8 minutes to 15 minutes 21 HK Island 56 Robinson - To adjust the frequency during - Frequency Implemented from Road-North peak hours from originally 20 of 20/30 6 April onwards to Point (Marble minutes to 30 minutes minutes 24 May, and application Road) during peak to extend proposal will - To adjust the frequency during hours be reviewed as non-peak hours from appropriate originally 20 minutes to 30 - Frequency minutes of 20/30 minutes during non-peak hours 22 HK Island 56A Robinson - To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Road- peak hours from originally approved 6 April onwards to Causeway 8/10 minutes to 10/15 minutes 24 May, and application Bay to extend proposal will - To adjust the frequency during be reviewed as non-peak hours from appropriate originally 10/15 minutes to 12/20 minutes - To adjust the time of last Proposal departure from originally approved 11:45 pm to 8:00 pm 23 HK Island 56B Robinson - To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Road-Tin peak hours from originally approved 6 April onwards to Hau Station 10/30 minutes to 12/30 24 May, and application minutes to extend proposal will be reviewed as - To adjust the frequency during appropriate non-peak hours from originally 12/30 minutes to 15/30 minutes 7326 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours - To adjust the operating hours Proposal from originally between approved 6:10 am and midnight to between 6:10 am and 11:00 pm 24 HK Island 58A Kennedy To adjust the frequency from Proposal Implemented from Town originally 20 minutes to 30 approved 2 March onwards to Station- minutes 24 May, and application Aberdeen to extend proposal will Centre be reviewed as appropriate 25 HK Island N59A Shum Wan- To suspend overnight service Proposal Implemented from Aberdeen (Operating hours between approved 2 March onwards to Centre midnight and 6:00 am) 24 May, and application to extend proposal will be reviewed as appropriate 26 HK Island 63 South - To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Horizons- peak hours from originally 5-6 approved 18 February onwards to Queen Mary minutes to 10-15 minutes 24 May, and application Hospital to extend proposal will - To adjust the frequency during be reviewed as non-peak hours from appropriate originally 10-15 minutes to 15-20 minutes 27 HK Island 65 Pamela To adjust the frequency of Proposal Implemented from Youde departures between 11:00 pm and approved 6 May onwards to Nethersole midnight from originally 6-8 24 May, and application Eastern minutes to 30 minutes to extend proposal will Hospital- be reviewed as North Point appropriate (Fort Street) 28 HK Island 66 Aldrich - To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Bay-Chai peak hours from originally 8 approved 18 February onwards to Wan (Wan minutes to 12-15 minutes 24 May, and application Tsui Road) to extend proposal will (Circular) - To adjust the frequency during be reviewed as non-peak hours from appropriate originally 8-12 minutes to 12-20 minutes LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7327
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 29 HK Island 66A Aldrich - To adjust the frequency from Proposal Implemented from Bay-Pamela originally 8 minutes to 15-20 approved 18 February onwards to Youde minutes 24 May, and application Nethersole - To adjust the time of last Proposal to extend proposal will Eastern departure of weekday service approved be reviewed as Hospital from originally 11:00 pm to appropriate (Circular) 8:00 pm
- To suspend service on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays (Operating hours between 9:00 am and 11:00 pm) 30 HK Island 69A Cyberport- To suspend service on Saturdays, Proposal Implemented from Aberdeen Sundays and public holidays approved 22 February onwards to (Wu Nam (Operating hours between 24 May, and application Street) 10:00 am and 5:00 pm) to extend proposal will (Circular) be reviewed as appropriate 31 HK Island 69 Cyberport- 4 April to 3 May 4 April to First application: Quarry Bay - To adjust the frequency during 3 May Implemented from (Shipyard peak hours from originally Proposal 4 April onwards to Lane) 9-12 minutes to 15 minutes approved 3 May (Circular) - To adjust the frequency during 4 May Revised application: non-peak hours from onwards Implemented from originally 11-15 minutes to Proposal 4 May onwards to 15-30 minutes approved 24 May, and application to extend proposal will 4 May onwards be reviewed as - To adjust the frequency during appropriate peak hours from originally 15 minutes to 12-15 minutes
- To adjust the frequency during non-peak hours to 15-30 minutes - To adjust the time of last Proposal departure from originally approved 10:40 pm to 8:00 pm 7328 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 32 HK Island 69X Cyberport- To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from Causeway departure from originally 2:00 am approved 4 April onwards to Bay of the subsequent day to midnight 24 May, and application (Lockhart to extend proposal will Road) be reviewed as appropriate 33 Kowloon 3 Tsim Sha Suspend the hourly special Proposal Implemented from Tsui (Ashley departure via West Kowloon approved 30 January onwards, Road)- Station depending on the Cosmopolitan reopening of West Estates Kowloon Station 34 Kowloon 16 Jat's Incline To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from (Choi Wan peak/non-peak hours from approved 19 February onwards and Estate)-Ping originally 2-5 minutes to 5-7 resumed original service Shek Estate minutes on 2 March (Circular) 35 Kowloon 16A Fung Shing To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Street-Ping peak/non-peak hours from approved 19 February onwards and Shek Estate originally 2/8-13 minutes to 7-15 resumed original service (Circular) minutes on 2 March 36 Kowloon 16B Scenic To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from View-Ping peak/non-peak hours from approved 19 February onwards and Shek Public originally 6-12 minutes to 10-15 resumed original service Transport minutes on 2 March Interchange 37 Kowloon 16S Aria-Ping To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Shek Estate peak/non-peak hours from approved 19 February onwards and (Circular) originally 10 minutes to 10-15 resumed original service minutes on 2 March 38 Kowloon 20M San Po To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Kong-Wong peak/non-peak hours from approved 10 April onwards and Tai Sin originally 6 minutes to 8-9 resumed original service Station minutes on 1 May 39 Kowloon 23B Tung Yan To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from Street departure on Mondays to Fridays approved 5 April onwards to Temporary from originally 12:30 am to 25 May, and application GMB midnight to extend proposal will Terminus- be reviewed as Cha Kwo appropriate Ling LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7329
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 40 Kowloon 23M Tung Yan To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from Street departure from 12:20 am to approved 5 April onwards to Temporary midnight 25 May, and application GMB to extend proposal will Terminus- be reviewed as Lam Tin appropriate Station (Sin Fat Road) 41 Kowloon 25B San Po Kong To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from (The departure from 11:30 pm to approved 6 April onwards to Latitude)- 10:00 pm 31 May, and application Kowloon to extend proposal will Tong be reviewed as (Suffolk appropriate Road) Public Transport Interchange 42 Kowloon 26 To Kwa Wan To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from (Chi Kiang departure from 11:30 pm to approved 6 April onwards to Street)- 9:30 pm 31 May, and application Kowloon to extend proposal will Station be reviewed as appropriate 43 Kowloon 28MS Kowloon To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from City (Wyler departure from midnight to approved 6 April onwards to Gardens)-Ho 7:00 pm 31 May, and application Man Tin to extend proposal will Station be reviewed as appropriate 44 Kowloon 30A Chak On To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Estate-Mong peak/non-peak hours from approved 29 March onwards to Kok Station originally 25 minutes to 35-50 24 May, and application minutes to extend proposal will be reviewed as appropriate 45 Kowloon 43M Tai Kok Tsui To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from (Cherry departure from 1:30 am of the approved 17 February onwards to Street)-Yau subsequent day to midnight 31 May, and application Ma Tei to extend proposal will Station be reviewed as (Circular) appropriate 7330 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 46 Kowloon 44A Cheung Sha To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from Wan departure from 12:15 am to approved 1 April onwards to Plaza-Hoi Lai 11:00 pm 31 May, and application Estate to extend proposal will (Circular) be reviewed as appropriate 47 Kowloon 48 Shun To adjust the frequency during - Frequency Implemented from Lee-Kowloon peak/non-peak hours from of 6-10 19 February onwards and Bay originally 4 minutes and 5-8 minutes resumed original service (Circular) minutes respectively to 10 during peak on 2 March minutes hours
- Frequency of 8-10 minutes during non-peak hours 48 Kowloon 49 Shun To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Tin-Kowloon peak/non-peak hours from approved 19 February onwards and City Ferry originally 20-25 minutes to 30 resumed original service (Circular) minutes on 2 March 49 Kowloon 70 Diamond Hill - To adjust the frequency during - Frequency Implemented from Station peak hours from originally 4-6 of 8-10 3 April onwards and Public minutes to 8-10 minutes minutes resumed original service Transport during peak on 1 May Interchange- hours Tai Kok Tsui (Island - To adjust the frequency during - Proposal Harbourview) non-peak hours from approved originally 6-8 minutes to 10-12 minutes 50 Kowloon 70A Diamond Hill To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Station peak/non-peak hours from approved 3 April onwards and Public originally 8-10/12-15 minutes to resumed original service Transport 30 minutes on 1 May Interchange- Olympic Station Public Transport Interchange LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7331
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 51 Kowloon 72 Grand View - To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Garden- peak hours from originally 6 approved 1 April onwards and Festival Walk minutes to 8-10 minutes resumed original service Public on 1 May Transport - To adjust the frequency during Terminus non-peak hours from originally 8-10 minutes to 12-15 minutes 52 Kowloon 74 Kowloon To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from Station-Mong departure from originally approved 6 April onwards to Kok (Luen 11:00 pm to 10:00 pm 31 May, and application Wan Street) to extend proposal will (Circular) be reviewed as appropriate 53 Kowloon 74S Kowloon To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from Station-Ho departure from originally approved 6 April onwards to Man Tin Hill 10:00 pm to 8:00 pm 31 May, and application Road to extend proposal will (Circular) be reviewed as appropriate 54 Kowloon 76A Kwong - To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Tin-United peak hours from originally 10 approved 20 February onwards and Christian minutes to 20 minutes resumed original service Hospital on 15 March (Circular) - To adjust the frequency during non-peak hours from originally 15 minutes to 20-25 minutes 55 Kowloon 76B United - To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Christian peak hours from originally 12 approved 20 February onwards and Hospital-Yau minutes to 20 minutes resumed original service Tong on 15 March Transport - To adjust the frequency during Interchange non-peak hours from originally 15 minutes to 20-25 minutes 56 Kowloon 90A Yau Tong To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from (Yau Lei peak/non-peak hours from approved 21 May onwards to Estate)-Hong originally 15 minutes to 20 27 May, and application Kong minutes to extend proposal will Children's be reviewed as Hospital appropriate 7332 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 57 Kowloon 90B Sau Mau To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Ping-Hong peak/non-peak hours from approved 21 May onwards to Kong originally 10 minutes to 15 27 May, and application Children's minutes to extend proposal will Hospital be reviewed as appropriate 58 New 19S Hang Hau To adjust the frequency from Rejected Taking into account the Territories (over- (North)- originally 15 minutes to 20 Government's night) Causeway minutes announcement on Bay 28 April that (Circular) organizational and public service will gradually resume normal, this application was rejected 59 New 20A Tai Po - To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from Territories Market departure from originally approved 6 April onwards and Station-Tai 12:40 am to 10:00 pm implemented the next Po phase of adjustments to Nethersole the operating time on Hospital 10 May (Circular) - To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from departure from Tai Po Market approved 11 May onwards, and Station from originally application to extend 12:40 am to 11:00 pm proposal will be reviewed as appropriate 60 New 20B Tai Po - To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from Territories Market departure from originally approved 6 April onwards and Station-Tung 12:05 am to 10:30 pm implemented the next Tsz phase of adjustments to the operating time on 11 May - To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from departure from originally approved 11 May onwards, and 12:05 am to 11:30 pm application to extend proposal will be reviewed as appropriate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7333
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 61 New 20C Tai Po - To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Territories Market non-peak hours from approved 6 April onwards while Station-Tai originally 5-15 minutes to operating hours resumed Mei Tuk 5-30 minutes normal on 17 April; Adjustments to - To adjust the time of last Proposal frequency during departure from originally approved non-peak hours still 1:30 am to 12:40 am implemented, and application to extend proposal will be reviewed as appropriate 62 New 20K Tai Po - To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from Territories Market departure from originally approved 6 April onwards and Station-Sam 12:50 am to 9:20 pm implemented the next Mun Tsai phase of adjustments to the operating time on 11 May - To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from departure from originally approved 11 May onwards, and 12:50 am to 10:20 pm application to extend proposal will be reviewed as appropriate 63 New 20M Fung To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from Territories Yuen-Tai Po departure from Fung Yuen from approved 6 April onwards, and Central originally 10:50 pm to 8:50 pm application to extend (Circular) proposal will be reviewed as appropriate 64 New 20S Ma Wo-Tai - To adjust the frequency from Proposal Implemented from Territories Po Market originally 6-12 minutes to approved 11 May onwards, and (Circular) 20-30 minutes application to extend - To adjust the operating hours Proposal proposal will be for departures from Ma Wo approved reviewed as appropriate from originally between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm to between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm 65 New 21A Tai Po To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from Territories Tau-Tai Po departure from Tai Po Tau from approved 6 April onwards, and Market originally 9:40 pm to 8:30 pm application to extend (Circular) proposal will be reviewed as appropriate 7334 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 66 New 21K Wai Tau-Tai To adjust the time of last Proposal Implemented from Territories Po Market departure from Tai Po Tau from approved 6 April onwards, and (Circular) originally 12:15 am to 8:30 pm application to extend proposal will be reviewed as appropriate 67 New 43 Tuen Mun To adjust the frequency from Rejected Due to the continued Territories (Ho Pong originally 8-10 minutes to 9-12 demand by passengers Street)-So minutes for the subject route and Kwun Wat the extent of adjustment in frequency being too large, this application was rejected 68 New 43A Tuen Mun To adjust the frequency from Rejected Due to the continued Territories (Ho Pong originally 10-12 minutes to 15-18 demand of passengers for Street)-Tsing minutes the subject routes and the Yung Street extent of adjustment in frequency being too large, this application was rejected 69 New 43B Tuen Mun To adjust the frequency from Rejected Due to the continued Territories (Ho Pong originally 18-30 minutes to 30 demand by passengers Street)-Tai minutes for the subject route and Lam Chung the extent of adjustment in frequency being too large, this application was rejected 70 New 43C Tuen Mun To adjust the frequency from Rejected Due to the continued Territories (Ho Pong originally 13 minutes to 15-18 demand by passengers Street)-Siu minutes for the subject route and Lun Court the extent of adjustment in frequency being too large, this application was rejected 71 New 44 Tuen Mun To adjust the frequency from Proposal Implemented between Territories Ferry originally 2-8 minutes to 4-12 approved 29 February and Pier-Sheung minutes 7 March; Further Shui Station implemented from 13 March onwards and resumed original service on 20 March LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7335
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 72 New 44A Tuen Mun To adjust the frequency from Proposal Implemented between Territories Station- originally 2-9 minutes to 4-12 approved 29 February and Sheung Shui minutes 7 March; Further Station implemented from 13 March onwards and resumed original service on 20 March 73 New 44B Tuen Mun To suspend service Proposal Due to the suspension of Territories Station-Lok (Operating hours between approved immigration clearance Ma Chau 5:45 am and 10:59 pm) service for passenger at (San Tin) Lok Ma Chau Control Public Point, this application Transport has been implemented Interchange from 4 February onwards until further notice 74 New 44B Tuen Mun To suspend service Proposal Due to the suspension of Territories (over- Ferry (Operating hours between approved immigration clearance night) Pier-Lok Ma 10:15 pm and 6:30 am) service for passenger at Chau Control Lok Ma Chau Control Point Point, this application has been implemented from 4 February onwards until further notice 75 New 44B1 Tuen Mun To suspend service Proposal Due to the suspension of Territories Ferry (Operating hours between approved immigration clearance Pier-Lok Ma 5:45 am and 10:59 pm) service for passenger at Chau (San Lok Ma Chau Control Tin) Public Point, this application Transport has been implemented Interchange from 4 February onwards until further notice 76 New 45 Tai Hing To adjust the frequency from Proposal Implemented between Territories Garden-Tuen originally 6-7 minutes to 10-12 approved 29 February and Mun Town minutes 7 March; Further Centre implemented from 13 March onwards and resumed original service on 20 March 77 New 49S Siu Hong To adjust the frequency from Proposal Implemented from Territories Court-Wan originally 10-15 minutes to 30 approved 29 February onwards and Chai minutes resumed original service on 7 March 7336 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 78 New 57K Sheung Shui To adjust non-peak hour Proposal Implemented from Territories Station-Tong frequency from originally 10-30 approved 20 April onwards and Kung Leng minutes to 20 minutes resumed originally service on 23 April 79 New 58K Sheung Shui To adjust non-peak hour Proposal Implemented from Territories Station-Ping frequency from originally 10-30 approved 20 April onwards and Kong minutes to 20-30 minutes resumed originally service on 23 April 80 New 61M Worldwide To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Territories Garden- peak hours from originally 20 approved 6 April onwards until Kowloon minutes to 30 minutes 14 April to implement Tong 6 April to 14 April Proposal the next phase of (Suffolk To adjust evening peak operating approved adjustment in evening Road) Public hours from originally peak operating hours Transport 5:30 pm-7:30 pm to Interchange 5:30 pm-7:15 pm Implemented from 14 April onwards and 14 April to 13 May resumed original service To adjust evening peak operating on 13 May hours from originally 5:30 pm-7:30 pm to 5:30 pm-7:05 pm 81 New 75 Yuen Long To suspend service Proposal Due to the suspension of Territories Fook Hong (Operating hours between approved immigration clearance Street-Lok 6:05 am and 10:55 pm) service for passenger at Ma Chau Lok Ma Chau Control Spur Line Point, this application Public has been implemented Transport from 4 February onwards Interchange until further notice 82 New 78 Pat Heung - To adjust the frequency from Proposal Due to the suspension of Territories Road (near originally 15-25 minutes to approved immigration clearance Tai Lam 20-25 minutes per departure service for passenger at Bus-Bus Lok Ma Chau Control Interchange)- - To adjust the time of last Point, this application Lok Ma Chau departure from originally has been implemented (San Tin) midnight to 10:40 pm from 16 February Public onwards until further Transport notice Interchange LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7337
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 83 New 79S Grandeur To suspend service Proposal Due to the suspension of Territories Terrace-Lok (Operating hours between approved immigration clearance Ma Chau 11:10 pm and 6:30 am) service for passenger at Control Point Lok Ma Chau Control Point, this application has been implemented from 4 February onwards until further notice 84 New 88D Kwai Fong To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented from Territories Station-Tivoli non-peak hours from originally 5 approved 17 March onwards and Garden minutes to 10 minutes resumed original service on 27 March 85 New 90P Princess To adjust the frequency during Proposal Implemented between Territories Margaret non-peak hours on weekdays approved 12 March and 20 March, Hospital-Mei from originally 6-10 minutes to 6 April and 12 April, and Foo 10-12 minutes 24 April onwards and resumed original service on 3 May 86 New 101M Hang Hau - To adjust the frequency during Rejected As the operator had Territories Station-Sai peak hours from originally 3 failed to provide the Kung minutes to 7-12 minutes required supplementary information, this - To adjust the frequency during application was rejected non-peak hours from originally 3-30 minutes to 7-30 minutes 87 New 102 Hang Hau To combine route nos. 102 and Rejected As the operator had Territories Station-San 102B failed to provide the Po Kong required supplementary 88 New 102B Yuk Ming information, this Territories Court-Choi application was rejected Hung (Circular) 89 New 102S Hang Hau To adjust the frequency from Rejected As the operator had Territories (over- Station-San originally 6-20 minutes to 15-20 failed to provide the night) Po Kong minutes required supplementary information, and there had not been a significant fall in patronage of this route upon searching the records, this application was rejected 7338 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Temporary Adjustments to Frequency/Operating Hours Approved Route Temporary District From/To Proposed Temporary Implementation Date No. Adjustments to Adjustments to Frequency/ Frequency/Operating Hours Operating Hours 90 New 108A Hang Hau - To adjust the frequency during Rejected Taking into account the Territories (North)-Choi peak hours from originally Government's Ming 6-12 minutes to 10-12 minutes announcement on 28 April that - To adjust the frequency during organizational and public non-peak hours from service will gradually originally 6-15 minutes to resume normal, this 10-20 minutes application was rejected 91 New 111 Po Lam-San To adjust the frequency during Rejected As the operator had Territories Po Kong peak and non-peak hours from failed to provide the originally 8-15 minutes to 15-20 required supplementary minutes information, this application was rejected 92 New 616S Mong To suspend service Proposal Implemented from Territories Kok-Lok Ma approved 4 February onwards, Chau Control depending on the Point reopening of the border 93 New 618 Tin Yan To suspend service Proposal Due to the preventive Territories Estate- (Operating hours between approved measures against Shenzhen 6:00 am and 12:20 am) COVID-19 involving Bay Port further reduction in cross-boundary passenger flow between Hong Kong and the Mainland as announced by the Government on 5 February, this application has been implemented from 8 February onwards until further notice 94 New 901 HZMB Hong To suspend service Proposal Due to the preventive Territories Kong (24-hour service) approved measures against Port-Tung COVID-19 involving Chung North further reduction in the (Circular) cross-boundary passenger flow between Hong Kong and the Mainland as announced by the Government on 5 February, this application has been implemented from 8 February onwards until further notice LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7339
Handling of data access requests
20. MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Chinese): President, several street sleepers in Tung Chau Street Park have sought my assistance, alleging that some police officers damaged their properties and assaulted them while taking law enforcement actions there in February this year. Since March, I have been assisting such persons in making data access requests, under section 18 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, (Cap. 486) to the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD"), and requesting copies of the video footages captured by the closed-circuit television installed by LCSD in the aforesaid park. After consulting the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong, the Department of Justice ("DoJ") and the Hong Kong Police Force ("HKPF"), LCSD made an appointment with the aforesaid persons for a meeting on 29 April to watch the relevant video footages. However, on that day before the meeting, HKPF requested LCSD to postpone the above meeting on the grounds that legal advice had to be sought. LCSD explained that, under paragraph 1.15.4 of the Code on Access to Information ("the Code"), it had to consult the government departments that were related to the data (i.e. HKPF); and given that HKPF was seeking legal advice, LCSD was for the time being unable to handle the data access requests concerned. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has assessed if the Code overrides Cap. 486; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the negative, whether LCSD may, on the grounds of having to act in accordance with the Code, suspend the handling of the aforesaid data access requests pursuant to the requirements under section 18 of Cap. 486;
(2) as LCSD has already consulted DoJ before making an appointment with the aforesaid persons for a meeting, of HKPF's justifications for requesting LCSD to postpone the meeting with the aforesaid persons on the grounds that legal advice had to be sought; and
(3) as it is stipulated in section 19 of Cap. 486 that a data user must, within 40 days after receiving a data access request, supply a copy of the data to the data subject, whether the Government has assessed if LCSD has contravened the provision; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the follow-up actions?
7340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, closed-circuit televisions ("CCTVs") installed in Tung Chau Street Park by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD") serve the purpose of enhancing management and maintaining order. My reply to the question raised by Mr SHIU Ka-chun is as follows:
(1) and (2)
In this case, LCSD has processed the request for a copy of the CCTV footage taken at Tung Chau Street Park in compliance with both the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance and the Code on Access to Information. According to section 18 and data protection principle 6 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, a data subject is entitled to the right of data access request. Upon receipt of the three street sleepers' request made via Mr SHIU Ka-chun for access to a copy of the CCTV footage taken at Tung Chau Street Park in early March 2020, follow-up action was immediately taken by LCSD, including retaining the CCTV footage and consulting departments concerned such as the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, the Department of Justice ("DoJ") and the Hong Kong Police Force ("the Police") in processing the request. As the CCTV footage is related to criminal investigation of the Police, the data user may refuse to comply with the data access request subject to the exemptions provided under Part 8 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance or other cases where Part 8 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance is applicable. Hence, LCSD is required to consult the Police on the exemptions or other requirements under Part 8 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance.
Paragraph 1.15.4 of the Code on Access to Information stipulates that if the requested record is also related to other department(s), the receiving department should, where necessary, consult all parties concerned before making a decision on whether or to what extent a particular request should be met. As the CCTV footage is related to criminal investigation, LCSD consulted the Police as required by the above mentioned Code.
The Police may seek legal advice from DoJ on legal issues in the course of handling criminal cases. The time that DoJ takes to provide legal advice on each case would depend on a range of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7341
factors, including the nature and complexity of the case. Since the CCTV footage mentioned in the question is related to an ongoing criminal investigation of the Police, provision of the CCTV footage to the data subject at this stage may affect the Police's investigation. Hence, the Police are seeking advice from DoJ on the issue concerned.
(3) Upon receipt of the Data Access Request Form from Mr SHIU Ka-chun on 9 March 2020 requesting access to a copy of the CCTV footage taken at Tung Chau Street Park, follow-up action was immediately taken by LCSD. These included retaining the footage and consulting departments concerned. LCSD issued a written reply to Mr SHIU Ka-chun on 14 April 2020 (i.e. within 36 days after receiving the Data Access Request Form), indicating that arrangement could be made for him to watch the footage. A meeting with the office of Legislative Council Member Mr SHIU Ka-chun was originally arranged on 29 April. However, as the department was notified by the Police that it needed time to consult DoJ, the meeting had to be deferred as a result.
Cancellation of dividend payments by banks
21. MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Chinese): President, earlier on, the boards of HSBC Holdings plc and Standard Chartered PLC, both of which are incorporated in the United Kingdom ("UK") and listed in Hong Kong, announced that on the request of the Prudential Regulation Authority in UK, they had decided to cancel their final dividend payments for 2019 which were already announced, and to suspend any quarterly or interim dividend payments for the coming year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective percentages of the stocks of the two banks in the investment portfolios of the Exchange Fund and the Tracker Fund of Hong Kong, and the impacts of the above decisions on the investment returns of the two Funds;
(2) whether it knows the current numbers of Mandatory Provident Fund schemes and occupational retirement schemes whose investment portfolios comprise the stocks of the two banks; whether the 7342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
authorities have assessed the impacts of the above decisions on the investment returns of such retirement protection schemes; and
(3) as there are comments that the Hong Kong subsidiaries of the two banks (i) have substantial operations in Hong Kong, (ii) contribute the major sources of revenue to the two banks and (iii) are note-issuing banks in Hong Kong, but the aforesaid decisions have caused Hong Kong investors to suffer losses, whether the authorities will review the roles of the two subsidiaries in Hong Kong's financial industry and take measures to attract the two banks to relocate their domiciles back to Hong Kong; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President, HSBC Holdings plc ("HSBC") and Standard Chartered PLC ("SCB") are international banking groups incorporated in the United Kingdom and regulated by the Prudential Regulation Authority ("PRA") of the Bank of England. We understand that decisions of dividend cancellation by relevant banks would have impact on shareholders and other stakeholders. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") has requested the Hong Kong branch of HSBC and SCB to reflect the concerns expressed by the shareholders in Hong Kong to the banking groups. HKMA has also informed PRA about the concerns expressed by the shareholders in Hong Kong through their regular communications.
Having consulted HKMA and the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority ("MPFA"), our reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:
(1) The Government's fiscal reserves are managed by HKMA for investment and placed with the Exchange Fund. On this basis, the Government will not disclose the asset allocation in relevant investment portfolio. In general, the investments of the Exchange Fund are diversified into a variety of asset classes and invested in different markets around the world. Therefore, the dividend policy of individual company would not have significant impact on the investment return of the Exchange Fund.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7343
Tracker Fund ("TraHK"), an exchange-traded fund, currently invests in 50 constituent stocks of the Hang Seng Index. According to the information published by TraHK, as of 20 May this year, the investment in HSBC shares accounted for 7.89% of the portfolio value of TraHK. As at end of April this year, the 1-month and 3-month return of TraHK were 4.4% and -6.4% respectively.
(2) According to the information provided by the Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") scheme trustees, as at end of March this year, there were 259 MPF funds investing in the shares of HSBC and SCB, amounting to HK$12.8 billion, or 1.5% of the total MPF assets. In fact, prices of individual MPF funds may be affected by individual events, such as the suspension of dividend payments by companies, resulting in short-term fund price fluctuations. Nevertheless, MPF is a long-term investment, and MPF scheme members are advised to focus on its fund performance in the long term. Since the Occupational Retirement Schemes Ordinance (Cap. 426) does not require administrators of Occupational Retirement Schemes to submit their investment portfolio or performance to the Registrar (i.e. MPFA), MPFA does not have the relevant information.
(3) HKMA has been adopting a risk-based approach in regulating banks in Hong Kong, including the banking subsidiaries of HSBC and SCB incorporated in Hong Kong, to evaluate their safety and soundness, risk-management systems and internal control, with a view to promoting the stability and integrity of the financial system in Hong Kong. Also, note-issuing banks have to fulfil a set of stringent requirements, including those relating to US dollar reserve, banknote storage, distribution and security, etc. The existing arrangement has been operating smoothly and HKMA does not have plan to make any changes.
Hong Kong is an international banking centre, with over 70 of the largest 100 banks in the world having a presence and over 29 multinational banks having their regional headquarters in Hong Kong. The Government welcomes international financial institutions to incorporate and set up their headquarters in Hong Kong, although whether to set up their global headquarters in Hong Kong or not remains a commercial decision of individual banks.
7344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Second Reading of Government Bills
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bills. This Council resumes the Second Reading debate on the National Anthem Bill.
NATIONAL ANTHEM BILL
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 23 January 2019
(Ms Tanya CHAN indicated her wish to speak)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, what is your point?
MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): In accordance with Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), I propose moving a motion for the adjournment of this Council to debate the deliberation of the National People's Congress ("NPC") to enact a national security law in Hong Kong.
President, the national security law currently being discussed in Beijing by NPC has aroused worries and even extreme fears among various sectors and even in the international community. The current atmosphere resembles that of the serious crisis of confidence in the 1980s, triggered by the negotiations held on Hong Kong's future. It is now the biggest turning point for "one country, two systems". I hope the Council will now adjourn for the purpose of debating the following issue:
The draft Decision on establishing and improving the legal system and enforcement mechanisms for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to safeguard national security ("the draft Decision"), which is currently being deliberated by NPC, will authorize the Standing Committee of NPC to enact, with possible retroactive effect, a national security law in Hong Kong. First, the draft LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7345
Decision will target four offences, among which secession, subversion of state power and foreign intervention fall within the scope of the legislation to be enacted by Hong Kong on its own under Article 23 of the Basic Law. Is this a usurpation of the legislative powers of Hong Kong, violating the "high degree of autonomy" principle? Second, the draft Decision provides for a national security agency to be set up in Hong Kong by the Central Government. Exactly what kind of agency is to be set up and how will it operate? What are the legal bases …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, you may only briefly state your request for moving an adjournment motion under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure, of which you have given a detailed account.
MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): I have not yet explained my reasons for moving the motion.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting to deal with Ms Tanya CHAN's request for moving an adjournment motion.
1:34 pm
Meeting suspended.
2:25 pm
Council then resumed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, I understand that the draft Decision on establishing and improving the legal system and enforcement mechanisms for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to safeguard national security, on which you wished to debate, is a matter of public concern. However, I think that the wording of your motion is not neutral.
7346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Moreover, the draft Decision is to be legislated at the national level and is currently being scrutinized by the highest state organ, namely the National People's Congress, and the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress will later be authorized to draw up the relevant laws. According to Article 18 of the Basic Law, the Hong Kong SAR is to be consulted at the next stage. For this reason, I think that the issue is not so urgent that it must be debated at this meeting.
Based on the aforesaid considerations, I rule that the motion which Ms Tanya CHAN wished to move does not comply with the requirements set out in Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure. I cannot accede to your request.
Ms Tanya CHAN, what is your point?
MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, while I certainly cannot question your ruling, I must express my disappointment. President, should circumstances permit in the future, I hope that you will allow the Member who moved an adjournment motion to finish reading out the wording of the motion and also listen to his/her reasons before stopping the Member from speaking. I believe that this will at least allow for a more complete record in the Hansard.
Thank you, President.
(Mr Dennis KWOK indicated his wish to speak)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, what is your point?
MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I propose moving a motion for the adjournment of this Council under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure. My motion is very short and simple: "That this Council do now adjourn for the purpose of debating the following issue: given the report of members of the Executive Council and the media, whether foreign judges should not be authorized to handle cases concerning national security and the significant impact of this arrangement on the judicial system and independence of Hong Kong."
That is the wording of my motion.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7347
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting to consider Mr Dennis KWOK's request for proposing an adjournment motion.
2:27 pm
Meeting suspended.
2:50 pm
Council then resumed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, regarding your request to debate the prohibition of foreign judges from handling cases involving national security, I think that the issue is not so urgent that it must be debated at this meeting. In fact, Members still have many opportunities to follow up the issue through various channels in this Council. Hence, I rule that the motion which Mr Dennis KWOK wished to move does not comply with the requirements set out in Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
Mr Martin LIAO, please speak.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen indicated his wish to speak)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): In accordance with Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure, I propose moving a motion for the adjournment of this Council to debate the deployment of the Police in the area of Admiralty on 27 and 28 May 2020 (i.e. today and tomorrow) and its impact on local traffic and people's livelihood. Given that the Police have deployed some 3 000 officers and set up barriers in Admiralty for today and tomorrow, causing inconvenience to the public and drivers; that the Police have fired anti-riot launchers and pepper balls and arrested dozens of people and that the number of arrests is on the increase, I hope that a discussion can be held immediately on the deployment of the Police in these two days, so that the Council can make suggestions on how to 7348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 improve the deployment of the Police. If a discussion cannot take place today, a large number of members of the public may be affected by the deployment of the Police, resulting in more conflicts between the Police and the public with irreversible consequences.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, I think the issue you raised is also not in compliance with the requirements set out in Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Hence, your motion is rejected.
As the President of the Legislative Council, when I preside over meetings under Article 72(1) of the Basic Law, I am duty-bound to ensure that Council meetings are conducted in an orderly, efficient and fair manner, so that all the items on the Agenda can be completed within a reasonable period of time.
As Members are aware, I have reserved about 30 hours for the Council to deal with the National Anthem Bill at this meeting and the next. Hence, I will now adhere to the original arrangement and immediately deal with the Bill.
Mr Martin LIAO, please speak.
MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Bills Committee on National Anthem Bill, I would like to report the main points of the deliberations of the Bills Committee. The purpose of National Anthem Bill is …
(A number of Members were speaking loudly in their seats)
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up and requested a headcount)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen requested a headcount.
Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7349
MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, a point of order. Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have just said …
(Mr Andrew WAN and Dr Helena WONG were speaking loudly in their seats)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, please keep quiet; otherwise, I will regard your conduct as grossly disorderly.
(Mr Andrew WAN loudly questioned the President in his seat)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have said that I will not deal with any more motion for adjournment proposed under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure today. I am exercising my power under Article 72(1) of the Basic Law.
(Mr Andrew WAN continued to speak loudly in his seat)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, please keep quiet.
(Mr Andrew WAN was still speaking loudly in his seat)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, if you continue to shout in your seat, I will regard your conduct as grossly disorderly.
(Mr Andrew WAN was standing while he continued to speak loudly)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, please sit down, this is the final warning.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
7350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Martin LIAO, please continue with your speech.
MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): The purpose of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") is to provide for the playing and singing of national anthem in Hong Kong, for the protection of national anthem and for the promotion of national anthem. The details of the deliberations of the Bills Committee are set out in the Bills Committee's report …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Martin LIAO, please hold on.
Secretariat colleagues, please put down the white placard. Last week I instructed that placards that insult Members should not be displayed. If a Member insists on displaying, I will order him/her to leave the Chamber immediately.
(Secretariat staff put down the placard as directed by the President)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Martin LIAO, please continue with your speech.
MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): … I will focus on discussing the major provisions of the Bill.
First of all, concerning the Preamble of the Bill, some members consider that expressions like "to enhance citizen awareness of the People's Republic of China" and "to promote patriotism" in paragraph (3) of the Preamble are vague and have given rise to concern about whether the Bill is to force people to be patriotic. These members have also pointed out that the meaning of the term "patriotism" is vague and would be open to different interpretations.
The Administration has explained that the meaning of the expressions "to enhance citizen awareness of the People's Republic of China" and "to promote patriotism" should be interpreted by their ordinary meaning. "Patriotism" is a general term and has no specific meaning in the context of the Bill. The Administration has also explained that a preamble provides background LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7351 information and serves to provide a context to facilitate the interpretation of the legislation concerned. The Administration has confirmed that the Preamble of the Bill does not impose any legal liability.
Regarding Part 1 of the Bill―Preliminary, members note that clause 2 provides for the definition of national anthem and explains the meanings of the lyrics and the score of the national anthem and a reference to "playing and singing the national anthem". Part 2 of the Bill―Playing and Singing of National Anthem stipulates the standard and etiquette for playing and singing the national anthem, as well as the occasions on which the national anthem is played and sung. Some members consider that the scope of applicability of clause 4, which provides for the etiquette to be followed by persons who take part in or attend an occasion when the national anthem is played and sung, is too large. Some members consider that clause 4 of the Bill is unnecessary and should be deleted to avoid any uncertainty in respect of the legal consequence of failure to observe the etiquette provided in the clause. The Administration has explained that clause 4 of the Bill reflects Article 7 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law") and provides guidance for members of the public by describing the etiquette to be followed when taking part in or attending an occasion on which the national anthem is played and sung. The Administration has emphasized that clause 4 of the Bill is only a directional provision and carries no penalty.
Members note that clause 5 of the Bill provides for the playing and singing of the national anthem on each occasion set out in Schedule 3, including the Legislative Council oath-taking ceremony.
Part 3 of the Bill―Protection of National Anthem (clauses 6 to 8 of the Bill) prohibits the misuse of the national anthem or its lyrics or score as well as the act of publicly and intentionally insulting the national anthem. It also provides for penalties for such behaviours. With regard to the offence of insulting the national anthem, some members consider the definition of "insult" in clause 7 of the Bill vague. Some members have expressed concern about the criteria for deciding if an act constitutes an insult to the national anthem. The Administration has explained that the Bill defines "insult" as "in relation to the national anthem, to undermine the dignity of the national anthem as a symbol and sign of the People's Republic of China". The Administration considers that this definition already provides certainty to the meaning of the term "insult" and a clear basis for the court when adjudicating cases. The Administration has 7352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 stressed that in proving that certain act amounts to an offence under clause 7 of the Bill, apart from proving that the conduct constitutes an insulting act stipulated, the prosecution must also prove that the person concerned has intent to insult the national anthem and performs such act publicly and intentionally before prosecution can be instituted.
In addition, some members consider the level of penalty imposed by the Bill too high. The Administration has advised that a fine at level 5 and imprisonment for three years is the maximum level of penalty of the offence of insulting the national anthem provided under the Bill. The court will decide whether and what penalties should be imposed on a person who contravenes the relevant provisions of the Bill in accordance with the actual circumstance of each case. In addition, the level of penalty provided under the Bill is the same as that for the offence of desecrating the national flag or national emblem under the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance.
On Part 4 of the Bill―Promotion of National Anthem (clauses 9 to 10 of the Bill), clause 9 of the Bill requires the Secretary for Education to give directions for the inclusion of the national anthem in primary education and secondary education. Some members have expressed concern about whether the directions are mandatory and their impact on the autonomy of primary and secondary schools in teaching. They are also concerned whether undue pressure would be exerted on teachers in the implementation of the directions and what should be done if students perform acts that show disrespect for the national anthem within the school premises.
The Administration has explained that clause 9 of the Bill seeks to reflect the requirement in Article 11 of the National Anthem Law while taking into account the actual circumstances in Hong Kong. The Administration has pointed out that clause 9 only imposes a legal responsibility on the Secretary for Education to give directions for the inclusion of the national anthem in primary and secondary education. The directions are to require schools concerned to implement clause 9(1)(a) and (b) i.e. "to enable the students to learn to sing the national anthem; and to educate the students on the history and spirit of the national anthem; and on the etiquette for playing and singing the national anthem". The Administration has stressed that how to educate students to respect the national anthem is a matter of learning and teaching, which falls entirely under the professional purview of teachers. The Education Bureau does not prescribe the teaching and learning materials to be used for teaching the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7353 national anthem. The Administration has advised that handling of students' improper behaviour within the school premises should be left to the professional judgment of schools and teachers and be dealt with in such a way that the purpose of education is served.
Furthermore, members note that clause 10 of the Bill provides the legal basis. The Bill requires the broadcast of the national anthem by an announcement in the public interest or material in the public interest ("API") and domestic free television and radio broadcasters are required under the terms and conditions of a broadcasting licence to broadcast APIs including the national anthem. The Communications Authority must make a direction in relation to the broadcasting licence, requiring the licensee to broadcast the national anthem by APIs on a date stipulated by the Chief Executive. Some members have questioned that clause 10 of the Bill is unnecessary as the mechanism for broadcasting APIs on the national anthem by domestic television and sound broadcasting licensees is already in place. They also oppose conferring the power to stipulate a date for the licensees to broadcast the national anthem by APIs to the Chief Executive, but the Administration is of the view that the arrangement provided in clause 10 is appropriate and the Administration has made reference to the relevant arrangement under the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance.
President, the Bills Committee and the Administration have not proposed any amendments to the Bill. As for the amendments of Members, I will leave the elaborations to them.
President, the above is my report on the work of the Bills Committee. I now express my personal views on the Bill.
President, the national anthem is a national symbol and sign established by the Constitution. As part of the People's Republic of China, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region should respect the national anthem of China. On 4 November 2017, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress adopted the decision to include the National Anthem Law in Annex III to the Basic Law. Under Article 18 of the Basic Law, national laws listed in Annex III shall be applied locally by way of promulgation or legislation by Hong Kong. For this reason, Hong Kong has the constitutional responsibility to implement the National Anthem Law.
7354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
In order to give due regard to the common law legal system and the actual circumstances in Hong Kong, the Government has chosen to implement the National Anthem Law in Hong Kong by local legislation. During the local legislation process, the House Committee agreed to form a Bills Committee to scrutinize the Bill. The Bills Committee has held 17 meetings, which lasted more than 50 hours, to carefully scrutinize the Bill and a public hearing was also held.
The Bills Committee's report was originally scheduled for submission to the House Committee on 14 June last year but it was shelved because of the disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments and the shutdown of the House Committee this year. It is not until today that the Second Reading is resumed. President, the object of the Bill is to respect the national anthem and impose penalties for the act of publicly and intentionally insulting the national anthem or misusing the national anthem. The Bill is not very controversial. However, the doubts and opinions of the community on the Bill reflect that people have distorted understanding and misunderstanding of the Bill. Some think that the Bill restricts freedom of expression and intends to introduce brainwashing education, thus calling it an evil law. The distortion has given rise to fear which is most easily manipulated by others; thus, the Government has the responsibility to strengthen publicity and explain the Bill clearly to the public to allay their concerns.
During the scrutiny process, the Bills Committee has dealt with the doubts and questions about the Bill and answers have been provided. For instance, concerning the question of the occasions on which national anthem must be played and sung, when the national anthem is played on television in Hong Kong style tea cafes or Chinese restaurants, the patrons are not taking part in or attending an occasion on which the national anthem is played and sung, therefore they do not need to observe the etiquette required, i.e. to stand solemnly and deport themselves with dignity. Part 2 of the Bill―Etiquette for playing and singing the national anthem contains a directional provision to reflect the legislative principles of the National Anthem Law and carries no penalty. Only a person performing the act of publicly and intentionally insulting the national anthem, with intent to insult the national anthem, may have criminal liability. However, whether the person has criminal liability has to be assessed based on the actual circumstances of each case.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7355
According to the common law tradition of Hong Kong, the burden of proof in criminal cases lies with the prosecution and the standard of proof is very high, i.e. beyond reasonable doubt. When the national anthem is played or sung publicly, if errors are made, people goes out of tune or the national anthem is played in other musical styles, the prosecution must prove that the relevant behaviour is publicly and intentionally insulting the national anthem, with intent to insult the national anthem. If a person simply displays his dislike of the national anthem with no intent to insult the national anthem, he will not be caught in the net of justice.
President, although Article 27 of the Basic Law protects the freedom of speech of Hong Kong residents, the freedom of speech is not absolute and it can be restricted. According to the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal, prohibiting acts of insulting is only prohibiting a form of presentation, without intervening in the freedom of presenting information in other forms. The restrictions concerned are limited and reasonable and they will not infringe upon the protection of the freedom of speech and expression under the Basic Law.
Another controversial point in the community is the playing and singing of the national anthem at the Legislative Council oath-taking ceremony. Some people with sinister intentions have magnified the fear, saying that Members can be arbitrarily disqualified. This is an unfounded accusation and a pseudo proposition. First of all, when people stand in the Legislative Council election and later takes an oath of office, the law requires him to swear to uphold the Basic Law and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. On the premise of upholding the Basic Law and "one country, two systems", Legislative Council Members should respect the national anthem as a symbol of the country and attend the oath-taking ceremony when national anthem is played and sung. Moreover, if Members, who are not fluent in Putonghua, sing the national anthem in Cantonese with no intent to insult the national anthem, they will not violate the law. Why will they be arbitrarily disqualified? My advice to these Members is that they should learn Putonghua well.
President, respecting the national anthem is a justified act. During the resumption of Second Reading debate, we should return to rational discussions instead of politicizing all issues and opposing everything about China. People should not organize or initiate a "general strike on three fronts", besiege the Legislative Council Complex, obstruct Members from attending meetings and 7356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 impede the exercise of the powers and functions of the Legislative Council under Article 73(1) of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, i.e. to enact, amend or repeal laws in accordance with legal procedures. I support the resumption of Second Reading of the Bill to fulfil the constitutional responsibility of implementing the National Anthem Law in Hong Kong by local legislation.
President, I so submit.
MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, I speak to support the Second Reading of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill").
President, the national flag, national emblem and national anthem are the solemn symbols and signs of a country. In many countries and regions around the world, including many Western countries which talks about human rights, freedom and democracy, their national flag, national emblem and national anthem are protected by means of legislation and it is a criminal offence to deliberately insult such national symbols. The objective of this practice is neither to restrict the nationals' freedom of expression or thoughts as the "mutual destruction camp" has put it, nor to force the people to be patriotic or support any regime or political party. The legislative intent is to safeguard the basic dignity of the country.
In fact, the March of the Volunteers, the national anthem of the People's Republic of China, was originally a song in an anti-Japanese film. The lyrics talk about the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, the defence of our homeland and protection of the Chinese people from invasion by foreign enemies. The song does not involve political party or political group, and does not contain any political ideology. Therefore, every Chinese and Hongkonger should respect and protect the national anthem. The Mainland and Hong Kong have enacted legislation to protect the national flag and the nation emblem; however, in respect of protecting the national anthem, the Mainland only imposed regulation through administrative measures in the past, whereas there is no regulation in Hong Kong at all.
Nevertheless, Hong Kong people respected the national anthem in the past. Even when no legislation had been enacted, an overwhelming majority of the people would stand up consciously and solemnly when the national anthem was played on public occasions; some would even follow the melody and sing. This LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7357 is the respect to one's own nation and the self-respect as a national. However in early 2015, as Hong Kong was affected by the unlawful Occupy Central and the idea of "Hong Kong independence", the national anthem was booed for the first time in a soccer match between China and Hong Kong. From then on, similar acts occasionally occurred in different matches and on some occasions. People who booed the national anthem were mostly youngsters. Sometimes, they also displayed slogans and banners of "Hong Kong independence", seriously undermining the national dignity and hurting the national sentiment of 1.3 billion fellow countrymen.
On 1 September 2017, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") adopted the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law"). Although it was not expressly stated that the National Anthem Law was directed against the insulting acts to the country that happened in Hong Kong, I believe such acts have, to some extent, become one of the factors for consideration. In November of the same year, NPCSC passed the National Anthem Law and listed the Law to Annex III to the Basic Law pursuant to Article 18 of the Basic Law for implementation in Hong Kong. With reference to the enactment of the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance back then, the SAR Government has enacted a local legislation separately in order to fulfil its constitutional requirement. This is the legislative background of our discussion on the Bill today.
Therefore, I believe that if people had not advocated the specious argument of achieving justice by violating the law and instigated a handful of people, especially mentally immature young people to take blatant actions that insulted the country, harmed national feeling and even intended to disrupt the country, this debate would not have to be held today. By the same token, if no one had openly glorified black violence, advocated "Hong Kong independence" and "mutual destruction", and instigated young people to express their political aspirations through law-breaking violent acts in the better part of last year; if people had not paid multiple visits to foreign countries to invite external powers to interfere in the matters of Hong Kong as well as the internal affairs of China, and even begged for foreign countries' imposition of sanctions on Hong Kong and China without paying due regard to national security, territorial integrity and the interest of all nationals, NPCSC would not have to propose the enactment of the Hong Kong national security law.
7358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
President, let us come back to the Bill which is now under Second Reading. The legislation is actually rather simple and brief. In its Chinese version, there are 23 pages with a total of 14 provisions and 3 schedules, of which 3 provisions are related to the consequential amendments on other existing ordinances. Basically, the Bill adopts the various provisions in the Mainland's National Anthem Law and presents them in terms of the common law diction which has all along been in use in Hong Kong. The Bill provides for the regulation in relation to the lyrics, the scores, the playing and singing, the broadcast and the use of the national anthem, as well as the occasions on which national anthem must be played and sung, the etiquette for playing and singing the national anthem, etc. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that while the national anthem is being played and sung, the persons who attend the occasion must stand solemnly and deport themselves with dignity and they should not behave in a way disrespectful to the national anthem. As I pointed out just now, before the enactment of the legislation, an overwhelming majority of Hong Kong people (including expatriate Hong Kong residents and foreign visitors to Hong Kong) would actually stand solemnly and deport themselves with dignity on occasions which the national anthem was played and sung.
On the issue of behaving disrespectfully to the national anthem, some may be worried whether the infirm who are wheelchair-bound, people who do not speak Chinese, cannot sing, do not speak Putonghua or sing out of tune will commit an offence and be fined or even imprisoned. Actually, as clarified by the Government time and again and stipulated clearly in the Bill, if a person does not deliberately insult the national anthem, even if he does not stand solemnly or does not deport himself with the dignity required, he will not commit a criminal offence. Conversely, if a person acts with intent to insult the national anthem, such as booing the national anthem on a public occasion or even bringing along a "Hong Kong independence" flag and waving the flag while booing, the person is guilty of a criminal offence punishable on conviction of imprisonment for three years under clause 7 of the Bill.
Some queries if the regulation restricts people's freedom of expression. In fact, it merely restricts a specific form of expression at the most. If one is dissatisfied with the Government or the Communist Party, he can express his dissatisfaction freely through lawful means, including lawful and peaceful processions, writing articles and posting them on Facebook, or composing satiric songs. One can take all such actions, but he cannot express his dissatisfaction by insulting the national anthem. Clause 6 of the Bill makes it an offence to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7359 misuse the national anthem in commercial advertisements, at a private funeral event, etc. Such provisions actually do not affect the general public at all, and violation of such provisions will only be liable to fines.
President, clause 9 of the Bill stipulates the inclusion of the national anthem in primary and secondary education. I think this is a very important provision, particularly after the occurrence of an incident concerning a question in the History paper of the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination. In a question set by the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority, which is composed of a large number of education experts, Hong Kong secondary students were asked to comment on whether the Japanese invasion of China caused more good than harm. The most horrific fact is that as many as almost 40% of candidates replied that the invasion caused more good than harm. Yet, Mr IP Kin-yuen, who represents the education sector in the Legislative Council, still said that there was no problem with the question and its answer. This reflects that there are indeed huge problems with the education sector and the education system in Hong Kong. Through teaching about the March of the Volunteers, which was originally an anti-Japanese song, I hope young people of Hong Kong can have a correct understanding about the history of Japanese aggression against China.
President, as a national, I really cannot think of any reason not to support enhancing the measures to uphold the dignity of our nation and protect the national anthem, which is a national symbol. As I just said, the Bill basically has no impact on the general public at all. Actually, we need not change our present way of life and we will not contravene the various provisions and requirements of the Bill at all. Members of the "mutual destruction camp" claimed that they would unhesitatingly spare no effort to prevent the passage of the Bill, including calling upon their supporters to besiege the Legislative Council Complex and wasting the time of the Council over the past seven months by obstructing the election of the Chairman of the House Committee. Do they have ulterior motives or do they act as instructed?
Information shows that some Members of the "mutual destruction camp" initially supported the Bill in principle, and they only had some views on some detailed arrangements. For instance, they queried whether the penalty of imprisonment for three years was too heavy for the offence of insulting the national anthem. Nevertheless, after the Bill was gazetted and they saw the provision that the national anthem must be played and sung at the oath-taking 7360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 ceremony for Members of the Legislative Council, their attitudes changed immediately and opposed the Bill. Actually, it is already stipulated in the existing legislation that Members of the Legislative Council must swear allegiance to the People's Republic of China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and swear to uphold the Basic Law in order to assume office officially. Why do Members of the "mutual destruction camp" react so strongly about the playing and singing of the national anthem at the oath-taking ceremony? The only reason is that they do not respect their own country and consider themselves foreigners, or they are willingly to be puppets of foreign powers and even traitors to China. Probably, they only want to hear the national anthem of the United States or of the United Kingdom, but do not want to hear the national anthem of their own country. I hope this is not true. Even if Members of the "mutual destruction camp" are indeed not Chinese, they actually do not need to oppose the relevant provision for the sake of opposition. Since the reunification of Hong Kong, national anthem has been played in the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year over the years. Attendees to the Opening include foreign judges, solicitors and barristers. They do not think there is any problem and will stand solemnly to show respect when the national anthem of China is played. The problem is that neither the word "respect" nor the concept of the country and the nation has ever existed in the dictionaries of some Members of the "mutual destruction camp".
President, I so submit.
MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I have just listened to Mr Tony TSE's remarks. He is conjecturing our intentions, saying things like we are willingly to be puppets of foreign forces and even to be traitors. It is really frightening to hear what he said. He has escalated someone's behaviour to a higher plane of principle, and then kept conjecturing that person's intention. Is this not the speech crime that we fear most? Mr TSE said that there is no problem with the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") as it only affects a small group of people who do not respect the national anthem. However, we see a red line being drawn here today and another red line being drawn there the next day. Originally, the law stipulated certain provisions on oath-taking, but suddenly the Basic Law was interpreted and the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance of Hong Kong was also interpreted; this is something that Hong Kong people are most worried about. A very important objective or principle of the common law is predictability but predictability will soon disappear, so we are worried about the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7361
Bill. Intentions are very abstract and they may be conjectured using environmental evidence; but how long ago would the environmental evidence be? We can learn some information from the "DQ" incident. The Returning Officer can escalate the candidates' remarks to a higher plane of principle and overplay the remarks, or he can prescribe retrospective effects for no reason in order to disqualify the candidates. We are most worried about these things and we are also worried about the national security law of the Hong Kong SAR.
Just now Mr Tony TSE talked about the practice of the Beijing Government; and he said "serve you right", "refuse a toast only to be forced to drink a forfeit" and "finally know the taste". What is wrong with expressing our worries? Today I have given the example of our worries about the Hong Kong national security law. The SAR Government seems to know nothing about it and allows the Beijing Government to take charge. If the Government had known about the law long ago, the rich would have transferred their assets long ago; the stock prices would also have plunged a few days ago. This news has suddenly been released in Beijing and we do not know the contents of the Hong Kong national security law, so we can just refer to the provisions. Regarding the Bill, even if the Beijing Government indicates that the Hong Kong Government has to enact legislation, the legislation should at least be enacted locally and the common law principles should be taken into consideration. I will talk about the problems with the Bill in detail later. President, as you have said, "two steps" are involved this time. In the first step, the National People's Congress makes certain provisions and in the second step, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") enacts the relevant law. A plus sign is used to describe these two steps and it looks like a formula. They said that the Bill allowed local legislation to be enacted in Hong Kong. They have already waited for two years, so they are going to deal with the Hong Kong national security law on their own and ask the SAR Government to step aside.
Will the common law principles be applied in the Hong Kong national security law? I have no idea and I am worried about how many common law principles are applied in the Bill. The National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance ("NFNEO") was enacted by the Provisional Legislative Council and we can compare the two ordinances. Both mention about dignity; the national flag and the national emblem have something to do with dignity, and the same applied to the national anthem. However, NFNEO does not have a preamble. What is a preamble? Let us refer to the Drafting Legislation in Hong Kong―A Guide to Styles and Practices―Sorry, I am not sure if this Guide has already been 7362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 repealed or some of the contents have disappeared. This Guide was compiled by counsels of the Law Drafting Division of the Department of Justice including WONG Yan-lung. Do colleagues still remember who WONG Yan-lung is? I am afraid colleagues will even forget about Rimsky YUEN soon. However, his name has recently reappeared because he is assisting in enacting the local legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law.
The part of this Guide reads, "Preambles are rarely used in Hong Kong Ordinances these days. A preamble is appropriate if an explanation of certain facts is necessary to provide a context in which to understand the legislation. It is best reserved for such exceptional cases". President, why are we worried about the Bill? First, the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law") contains many ideological elements, e.g. the Basic Law prescribes that the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years, which is obviously very different from the provisions of Hong Kong laws.
Of course, socialism is not practised in Hong Kong. The Government has stated that the Preamble of the Bill, which contains three paragraphs, only provides background information, but how come NFNEO does not have a preamble, is it not necessary to provide background information? No. Please refer to paragraph (1) of the Preamble of the Bill: the national anthem of the People's Republic of China is a symbol and sign of the People's Republic of China; paragraph (2) mentions that all individuals and organizations should respect the national anthem, preserve the dignity of the national anthem, and play and sing the national anthem on appropriate occasions. How come NFNEO does not have a preamble while the Bill has a preamble?
Some may think that this is just a preamble and they usually skip this part as conviction is not based on the preamble, but I believe this is not the case. First, we have to read the provisions of the Bill carefully; second, the legislative intent is very important, so we should also consider the Preamble. Before I discuss or bargain with the President, I have carefully read the document published by WANG Chen, the Vice-Chairman of NPCSC. The document contains 10 pages and I have read over and over again. A "two-step" approach will be taken in respect of the Hong Kong national security law. In the first step, a decision will be made by NPCSC. Who dares cast an opposing vote? The attendees cannot wait to clap hands. If you have watched WANG Chen delivering his speech, when he came to Article 4 of the draft decision, "relevant LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7363 national security organs of the Central People's Government will set up agencies in the HKSAR to fulfil relevant duties to safeguard national security in accordance with the law", the attendees immediately clapped hands and WANG Chen had to pause amidst the storm of applause. The applause session was spontaneous and WANG Chen almost did not know how to react. It turned out that everyone expected the Central Government to set up agencies in Hong Kong to implement the Hong Kong national security law. This is the concern of Hong Kong people and it is also something that we are most worried about.
Moreover, just now Mr Tony TSE said the Bill only restricted a certain form of expression. He further said that the public could continue to criticize the Central Government and could participate in demonstrations and processions. Although Mr TSE said the people could do this and that, he might not be allowed to say so at the same time tomorrow. He might be alleged for attempting to instigate the public to criticize the Central Government, hence running into great trouble. Could we criticize the Central Government? I have repeatedly reviewed WANG Chen's speech and I found a major problem, i.e. inciting Hong Kong people to oppose China and the communist and another problem is that we do not know whether there is retrospective effect.
In addition, other legal principles also made us worried. The education sector pointed out long ago that it was necessary to educate students on the Hong Kong national security law to be enacted soon. Although the Government asked the education sector not to worry as no penalties would be imposed, schools have to do a lot of work. The fact that no penalties will be imposed but instructions must be followed is most ambiguous and bewildering. It would be better to be explicit. The question of the History subject is an example. From now on, the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority ("HKEAA") will know how to ask questions. Indeed, it is not easy to choose the right wordings, should the question be "did more harm than good" or "did more good than harm"? After a random review, the Bureau found that the answer of more than 30% of the candidates was "did more good than harm", which made HKEAA scared even though 57.1% of the candidates' answer was "did more harm than good". Mr Tony TSE has just said that this is an anti-Japanese song. This is great! There is one more advantage. How could this anti-Japanese song come about if the Anti-Japanese War has not taken place?
President, the lyricist of the national anthem had a lifetime of frustrations and the composer of The March of the Volunteers died a miserable death. If TIAN Han was not tagged with the label "bourgeois reactionary academic 7364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 authority" during the Cultural Revolution, what would happen to him? Why can't we continue to teach students such knowledge about the national anthem? After a while, such knowledge may not be taught anymore. President, did this part of the history of the Cultural Revolution "do more good than harm" or "do more harm than good"? Can this question be asked in the future? Can it be answered? Will the examination question be invalidated after being answered? Does anyone need to resign or assume responsibility?
A lot of things happened in Hong Kong over the past two months and statements were made by the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council ("HKMAO") and the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG"). Today, I go over the speech delivered by Director LUO Huining on National Security Education Day again. The first point is that "we must strengthen Hong Kong's system for safeguarding national security", he also mentioned that Hong Kong should enact, amend and activate national security law and put the relevant law enforcement mechanism in place. Unexpectedly, Hong Kong has changed after only a month or so. He also said that it was necessary to prevent the city from posing a potential risk to the nation's security. President, I do not know that the Central Government regards the Hong Kong national security law as a test and I have not imagined that the "China extradition law" will cause such a huge disturbance, but the Hong Kong national security law really makes many people terrified. It is not because they will break the law but because they are objectively worried about who is going to deal with the Hong Kong national security law. How will the law be exploited? Who will be affected?
The Executive Authorities will certainly exploit the law to the fullest, so that they will have an extra legal weapon in hand. How will the SAR Government exploit this legal weapon? The law will not be used to protect the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong people but will stir up trouble amidst the chaos. The Government enacted the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, and it issued various prohibition orders during the anti-epidemic period. The law enforcement department has one more legal weapon but the rights of the public are undermined. Will freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press be restricted under the national security law? Can the actual situations no longer be reported? Is there any problem with broadcasting the video clips concerned? While we do not have any problem today, what will happen after the national security law is passed? Is there any retrospective effect? Who are going to make the arrest? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7365
Will the arrestees be tried in Hong Kong or will they be escorted to the Mainland for trial? Will Mainland officials enforce the law in Hong Kong or will they escort the arrestees to the Mainland for trial? President, we are kept in the dark and we are thus scared. Hong Kong is now at a critical point under "one country, two systems". Therefore, Hong Kong people, stand strong!
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, this Council discusses the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") today. Let us first consider why the Government should enact legislation on the national anthem.
Many countries have national anthems and the People's Republic of China is certainly no exception. However, do all countries enact national anthem laws to punish their citizens? Definitely not. The United Kingdom, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan and many other countries do not have national anthem laws. In Taiwan, for a certain period of time in the past, people were fined if they did not stand up to sing the national anthem, but the relevant law was repealed in 1991. The United States, Canada and Japan have national anthem laws but no penalty has been stipulated. Generally speaking, most regions, especially countries or regions with a democratic election system do not have national anthem laws. The reason is simple: When people truly and sincerely respect the Government or the national anthem, there is no need to impose penalty.
At present, China often exports Confucian culture, and as we all know, there are many Confucius Institutes in the world, but some of them have been closed for different reasons. When it comes to Confucius and Confucianism, we must quote the words of the sage Mencius: "When one subdues men by virtue, in their hearts' core they are pleased"1. On the contrary, "When one by force subdues men, they do not submit to him in heart". If our national anthem makes all people, including people in the Hong Kong SAR, pleased in their hearts' core, what a wonderful thing it is! In fact, that is not difficult. If "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" as stipulated in the Basic Law are truly implemented; if genuine democratic elections for all Members of the Legislative Council can be held in Hong Kong under Articles 45 and 68 of the Basic Law and the Chief Executive is elected through "one person, one vote"; if Hong Kong people find that "one
1
Before any government enacts laws on the national anthem, it should first consider whether there is a better way to make people respect the national anthem. Will there be a better approach than imposing penalties? Mencius is right, if the leader of a country subdues men by virtue, the country will be very peaceful and harmonious. The pro-establishment camp often talks about peace, law-abiding, and respect for society; these truths have actually been recorded thousands of years ago. Confucius and Mencius taught state leaders to treat people like their own children. If they treated and respected all people as family members, everything could be handled easily.
However, the SAR Government treats the public in a perverse way. Let me give a well-known example. Last year the Government reluctantly withdrew the Fugitive Offenders Bill. If the Government had listened to the voices of Hong Kong people and understood that the legislation would not make Hong Kong more peaceful and would not boost the investment incentives of business people, but would instead cause great anxiety resulting in withdrawal of capitals, the movement of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments which hurt all Hong Kong people would not have happened last year, and a series of clashes between the Police and the public also would not have happened. In fact, all that is required of the Government at that time was a sense of benevolence.
The above situation can be applied to the Bill. If people see that the Central Authorities and the SAR Government respect "one country, two systems" they will sing the national anthem whenever they have the mood to do so, and they simply will not perform acts of insulting the country as specified in the Bill. As Mencius said, people would be pleased in their hearts' core. Nevertheless, the situation is just the opposite now. "One country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" as prescribed in the Basic Law have been taken away, and even if Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that national security law shall be applied locally by way of promulgation or legislation after deliberation by the Legislative Council, the Central Government in Beijing now adopts a broad-brush approach to implement the National Security Law of the People's Republic of China ("National Security Law") in Hong Kong. Will Hong Kong people be pleased in their hearts' core? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7367
Mencius passed away long time ago and I cannot ask him this question. Yet, in line with his spirit, I believe it is impossible for the public to be pleased in their hearts' core.
The SAR Government has taken all the trouble to deal with the Bill. It imposes a penalty of a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for three years. In fact, there is only one purpose i.e. requiring Hong Kong people to respect the national anthem. For this purpose, the Government imposes penalty heavier than that in many countries and regions. In response to the earlier question about the Hong Kong national security law, John LEE said that the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia have national security laws, so Hong Kong must also implement the National Security Law. Why did he not mention that no penalty is imposed in the national anthem laws of the United Kingdom, Australia, etc.? Why does Hong Kong not follow their examples? Since the governments of those countries and regions are democratically elected, the people will naturally safeguard the regimes, their elected governments and leaders. Of course, they will defend the choices they made and this is the predominant spirit. Mencius already presented this principle during the Warring States Period thousands of years ago. How come thousands of years later, the Chinese people still impose heavy penalties in the 21st century? It is said that heavy penalties are required for restoring order to a chaotic society; why is society chaotic in the first place? Hong Kong with a population of 7.5 million pales in comparison with China with a population of 1.4 billion. If Hong Kong people are pleased in their hearts' core, why should the Government impose heavy penalties? Why should the Police use various firearms? Just now the Police have used tear smoke, tear gas and pepper ball guns in Central; the only firearm not being used for the time being is rubber bullet. If one wants to make the people pleased in their hearts' core, he should not readily use batons or deploy "Raptors" and riot police to beat up members the public. Mencius had similar teachings.
Our country respects traditional culture and there are various kinds of teachings. Confucianism teaches leaders how to love people like children; have they done so? Or have they conversely treated people as tools to be ruled? If the latter is true, the situation will be completely different. Take Hong Kong people as an example, if the leaders regard all people as tools to be ruled, they have decided to stand against Hong Kong people. In another example, a good teacher does not need to use rattan to manage his students in a classroom; instead he will give patient guidance so that all students will accept his teaching and strive for progress; the same rule applies in a family.
7368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
As a great country, China has a very strong Government with huge powers, a powerful People's Liberation Army ("PLA") and a large quantity of firearms and funds. Frankly speaking, if the Chinese Government wants to implement the National Security Law in Hong Kong, Hong Kong people certainly can hardly resist. China has a population of 1.4 billion and a powerful PLA, public security officers and national security officers. As currently suggested, the Mainland authorities can enforce laws in Hong Kong, which is tantamount to governing Hong Kong by threatening means. A civilized government that rules in accordance with the law should love people like children, but now in the eyes of Hong Kong people, the Government rules by suppression and severe punishment. Hong Kong people are forced to comply; is there something wrong with the system or with the Government?
Singing the national anthem should be a joyous activity. But if a person insults the national anthem, he may be penalized by a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for three years, which reflects that many people may not respect the national anthem. A good government, be it the SAR Government or the Central Government, should identify the root cause of the problem. The public do not like the national anthem because there are contradictions in society and they do not see the future. Young people find that "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" turn out to be lies. "One country, two systems" exists in name only.
The Government said that some people have reacted emotionally. Even if the people do react emotionally, should the Government suppress more severely? Will the implementation of the National Security Law in Hong Kong by the Government serve any purpose? Will the next generation be happier? Even if they succumb, it is only because of power, batons and firearms but these methods simply do not work. It is hardest to win the hearts of people. A good government or leader wins the hearts of the people instead of using batons, imprisonment, the National Security Law and other means to force the people to succumb and become slaves. This approach has no effect at all.
When we discussed the Bill earlier, we asked the then Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Patrick NIP to cite examples of disrespectful of the country. I remember that we asked him at that time whether Hacken LEE's Adventure of Football Fans and Leon LAI's All Day Love and other popular songs would be regarded as disrespectful of the country because the scores were similar to the national anthem. We asked in great detail because we LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7369 were worried that the Bill might have some grey areas. Secretary Patrick NIP smiled and said at the time that there were no problems with the songs Adventure of Football Fans and All Day Love. But when we asked about the guidelines, he said that it was hard to say and it depended on different occasions. These words are still in my ears, but Patrick NIP has already taken up a new post and Erick TSANG is now the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs. Different people hold different views but this is not what we are most worried about. What worries us most is that the laws and the rule of law in Hong Kong are now at stake.
Today we received a shocking news, i.e. cases involving the National Security Law shall not be tried by foreign judges in future. This news has really shocked Hong Kong people. The Basic Law provides for the establishment of a Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong and there are 15 foreign judges in the Court of Final Appeal. Foreign judges are engaged because they will try cases in accordance with the law under the common law system rather than based on nationality. How come a country has so little confidence as to think that foreign judges cannot uphold justice? Are there problems with the judges or with the Government? As this measure will become a national law in Annex III to the Basic Law, Hong Kong people find the situation more and more frightening.
In future, cases involving the National Anthem Law will not be tried by foreign judges and all these cases will be tried by Chinese judges. By then people will query about the handling of these cases. Other cases can be tried by foreign judges but cases involving national security must be tried by Chinese judges. This approach reflects that the government is weak, for a strong government can stand severest tests. Judges of different nationalities, be they from New Zealand, Britain or Australia, will try the case according to law and there will not be any problem. Why should the Government show weakness and impose heavy penalties? Does the Government have a guilty conscience?
Speaking of March of the Volunteers, I will be in tears. President, do you know how TIAN Han, the lyricist of this national anthem, died? Some people who do not know the truth will think that March of the Volunteers became the national anthem when the country was established in 1949. Of course, this was not the case. TIAN Han was denounced as a "counter revolutionary" when the Cultural Revolution broke out in 1966 and he died in 1968 after he had been forced to drink his own urine. After he was vindicated, March of the Volunteers became the national anthem in 2004. Politics is ruthless and suppression is true. 7370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
March of the Volunteers shows us how a weak government resorts to political suppression and imposes strong power. What makes me feel distressed is that a country has to rely on severe punishment to force people to respect it, which is really pathetic.
I so submit.
MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") has reached the final stage of its enactment.
Paragraph (3) of the Preamble of the Bill provides that "an Ordinance is to be enacted to preserve the dignity of the national anthem, to regulate the playing and singing, the broadcast and the use of the national anthem, to enhance citizen awareness of the People's Republic of China, and to promote patriotism".
President, I would like to speak on patriotism in particular. The national anthem March of the Volunteers is a well-known song relating to the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression ("the War of Resistance"). As I have studied history since childhood, and I have a thorough understanding of the history of Second World War, especially the history of the War of Resistance in the Chinese war zone. I have studied in-depth the battle to defend Hong Kong, the Pacific War, and the history starting from the 18 September incident to the end of the Second World War. As a result, I have, since childhood, always remembered the sufferings of the Chinese nation.
There was a shocking picture of the Nanjing Massacre. The Japanese army placed together the heads of some slaughtered Chinese and took a picture of them. Needless to say, many women were also tortured by the Japanese army. I have high respect for many famous generals in the War of Resistance, especially those who sacrificed their lives. In fact, among those who died in the Second World War, the highest ranking general was General ZHANG Zizhong who died in the War of Resistance.
President, I would like to tell the people in China, the Central Government and Hong Kong people that this sentiment of mine, being described as "Greater Chinese moron", has actually become increasingly weak in Hong Kong, especially among the younger generation. Why is that so? I think there are two reasons for it. First, the Communist Party of China ("CPC") has confused the idea of loving one's country with that of loving the party. In other words, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7371 country is the party, and the party is the country. If one does not support CPC, he is not patriotic. Second, under the leadership of the Central Government (i.e. CPC), the suppression of Hong Kong has become more and more serious, thus Hong Kong people, especially the younger generation, have become more and more conscious of the need to resist. They have also become increasing repellent to being spoon-fed with ideas of patriotic education and patriotism.
According to the authorities, the purpose of the Bill is to promote patriotism. In fact, I do not agree to promoting patriotism by way of legislation. How can love be made mandatory by means of legislation? Whether you like your alma mater depends on how you feel about it, but the school will not formulate a school rule that requires students to love the school. It does not work that way. If the school formulates a school rule which prohibits students from insulting the school badge, I can understand; but it is not possible to require anyone to love anything by way of legislation. That will not work.
President, since I was a child, I have read a lot of books on the history of the War of Resistance. I resent the "70-20-10" directive of CPC. Though I mention the numbers of "7", "2" and "1", I am not referring to the "21 July incident" in Yuen Long. According to the "70-20-10" directive, CPC would devote 70% of its efforts to developing its own strength; 20% to dealing with Kuomintang; and 10% to resisting Japan. I also felt extremely indignant at MAO Zedong's remarks made on various occasions when he received foreign guests (especially the Japanese), thanking the Japanese for invading China and giving CPC the opportunity to take a break and grow stronger.
President, the Bill provides that patriotism is to be promoted. Let us compare the Bill with the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance. The National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance is also a national law, but when it was introduced in Hong Kong, the words "to promote patriotism" were not included in the Ordinance. Currently, these words are particularly included in the Bill. I think this clearly shows that the Government understands that Hong Kong people, especially the younger generation, feel more and more distant from the entire regime, or even the entire nation now.
Some people may ask whether the inclusion of promoting patriotism in the Bill will enhance patriotism. As I said earlier, since the concept of loving the country has been mixed up with loving the party, it is hard to convince Hong Kong people, particularly the younger generation, to accept the idea of patriotism. Some people say that the Bill only provides for loving the country; and what did 7372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 the Government say? It is stated in paragraph 15 of the report of the Bills Committee that "the Administration does not consider that the Preamble of the Bill as currently drafted contains any ideological expression." I think people who hold such views do not understand anything about Chinese politics, particularly the political language of CPC.
Speaking of patriotism education, how do people in China understand this concept? In November last year, the Central Committee of CPC issued a document entitled "Implementation Outline of Patriotism Education in the New Era". The document explains what patriotism education in the new era means. It says, "The Communist Party of China ("CPC") is the firmest advocate and practitioner of the spirit of patriotism. For the past 90 years or so, CPC has demonstrated its patriotism in great ways by leading the people of all ethnic groups throughout the country in revolutions, construction and reforms. It has written a glorious chapter in patriotism of the Chinese nation. Since the 18th National People's Congress of CPC, the Central Committee of CPC, with Comrade XI Jinping as its core member, has attached great importance to patriotism education which serves to strengthen the foundation of the country and solidify the spirit of the people. Comrade XI has made a series of important deployments to promote patriotism education and obtained remarkable achievements."
The document then mentions that the people should "adhere to the practice of loving the party, the country and socialism as a unified whole … the fate of the motherland is inseparable from the fate of the party and that of socialism. In contemporary China, the essence of patriotism is to adhere to the practice of loving the country, the party and socialism as a highly unified whole." In fact, it is very clear from the document that the party and the country are indistinguishable, and loving the party means loving the country. What else is mentioned? The document says that the people should "conscientiously and consistently implement the National Flag Law, the National Emblem Law and the National Anthem Law; learn and promote the basic knowledge of displaying and hoisting the national flag, the use of the national emblem and the etiquette of singing and playing the national anthem." What else is also mentioned? The document says that the people should "conscientiously organize constitutional oath ceremonies, ceremonies of joining the party, the leagues and the organizations, etc., and strengthen national sentiments and the concept of solidarity through observing formalities such as taking public oaths and revisiting oaths, etc."
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7373
In fact, CPC has systematically confused the concept of loving the country with that of loving the party; making it more difficult for Hong Kong people to accept the concept. Hong Kong people understand that a country is formed by its ethnic groups, its territory and its culture over many years in history, and the people have their own culture. However, the regime of a country is the power organ that governs the country. A regime can be replaced. The regime is not equivalent to the country. How can Hong Kong people be compelled to accept the idea that if one loves the country, one shall love the party?
President, clause 7(6) of the Bill provides that a person who contravenes any of the prohibitions commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine at level 5 (i.e. of $50,000) and to imprisonment for three years. We have compared the penalties in various places and as mentioned by some Members, penalties for the relevant offence do not even exist in some places, but they do in others. Nevertheless, such an offence will not attract imprisonment even in Singapore. If a person insults the national anthem of Singapore, the offender will only be fined S$1,000. Besides, according to a study conducted by the Legislative Council Secretariat, Germany is the country with the heaviest penalties. In fact, no similar penalties are provided in the large majority of countries, and in countries which provide penalties, they are not as severe as those in the Bill.
President, all in all, I think the Government should not rely on imposing heavy penalties in harsh laws to make Hong Kong people love our country and our nation, or promote patriotism by playing the national anthem day and night. About 10 years ago when the Chinese sports team obtained good results in the Olympic Games, we welcomed them to visit Hong Kong and many Hong Kong people were happy for them. Even earlier, when I was young and there was flooding in East China, Hong Kong people, feeling that "blood is thicker than water", made financial and other contributions to provide relief for those affected in the disaster. When the "4 June massacre" occurred, Hong Kong people could not sleep and we supported the patriotic democratic movement in Beijing for some months. All of these examples reflect Hong Kong people's patriotic sentiment, but how come this sentiment is becoming so weak now?
Basically, the younger generation has no feelings about the above mentioned major national issues. They neither hate nor love the country; they only feel that they have nothing to do with it. The regime has made them feel that way. I do not think that foreign forces have taught young people not to be 7374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 patriotic; and young people have not been instilled with false ideas, as the Secretary of Department has wrongly suggested. Young people have the ability to judge. They will consider the degree of suppression being experienced by Hong Kong at present. They will also consider that if the current circumstances persist, whether they should continue to live in Hong Kong as docile subjects or whether they should continue with their protests. They will not accept what others try to instil in their minds. The Bill intends to instil patriotism based on CPC's ideology in Hong Kong people, especially the younger generation. I think the greater the effort in instilling patriotism in the people, the greater the resentment and resistance; and the purpose desired by the regime cannot be achieved at all. Instead, such an approach will only intensify the resentment of the people.
President, I will leave it to other Members of the Democratic Party to further explain the stance of our party, but I find it hard to support the Bill.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Like many Hong Kong people, I oppose the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill"), but there are two points that I must state clearly right at start. Firstly, according to Article 18 of the Basic Law, all national laws listed in Annex III to the Basic Law shall be implemented by way of promulgation or legislation by the SAR Government. The Bill before us is precisely a national law listed in Annex III, thus the SAR Government should apply it by way of local legislation or promulgation. Some royalist Members pointed out that if the Government failed to apply it by way of local legislation this time, the legislative exercise of the Bill would not start anew in the next session, but would be applied by way of promulgation. I also share the same speculation because it would be very humiliating for the Government to start anew after the Bill has been aborted. I nonetheless want to tell Members that this Bill will not be aborted. In the last session, we did successfully abort the so-called "Internet Article 23", which is a bill introduced to amend the Copyright Ordinance. The reason is that the then President of the Legislative Council had not set a timetable for the debate time, thus enabling Members to speak freely during the Committee stage. Moreover, as the session was about the end at that time and there were other government bills to be dealt with, the authorities eventually succumbed and withdrew the "Internet Article 23".
However, this time, the President Mr Andrew LEUNG has already set a time limit of 30 hours for the debate and the Bill will be put to vote once the period ends. Therefore, so long as the royalist party attends the meeting, the Bill LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7375 will definitely get passed. They should not find excuses, saying that the House Committee has spent months on the election of Chairman. The truth is that the resumption of the Second Reading debate of the Bill has not gone through the House Committee, and has never been placed on the agenda of the House Committee. The requirement is deemed to be met by merely sending a letter to Ms Starry LEE. Hence, please do not associate this Bill with the House Committee. Given that the royalist party has sufficient votes, when the Bill is put to vote, it will surely be passed by a majority vote. As the President, Mr Andrew LEUNG has set a time limit for the debate and the Bill will be put to vote as soon as the debate ends.
The third point is even more ridiculous. Today, the Police have mobilized more than 3 000 police officers to Admiralty and Central and the areas are actually under a curfew now. Police officers have fired the anti-riot launchers and pepper balls, and have arrested more than 200 people in various districts in Hong Kong and Kowloon. This is military rule. The SAR Government may now regret that when the Bill to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance was considered last year, it should have taken the hard way and asked the royalist party to stay overnight in the Complex, so that by the time the meeting resumed, we were all trapped inside the Complex. Even if a world war broke out or there were heavy casualties outside the Complex, the meeting would have continued and the Bill would have been put to vote after debating for 30 hours. As a matter of fact, this is also the decision of the SAR Government. And yet, no one should consider this a landslide victory. Someone sprayed the following words on the walls: "You pass the law, we start the war". Of course, following the passage of the national security law in Hong Kong, these people will certainly be arrested or even sentenced to life imprisonment for vowing to "start the war", which jeopardizes national security. Nonetheless, people's will and determination to rise against the Government is very strong. Is it necessary for the government, be it the SAR Government or the Beijing Government, to fall out with Hong Kong people because of this draconian law?
Furthermore, some people said that as the Bill is a national law listed in Annex III to the Basic Law, this is a "non-negotiable task" or a "stern task" that should be supported no matter what. If pro-democracy Members vote against the Bill, it implies that they are not upholding the Basic Law; not upholding the Basic Law is a breach of oath, and they will be disqualified for breaching the oath. Although Members will not be "disqualified" given that their term of office will expire in a month or so, there is no way they can stand in the election 7376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 in the next term. May I ask the Secretary to clarify whether the Legislative Council is just a rubber stamp or a hand-raising machine that endorses whatever bill submitted by the Government? What does it imply if we veto a bill introduced by the Government? It implies that the provisions are not well written and Members hope that the bill can be withdrawn and rewritten. I have therefore proposed 20 amendments, of which 16 have been approved by President Andrew LEUNG. If the Second Reading of the Bill is passed later, I will explain in greater detail during the Committee stage.
I wonder whether Members still remember that during the deliberation of the Anti-epidemic Fund, when Members indicated that they did not rule out the possibility of voting against the Fund, the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in HKSAR and the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council published articles to raise criticisms. Will they do the same this time? Do let me know as early as possible and I have prepared for the worst. Some royalist Members pretended to give me some gentle reminders, saying "'Slow beat', do not go too far when you speak later because your remarks may jeopardize your political future." First of all, I would like to thank them. But may I ask what kind of political future Hong Kong people still have? Every time I speak in the Legislative Council, I regard it as my last speech and I will surely speak from the bottom of my heart. I have never factored in re-election or any personal gain or loss. Whether I will run in future election or whether I will be elected is not my concern, and all I want to do today is to speak from the bottom of my heart. I would like to tell Patrick NIP or Erick TSANG, if they think the passage of the Bill can achieve the so-called objectives of promoting patriotism as well as protecting and promoting the national anthem, it will only backfire and arouse even greater public resentment.
I echo the views expressed by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting in his earlier speech. When we were young, China took part in the Los Angeles Olympics held in the 1980s. We were greatly moved when we saw China win the gold medals, and there were even tears in our eyes when the national anthem was played. How come this feeling has completely vanished after a decade or two? This is the question that the SAR Government or the Beijing Government should reflect on.
The problem with the Bill lies in the mens rea requirement. Why do I say so? Members may notice from the Government's reply that this is a serious problem. At the meeting of the Bills Committee, I asked the Government whether it was an insult to the national anthem if a person called on the public not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7377 to attend an occasion where the national anthem was played. At that time, the Chairman of the Bills Committee Mr Martin LIAO gave a reflexive response that "calling on others not to do certain things is not an offence under the common law." However, the Government replied that "it is an offence to incite others to insult the national anthem, and likewise it is an offence to insult the national anthem with intent." Instead of directly responding to my question, the Secretary replied that it is an offence to incite other people to insult the national anthem or insult the national anthem with intent.
From this we can see that the Government has not, as what Mr Martin LIAO has done, stated specifically that calling on other people not to attend an occasion where the national anthem is played is not tantamount to insulting the national anthem. According to the reply of the Government, it can be an offence if a person calls on other people not to participate or attend these occasions, and there is proof that the intention of calling on other people not to attend such occasions is to insult the national anthem, or the intention of not attending such occasions is to insult the national anthem.
In addition, there is an outstanding question that has remained unanswered for a long time, and I wonder if the new Secretary is able to provide an answer. According to clause 5 of the Bill "Occasions on which National Anthem must be Played and Sung", the various occasions are set out in Schedule 3, and item 1 of Schedule 3 is concerned with oath-taking ceremony, which includes a variety of oath-taking ceremonies. If the person who takes the oath does not sing the national anthem, he has not committed a criminal offence as clause 5 of the Bill does not involve criminal offences, but the validity of his oath may be affected. For example, if a Member of the Legislative Council merely stands and does not sing the national anthem when taking the oath, will he be subject to legal challenge for failing to comply with the "Occasions on which National Anthem must be Played and Sung" specified in Schedule 3 of clause 5? I hope that the Government can clearly explain to us.
On the other hand, clause 7(2) of the Bill provides that "a person commits an offence if the person publicly and intentionally insults the national anthem in any way." This provision is absolutely the crux of the entire Bill, and is also the spirit and even the most dangerous part of the Bill. The phrase "in any way" can definitely include the example I have just mentioned, that is, calling on other people not to attend the relevant occasions or calling on other people not to sing the national anthem. Recently, netizens have been describing the Bill as the 7378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
"Evil anthem law" and even "Bandit anthem law". If a person still describes the Bill as "Bandit anthem law" after its passage, will he be accused of insulting the national anthem, and eventually be arrested by the Police and subject to criminal penalty? If in future a person keeps singing the national anthem loudly in the park and causes disturbances to the other people and if the latter boo, will this be regarded as booing the national anthem? Will the Police arrest the people who booed but not those who sang the national anthem loudly, causing disturbance to others? The power to arrest again rests with the Police.
As we all know, even for a very simple interim legislation with a narrow coverage, such as the group gathering restrictions, enforcement by the Police might turn out to be a mess. Many people have been arrested for some normal activities. Over the past two months or so, the Police have been very excited because they can arrest a person on his own for not complying with the group gathering restrictions. If the passage of the Bill provides an additional weapon in the future, how will the Police make use of this weapon to enforce the law? Let me give another example. When a football match is held in a stadium, and members of the public are allowed to go inside the stadium to watch the match provided that they wear a face mask, if someone wearing a face mask boos the national anthem during the match, I wonder how the Police can find out the offender. Will the Police cordon off the entire stadium, collect information of each person at scene, and then look up their private communications and social media to find out who has called on other people to boo the national anthem, and subsequently institute prosecution?
As Members may be aware, at present the Police have a pretty long period of time for collecting evidence which differs from the practice in handling ordinary cases. Actions can still be taken to pursue responsibility even two years after the occurrence of the offence. Also, the Police have one year's time to collect evidence after the date on which the offence comes to the notice of the Commissioner of Police. As a matter of fact, is it necessary to take two years to investigate the act of booing or insulting the national anthem? The two-year period seeks to give the Police sufficient time to collect evidence, or allows the Police to pursue responsibility of a person for his previous actions. Of course, it is still not an offence to boo or insult the national anthem today as the Bill has yet to be read the Third time. However, after the passage of the Bill, the Police will have a long period of time to pursue responsibility. As evident from the inclusion of these two time limits in the Bill, its objective is not purely to make Hong Kong people respect the national anthem. Patrick NIP told me honestly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7379 that promoting patriotism and so on are just excuses; the real objective is to urge people not to make trouble with the national anthem, which is a very humble request. However, in order to prevent someone from making trouble with the national anthem, the Government has indefinitely expanded the relevant powers so that the Police can arrest indiscriminately, the Department of Justice can institute prosecutions indiscriminately and even collect a person's two-year communication record as evidence. From this, we can see that the Bill will increase the power of the Police in monitoring members of the public. What is even more frightening is that the Bill empowers the Government to, without public consultation, arbitrarily include by negative vetting additional occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung as well as remove occasions on which the national anthem must not be played and sung. These provisions have significant implications on us.
Regardless of whether the law is enacted by way of local legislation or promulgation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, it can be amended at the discretion by the Government in the end. Therefore, I have proposed a number of amendments to restrict the power of the Chief Executive so that she cannot amend the law arbitrarily. For example, no religious activities should be included in the list of "Occasions on which National Anthem must be Played and Sung" set out in Schedule 3. It is possible that in future, even a meeting which has obtained a notice of no objection will be included in the list of occasions set out in Schedule 3, thereby making it a contravention of the law if the national anthem is not played and sung before a meeting or procession. The Bill expands the power of the Chief Executive to an extent that it can be exercised at her discretion.
What is more, we know that the Government will not stop after making it an offence to insult the national anthem. What will follow after criminalizing the insult of the national anthem? It will be a long list of offences of insult, such as the offences of insulting the Police or insulting the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in HKSAR. The list will go on and on. Of course, Members may think that the national security law in Hong Kong should have covered all these acts, that is, the national security law in Hong Kong should be able to deal with all acts that we previously found offensive.
Finally, I want to say that compelling people to be patriotic by statute or punishment will be doomed to fail. Respect is mutual, and if the state power respects and loves the people, the people will respect the state power. A 7380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 dictator's regime is not in a position to ask for people's respect; a regime that compels the people to show respect by way of punishment and evil laws will eventually be discarded by the people and it has to bear the most serious consequences.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I speak to oppose the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill"). Before presenting my reasons, I wish to put on record that I strongly protest against and disagree with the President's handling of a point of order just now. As President, while you have the right to rule whether an adjournment motion proposed by a Member under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure is of an urgent character and relates to a matter of public importance, you should not deprive a Member of the opportunity to move an adjournment motion. We are now facing a law that may destroy Hong Kong but surprisingly, we cannot even have an adjournment debate in this Council and you have set time limits for the debate on the Bill.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, I have made a ruling and the President's ruling is final.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I understand that your ruling is final.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members should not debate the President's ruling at the meeting but you can follow up on other occasions.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I am not debating and I am just expressing my opinions.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please respect the President's ruling.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I have no choice but to respect, since the power is not balanced, I cannot …
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7381
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please continue with your speech.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in a state of power imbalance, you can make your ruling while I can raise my opinions. The Bill has caused an uproar; the situation really will not develop to such a pass if our society is normal, but our society is not normal where arbitrary actions can be taken. The President has just left the Chamber and he has given a good personal demonstration.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)
In the face of this major crisis, the Central Government has arbitrarily and overwhelmingly imposed a piece of legislation on us, which has attracted international attention. However, the Legislative Council has not been consulted and it does not have the right to enact legislation, and now the President even disallowed us to propose a discussion. We would like to raise the opinions and concerns of the public on their behalf. Tomorrow, the National People's Congress ("NPC") will adopt the Draft Decision on Establishing and Improving the Legal System and Enforcement Mechanisms for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to Safeguard National Security and authorize the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") to draft a national security law applicable to Hong Kong ("Hong Kong national security law") to be passed in a short time. The Hong Kong national security law is handed down by the Central Authorities and we do not even have the freedom to hold a discussion.
The Bill is certainly an evil law and the Hong Kong national security law is more evil by 10 000 times; but I will not discuss the Hong Kong national security law in this debate session. The Bill is an evil law and its Preamble has added, for no reason, the reference to "promote patriotism". In fact, the Bill is very simple. While it has not mentioned patriotism in its content, the concept of patriotism has been added to the Preamble for no reason.
The Bill covers several aspects, such as maintaining the dignity of the national anthem and respecting the national anthem and the country. Such deeds should naturally be done. However, the Bill requires the public to respect the national anthem by means of intimidation, penalty and fear. It is totally undesirable to ask the public to respect the national anthem out of fear. The Bill 7382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 also stipulates that the national anthem should be included in primary and secondary education, students should be taught the history and spirit of the national anthem and patriotism is added to the Preamble. What is patriotism? What does it mean by being patriotic? In a normal, open and democratic country, people will know, since childhood, how to show respect. When they visit other countries, they will respect the country, as well as its national anthem, national emblem and national flag, which are symbols of the country. How about our country? I am not talking about the culture, people and environment of our country, as these are the things worth appreciating and cherishing. It seems that the "country" that I am talking about is tantamount to the Government and the country is tantamount to the one-party dictatorship of the Communist Party of China ("CPC"). In other words, a person who loves the country must also love the party. This is the reality in China.
If loving the country means loving the party, serious problems will arise and we now going to include this concept in the law. However, the President does not allow me to propose amendments to the Bill on the part relating to education. I originally proposed an amendment to clearly state that loving the country does not mean loving the Government or the party. Under the current one-party dictatorship, if a person points out the inadequacies of CPC, he will be regarded as not loving CPC and not loving the country. This should not happen in a civilized society. Hong Kong is an international city where many people were born and bred. Our understanding of patriotism is very different from that of the Mainlanders, and that is why we find this unacceptable.
XI Jinping has once pointed out that patriotism education was political thinking education and he has carried out a number of patriotism education activities in China. Some scholars have analysed and summarized that three major themes are involved in patriotic education: first, upholding national unity; second, upholding territorial integrity; and third, upholding the leadership of CPC.
The Bill has, for no reason at all, added in the Preamble the purpose of promoting patriotic education and patriotism. When it comes to the national anthem, I suggest that the public should watch a wonderful clip lasting only 1 minute or so produced by the South China Morning Post. The clip gives five reasons why China's national anthem is the saddest ever. TIAN Han, a playwright, is the lyricist of the national anthem of China. He wrote the lyrics of the national anthem in 1935. When he was imprisoned by the Kuomintang at that time, he was still eager to reform society and he hurriedly wrote the lyrics on LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7383 the back of a cigarette wrapping paper. NIE Er, the composer of the national anthem was unfortunately drowned in Japan shortly after composing this song, and he was only 23 when he died. In 1966, TIAN Han was criticized and denounced during the Cultural Revolution and sentenced to imprisonment again. He died in prison in 1968.
TIAN Han's life is really very symbolic. However, the Education Bureau's website only contains a very brief introduction of the composer and lyricist of the national anthem, and four fifths of the related contents have been deleted for no reason. TIAN Han was born in 1898 and upon his return to China in 1921 after studying in Japan, he served as the editor of Zhonghua Book Company in Shanghai. He later joined CPC upon the recommendation by QU Qiubai in 1932. In 1935, he wrote the lyrics of March of the Volunteers for the movie Children of Troubled Times. He contributed to CPC throughout his life, hoping to bring new development to China through his lyrics, literary works and a spirit of open-mindedness. However, after he wrote the drama XIE Yaohuan in 1966, the Red Guards considered that he used the past to satirize the present under the theme of pleading for the people. Being denounced as anti-Party, anti-socialism and anti-people, he was arrested and imprisoned. During his imprisonment, he experienced humiliation, criticism and denouncement; he was first imprisoned in Qincheng prison and later imprisoned in a hospital, and he finally died in the hospital.
As Dr KWOK Ka-ki has mentioned just now, TIAN Han, who had diabetes, was forced to drink the urine he leaked due to incontinence and he eventually died in great sorrow. He was a literary man being very loyal to CPC, but even his own son publicly put up big-character posters to criticize and denounce him. Despite his loyalty and great dedication to CPC, he died tragically. After his death, CPC still extensively criticized and denounced him in 1970, calling him a counter-revolutionary traitor. TIAN Han was permanently expelled from CPC, and was only vindicated in 1979. His whole life was indeed very symbolic.
What problems is Hong Kong facing? We are now scrutinizing the Bill; but as a matter of fact, the communist regime, symbolized by the history of blood and tears behind the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem, is destroying Hong Kong and our next generation and imposing patriotism on young people. Loving the country does not mean loving the Government; loving the country does not mean loving Carrie LAM; loving the country does not mean loving XI Jinping; it is not true that "Chairman MAO is 7384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 dearer than parents". We cannot rely on punishment, imprisonment, etc. to cultivate patriotism; we cannot force people to respect the country, to stand solemnly and demonstrate a sense of respect and fear when the national anthem is played and sung.
SUN Lijun, the former Deputy Minister of Public Security, has recently been removed from office and one of the charges was "lacking respect and fear". This new charge is indeed unheard of. In order to make Hong Kong people obey submissively, CPC deprives us of our freedom at all costs and wants us to bow to CPC's superior might. Challenges must not be made and CPC's orders must be obeyed. When the national anthem is sung, even those in wheelchairs must stand up and whoever dares to boo will be arrested and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. A person who commits the same offence in the Mainland will only be imprisoned for 15 days or less but a similar offender in Hong Kong can be sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Moreover, there is no provision in the Mainland that the national anthem must be played in international schools. South China Morning Post has visited seven international schools in Beijing and colleagues can read the related report. However, all Hong Kong people must stand solemnly when the national anthem is played and sung. Anyone who shows a little disrespect is regarded as being disrespectful to China, and he will be arrested and sentenced to imprisonment. Is this not barbaric behaviour? Is it true that whoever is powerful and villainous has the say? Has the Government respected the people? Can our society be considered as a civilized society? Can the Bill enable our next generation to have a better understanding of the Motherland? The more the Government insists on pushing through the Bill, the more likely it will bring opposite results. The more villainous a ruler is, the stronger the will of the people to resist.
The SAR Government may think it has won; it may think that if it has acted against its conscience to suppress the people for the bigwigs, it has still not let down their children and the next generation of Hong Kong. Yet, history will tell us that the SAR Government will suffer retribution for the mistakes it makes today. If they continue to use batons, excessive force and violence against the younger generation, retribution will come soon. They intend to effect "mutual destruction" in Hong Kong and I believe that will happen sooner or later. Many people are keeping an eye on the situation in Hong Kong and the international communities are paying close attention too. Hong Kong people will never succumb, we will stand and fight!
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7385
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): I have read an article on the Internet today entitled "Freedom is the true colour of Hong Kong". I wonder if Hong Kong is still a free place. In the past, when I explained the situation of Hong Kong to other people, I told them that Hong Kong had freedom but not democracy, so we should strive for democracy. Yet, we even do not have freedom now. Hong Kong has entered a "rule of man" era. We are now conducting a normal debate in the Legislative Council, taking turns to speak for 15 minutes though we already know what the outcome will be. Voices against the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") and the current situation in Hong Kong are getting louder. I have been watching real-time news and I saw an increasing number of people being arrested. At this moment, more than 300 people have been arrested. As a Member who is now having a debate in the Chamber, my feelings are really hard to describe. Disallowing the public to protest at the Legislative Council is not a solution to the problem.
We can take time to discuss the Bill, but at present, people in power have infinitely expanded and abused various prohibitions and restrictions. We can foresee that after the passage of the Bill, it will become a weapon to be used by the Government and Beijing to suppress Hong Kong people.
Hong Kong has successively lost all the freedoms that were once enshrined in the Basic Law. For example, Article 27 stipulates that Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, but we are now worried about losing this freedom. Are people not worried about being indicted for expressing their views? With regard to freedom of the press and of publication, it is apparent to all that journalists are facing great risks. Can we still say that the public have freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration? It really seems like a joke or a fantasy. The candlelight vigil cannot be held on 4 June.
National security is important but should it override everything, like what is happening now? In the name of fighting the epidemic, the Government is now carrying out political suppression to oppress dissenting voices. For example, under the group gathering restrictions, when people go shopping or eating at restaurants, even if there are fewer than eight people, the Police will group eight people together and ticket them. After the Bill is passed, will the conviction rate be higher, and will people be deprived of the freedom that they are entitled to and that should be safeguarded, as we mentioned earlier?
7386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
In the oral question session held this morning, Secretary John LEE went so far as to say that no amendment has been made to the Basic Law and the public still enjoy the freedoms mentioned. However, legal scholars have told us that the approach of enacting the Hong Kong national security law violates the Basic Law. What is the Basic Law? In what ways will the Basic Law be complied with? Now that the country has the final say, what can Hong Kong people do? Nothing can be done in this Council. The public had certain rights in the past, but the Government has now deprived them of these rights under various excuses.
Today in Hong Kong, we may not even have the freedom to enact legislation. The autocracy in the minority―getting fewer votes but winning more seats―has postponed the implementation of universal suffrage under this unfair and undemocratic system. Some have even told us that voting in the Legislative Council must be restricted; Members cannot vote against any proposal and they must support the Government; and the National People's Congress can enact further legislation for Hong Kong. If national laws override the need for local legislation, what is the point for us to do so much? Probably, the royalists will agree that the Central Authorities have the final say, so we need not conduct the Second Reading debate on the Bill, and we do not even have to discuss the amendments proposed by Members at the Committee stage to be held later.
Just now, a number of Members said that the contents of the Bill are ambiguous. It seems that the provisions are tailor-made for law enforcement agencies, while ordinary people are really worried that a charge can always be trumped up. An example is the group gathering restrictions which can be interpreted in different ways. The enactment of one more piece of legislation will only give the Government one more opportunity and excuse to abuse the law.
What is "insult"? Clause 7(8) of the Bill defines "insult" as undermining the dignity of the national anthem, but it has not clearly explained how the term should be defined. If someone criticizes the national anthem on the Internet or on other occasions, what kind of criticism will constitute insult of the national anthem? Judging from the methods and approaches of the Central Authorities and the SAR Government and the free space left to society, if someone discusses and makes criticisms on issues related to music, culture or history, I really have reasons to think that it is very dangerous. If I share these posts, will I violate clause 7(4) of the Bill on "intentionally publishing"? Of course, this will not happen today but considering the incidents that happened in Hong Kong in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7387 past few months, we realize that some incidents, which we did not consider there were problems in the past, will turn out to be violating the law. These incidents included the interpretation of Article 22 of the Basic Law and the sudden enactment of the Hong Kong national security law by the Central Authorities. May I ask how many incidents, which we have never thought of would happen, have happened now and it seems that what is done cannot be undone. Article 7 of the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance prohibits the public … assuming that someone has insulted the national flag or national emblem, the Ordinance has specified what the insulting behaviours are, such as burning and mutilating the national flag or national emblem. Why doesn't the Bill explicitly provide for such behaviours? There is a saying that, in most cases, the national flag and national emblem are physical objects but the national anthem can be played in various environments and someone may happen to be present in that environment. Therefore, there are reasons for the public to have concerns about the Bill because they have higher risks of inadvertently breaching the law. If someone suddenly plays the national anthem beside me, how should I react? Objectively speaking, people definitely have reasons to be worried and to stay alert.
Clause 8 of the Bill is about the offence of misuse of the national anthem, e.g. a piece of music, words or a score is to be regarded as the national anthem or the lyrics or the score of the national anthem if the piece of music, words or score so closely resembles the national anthem or the lyrics or the score of the national anthem as to lead to the reasonable belief that the piece of music, words or score is the national anthem or the lyrics or the score of the national anthem or part of the national anthem. How is misuse defined? How is "closely resembles" determined? Frankly speaking, the national anthem has engraved upon our minds as we have heard the anthem since childhood, and we may even hear the anthem in our dreams. So, quoting the anthem in the course of creation … in the past, many popular songs quoted the national anthem, but we should refrain from doing so in future to avoid trouble. Yet, this will indirectly and gradually reduce the space for freedom of creation by Hong Kong people and take the shine off Hong Kong's future.
Many royalists like to quote foreign examples, saying that Western countries have also enacted similar legislation. Yet, democratic countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia and South Korea have not enacted national anthem laws; the United States and Canada have not imposed penalties for 7388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 disrespect of the national anthem. We learn that individual states in the United States impose a fine of US$100 on offenders but the state legislature is not the Congress. The United States mainly relies on guidelines and penalties have not been provided for. In fact, the United States passed a national flag law in 1960, prohibiting acts such as burning and mutilating the national flag, and the punishment, i.e. imprisonment for one year, was rather heavy. However, there were suggestions in the 1980s of the last century that this law was unconstitutional. As a result, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1990 that the law violated the provision of the Constitution that protected freedom of expression, so the law was repealed. Since then, burning the national flag in the United States will not be regarded as violation of the law. Concerning the national anthem, we are all aware of an incident that happened a few years ago when a number of American football players protested openly while the national anthem was played. Even the President was very unhappy about this act and made criticisms, but that was all. This is the situation in the United States and Hong Kong does not need to follow suit. However, I at least hope that the pro-establishment camp and the royalists will not wrongly cite these foreign examples. Perhaps they also have to admit that if Hong Kong enacts a national anthem law on its own, certain freedoms which are originally allowed in society will be forfeited. This further indicates that the SAR Government will give up the protection of the freedoms that people should be entitled to.
According to the Government, the legislative intent of the Bill is to preserve the dignity of the national anthem and to make the public respect the national anthem. But if the dignity of the national anthem is really preserved through power, prohibition and punishment, will it gain the respect of the public? The same applies to the national anthem law, legislation on Article 23 and the Hong Kong national security law. The Government should first respect the people and their freedoms and rights. If the SAR Government and the regime only rely on punishment, they will not be truly respected. The Government has introduced evil laws one after another, from the co-location arrangement to "extradition to China", the national anthem law and the Hong Kong national security law, resulting in the current social conditions. Moreover, we must point out that freedom of expression is a basic human right which is protected by international covenants and local laws, including Article 27 of the Basic Law, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 16 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates that everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression as long as national security or public order is not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7389 involved. Yet, today even trivial matters will be related to national security, I am afraid the national anthem law and the future Hong Kong national security law will become master keys. Indeed, given the many restrictions stipulated in the Bill, there is a high chance that Article 19 of the Covenant has been violated.
I hereby expressly state that we oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but this does not mean that we do not respect the national anthem. If the national anthem represents the dignity of the country and expects that it will be preserved and respected, the Government should first respect the freedoms and rights of the people. As the Government is now finding reasons to monitor and control the freedom of the people, and it even suppresses the freedom of thought of the people, the Bill will not achieve its intended purpose. Moreover, the Bill is asymmetric, it does not cater for the situation of Hong Kong and will also give rise to further social dissension. Hence, I cannot support the Second Reading of the Bill.
I so submit.
MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Second Reading debate on the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") that we are now conducting should not have taken place. The reason is that before the resumption of the Second Reading debate, some pro-establishment Members suggested that the Bill should be directly promulgated and implemented by the Government under Article 18 of the Basic Law without having to go through the scrutiny of the Legislative Council. Of course, the Bill has now been formally submitted to the Legislative Council for scrutiny, and we are having the Second Reading debate on the Bill.
As we all know, the Bill only serves as an appetizer to restrict Hong Kong citizens from expressing their opinions, and this appetizer will be followed by a main course, dessert and drink; the purpose is to stuff Hong Kong people with "food" until they die from overeating. What I am talking about is the Hong Kong national security law which is currently scrutinized by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. This evil law will, as wished by pro-establishment Members, be directly promulgated and implemented in Hong Kong, disallowing the Legislative Council of Hong Kong the chance to scrutinize this law. This law will affect the freedoms of the public as promised under the Basic Law, and will bury "one country, two systems". 7390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Deputy President, I solemnly condemn the violence of the regime, the loss of powers of the Legislative Council and the death of the "two systems". Hong Kong people will never yield to evil forces.
Let me come back to the appetizer for today: the Bill. It is mentioned in the Preamble of the Bill that the national anthem is a symbol of the country, so members of the public should respect the national anthem and preserve the dignity of the national anthem. Being a Lecturer in the Department of Social Work, I often tell my students that the core value of social work is respect, especially respect for the underprivileged groups. In my office, there are two vertical banners which read: "Not being inferior in front of the superior, not being superior in front of the inferior". We have to pay particular respect to "the least, the last and the lost".
I understand that respect is not without boundary, but with limitation. For example, human beings will not respect the Nazi Party that killed the Jews, and they will not respect a regime that brutally kills its own people. I also know that respect is something mutual.
Mencius said in Li Lou: "A man must first despise himself, and then others will despise him. A family must first destroy itself, and then others will destroy it. A State must first smite itself, and then others will smite it".2 When put in modern language, a man must first perform poorly, and then others will despise him; members within a family must first have internal conflicts and scramble for powers, and then others will bully and destroy the family; there must first be continuous power struggles within a State, and then other states will seize the opportunity to smite it. Therefore, a person must perform well before he can be respected by others.
Some regimes often talk about invasion by foreign forces and national dignity, yet they seldom make any self-reflection, or as the saying goes, they seldom "look in a mirror". They think that they can be respected by the people by enforcing stiff penalties and stringent laws. This approach is actually putting the cart before the horse.
2
Dr Fernando CHEUNG has stuck on his seat a message which reads: "Intimidation cannot bring respect". The Bill serves as a means of intimidation. The regime enacts the legislation "without looking in a mirror", requiring the people to respect the national anthem. This regime does not respect its people, but demands its people to respect the country and the national anthem.
In fact, if we look at the rows of water barriers outside the Legislative Council Complex, the numerous wire fences enclosing the CITIC Tower footbridge, the many enclosures surrounding the flagpole platform in front of the Central Government Offices, and the hundreds of people being arrested in Causeway Bay and Mong Kok at this moment, we will know that our regime is so coward and so scared of its people. How can this Government be respected? The authoritarian Government enacts the National Anthem Ordinance with stiff penalties. It not only shows no respect to Hong Kong citizens, but poses great threats to them. In fact, the Government not only threatens the public psychologically, but also poses practical threats and makes them impose self-constraints.
Recently, the Police have arbitrarily enforced the group gathering restrictions to disperse members of the public in shopping malls, and issued penalty tickets to them. This is a good case in point. Today, do we still allow this authoritarian Government to have more rights and enact more legislation to suppress the entitled rights of the people?
Pro-establishment Members often say that overseas places have also enacted national anthem laws. The Government is also saying the same thing. John LEE has expressed a similar viewpoint in his reply to a question earlier, saying that there were laws similar to Article 23 of the Basic Law in overseas places. He thought that people could be convinced by his words. However, I must point out that many countries with national anthem laws have a democratic system. The constitutions in these countries respect the basic freedoms and rights of their people. On the contrary, the regime of the Communist Party of China ("CPC") does not abide by the law, ignores its constitution, and even invokes all sorts of legislation and uses the so-called "national security" as an excuse to put people under house arrest or imprisoned them. We simply cannot make a comparison with the national anthem law of foreign countries.
7392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Taking one step back, the regulations and penalties in the national laws of different places differ from those in the Bill. For example, as mentioned by many colleagues, although the national anthem laws of the United States and Canada require their citizens to respect the national anthem, no penalties will be imposed if people violate such laws. The national anthem law in the United States is included in the flag act. It provides that during the singing of the national anthem, people should face towards the national flag and music; they should also stand at attention and remove their hats with the right hand over the heart. No penalties are stipulated and people will not be punished for violating the rules. The case of Canada is similar. However, for the Bill in Hong Kong, not only are penalties stipulated, they are also very stiff.
Besides, the definitions provided in the Bill are very vague and ambiguous, which is extremely rare and unusual in the common law and Hong Kong law. Details have not been given for terms or expressions such as "disrespectful", "insult", "respect", "stand solemnly" and "deport themselves with dignity". Last year, the Hong Kong Bar Association and The Law Society of Hong Kong publicly expressed their concerns that such unclear wordings would lead to more disputes in the court.
Deputy President, freedom of expression is a basic human right. Its basic principle is that everyone has a right to seek, obtain or state opinions in different ways, and hold opinions without threat and interference. This human right is protected under the international covenant and local law, including Article 27 of the Basic Law, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("the Covenant"), as well as Article 16 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. Article 16 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights provides that: "Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference; everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression … shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.".
I understand that freedom of expression is subject to restrictions, but these restrictions must meet the principle of proportionality, right? These restrictions should also be necessary and legally defined in a clear and strict manner. As such, the Government cannot causally use the excuse that "the exercise of freedom of expression is subject to restrictions" to rationalize its measures of enacting legislation to restrict freedom of expression. The Covenant states LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7393 clearly that these restrictions shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others; for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. The widely used international Johannesburg Principles, which were formulated by a group of experts in international law, national security and human rights in 1995, have also specifically stated the relevant standards.
Deputy President, the international law stipulates clearly that the Covenant which protects Hong Kong people's freedom of expression is applicable in Hong Kong. Disrespectful acts vary from person to person. Any laws that criminalize pure disrespect of the national anthem without resorting to immediate violent acts are restricting freedom of expression in an unreasonable manner. Even though the Government attempts to dilute the impact of the enactment of the Bill, or stresses the difficulties in convicting the offenders under the law, the passage of the Bill will mean that people's disrespectful acts towards the national anthem may result in investigation, prosecution or even conviction. By then, a chilling effect will be created to infringe upon people's freedom of expression.
Deputy President, let me mention in passing that under Article 2 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, all power in the People's Republic of China belongs to the people. If the power belongs to the people, why is the Chief Executive not elected by all the people? If the power belongs to the people, how come the Government is not required to be responsible for the people? If the power belongs to the people, how come the Police do not have to be held responsible for beating up innocent people? Actually, China has not properly complied with its constitution. A regime that fails to comply with its constitution, pays no respect to itself and its people, and even abuses its powers to persecute law-abiding citizens and suppress dissidents is now legislating for people's respect of the country, and enacting a legislation to suppress people's freedom of expression, so as to set a so-called legal basis for its extreme acts. The regime even gets the cheek to solicit support from Hong Kong people and the Legislative Council. This is utterly ridiculous.
Deputy President, I wish to ask the regime and the hatchet men of the regime, including the officials attending the meeting today, to look in a mirror and see how shameless they are before coming back to the Legislative Council. Deputy President, I will not support the Bill and I will not support the mischief of the Government.
7394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
After the Legislative Council resumes the Second Reading debate on the Bill today, many procedures will follow, and the President has already made the decisions on handling the procedures. I know that being Members, we cannot query the decisions of the President. However, can we go on with the Second Reading debate today as if nothing has happened? Rows of water barriers have been set outside and the number of people arrested is on the increase. As many as 300 to 400 people have already been arrested, and we do not know the final number of people who will be arrested today. Under such circumstances, can we still continue with the debate in a routine manner?
Deputy President, I am contemplating a few sentences: "In angst, tears are shed o'er this Land. With rage, fears are crushed, in arms we stand. We rise, undefiled, our voice shall never die. As we yearn, our freedom nighs. With eyes blinded, long it comes the night. In faith, banners high, we pledge to fight. Our flesh, sacrificed, our blood shall write this song. Free this Land, "Stand with Hong Kong!'"3
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): The first sentence of our national anthem is: "Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves!" Originally, those words were meant to boost the morale of every Chinese person who had experienced the Anti-Japanese War. However, these words have now become an irony to satirize this totalitarian regime which suppresses, persecutes and enslaves its people. I think there is no better irony of history than this.
Today, what makes Hong Kong different is that many young people and members of the public have insisted to come forward one after another, without fearing bad cops and the totalitarian regime. However, we are still talking nonsense in this parallel universe. Our bullshit serves no purpose other than berating the President, the officials sitting opposite to us, the royalists and the pro-establishment camp, because the result is already written on the wall. The questions I often want to ask are: Do they not have children? What kind of environment do they want their children to live in? Will their children live in a world where they are uncertain as to when they will be arrested? Do you still remember or have you studied the history after the founding of the People's Republic of China by the Communist Party of China ("CPC")? There were
3
Dr Fernando CHEUNG has earlier mentioned the experience encountered by the lyricist of the national anthem of China, Mr TIAN Han. Actually, his experience has provided the best annotation. When faced with the persecution of the Chinese Nationalist Party, Mr TIAN wrote the March of the Volunteers to boost the morale of the Chinese people and the progressive force at that time―CPC. Regrettably, several decades later, Mr TIAN was denounced publicly; he was prosecuted and arrested during the Cultural Revolution and finally he died in prison. I do not know if the royalists have thought of this history. Perhaps, they think that they need not worry as they have overseas passports, they can leave Hong Kong at any time, and by the press of a button, their properties can be released instantly. With overseas passports, they need not be afraid of CPC and they can betray the Hong Kong community at will. Before leaving Hong Kong, Chris PATTEN said that Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" would be lost in the hands of Hong Kong people. This is because there are always many people who are willing to abandon themselves to vice, and become the servile followers of CPC at the expense of Hong Kong and Hong Kong people. By doing so, how can they do justice to the efforts made by people of this generation and previous generations for the benefit of Hong Kong?
Today, when we are debating in this Chamber, it seems that we are living in a parallel universe. I cannot find any justifications for us to debate here safely while the number of arrestees outside is increasing to 200, 300 and 400. I do not know how many teams of anti-riot police officers are encircling the Legislative Council Complex today. I believe this is the reason why 30 000 police officers in Hong Kong are not enough. Therefore, in the face of the political predicament of the whole society, the SAR Government has not thought of any solutions to resolve the political problems, but has instead purchased armaments for the Police and increased their manpower. Judging from the deeds of the SAR Government, how can the people be convinced that the Government, in promoting the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill"), has no other hidden agendas apart from carrying out the task assigned by the Central Government? How can we know that if such laws are enacted, the criminal liabilities ultimately faced by the public will be those as stipulated in the laws? 7396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
As stated explicitly at the outset, the national anthem is a symbol that calls on Hong Kong people or the people in that place to respect the country. However, is a country tantamount to its regime? Does loving the country mean loving the party? There is no such concept of loving the country means loving the party in other countries of the world. CPC is the only regime which calls on the Chinese people not to be slaves in the national anthem, but forces the Chinese people to be slaves and be submissive. Only by doing so can CPC be satisfied. What is more, CPC does not admit all the mistakes it has committed. This characteristic has now been picked up by the pro-establishment Members, the royalists as well as the SAR government officials, because they make excuses every day to evade and cover up the errors they have made. They are not in the wrong; the foreign forces, the young people and the education system are in the wrong. Is this saying acceptable?
Does the pro-establishment camp know who initiated changes to the education system in Hong Kong? Who decided to have the Liberal Studies subject? TUNG Chee-hwa, whom they most respect, is the responsible person. Mr TUNG said that we should have Liberal Studies subject instead of History subject in Hong Kong. Why? Why can't the History subject be a compulsory subject under our education system? This is because if the historical events are brought to light, they are afraid people will realize that our current regime, i.e. CPC, has committed innumerable sins. In order to protect the regime, they must certainly conceal its failures but boast of its achievements. Therefore, they changed the History subject into the Liberal Studies subject, and the historical events were briefly mentioned. However, the wicked lost out too. Although they have come up with so many ideas, eventually students could, through liberal studies education and critical thinking, identify the root of the problem, that is, students and members of the public refused to be slaves. Therefore, "refuse to be slaves" as advocated by this national anthem has precisely represented the heartfelt wishes of students and members of the public. However, against the background of the Bill, when people express appreciation for this lyric, they are actually expressing their love for the regime which has enslaved its people. This is precisely the reason why so many people, though highly appreciate the long-standing and well established culture and history of China, have such great dissatisfaction over the Chinese regime today. The regime today does not live up to the description of "Chinese civilization" at all. The regime is a devil and a tyranny which suppresses the people. It has even thought of overtly reigning over Hong Kong by opening the front door separating the legal systems of the two places through the introduction of the Hong Kong national security law. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7397
Under such a situation, the Bill will serve as a tool similar to the group gathering restrictions, and become a source of power for the regime to constrain and suppress its people.
Therefore, we oppose the Bill because the Bill contains no basic solution to make people accept and respect the symbol represented by the national anthem. Originally, the national anthem symbolized people, land, culture and history. Yet, under the distortion of CPC, the elements of the regime and the perpetual CPC are added into the national anthem. A "communist dynasty" based on feudalism is now built, with "Emperor XI" as the head. As a matter of fact, does he live up to the meaning represented by this national anthem? So, we have to view this incident from a fundamental point of view, that is, the governance of CPC today does not reflect the meaning represented by this national anthem. As CPC has become the regime suppressing and enslaving its people, it does not live up to the meaning of the lyrics of this national anthem.
Finally, in this parallel universe, I wish to earnestly ask Ms Starry LEE, who is sitting in the President Chair, to consider seriously if the discussion we are now having is in line with the situation of the whole society. Should we stop for a while and suspend the ongoing discussion, so that colleagues in the Legislative Council can go to the scene to see what can be done to help and whether they can assist in mediation, with a view to eliminating the conflicts that are now taking place in the whole society?
In my opinion, as a responsible person sitting in the President Chair, Ms Starry LEE is duty-bound to take actions. While conflicts and confrontations are taking place in the whole society, we are still sitting in the Legislative Council and acting as Members living in a parallel universe. This does not have any positive impacts on society at all. However, if Ms Starry LEE can, in her capacity, suspend the meeting to allow Members to go to the scene to help mediate and resolve the problems in the current chaotic situation, this actually shows that the Legislative Council can still resolve problems in a down-to-earth manner, instead of merely being a tool for endorsing the evil laws for the people in power. Here, I call on Ms Starry LEE to suspend the meeting.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, are you only asking me to consider suspending the meeting but not moving an adjournment motion? I want to understand your intention clearly.
7398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): I will move an adjournment motion. Yet, I hope that you will give serious consideration to suspend the meeting, so that our colleagues can go to the scene to help in resolving the problem and understanding the current situation. We cannot give our full attention to handling the relevant issues in the Chamber now. Therefore, I hope that you will consider adjourning the meeting so as to allow us to calm down and handle the current chaotic situation.
(Mr HUI Chi-fung indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, what is your point of order?
MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, Mr WU Chi-wai is right. As we are having the Second Reading debate on the Bill, hundreds of thousands of people are taking to the streets. The Police are making arbitrary arrests and instituting indiscriminate prosecutions. So far, nearly 500 people have been arrested, and many people have been injured. I call upon you once again to consider suspending the meeting. The Legislative Council should first respond to the current demands of the people on the streets before continuing with the meeting. I urge Ms Starry LEE to give serious thought to my demand. We cannot sit here and pretend that we have not seen serious fighting and confrontation taking place on the street with people injuring. I urge you to give thought to my demand. I am not moving an adjournment motion; however, being the Deputy President or the presiding Member, you are duty-bound to give the relevant consideration.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, you have already raised a point of order.
(Mr KWONG Chun-yu indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, do you also have a point of order?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7399
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Deputy President, a point of order. According to Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), you are actually taking up the post of the President's deputy. In short, you consider that you are capable of acting as the President and preside at the Legislative Council meeting. As Mr WU Chi-wai has said clearly earlier, we now hope to make a humble request to the Deputy President rationally. As we are now scrutinizing the Bill, hundreds of people have been arrested outside. Many colleagues hope to go to the scene to assist in the mediation. We really do not want to see the situation aggravating, and we also do not know what will happen tonight.
According to subrule (4) in RoP 24 (notice of questions), a Member may ask the permission of the President to ask a question without notice on the ground that it is of an urgent character and relates to a matter of public importance. Of course, I understand that the President has ruled that no motion shall be moved under RoP 16(2). However, the point is that you absolutely have the power to, in your capacity as the Deputy President, make a decision of suspending the meeting at this moment, so that we can go outside to offer help. We can hardly bear to see Hong Kong citizens and some young people taking to the streets and being arrested unjustifiably because of the Bill we are now scrutinizing. Deputy President, as people's representatives, we only want to go to the scene to offer help.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, I have heard your suggestion. I think you have clearly made your suggestion. Please sit down.
Members, Mr WU Chi-wai asked me just now to consider suspending the meeting. Mr HUI Chi-fung made the same request and Mr KWONG Chun-yu asked me to allow him to raise an urgent question. First of all, I wish to point out to Mr KWONG Chun-yu that the question time has passed. Moreover, earlier, a number of Members have requested to move an adjournment motion, and the President has already made his ruling in response to their requests.
Being the Deputy President, I do not think there is a need to suspend the meeting now, and I also do not think that suspending the meeting now can help resolving immediately the various conflicts in society. I hope that Members can make good use of the meeting time. Individual Members can, in their capacity as Members, mediate social disputes on different occasions, but they should not request the meeting be suspended. 7400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
As I have already made a decision, I will consider it inappropriate if Members still wish to raise points of order on this matter.
(Mr Jeremy TAM indicated his wish to seek elucidation)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, on which point you are seeking elucidation?
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Thank you, Ms Starry LEE. I wish to clarify one point. Just now you said that some Members requested to move an adjournment motion under the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"). May I ask which Members have made such a request? Just now, I have not heard any Member requesting to move an adjournment motion under RoP during their speeches. What I heard was Members asking you to consider suspending the meeting rather than requesting to move an adjournment motion under RoP. I wish to confirm which Members have made such a request?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, as Members were also attending the meeting just now, I do not need to make any repetition.
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): The meeting has continued for several hours …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I believe that if Members have been attending the meeting, they should be able to fully grasp the situation of the meeting some moments ago.
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Or you tell me after the meeting.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Later …
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7401
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): You can also ask the Clerk to tell me which Members have made such a request.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have the responsibility to attend throughout the meeting. I also believe that Members can grasp the situation of the meeting.
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): I have been attending throughout the meeting, but I do not know which Members have requested to move an adjournment motion.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am not going to debate with Members. Please stop speaking.
(Mr Jeremy TAM raised a query with the Deputy President in his seat)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, please stop speaking. I have responded to your query.
Dr CHENG Chung-tai, please speak.
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): I have a point of order too.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): What is your point of order?
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): I believe pan-democratic Members are in good faith when they raised questions out of their responsibilities to society. Just now, you explained that the President had earlier made a ruling on Members' request for moving an adjournment motion under RoP 16(2). However, this ruling is totally irrelevant to the decision you made just now. This is because the adjournment motion moved earlier was related to the Hong Kong national security law and issues relating to expatriate judges, but was not related to the Bill …
7402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, this Council is not debating my decision now.
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): No, I just point out …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): My decision is made after careful consideration.
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): But what you have said is not true.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I hope that Members can make good use of the meeting time to continue with the Second Reading debate on the Bill.
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): I understand. I am not having a discussion with you. I wish to point out that your saying that some Members have earlier requested to move an adjournment motion is not true. In fact, they were talking about the contents of the Hong Kong national security law, with no mention of the current anxiety or agitation in society caused by the Bill. I am only giving a fair comment.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, I have already made a decision. I wish to remind Members that if Members intend to move an adjournment motion, they can only move such motion between two items of business.
Dr CHENG Chung-tai, you are the next Member to speak on the Second Reading debate on the Bill. Are you going to speak?
(Mr Jeremy TAM indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7403
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If Members want to debate with me on the decision I made earlier, this is not a point of order, because I have already made a decision.
(Mr Jeremy TAM raised a query in his seat)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have raised the same query earlier.
(Mr Jeremy TAM requested for elucidation in his seat)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, on which point are you seeking elucidation?
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, earlier, the President has indeed made a ruling on the request for moving an adjournment motion under RoP 16(2). However, what you said a while ago was the motion moved under RoP 40 for the adjournment of a debate. Just now, I wished to point out that the President had not made a ruling on the request for moving a motion for the adjournment of a debate under RoP 40, and no Members had moved under RoP 40 …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, I can give you a response immediately. What I mentioned just now was that the President had made a ruling on Members' request for moving an adjournment motion under RoP 16(2). Please sit down.
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): The situation has become clear after such clarification, i.e. the President has not made a ruling on the request for moving an adjournment motion under RoP 40.
(Mr Andrew WAN indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
7404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, what is your point of order?
MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): I want to make a clarification. Ms Starry LEE, you mentioned just now that you were aware of the current situation in society as mentioned by several Members. I believe that you have also noted that many students, aged 11 to 12 in school uniform, have also be arrested by the Police. That is why colleagues are so distressed that they stand up to make the request. Of course, we understand that it is difficult to comply fully with RoP.
However, I wish to point out that I am not satisfied with the remark you made just now. In fact, the reason why colleagues proposed to move an motion under RoP 16(2) was to address their worries over the Bill and the Hong Kong national security law, as well as the agitation in society. If the President had been willing to listen to what we said and make a ruling to allow us to have an urgent debate this morning, what is happening in society right now would not have happened. So, please do not shift the responsibility to us. It is Andrew LEUNG who is in the wrong …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, I think you are raising a point of order for the purpose of expressing your opinions.
MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): No. I wish to make a clarification. Just now, you misinterpreted our …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WAN, I have already made a decision. Please sit down. If Members continue to raise issues which are not points of order, I will ask the Members concerned to stop speaking.
Dr CHENG Chung-tai, are you going to speak?
(A device suddenly sounded continuously in the Chamber)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7405
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): What device is ringing in the Chamber? Will security personnel please remove the sound device immediately.
(Security personnel searched for the sound device in the Chamber)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I wish to remind Members that under RoP, you have the responsibility to make good use of the meeting time and should not keep disrupting the proceedings of the meeting.
(The sound device kept ringing)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will security personnel please remove the sound device from the Chamber immediately.
(The sound device kept ringing intermittently and security personnel tried to remove it)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Member has placed a sound device in the seat to disrupt the proceedings of the meeting? I must issue a stern warning to the Member. Which Member?
(The sound device kept ringing intermittently)
(Some Members spoke in their seats)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet.
(Some Members expressed their views in their seats)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If Members still wish to raise points of order for the purpose of expressing opinions on my decision, I will not allow you to do so. We have discussed this matter for 10 minutes. It is time to return to the original subject.
Dr CHENG Chung-tai, are you going to speak?
7406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I want you to clarify that you have not ordered any Member to leave the Chamber, have you?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am only asking security personnel to remove the sound device immediately.
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): But the device has yet to be removed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It has not been removed for the time being. Dr CHENG Chung-tai, please speak.
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Security personnel have not removed the sound device.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG, are you going to speak?
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): I will speak. Yet, as security personnel are still handling the device, it is unreasonable of me to speak.
(Mr Steven HO indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, what is your point of order?
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, if you find out which Member has deliberately used the sound device to disrupt the proceedings of the meeting, I think that you should order the Member concerned to leave the Chamber under RoP.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7407
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will preside over the meeting in strict compliance with RoP. Will security personnel please see which Member has placed the sound device to disrupt the proceedings of the meeting.
(The Deputy President made an enquiry with the Clerk)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have just been notified by the Legislative Council Secretariat colleagues and security personnel that the sound device was placed in the seat of Mr HUI Chi-fung, but Mr HUI has left the Chamber.
(Some Members requested a review of the video recording)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): There is no need to review the video recording. I will understand the situation with the Legislative Council Secretariat staff.
(Some Members expressed their views in their seats)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am not going to debate with you. Will security personnel please immediately remove the sound device, so that the meeting can proceed. We will investigate which Member has placed the device later.
If Members raise further points of order on the decision I made just now, I will not deal with them, because I have made a decision. If Members have any views on my decision, you can discuss with me on other occasions.
(Jeremy TAM indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, what is your point of order?
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): I want to speak. Has the microphone been turned on? Thank you. 7408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
I wish to raise a point, as the device has not been removed, the speech of Dr CHENG Chung-tai will be interrupted if it rings again. This is unfair to him. Therefore, should the sound device be removed first?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, I believe that security personnel are trying their best to handle it.
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Yes. But you should not request Dr CHENG Chung-tai to speak under this situation.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will you please stop speaking.
(Mrs Regina IP indicated her wish to raise a point of order)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Regina IP, please raise your point of order.
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it should be my turn to speak. However, I left the Chamber to have an interview. Should it be my turn to speak? Deputy President, if Dr CHENG Chung-tai is not willing to speak, will you let me speak? Deputy President, I would like to ask what the rules are.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Regina IP, I will handle your request to speak later.
(Some Members spoke in their seats)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The ringing has stopped. I think the meeting can proceed.
Dr CHENG Chung-tai, I ask you once again. Are you willing to speak?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7409
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): I am willing to speak, but are you sure that the device will not ring again?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Yes.
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): If it rings again, please count my 15-minute speaking time all over again.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will make up for your time lost. Please speak.
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Is that possible?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Yes.
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Does it mean that I can continue to speak every time the device rings? I will try to speak non-stop.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will make adjustment in this regard, so that all Members will have equal speaking time.
Dr CHENG Chung-tai, please speak.
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): First of all, I hope that members of the public who are now on the streets can go home safely.
In fact, I want to tell you something from the bottom of my heart. I think Members present at the meeting have to face a reality, and that is, the people of Hong Kong already have no role to play in the political struggle or chaos that 7410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 takes place in Hong Kong today. From last year's Sino-United States trade war to the current situation, I only hope to join hands with people sharing the same ideology to find ways during this period of time to preserve our ideology and protect or safeguard as much as we can. We might experience some big shocks this week or tomorrow. If friends of yours or people who are still on the streets cannot listen to my following speech, I hope they can listen to the audio recording when they get home tonight. People who are in need can contact me. I will play the role as a counsellor.
The National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") resumes its Second Reading today. However, I believe that not too many people can recall the background concerning the scrutiny of the Bill. The Secretary present―pardon me for still failing to remember his name―probably does not know that the Bills Committee has almost completed the scrutiny of the Bill early last year.
Actually, the Bill is introduced in response to some behaviours or some phenomena that are regarded to be insulting the national anthem. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress incorporated the relevant national law in Annex III to the Basic Law and the Government should apply it by way of local legislation. Simply put, a group of people booed the national anthem on public occasions, or they reacted differently when the March of the Volunteers was being played and sung, such as they turned their back on the rostrum or even showed their middle fingers.
Phenomena of this kind happened last year or several years ago, but these are the superficial problems that the Bill has to deal with. As a matter of fact, the idea of the Bill is to make people respect and identify with the country through the reign of terror. This idea might not be admitted by the Secretary and the Government, but I am convinced that people who have some knowledge about the authoritarian government or regime will be familiar with the idea.
I do not quite agree to the practice of pan-democratic Members. They frequently use TIAN Han as an example to demonstrate how miserable he had been treated in history and how the Communist Party of China ("CPC") had denounced him during the Cultural Revolution. Such information can be used during the education on the national anthem to be conducted in future. As I understand, this historical event may have the opposite effect on Mainlanders. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7411
Our understanding is that CPC was ungrateful to TIAN Han and left him in the lurch; or TIAN Han was a typical figure who was loyal and had made contributions to the country, but was severely denounced during the Cultural Revolution. Nevertheless, I hope people of Hong Kong will understand that the denouncement of TIAN Han during the Cultural Revolution was actually a tactic of CPC to manipulate the reign of terror to build national identification and national honour. This incident happened in the first year of the Cultural Revolution, and it was the most important move.
Deputy President, I will not stray too far from the question. I just want to point out that the idea of the Bill is not simply to educate people about loving the country or promote the spirit of patriotism. While this is the official claim, the political effect of the Bill in reality is to implement shock education. The purpose is to frighten the people of Hong Kong: "That is the consequence of what you did two or three years ago!"
Why was TIAN Han regarded as a capitalist roader or a believer of capitalism back then? Deputy President, I have not strayed too far from the question. In fact, all TIAN Han had done was that he had written two letters, one letter spoke for the artists; the other letter was titled "為演員的春天請命" ("To plead for the spring of actors"). As the representative of the performing arts sector―that is, the role played by Mr MA Fung-kwok today―TIAN Han considered that people did not pay high regard to the performing arts sector at that time, and members of the sector were paid unequally for equal work. He thus wrote the two letters. However, the two letters were regarded by CPC as carrying the features of capitalism, and he was then criticized for being anti-Party, anti-socialism and anti-Maoism. The history of TIAN Han's denouncement was typical during the Cultural Revolution. The 10-year intimidation was to tell the Mainlanders that shock education was an inevitable experience of the autocratic governance.
I am not going to stray too far, let me return to the subject of this debate. Years after 1997, why do we only find out today that we have not legislated for the national anthem law. The senior pro-establishment Members now present at the Chamber should offer their humble apologies. There was no reason why they had missed the national anthem law when they enacted the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance during the transitional period before 1997. They 7412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 were perfunctory with their work and lacked the knowledge to be aware of the fact that an authoritarian government actually had to establish national dignity through the reign of terror.
Deputy President, you would say that I have strayed too far. However, this argument is related to the Bill, and it also explains why I hope the people will understand or point out that TIAN Han is a part of history, yet they should not endorse the approach adopted by the pan-democratic camp to cite TIAN Han's case to teach students about the national anthem later. This is because people will indeed be frightened if this education approach is adopted. In Chinese societies, "respect" and "dread" are inseparable. In western societies, "respect" comes from achievement. However, there is no individual achievement in our society. In the culture of our society, there is only a very vague individual-collective dichotomy. It can be foreseen that people will indeed be frightened if the case of TIAN Han is cited in education.
Last year, an incident occurred during the deliberation of the Bill, which well illustrates why the law has to be vague. The reason is that the purpose of the law is to stun and frighten Hong Kong people. The Secretary should remember this incident. In the Mainland, an Internet celebrity made some comments during the live cast when "Arise, arise", i.e. the national anthem, was being played. Consequently, the celebrity was administratively detained for 10-odd days. The Secretary said under the current legislation, the above action might not necessarily constitute an insult of or a disrespectful act to the national anthem. Pardon me, during the deliberation of the Bills Committee, Mr Patrick NIP―the Secretary back then―always said the court would make its decision based on two conditions, i.e. whether the person concerned had publicly and intentionally insulted the national anthem. What is "public" and "intentional"? In the Internet, incidents that happen in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region are public. Do not assume that the situation will only happen during a soccer match or a boxing match. It can also happen in a singing concert. Maybe one day, Carrie LAM will be so crazy as to add a provision to the national anthem law, requiring the national anthem be played or sung before each movie show.
Last year, I said this Bill caused nuisance to the public. To be honest, I have been speaking for 10 minutes, yet what I have said just now is nothing but trivial matters. The shocks resulted paled into insignificance when compared LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7413 with the trauma caused by the Government's sudden proposal to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance during the scrutiny of the Bill, which lasted for a better half of a year. Dr Junius HO is present right now. Before the "21 July" incident, government officials originally thought that the shocks could stop and the disturbances would subside. However, after the "21 July" incident, the entire Hong Kong had turned upside down and society was shaken for more than six months. Subsequently, while the shocks have yet to subside, the Government suddenly announced last week that it would implement the national security law in Hong Kong.
That said, let me tell you, if you are feeling restless and uneasy; or if you just loiter around without a reason, this is actually just a dessert from the reign of terror as pan-democratic colleagues have just said. What should we do if this is really the case? I only have one suggestion, and that is, please look back on the history of Hong Kong in the 1960s and 1970s that the President of the Legislative Council or certain members of the pro-establishment camp had once experienced. In those days, they shouted "anti-British and anti-violence", but now they have conversely suppressed the people of Hong Kong in the same way. It is really deplorable. I just hope that I can still live for another 50 years. This is because by then I will be at the same age as the President, and may have the chance to be in his present position, then things will turn out to be alright. Nevertheless, there is no need for us to be so gloomy because it might take 50 years for a cycle and no one knows what will happen next year. Deputy President, I told you last year that the Sino-United States trade war would render Hong Kong to a sorrowful pass, but you did not think so. I was speechless then.
Second, the Secretary or Members present might not quite understand why I said last year that the Bill caused nuisance to the public. In fact, the nuisance hinges on the meaning of "public" and "intentional". There are many precedents about insulting contents or behaviours, such as the NG Kung-siu case, am I right? The court quoted the NG Kung-siu case in ruling my case of inverting the national flag. I had been framed, but since the judgment was handed down at a Magistrate's Court and I did not have the money for appealing to the District Court, I could only take it reluctantly. This is a precedent to show that you have a high chance of being convicted if you were prosecuted for insulting the national flag.
7414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
I hope the people will be aware that the most heinous part of the Bill lies in its meaning of "public" and "intentional". According to the current argument, "intentional" can only be substantiated if the suspect's relevant motive is confirmed. I want to ask you a simple question: If some members of the public booed the national anthem at the Hong Kong Stadium, and you forwarded the video clip to others from your cozy home via the Internet, do you think you will subsequently be prosecuted for insulting or being disrespectful to the national anthem?
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
President, can you reply to my question? The answer is that it depends on whether the authorities will initiate prosecution, and whether selective prosecution will be initiated. When I pointed out that the Bill was vague, the Government responded by saying that pursuant to clause 7(5) of the Bill, except as provided under subsection (3) or (4), a person does not commit an offence under this Bill by publishing altered lyrics or score of the national anthem, the national anthem played and sung in a distorted or disrespectful way or the insulting in any way of the national anthem.
However, the problem lies in what is meant by "publish". If you do not share this video clip on Facebook in a private mode and you share it publicly, will you break this law? This depends on the handling of the authorities. Should selective prosecution be initiated, I will definitely be prosecuted for releasing the video clip. I will definitely be prosecuted if I publish the video clip on Facebook; but will I be prosecuted if I publish the video clip with my private Facebook account? In this case, we have to resort to a lawsuit and see if I have 5 000 friends on Facebook. Do 5 000 persons justify public publishing of the video clip? President, under the Public Security Ordinance, three persons or more already justify the meaning of "public". How can this not be a draconian law?
Hence, the conclusion is that the Bill is one of the tools for giving more excuses for the Government to implement authoritarian governance. I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7415
MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, recently, there is a saying in Hong Kong that goes: Why can't Hong Kong have the national security law when overseas countries have such laws? Why can't Hong Kong have the national anthem law when overseas countries have such laws? When overseas countries have this and that, why can't Hong Kong also have such things? People who make such remarks are either closing their eyes to the real-life situation in Hong Kong, or ignoring their conscience to believe that Hong Kong is the same as other democratic and free countries. However, they fail to see the real-life situation in Hong Kong and the real world outside Hong Kong.
Just now, I saw several young students in school uniform being dragged by the Police into police cars. I believe they are not much older than my sons. When some wage earners in Central went out for lunch, the Police shot at them. Do not say to me that Hong Kong should have what other Western countries have. Hong Kong and these countries are entirely different.
The first sentence of China's national anthem is: "Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves!" This is very ironic. There is a famous English saying which goes: "The oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors". The oppressed have become the oppressors. This is what is happening right now. A nation or a country was once oppressed, and when it grows strong, it becomes the oppressor oppressing others. In understanding what is happening right now, we do not have to look elsewhere; just look at the present situation of Hong Kong.
I often ask whether the national anthem law can be enforced upon its enactment. Does the Government think that people watching a ball game in the Hong Kong Stadium will not boo the national anthem by then? They will still boo the national anthem, but in other ways which make it difficult for law enforcement officers to arrest them. What should be done by then? Will 5 000 police officers be deployed in the Hong Kong Stadium whenever a ball game is held? Should police officers be deployed to monitor the public gallery to find out who has booed, or who has made certain gestures and then make arrests accordingly? In every ball game, whenever a person does not stand up straight or faces away from the national flag or makes some other gestures, he or she will be regarded as being disrespectful.
Talking about disrespect, I wish to talk about what respect is. I remember the dialogue between the President and I last week. When the President said that I had digressed from the subject, I explained to him that I had not; and then 7416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 the President said that I did not respect him. I told the President that he could not gain the respect of other people by shouting at that person or forcing that person to show respect. This was bogus respect. The same goes for respect for the national anthem. If you force or threaten others to respect the national anthem, saying, "If you show no respect, I will send you to prison". If people only show respect under threat and intimidation, is such respect worth getting? What meaning does it serve to get respect in such a way?
Of course, to the totalitarian regime, it does not need to win the hearts of its people or the respect and love coming from the bottom of their hearts. It will consider itself successful when people act in a respectful way. An autocratic ruler will not care if people's respect is true and genuine. Therefore, somebody tells me that it is meaningless to talk about patriotism, as well as respect for the national anthem and the national emblem when there is no genuine freedom of speech and freedom of thought in society. It is meaningless to talk about patriotism and respect in a place where there is no freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Also, patriotic sentiments are vulnerable to be used as a tool of political oppression.
Several hundred years ago, English scholar Dr Samuel JOHNSON said that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". In my opinion, Dr JOHNSON was not saying that someone was a scoundrel if he or she genuinely loved the people, history and culture of a country. What he meant is that when patriotism becomes a political tool to be manipulated by people in power for the sake of their political power, this patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Why? When those in power have no other means to govern a place, they will promote a patriotic sentiment and enact laws to force people to love and respect their country in an attempt to consolidate their ruling power. Unfortunately, today in Hong Kong, "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy", which we should be entitled to, seem to have been ripped away, thus giving the Central Government the right to oversee Hong Kong. Earlier on, after the former Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs issued a statement at night, he received calls asking him what gibberish he was talking in the statement and pointing out that Article 22 of the Basic Law should not be interpreted in this way. He was asked to issue the statement again. However, after the statement was issued the second time, he received calls again saying that he was still wrong. Then, he issued the statement for the third time. I hope Secretary Erick TSANG will not commit the same mistake.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7417
As I recall, some time ago when the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council ("HKMAO") and the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region criticized me, they issued statements pointing out the many faults of mine. One of the faults was that since I opposed the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill"), I did not respect "one country" and thus I was not qualified to be a Legislative Council Member. The criticism against me this time comes from the press release of HKMAO. As pointed out by HKMAO, I have not supported and have opposed the Bill, so I do not respect "one country". They are making a mountain out of a molehill. I may have lots of reasons for not supporting the Bill. I do not support the Bill because I oppose giving more powers to the Government to make prosecutions against citizens on the ground of the so-called "disrespect". I think the consequence for this kind of prosecution is very serious, so I do not render support. I am worried that the Government will abuse the law. I am also worried how this law will be enforced in real-life situation. Should 5 000 or 10 000 police officers be deployed in the Hong Kong Stadium whenever a football match is held? Theoretically, how will a Member be criticized fiercely and disproportionately for disrespecting "one country" when he opposes a bill in the Legislative Council in a free place―I dare not say whether Hong Kong is still a free place?
As one can well imagine, upon the passage of the Bill, many Members, especially Members from the pro-democracy camp―I do not know who can be elected again―may be disqualified in the new Legislative Council in September. It is also possible that no Members from the pro-democracy camp will be returned by then. During the playing of the national anthem, pro-democracy Members may be criticized for being disrespectful; for being late during the taking of the oath, for not singing the national anthem and not standing up straight, or Mr Kenneth LEUNG may be criticized for looking at his mobile phone. In this way, disputes over disqualification of Members from office will arise again, because the people in power have stated early that people not respecting the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law") are not respecting the principle of "one country". This is ridiculous. Why has Hong Kong come to such a pass?
Even if we still believe in the so-called "one country, two systems", we are actually facing the undisguised totalitarianism. People in power are trying to cover up their political means and suppression under the pretence of law enforcement. Some people always say that freedom of speech is not absolute. 7418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Everyone knows that freedom of speech is not absolute. One cannot suddenly shout "fire" in a theatre and do acts which will endanger others or defame others. Of course, if a society is operating normally, freedom of speech should be slightly restricted to a certain extent in compliance with the principle of proportionality. However, such restrictions can now make people contravene the law inadvertently. Many Members have pointed out earlier how people will be regarded as openly or deliberately disrespecting and insulting the national anthem. Even a lawyer like me―I may not be an outstanding lawyer―has to think clearly how to grasp and comprehend the definition, not to mention the general public. Nowadays, in Hong Kong, if a person, especially a Member who belongs to the pro-democracy camp or is a pro-democracy leader, makes a small mistake, the authorities will stop at nothing to persecute that person or may even charge that person with more than one offence. As in the recent cases of Martin LEE, Margaret NG and many pro-democracy leaders, they are not only charged with the offence of participating in an unlawful assembly, but are also charged with the offence of inciting others to participate in the unlawful assembly, and their cases are later referred to another court. In future, if we contravene the national anthem law, will we be charged with the offences of incitement and conspiracy, thus prompting the court to impose heavier penalties on us? In this way, a case punishable by fine only may be disproportionately turned into a case punishable by imprisonment. What we fear most is that this situation will take place in Hong Kong. So, do not ask me questions such as: Why do you oppose the Bill? Are you not patriotic? Do you disrespect the "one country" principle? These questions make no sense. Member colleagues have many different reasons for opposing the Bill. Today, the situation faced by citizens is that more than 300 people have been arrested and the whole Hong Kong has been turned into a police state. This is Hong Kong in which we are living now.
I so submit.
MS CLAUDIA MO: Quorum, please.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7419
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please speak.
MS CLAUDIA MO: How pitiful this is. This National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") has indeed become, not exactly irrelevant, but unimportant, as evidenced by crowds of protesters out there protesting, not against this Bill, but against the national security law, which is much, much more draconian and much more encompassing. You would think, in this case, there is not much to fuss about the Bill when we have got the security law hanging over our heads anyway, right? This seems like a side issue. Somebody actually called it a "side dish" and tagged the security law as the "main course".
Now, coming back to this Bill, it will undoubtedly become law in due course with the democrats being so horribly outnumbered in this legislature. This Bill stresses on one thing: respect. Respect is actually a fairly abstract thing. You can show deference; but respect is something else. It has to come from the heart. Basically, respect is something to be earned. Respect is supposed to be earned, not demanded, and this is the main point. If you ask me, "Do you disagree that we should respect the national anthem?" I would tell you I basically think that one should respect any national anthem, but I am against the criminalization of any slight disrespect, punishable by up to what? A $50,000 fine. Fifty thousand dollars is US$6,500, and that is a lot of money. But money is still just money. The maximum penalty is three years behind bars. Now, that is something really, seriously, frightening.
The usual logic would be that it does not matter what sort of maximum penalty this Bill carries for such an offence. Practically, every country has its own national anthem. It is what it is. When other countries have their own anthem laws, what is wrong with our having a proper national anthem law? The same argument goes for the national security law. This morning the Secretary for Security, very unwittingly, in my opinion, cited that the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia all have national security laws in place, so what is wrong for Hong Kong to introduce its own national security law? What is the fuss about it? He did not talk about the democratic systems, the separation of powers among the executive, legislative and judicial branches, the checks and balances that the branches have over each other, and on top of that, of course, a lively press that can be found in other countries. What about us? No, we do not get those.
7420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
The same argument applies to this Bill. Other countries have it. So, what are you getting so uptight about? The thing is while, say, the United States do have a similar law, it is more like … will the officials please do their research? It is different in the sense that it does not impose any penalties. It is, essentially, a code of conduct stating that when the national anthem is being played, Americans should face where the music is coming from, and place a hand over their heart. It sets out the etiquette demanded of Americans. Yet even if one does not follow it, they will not be fined US$6,500 or put in prison for three years. There is no such thing. There are no criminal penalties, and that is the main and huge difference.
I understand that some African American footballers had protested in defiance of their President Donald TRUMP's policies by refusing to show expected respect during the national anthem of the United States at the start of a match. They suffered some consequences in their careers, but no criminal penalties. Here in Hong Kong, however, we are facing some very stringent, unsettling punishments.
Many people wondered why this Bill did not come into being until almost 23 years after 1997. What on earth happened? Back in 1997, we quickly passed the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance, which heavily penalizes desecration of the national flag with the same sentence and maximum penalties as the Bill. What happened was that Beijing could not decide on a National Anthem until 2017, when they settled on "March of the Volunteers" as the official National Anthem. Since childhood, I was told to believe that the Chinese National Anthem was―what was it called―"The red in the East raises the Sun" … "The East is Red". It is a very cultural-revolutionary song, and we were taught to believe that it was the Chinese anthem.
Beijing could not make up its mind until quite recently―sorry, I meant to say that it did not make up its mind until 2004―and finally, "March of the Volunteers" was recognized as the national anthem three years ago in 2017.
You might say, "Hey guys, things are not too bad in Hong Kong, all things considered, as there is still some freedom of speech, and people have the freedom to protest out there, to rally, to complain … they got nicked and rounded up.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7421
Today, what is really putting off Hong Kong people is that there is no reasonableness in this society anymore. I am sure it is a word in English which means when there is no more reasoning with people and they would just slap a law on you; that could be terribly frightening, and would of course draw a lot of protests and opposition. The officials here do not reason with us; they just argue, and they would cherry-pick the data in order to have the arguments tilt in their favour. "Ha-ha-ha, you call me double standard? I say you have multiple standards!" Just how much more childish can you be? Can we talk facts instead?
Now, we all say fame and fortune are very important in life, but not as important as one's reputation. The national security law and this Bill form a part and parcel of Beijing's assumption of complete jurisdiction over Hong Kong. How is that going to affect Hong Kong? They are announcing the end of Hong Kong as we know, and this is just not right. What are we worried about? This part and parcel could also be a sign that they are stepping up the "brainwashing"―no, I should not say "brainwashing", but perhaps "patriotic education"―in Hong Kong. In their view, our young people obviously lack patriotic education and many have gone sideways, which would explain why they could not think straight or have a tunnel vision of patriotism.
Now, never mind the national security law, because we do not even stand a chance, as we will not have any opportunity to actually debate on the national security law. Some foreign journalists still got it all mixed up … "Oh, how are you going to challenge it at the local legislature?" A challenge―how? They are doing exactly what they think they could do, which is to by-pass this legislative sector.
Others would say, "Why are you exaggerating? Are you fear mongering?" Or, "Everything you are saying is hyperbole; you are exaggerating." "There is no love or hate without reason"―I am actually quoting a famous MAO quote. There is such a thing as track record and Hong Kong people are getting worried because they do not have much trust in Mainland China's legal system or, for that matter, their judicial system as well.
This Bill basically makes it a crime to publicly, openly, purposely or deliberately insult the National Anthem. At the Bills Committee, officials kept saying, "Don't worry, the Court will determine what qualifies as a public, deliberate or purposeful insult." What sort of lies are we talking about in Hong 7422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
Kong? I was born and brought up in this city; I had never, never imagined that Hong Kong would have become a city like this. This is a second Cultural Revolution being staged in Hong Kong, and it is now so obvious to the rest of the world. This is Hong Kong à la George ORWELL's 1984, and this is so heartbreaking, so distressing and so sickening.
Thank you.
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, a national anthem is a symbol and sign of a country. The main purpose of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") is to implement the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem ("National Anthem Law") in Hong Kong by local legislation.
In 4 November 2017, the Standing Committee of the 12th National People's Congress ("NPC") passed a decision to include the National Anthem Law in Annex III of the Basic Law. According to Article 18(2) of the Basic Law, all national laws listed in Annex III of the Basic Law shall be applied locally by way of promulgation or legislation by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR"). In other words, this is a constitutional responsibility of HKSAR. When the SAR Government presented the Bill to the Legislative Council on 23 January 2019, the authorities indicated that the legislative principle is to fully reflect the legislative purpose and intent of the National Anthem Law, which is to preserve the dignity of the national anthem and promote respect for the national anthem among members of the public; and at the same time to give due regard to the common law system practised in Hong Kong, as well as the actual circumstances in Hong Kong.
Thereafter, the Legislative Council set up a Bills Committee with a membership of 64 Members, including myself. Such enthusiastic participation is rare in recent years. The Bills Committee held 17 meetings with the Administration, including a meeting to receive public views. After the Bills Committee completed its scrutiny of the Bill, it submitted the report of the Bills Committee on National Anthem Bill at the meeting of the House Committee on 28 June 2019. Mr Martin LIAO, Chairman of the Bills Committee, further indicated that according to the voting results at the last meeting of the Bills Committee, the Bills Committee supported the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill. The Chairman of the House Committee then consulted Members on the Administration's proposal of resuming the Second Reading LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7423 debate on the Bill in this legislative session (i.e. 2019-2020), as stated by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs in his letter dated 19 June 2019. According to the minutes of the meeting held on the day, Members had no objections to the Administration's views. This shows that the scrutiny of the Bill initially proceeded very rationally and smoothly. Then, various events occurred and they are still fresh in our memory. Social disturbances arose from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and various violent incidents had become more intensified. These incidents not only caused extensive devastation in areas around Admiralty, but also seriously damaged the Legislative Council Complex. Consequently, many meetings had to be cancelled. The situation was indeed regrettable and worrying.
After a long wait, the riots had slightly subsided and meetings of the Legislative Council for 2019-2020 commenced. While we all have the reasonable expectation that the Legislative Council would resume normal operation, a predicament has occurred because the election of the Chairman of the House Committee had been improperly delayed. Under normal circumstances, the Chairman of the House Committee would be elected in one meeting. The House Committee held 17 meetings from 15 October 2019 to 8 May 2020, but still failed to elect the Chairman. This was because when Mr Dennis KWOK presided over the meeting for the election, he did not properly enforce the requirements stipulated in the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") for electing the Chairman of the House Committee. He allowed Members to speak on issues irrelevant to the election or express their views by raising various points of order, thereby wasting a lot of meeting time. The House Committee failed to elect a Chairman even after holding meetings for seven months, which is unprecedented.
Due to the long delay in the election of the Chairman of the House Committee, the House Committee has not been able to normally conduct its business, including handling 14 bills presented by the Government and more than 90 pieces of subsidiary legislation, and handling the appointment of senior judicial officers, etc. After the President of the Legislative Council had sought external legal advice, he decided to exercise his power under RoP 92 and designated Mr CHAN Kin-por to chair the election at the meeting of the House Committee held on 18 May 2020 at 11:00 am. Despite all the interference and disruptions in the conference room, Ms Starry LEE was elected Chairman of the House Committee, thus putting an end to the above mentioned chaos.
7424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
It is worth noting that Mr Dennis KWOK has openly indicated that he delayed the election of the Chairman of the House Committee for the purpose of obstructing the passage of various bills, including this Bill. As we can see, the Bill, which was initially not particularly controversial, the passage of which is the constitutional responsibility of Hong Kong, and which had been scrutinized in detail at the Bills Committee of the Legislative Council, is being smeared, demonized and even called the "draconian anthem law". Worse still, Members have publicized in advance that they would block the passage of the Bill, even at the cost of paralysing the normal operation of the Legislative Council.
Recently, some lawbreakers have instigated strikes on three fronts, i.e. labour strike, class boycott and suspension of business, and they attempted to besiege the Legislative Council Complex by road blockages and other means. In the face of the chaotic situations both within and outside the Legislative Council, Members should stay calm and perhaps consider the matter from a different perspective. What will the Central Government think about the situation? Some people in Hong Kong, including some Members of this Council, pay lip service to "one country, two systems", but their words and deeds show that they resist everything about China. In other words, they reject and avoid everything related to "one country". It seems that they have interpreted what they call "a high degree of autonomy" as full autonomy, completely disregarding Hong Kong's constitutional status and responsibilities and wantonly distorting the essence of "one country, two systems". If they call this uncontroversial Bill the "draconian anthem law" and wilfully and denounced it, can Hong Kong fulfil its constitutional responsibility of enacting local legislation regarding Article 23 of the Basic Law, the purpose of which is to prohibit by law any act which will damage the sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity and national security of China in the foreseeable future? The answer to this question is obvious.
Is it not equally obvious that Hong Kong may become a flaw and pose a hidden risk to national security? Against this background, it is not difficult for us to understand why the Central Government has decided that it will be very hard for HKSAR to enact its own legislation on Article 23 and there is a risk that the work will be stalled for a long time. Since various activities affecting national security began to intensify in HKSAR, the risks to maintaining long-term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong and upholding national security have become so significant that they should not be neglected. Thus, considering the above mentioned background and the actual circumstances in Hong Kong, the decision of NPC to enact a law at the national level to establish a sound legal LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7425 system and enforcement mechanism to uphold national security in the entire HKSAR and include the law in Annex III of the Basic Law of Hong Kong to be promulgated and implemented in HKSAR, is lawful, fair and reasonable.
President, we Hong Kong people are Chinese people too; we should respect and uphold the dignity of our country. The national anthem is one of the symbols of our country and just like the national flag and the national emblem, it should be respected. However, as several incidents have occurred in which the national flag and the national anthem were insulted, there is an objective need to legislate on the National Anthem Law. This is consistent with the principle of "one country, two systems" and the enactment of the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance for implementing the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Flag and the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Emblem. Thus, enactment of the Bill as a piece of local legislation is necessary because of the constitutional responsibility required of Hong Kong and it shows the importance of comprehensively understanding and properly implementing "one country, two systems".
The objects of the Bill are to provide for the playing and singing of the national anthem in Hong Kong; for the protection of the national anthem; for the promotion of the national anthem; and for incidental matters. The approach of enacting local legislation is adopted to take care of many actual circumstances in Hong Kong. As the Administration has repeatedly clarified and stressed, the authorities will institute prosecution only when sufficient evidence is gathered to show that the relevant act constitutes an offence under clause 7 of the Bill, that is, the person concerned has insulted the national anthem publicly and intentionally. The prosecution bears the burden of proof and the courts will apply the usual standard of proof for criminal cases in Hong Kong (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt) in reaching a verdict on the case. The provisions of the Bill are reasonable and easy to understand, thus it will not be easy for members of the public to contravene the law inadvertently.
President, initially, 12 Members have proposed to move a total of 49 amendments to the Bill, and after your ruling, 22 of them are still admissible. I think these amendments may weaken the legislative effect of the Bill. For example, one of the amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeks to delete clause 5(2) which provides that the Chief Executive in Council may, by notice published in the Gazette, amend Schedule 3 which provides for occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung. I consider the amendment unreasonable. Thus, I will oppose these amendments. 7426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020
President, the Bill has been discussed in detail in the Bills Committee and it should be presented to the Legislative Council to complete the process of scrutiny as soon as possible. In fact, this is the last legislative session of this term of the Legislative Council and there is only about a month left before the session ends. However, as at 28 April this year, the Legislative Council is deliberating 26 bills presented by the Government, among which 11 have been read the First time in the last two legislative sessions and Bills Committees have been set up to study them, including the Bill. Besides, 15 other bills have also been presented in this legislative session. Since all the bills which cannot complete the scrutiny process and be passed before the end of the current term of Legislative Council will lapse, I hope that Members will make good use of our valuable meeting time to do more practical work for improving people's livelihood and for Hong Kong. After the Bill has been scrutinized and passed in this Council, the SAR Government should step up its efforts in publicizing and promoting the Bill to enable the public to properly understand the background, history and content of the national anthem, alleviate their concerns and develop an awareness of their responsibility of respecting the nation and the national anthem.
President, with these remarks, I support the Bill and oppose all the amendments proposed by opposition Members.
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill"). Hong Kong is governed under the principles of "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy"; it is not governed by the international community. During the scrutiny of the Bill, the performance of the opposition camp can be said to be "politically naïve". In dealing with such a minor constitutional obligation, the opposition camp has failed to show mutual respect. Instead of properly handling the relationship between the Central Authorities and the local government, they have paralysed the House Committee for more than six months and repeatedly vowed in a high-profile manner that they opposed the Bill.
I would like to point out that the Basic Law is enacted to implement "one country, two systems", and Annex III, in particular, provides that we must safeguard the state's sovereignty, respect "a high degree of autonomy" and maintain the status quo. These are precisely the three bases on which the Basic Law is drafted.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7427
However, 23 years after the reunification, the opposition camp very often rises to oppose anything related to the sovereignty; they will mislead the public by saying that they will be deprived of their freedom of expression. I have listened to the speeches made by a number of Honourable colleagues, but no one pointed out that China originally did not enact the national anthem law. While the tree may long for calmness, the wind will not subside. Why did China pass the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Anthem in 2017? It is because some people in Hong Kong had publicly booed the national anthem during football matches.
Just now, I heard Dr KWOK Ka-ki say that even international schools on the Mainland have not imposed such requirements. He was right in saying so as this is indeed a matter of personal integrity. No one would have thought that some Hong Kong people booed the national anthem. Of course, the situation has even developed to a state where people are beaten up for singing the national anthem. There are really cases where people have been beaten up for singing the national anthem in Hong Kong. Frankly speaking, opposition Members have never mentioned these situations, nor have they severed ties with such violent acts. The enactment of the Bill today owed much to these people.
I remember that when we first learned that the Bill would apply to Hong Kong through Annex III to the Basic Law, we were well aware that this could only be done in two ways: either by way of local legislation or direct promulgation. I recall that the vast majority of colleagues from the opposition camp agreed to adopt the option of local legislation back then. Based on past experience, the Law of the People's Republic of China on the National Flag was enacted by way of local legislation and became the law of Hong Kong after adaptation. In addition, there are local cases of successful implementation. Not only is this consistent with the common law principles, relevant principles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR") may also apply. What is more, a decision can be made by the court after thorough discussion with and reply from the relevant parties.
Mr Dennis KWOK just now repeatedly referred to Article 19 of ICCPR on libel, but he has not mentioned that Article 19 provides that everyone enjoys the right to freedom of expression and that such freedom is not absolute. Different countries may impose a certain degree of regulation on the protection of national security, public order, public health and sex crimes. If Members take a look at the judgment on the case of NG Kung-siu in 1999, they may find that the Bill has 7428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 actually made reference to the judgment. In its judgment, the Court of Final Appeal ("CFA") stated that "A national flag is the symbol of a nation … representing the whole of a group." "The regional flag is the unique symbol of HKSAR as an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China under the principle of 'one country, two systems'". "… a flag, emblem … impartially representing the whole of a group, be it a small band or a large nation, is inherently and essentially different, both in substance and form, from a statement conveying a specific message whether bland or controversial. It is natural for a society to wish to protect its symbols." Also, CFA had cited a number of common law cases, including those of the United States. There had been thorough discussions on ICCPR and the case was tried under the three-tier court system. "I am of the view that it is possible … for a society to protect its flags and emblems while at the same time maintaining its freedom of expression." CFA eventually found the two defendants guilty.
In fact, at that time, CFA had made thorough consideration and struck a balance between freedom of speech and of expression and the so-called protection of the fundamental dignity of a nation and race. In the case of Hysan Development Co. Ltd in 2015, CFA had even applied the principle of proportionality, which is an additional principle on top of the common law principle of universality, with the aim to balance the overall interests of Hong Kong's society. The Cantonese slang I use very often is "a piece of cake", for example, this assignment is "a piece of cake". Thus, right now only Mr Kenneth LEUNG is present to listen to my speech. While everyone should respect the dignity of a nation, the opposition camp does the opposite by paralysing Hong Kong and the House Committee of the Legislative Council at all costs. They have even blatantly protected people who insulted the national anthem. They might as well go and find out how many Hong Kong people want to see the national anthem being insulted.
The opposition camp's stern refusal to fulfil this constitutional obligation has brought us to the present plight. They have no political wisdom at all, and their political IQ is close to zero. Simply looking at the present situation, they should be able to see what I mean. In my public response to them, I have pointed out that if they refused to properly pass the Bill by way of local legislation within July, the Bill would lapse. In response, they said the worst scenario was that the Bill would, just like the Private Columbaria Bill, have its discussion started anew in the next legislative term. And yet, do we have so much public time for them to waste?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 7429
According to Annex III to the Basic Law, if the Bill is not implemented by way of local legislation, it can be implemented by direct promulgation. Since the opposition camp has been unwilling to fully understand the Basic Law, they always choose to disclose selected information to their supporters and have never mentioned the alternative of direct promulgation. As a result, many people have never heard of this alternative before today. If the opposition camp is so reluctant to pass the Bill, how would they legislate for Article 23? The oral question raised by Mr Dennis KWOK today is another proof as he has urged the Government to guarantee not to introduce any legislative proposals on Article 23 of the Basic Law within this year. They should thank Dr Junius HO because he very much hoped that the opposition camp would repent and support the legislative exercise for Article 23. In fact, these are all precious legislative opportunities. If everything goes smoothly in Hong Kong, we may have neglected Annex III to the Basic Law, but it does exist within the Basic Law and has become part of the law.
At present, the international community is in a critical condition and Hong Kong is facing external and domestic challenges. Notwithstanding that, the opposition camp has been causing harm to the community on trivial matters day after day, thereby prompting the international community to look at us with ambition. By reiterating that the legislation of Article 23 of the Basic Law would jeopardize the interests of the United States, they have expressly raised their ulterior concern. In the midst of the present situation, they still refuse to repent. They should really listen to our advice. We have a good understanding of our own country and realize that the Central Authorities should get along well with the local government in order for Hong Kong to bring into full play the principle of "a high degree of autonomy". Macao has already enacted the national anthem law long ago and legislated for Article 23 in 2009, but there is no sign that it has become what they called "the Police's society". Instead, Macao has continued to bring into full play the principle of "one country, two systems".
Members should toe the line and let the Bill, which is "a piece of cake", to get through so that the talk can continue in the future. However, they refused and insisted to elevate the issue to the higher plane of principle, saying that the Bill has violated human rights and the freedom of speech. I am so tired of hearing all these as there is no new argument at all. Worse still, the arguments presented by them have completely ignored the Basic Law. Under the principle of "one country, two systems", there must be a healthy point of balance and we should not focus on any single provision highlighted by them. While Article 27 7430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 27 May 2020 of the Basic Law mentions about freedom of speech, it is also mentioned in Articles 23, 18 and Annex III. Hong Kong has the constitutional obligation to comply with them. Therefore, when NG Kung-siu's case was tried by CFA, it has struck a very reasonable balance and a judgment was handed down in accordance with the common law principle which they have highlighted from time to time.
Today, the opposition camp refuses to pass the Bill, vowing that they have to safeguard Hong Kong's rule of law and civilization. And yet, the fact is they are actually causing harm to Hong Kong and ruining the principle of "one country, two systems", thereby plunging Hong Kong into the dark abyss of destruction. I believe the Central Authorities has intervened for this reason as they can no longer allow the opposition camp to condone "Hong Kong independence" and "self-determination", or even destroy and arbitrarily insult the national flag and the national anthem. President, I advise pro-democracy Members to hold back as soon as possible, so that the community can return to its senses and the Legislative Council can resume as a legislature with dignity and civility.
President, I so submit.
SUSPENSION OF MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9:00 am tomorrow
Suspended accordingly at 7:03 pm.