LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1443

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 5 November 2014

The Council met at Eleven o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN

THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

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

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

THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.

THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.

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

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

DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP

THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1445

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN

THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

1446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

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

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

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

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

MEMBERS ABSENT:

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1447

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE MRS CARRIE LAM CHENG YUET-NGOR, G.B.S., J.P. THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

THE HONOURABLE RIMSKY YUEN KWOK-KEUNG, S.C., J.P. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

MR JAMES HENRY LAU JR., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KO WING-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

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

MRS JUSTINA LAM CHENG BO-LING, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

1448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

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)

TABLING OF PAPERS

The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:

Subsidiary Legislation/Instrument L.N. No.

Aerial Ropeways (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 2014 ...... 131/2014

Other Paper

No. 23 ─ Consumer Council Annual Report 2013-14

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. First question.

Withstanding Onslaught of Perfect Storm

1. MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, it has been reported that New York City had its first confirmed case of Ebola virus disease (EVD) infection on the 23rd of last month. Since the patient had patronized restaurants and a bowling alley and had travelled on subway lines during the incubation period of the virus, the authorities concerned had to embark on a large-scale exercise to track down people who might have been infected. With the risk of an EVD outbreak continuing to increase, the media have pointed out that a "perfect LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1449 storm" is brewing amid the impending EVD outbreak, emerging impacts of the Occupy Central movement, sky-high property prices which refuse to go down and gloomy global economic outlook, and so on, which may inflict a severe onslaught on Hong Kong's economy and people's livelihood. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that the arrival screenings at New York City have failed to stop the spread of EVD to the United States, whether the Hong Kong Government has assessed if the arrival screenings in Hong Kong are able to prevent the importation of EVD into the territory, and whether it will consider taking more stringent preventive measures; if such assessment has been made, of the details;

(2) under the situation that some EVD patients are found to have travelled on modes of public transportation such as MTR, buses and trams, and so on, in Hong Kong and/or roamed areas with a heavy flow of people, what contingency measures the authorities have in place to track down or even quarantine a large number of people who may have been infected without causing any public panic; and

(3) what contingency policies are available to withstand the severe onslaught of the aforesaid "perfect storm" on Hong Kong's economy and people's livelihood?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, EVD is caused by infection with Ebola virus. It is a severe acute viral illness, often characterized by the sudden onset of fever, intense weakness, muscle pain, headache and sore throat. This is followed by vomiting, diarrhoea, rash, impaired kidney and liver function, and in some cases, both internal and external bleeding.

EVD is introduced into the human population through close contact with the blood, secretions, organs or other body fluids of infected animals. It then spreads in the community through human-to-human transmission, with infection resulting from direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes) with the blood, secretions, organs or other body fluids of infected people, and contact with environments contaminated with such fluids.

1450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

We have been monitoring the latest current EVD outbreak in West Africa. The World Health Organization (WHO) announced on 31 October 2014 that there have been 13 567 cases, including 4 951 deaths, in Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Senegal, Mali, Spain and the United States. The latest case fatality rate is about 36.5%. Besides, the WHO also reported that there have been 66 EVD cases, including 49 deaths, in the Equateur Province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but these cases are not connected with the EVD outbreak in West Africa. As at 3 November this year, the EVD affected countries include Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone and the Equateur Province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The WHO convened two emergency meetings on EVD under the International Health Regulations in August and September 2014. The WHO declared on 8 August 2014 the EVD outbreak in West Africa a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, and a series of pertinent measures are recommended. Hong Kong has also established an effective and comprehensive disease prevention and response system.

To enhance the effectiveness of response to possible risks of EVD as well as to strengthen the handling capacity when a confirmed case of EVD is found in Hong Kong, the Government announced the "Preparedness and Response Plan for Ebola Virus Disease" (the EVD Plan) on 20 August this year which sets out in detail the Government's preparedness and response plan for the disease.

Against the above background, my reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:

(1) Regarding the measures to prevent the importation of EVD, we would like to reiterate that due to extensive international travel, the risk of importation of EVD cases into Hong Kong does exist. One of the key measures recommended by the WHO is for the EVD affected countries to implement stringent exit health check to ensure that the outbound travellers are free of EVD symptoms. On the other hand, at the local level, our main strategy is to enhance the surveillance at boundary control points (BCPs) and locally for early detection of suspected EVD cases for proper follow-up. Hence, the Administration has already implemented a series of preventive measures at various aspects as follows:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1451

(i) Regarding enhanced surveillance, in Hong Kong, since July 2008, viral haemorrhagic fever, including EVD, has been made a statutorily notifiable disease and the virus a scheduled infectious agent under the Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance (Cap. 599). In this connection, any suspected or confirmed cases and leakage of the virus in a laboratory are required to be notified to the Centre for Health Protection (CHP) of the Department of Health (DH).

(ii) The CHP has issued letters to doctors and private hospitals to provide them with information of outbreak development, affected countries, reporting criteria as well as recommendations on infection control; and remind them to notify the CHP any suspected cases promptly. Taking into account the latest recommendations of the WHO and epidemiological experience of overseas cases, the CHP has revised the reporting criteria of EVD cases on 20 October, lowering the body temperature of fever patients suspected of EVD from 38°C to 37.5°C, with a view to enhancing surveillance over patients with low grade fever probably at the early stage of infection of Ebola virus.

(iii) The CHP will initiate immediate investigation and follow-up measures once notification of a suspected case is received. Patients will be referred to the Hospital Authority (HA) Infectious Disease Centre (HAIDC) in Princess Margaret Hospital for isolation, diagnosis and treatment; and specimens will be collected for laboratory testing.

(iv) The DH has convened two meetings of the Scientific Committee for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases to assess the risk of and local response to EVD. The DH has also convened inter-departmental meetings to gear up other government departments with necessary preparatory work. The CHP also arranged briefings for private hospitals, relevant government departments, hotel and guesthouse operators, community organizations, public and private property management bodies and transport operators on latest situation of EVD as well as the infection control and response measures.

1452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

(v) The DH has also promulgated in press releases that travellers returning from the EVD affected countries presenting with compatible symptoms are reminded to call 999 and inform the staff about their condition to arrange consultation in Accident and Emergency Department. The dissemination of information on EVD is prompt and transparent. Whenever there is a suspected case, the CHP will release information to the public as soon as possible.

(vi) On port health control measures, temperature screening using thermal imaging scanners has been in place at all BCPs for all arriving travellers. Any febrile travellers will be further assessed. Surveillance of sick travellers has been enhanced and all suspected cases identified at the Hong Kong International Airport (the Airport) and other BCPs would be referred to the HAIDC for further assessment. To enhance dissemination of relevant information to travellers, the DH has been delivering updated EVD-related health message to travellers through health leaflets and broadcast at the Airport and other BCPs as well as the Travel Health Service website. The DH has requested airlines through Airline Operators Committee to conduct in-flight broadcast of health message at all incoming passenger flights to alert travellers about the disease. In addition, regular updates to the airlines, the tourism industry and relevant stakeholders at BCPs are provided through meetings, briefings and correspondences.

(vii) Since 2 August this year, Immigration officers at all BCPs have been assisting in identifying incoming passengers holding travel documents issued by the affected countries and providing them with information sheets about EVD and the measures to be adopted in case they develop relevant symptoms. Moreover, a health surveillance questionnaire was launched at the Airport on 20 October. Arriving passengers at the Airport will complete the health surveillance questionnaire if he/she has travelled to the affected countries in the past 21 days or is holding a travel document issued by these countries. They are requested to fill in their personal LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1453

information, travel history, health status and contact history with EVD patients. As of 3 November, the DH received 199 questionnaires from targeted travellers. So far, none of them required referral to the HAIDC for further management.

The Administration will continue to closely monitor the latest developments of overseas situation and communicate with the WHO as well as the Mainland and neighbouring health authorities to exchange information, and will update local response strategy and health surveillance if necessary.

(2) Once the notification of a suspected EVD case is received, the CHP will initiate immediate epidemiological investigation, including contact tracing and field investigation. The CHP will also implement disease control measures in collaboration with other government departments.

Patients with EVD are only infectious after they begin to present symptoms. Therefore, epidemiological investigations will identify the places visited by the patient after symptom onset for contact tracing. In general, a person who has been exposed to a EVD patient or to his bodily fluids/secretions after the patient has developed symptoms is regarded as a "contact". These persons will be further classified into "close contacts" or "other contacts" based on their nature of contact with the patients.

In Hong Kong, persons who are classified as "close contacts" of a EVD patient will be quarantined at a designated site for 21 days counting from the day of last contact with the patient. Persons who are classified as "other contacts" will be put under active medical surveillance for 21 days during which the CHP will contact them regularly to enquire their health status. If they develop relevant symptoms of EVD during this period, they will immediately be transferred to the HAIDC for treatment. After the initial 21 days, they will still be instructed to monitor their health condition closely in the following 21 days and to report immediately to the CHP if they develop symptoms.

1454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Epidemiological investigation will also identify places or substances that are contaminated by the patient after symptom onset. Disinfection of the patient's home will be conducted by the staff of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. For public areas and places contaminated by the patient, the CHP will instruct the management to perform proper disinfection. Guidelines for the public transport sector and properties management, including instructions on environmental cleansing and disinfection, have been published by the CHP and are available at CHP's website.

(3) Whilst there is a risk of importation of EVD cases into Hong Kong, I have confidence in the well-developed public health and medical infrastructure in Hong Kong, as well as the series of preventive and control measures adopted by the Government. With heightened vigilance on the part of the public and healthcare professionals, the risk of EVD spreading across the Hong Kong community can be effectively reduced. As regards the development of the Occupy Central movement, changes in property prices and global economic outlook, and so on, these are matters closely connected with the Hong Kong's economy and people's livelihood. The relevant bureaux and departments of the Government will closely monitor the relevant development, and make timely consideration according to the actual situations of the economy and livelihood of the society.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, presumably, many of us still remember vividly the episode years ago in which the Metropark Hotel was put under isolation. I wonder which of these would be more worrying to members of the public: an epidemic outbreak or the Occupy Central movement underway. Nevertheless, Hong Kong is now experiencing its most serious political crisis in history with the launching of the Occupy Central movement and I am afraid that it will only have frost added to snow if an outbreak of EVD does occur, thus exerting on Hong Kong so much pressure that it may not be able to withstand.

Given that a city as advanced as New York has also fallen prey to EVD and an increasing number of places are being affected, we should put our focus not only on visitors coming from Africa, but also on health surveillance measures which may be imposed on visitors from all over the world. In this connection, I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1455 would like to ask the Secretary if a precise assessment has been made on the possibility of the importation of Ebola virus? Such an importation is just a matter of time, not a question of "if", that is, of the time when Hong Kong finally falls victim to the disease.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, as I have pointed out just now, it is our assessment that as Hong Kong is an international city, if any incoming travellers from the affected countries or from other places have visited the affected countries in West Africa during the 21-day incubation period of the virus before they came to Hong Kong, the risk of importation of EVD cases does exist.

However, we are of the view that most important of all, a stringent surveillance system is in place in Hong Kong with all the existing measures targeting mainly at port health control so as to identify all suspected cases as far as possible and as early as possible and have the patients referred to the HAIDC for isolation and treatment. The laboratory testing used for diagnosing Ebola virus now is a rapid and effective test which can confirm or refute the diagnosis of EVD within three hours. Therefore, quick testing can be conducted effectively for all suspected cases and I would like to report that up till now, two formal notifications of suspected EVD cases have been received in Hong Kong and the laboratory test results for both cases are negative.

On the other hand, as far as local medical institutions are concerned, we are also confident that there will be adequate isolation measures as well as properly trained healthcare professionals to handle the situation should there be confirmed cases of EVD. Enhanced training has also been provided to medical staff recently to ensure that EVD patients will be isolated effectively and given proper treatment so that the risk of EVD spreading across the community of Hong Kong on a large scale can be reduced.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, as Hong Kong is a densely populated city, an occasional outbreak, or even merely one or two cases, of EVD in the community will lead to dire consequences which are both highly unacceptable and disastrous. Apart from the existing inter-departmental co-ordination mechanism and the voluntary declaration system implemented in 1456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

BCPs, I would like to ask the Secretary whether consideration will be given to making reference to the practice of other countries to arrange health checks for or keep track of the health status of arriving passengers who have travelled to the EVD affected countries?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I have mentioned earlier in the main reply that a system has already been launched. Under this system, incoming passengers from the affected countries in West Africa or holding travel documents issued by these countries and those from other places but have travelled to the affected countries in West Africa during the 21-day incubation period of the virus will be asked to complete a health surveillance questionnaire. As I have said just now, a total of 199 questionnaires have so far been received for monitoring the health condition of such visitors and tracking them down if necessary while they are in Hong Kong.

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has talked about in parts (1)(ii) and (1)(vii) of the main reply the notification mechanism as well as the health surveillance questionnaire launched for the purpose of port health control. Just now he has also mentioned that incoming passengers with a high risk of EVD are requested to complete the questionnaire. However, the measures in place at the present stage are of a voluntary nature. Incoming passengers may make a declaration or choose not to do so even though they are coming from places with a high risk of EVD exposure. I would like to ask the Secretary if he can rate on a scale from zero to 10 the possibility of having an outbreak of EVD in Hong Kong at present. At what possibility level, on the scale from zero to 10, will the Secretary change the voluntary declaration system of health surveillance questionnaire to a compulsory one?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, questions have been put by Members one after another on our risk assessment of the importation of EVD cases into Hong Kong. As a matter of fact, two meetings have already been convened by the Scientific Committee for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases under the CHP to assess the risk posed to Hong Kong by the EVD outbreak in West Africa and the corresponding local response measures, and the second meeting was held on 8 October. The Committee is of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1457 opinion that due to extensive international travel, the risk of importation of EVD cases into Hong Kong does exist. However, the Committee has confidence in the well-developed public health and hospital infrastructure in Hong Kong. With heightened vigilance on the part of the public and healthcare professionals, the risk of EVD spreading across the community can be effectively reduced.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): The supplementary question that I have put is very straightforward. I have asked the Secretary to rate on a scale from zero to 10 the possibility involved and according to the reply given by the Secretary just now, the possibility rate should be low. However, I would like to ask the Secretary about the possibility level, on the scale from zero to 10, at which the voluntary declaration system of health surveillance questionnaire will be changed to a compulsory one.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, when will the voluntary health surveillance questionnaire measures under the notification mechanism be changed to compulsory declaration?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, in order to give a direct answer to Prof LEE's supplementary question, I have to point out that we do not have a rating system of this kind; nor do I know how such a system can be devised. Anyway, we have never devised any risk assessment mechanism underpinned by a scale from zero to 10 since the risk involved cannot be quantified in such a simple manner.

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, we are very much worried about the spreading of EVD. I have learnt from news reports that in Guangzhou, which is not far away from Hong Kong, measures have already been implemented by the authorities concerned to provide mobile phones to visitors from West Africa who have the risk of EVD infection. If my memory serves me 1458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 right, 87 mobile phones have so far been distributed. These entrants from West Africa are also given an additional phone card and are required to keep the mobile phones on round the clock for 21 days counting from the date of entry so that 24-hour contact tracing can be performed by the Mainland regulatory authorities. Entrants provided with such mobile phones will immediately be blacklisted if the phones are switched off.

President, it can be seen that measures have already been in place in our neighbouring city, Guangzhou, to put visitors suspected of EVD infection from West Africa under close monitoring. I would like to ask the Secretary through the President: Will the Hong Kong authorities study and make reference to the stringent surveillance measures introduced by the health authorities in Guangzhou so as to safeguard the safety of Hong Kong people?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, there are two points that I would like to make. Firstly, the co-operation of the targets of surveillance is to a certain extent essential to any surveillance measures adopted. Secondly, reference will definitely be made but not to the measures adopted in just one single place. We have from time to time monitored and made reference to the various surveillance measures taken in all places outside Hong Kong but no conclusion has been reached yet.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): No. The Secretary has only replied that reference would be made but I have asked in my supplementary question whether a study would be conducted on the practice adopted in Guangzhou city. On this point, the Secretary has not offered an answer. Although the Secretary has said in his reply that extensive reference would be made to the experience of other places, I have highlighted in my question the distribution of mobile phones by the authorities concerned of Guangzhou city. Will the Government carry out a study on the practice, and is there a timetable for announcing the results of the study?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1459

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, my simple reply is: As far as the current situation is concerned, I consider the existing surveillance measures adopted in Hong Kong appropriate.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent more than 23 minutes on this question. Second question.

Nurturing Asset Management Talents

2. MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, some members of the finance industry have pointed out that Hong Kong is an international asset management centre with a number of large-scale international asset management companies operating in the territory. Yet, local financial institutions are generally small in scale and of little impact, with very few of them having a strong presence, thus making it difficult for the local practitioners to seize the opportunities for development. Such persons have also pointed out that in order to strengthen its status as an asset management centre, Hong Kong should, apart from capitalizing on its edges, actively nurture local talents in the field of fund management, so as to cope with the challenges posed by other regions. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows, in the past five years, the number and percentage of local practitioners and institutions in the finance industry holding an asset management licence; whether it has considered, as suggested by some members of the finance industry, establishing a core fund under the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) schemes with the Government as the central trustee, and entrusting the investment of the fund to local fund managers with the aim of nurturing local talents; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) given that the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has pointed out in an article that, among the major asset management activities conducted in Hong Kong, about 70% of them merely involve customer relationship management or sales intermediation while very few of them involve upstream high 1460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

value-added asset management activities (that is, formulation of investment decisions, asset allocation, research and analysis, product development, risk management, and so on), whether the authorities know the relevant details, including the year-on-year changes in the number of local practitioners engaged in high value-added activities in the past five years; whether the Government will introduce complementary policies and measures to attract and provide training for more local talents to engage themselves in high value-added asset management activities, and whether it will provide the local practitioners with financial support for professional training, so as to assist them in expanding their scope of services; and

(3) given that the total asset value of the fund management business in Hong Kong as at the end of last year was as high as HK$16,000 billion, while the total asset value of fund management business in the Mainland as at the end of April this year was only HK$6,400 billion, and that the implementation of cross-border investment facilitation measures, such as the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect (S-HK SC) scheme and the mutual recognition of funds, will bring about new opportunities, whether the Government will introduce new initiatives to facilitate the development of personal wealth management business in the finance industry and to assist practitioners of the finance industry to prepare themselves for engagement in related activities?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President,

(1) According to the information provided by the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), in the past five years, the number of Type 9 (asset management) licensed corporations which are headquartered in Hong Kong increased from about 420 in end 2009 to about 630 in September 2014, representing a growth of about 50%. The number of Type 9 licensed corporations headquartered in Hong Kong as a percentage of all Type 9 licensed corporations increased from about 58% to about 62% during the period. Please refer to Table 1 for details.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1461

Regarding information on local practitioners of the financial services industry, it is not the SFC's practice to categorize its licensed individuals by nationality, as all licensed individuals regardless of their nationality are subject to the same licensing requirements under the current regulatory regime. Generally speaking, the number of practitioners licensed for Type 9 increased from about 4 980 in end 2009 to about 7 670 in September 2014. The number of Type 9 licensed practitioners as a percentage of all licensed practitioners increased from about 15% to about 20% during the period. Please refer to Table 2 for details.

There has been a suggestion that the Government should serve as a central trustee of the proposed MPF core fund and that local fund managers should be tasked to make investment with a view to nurturing local talents. On this suggestion, we consider that, same as all other constituent funds under an MPF scheme, core funds should be managed by investment management companies registered with the SFC. We consider that the suggestion of having the Government to serve as the central trustee would not be conducive to achieving economies of scale, as it would require setting up a new operation system and repeat the administrative tasks undertaken by private trustees. In addition, we cannot underestimate the difficulty for the proposed core fund to achieve certain scale and efficiency, as well as a low level of fees within a short period of time. We should emphasize that the arrangement of privately-managed MPF schemes is a result of almost 30 years of deliberation. As such, core funds should be operated by the market and the local industry could certainly also participate.

Regarding parts (2) and (3) of the question, I will give a consolidated reply as follows:

The SFC conducts the Fund Management Activities Survey annually, and the survey findings are based on information provided by respondents from the industry. Survey results of the past five years show that the number of practitioners engaged in the fund management business increased from about 27 700 in 2009 to 31 800 in 2013, and among them, those engaging in job functions other than sales and marketing, including asset management, research/analysis 1462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

and dealing/trading increased from about 1 200, 720 and 600 respectively in 2009 to about 1 880, 1 230 and 940 respectively in 2013. Please refer to Table 3 for details.

Practitioners of the local asset management industry have traditionally been engaging in the distribution and marketing functions. We recognize the need to expand other areas of the asset management industry, so as to develop Hong Kong into a more comprehensive fund and asset management hub, which can in turn provide a suitable environment to nurture local talents to engage in functions other than sales and marketing. To this end, we are adopting a multi-pronged approach, including the extension of the profits tax exemption for offshore funds to private equity funds, with a view to attracting more private equity funds to expand their business in Hong Kong, and the introduction of a new open-ended fund company structure to attract more funds to domicile in Hong Kong, which will help build up Hong Kong's fund manufacturing capabilities to complement the existing fund distribution network and develop Hong Kong into a full fund service centre.

On talent training for the financial services industry, the SFC has made a provision of $20 million in its 2014-2015 Budget on training initiatives for intermediaries of the securities sector. Moreover, the Financial Secretary mentioned in his 2014-2015 Budget (the Budget) the need to enhance training for professionals and skilled personnel in various areas of the financial services industry. In this regard, we have already gauged views from the industry. Suggestions from the industry include raising the awareness of the young generation about the financial services industry, its job nature and career prospects, facilitating young people to gain exposure to the financial services sector and to enter into the profession, and encouraging existing practitioners to receive ongoing training to sharpen their professional skills. Along these directions, we are now considering new measures to enhance talent training.

In support of the financial services industry to develop the personal wealth management business, the HKMA has worked with the industry to facilitate the establishment of the Private Wealth Management Association (PWMA). One of the objectives is to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1463

promote the development of Hong Kong's private wealth management industry. To encourage the ongoing development of competence by private wealth management practitioners, the PWMA launched in June this year an Enhanced Competency Framework (ECF), setting out an enhanced level of core competence and ongoing professional development of private wealth management practitioners. New entrants and industry practitioners, including those who would like to engage in other related activities, may meet the ECF benchmark by self-study and/or taking accredited training programmes, and passing examinations. Qualified practitioners may be certified by the PWMA as Certified Private Wealth Professional.

The HKMA has also issued a circular to encourage authorized institutions engaged in private wealth management business to adopt the ECF. This would be a major factor for the HKMA to assess, in its supervisory process, authorized institutions' fulfillment of their responsibility to ensure staff competence.

Table 1: Number of Type 9 licensed corporations headquartered in Hong Kong

December December December December December September 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Type 9 licensed corporations 423 468 499 554 583 629 headquartered in Hong Kong Total number of Type 9 licensed 728 798 844 892 950 1 012 corporations Number of Type 9 licensed corporations headquartered in Hong Kong as a 58% 59% 59% 62% 61% 62% percentage of all Type 9 licensed corporations Total number of 1 608 1 731 1 804 1 897 1 956 2 021 licensed corporations 1464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

December December December December December September 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Type 9 licensed corporations headquartered in Hong Kong as a 26% 27% 28% 29% 30% 31% percentage of total number of licensed corporations

Table 2: Number of individuals licensed for asset management (Type 9)

December December December December December September 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Type 9 4 975 5 483 6 184 6 677 7 181 7 670 licensed individuals Total number of 34 345 36 291 37 492 37 222 37 029 37 726 licensed individuals Number of Type 9 licensed individuals as a percentage of total 15% 15% 17% 18% 19% 20% number of licensed individuals

Table 3: Staff in Fund Management Business: by job function

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Sales and marketing 21 634 22 368 23 441 23 903 22 632 Fund administration 1 955 1 961 2 091 2 354 2 603 Asset management 1 207 1 374 1 411 1 534 1 879 Research/analysis 716 945 1 096 1 110 1 233 Dealing and/or trading 595 731 770 836 935 Corporate planning and 387 517 561 587 606 business management Others 1 201 1 407 1 641 1 864 1 946 Total 27 695 29 303 31 011 32 188 31 834

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1465

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not given any answer in the main reply as to whether the SAR Government will introduce any new initiatives to help practitioners of the local financial services industry to grasp the opportunities brought about from the S-HK SC scheme and the mutual recognition of funds. In this regard, I wish to ask whether the Bureau can give a reply.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, the S-HK SC scheme and the mutual recognition of funds are measures aimed at establishing connection between the Hong Kong market and the Mainland market, especially the Mainland capital market. They are part of the new measures relating to the fund and financial services industries.

With regard to the training of talents, as I said a moment ago, we have communicated with the trade and conducted studies in respect of the proposal mentioned by the Financial Secretary in the Budget on enhancing the training of talents in the financial services industry. Our target is to submit a report to the Financial Secretary at the end of this year, in which we will put forth training-related proposals, in particular, on professional upgrading.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary says in parts (2) and (3) of the main reply that there are measures for "the extension of the profits tax exemption for offshore funds to private equity funds". I wish to be informed further on the scope of the tax exemption concerned. Will the exemption be confined to the financial management business in the financial services industry? Moreover, people have always been talking about the need to invest in innovation and scientific research, and some private equity funds also have investments in these respects. In that case, will such funds also receive similar tax exemption?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, we have already consulted the trade on the proposed arrangements for extending the profits tax exemption for offshore funds to private equity funds, and we are now drafting legislative proposals, with a view to introducing the relevant bill to the Legislative Council in the second half of the 2014-2015 session for its scrutiny.

1466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Our proposals mainly concern the provision of relevant legal and regulatory frameworks, and a clear and competitive tax environment with a view to attracting private equity funds of various types to base in Hong Kong to broaden the variety and scope of Hong Kong fund business. This measure will boost the demand for professional services such as fund management and investment advice as well as legal and accounting services. Therefore, we propose to extend the profits tax exemption for offshore funds to include transactions in private companies which are incorporated or registered outside Hong Kong and do not hold any Hong Kong properties nor carry out any business in Hong Kong. This will allow such private equity funds to enjoy the same tax exemption as offshore funds. The trade generally supports the relevant proposal.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, actually, he has not answered my supplementary question.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please repeat your supplementary question.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): Let me repeat it briefly. In fact, many private equity funds have investments in innovation and technology business. Will the tax exemption concerned be applicable to such funds?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, speaking of the business areas of private equity funds, we mainly sought to extend the tax exemption for that particular area at that time. As for the provision of tax exemption for their innovation and technology business, we will further explore the matter and provide supplementary information. (Appendix I)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1467

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary points out in part (1) of the main reply that setting up a central trustee to handle MPF investment is not appropriate. Here is my supplementary question. As the community has strong views on MPF investment, has the Government considered the idea of allowing MPF trustees to design fund options based on the HKMA's investment performance? What I mean is to allow MPF trustees to invest MPF in the HKMA's overall investment projects for the purpose of enhancing MPF investment returns through economies of scale in the HKMA's investment.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, a key statutory function of the HKMA is to maintain the stability of Hong Kong's monetary, banking and financial systems. The HKMA manages the Exchange Fund for the purposes stipulated in the Exchange Fund Ordinance (the Ordinance). The Exchange Fund is mainly used for the purposes of affecting the value of the Hong Kong dollar and upholding the stability and integrity of Hong Kong's monetary and financial systems, so as to maintain the status of Hong Kong as an international financial centre. For these reasons, I would say the proposal of allowing MPF trustees to entrust the HKMA with the management of MPF and design investment channels based on the HKMA's investment returns is not compatible with the functions of the HKMA.

What is more, speaking of the investment appetite of MPF owners, they may not want to take the risk of letting the HKMA make investment on their behalf. Mainly due to the differences between the objectives of MPF and the statutory functions of the HKMA, I would say the proposed arrangement is not suitable. In fact, as in the past, the HKMA still accepts deposits from various organizations such as the Hong Kong Housing Authority and the West Kowloon Cultural District and make investment on their behalf. But the situation is different, in the sense that such deposits come from a single organization in large sums, and there is no time constraint. In contrast, given the complicated nature of MPF in various aspects, such as making MPF contributions and withdrawals of accrued benefits, we do not think that it is appropriate to entrust the HKMA with the management of MPF.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I only want to enquire about whether the authorities have thoroughly considered the feasibility of this proposal. The reason is that other statutory organizations can likewise entrust 1468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 moneys to the HKMA for investment purpose, and MPF trustees are also regulated by laws. In that case, can the authorities give thorough consideration to this matter?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, actually, we have considered this matter many times before. As I said a moment ago, an organization may deposit a huge sum of money (perhaps several billion dollars or even more) into the HKMA for a relatively long period and let the HKMA make investment on its behalf. However, concerning the idea of allowing MPF trustees to deposit the funds held by MPF owners into the HKMA or into a core fund under the HKMA for investment purpose, we do not think it is realistic to deposit the funds into the HKMA and manage them under a single fund because there may be fund withdrawals due to time constraints on investment, and also because the investment appetites of MPF owners are different. For these reasons, having considered the matter many times before, we still think that it is not feasible.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, in June this year, the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPFA) launched a consultation exercise entitled "Providing better investment solutions for MPF members". In respect of the consultation, the MPFA says that it is now examining people's responses to the consultation. I wonder if the Secretary's reply today already sets the tune with one beat of the gong, as it has rejected the proposal of setting up a central trustee while stating expressly that core funds must be operated by the market. Does the Secretary mean to say in his reply that regardless of the consultation outcome, this approach will be taken in the future anyway? The reason is that somebody has asked whether core funds can be operated by the public sector. Mr WU Chi-wai has also suggested another possibility, the possibility of entrusting the Exchange Fund with part of the management responsibility. Does the Secretary's present reply represent the outcome of the consultation exercise launched in June?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1469

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, my earlier reply is about the Government's current position. As for the consultation exercise mentioned by the Member just now, we have received some 260 written submissions from individuals, companies and other deputations. We will thoroughly consider their views and review the policy concerned from time to time.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): I want to ask the Secretary whether the authorities will consider the idea if there are strong views in support of the setting up of a central trustee.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SIN, we are not conducting a debate now. You have raised your supplementary question. If you want to raise another supplementary question, you should queue up again and wait for your turn. But, Secretary, are you willing to answer this question from Mr SIN? If the consultation yields a different result, will the authorities consider the matter?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, we will. But I must add that we will certainly take account of the HKMA's functions under the Ordinance, and also the views put forth by society on MPF and core funds in previous consultation exercises. Nevertheless, as I said a moment ago, most importantly, we must ensure that there will be no violation of the Ordinance if we really entrust the HKMA with the handling and investment of such funds.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my supplementary question indeed. My supplementary question is that since the consultation document …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please state your supplementary question again briefly.

1470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): All right. One of the focuses of the discussion in the consultation paper is the setting up of a central trustee, which, however, has just been rejected by the Secretary. Here is my supplementary question: Since the consultation outcome has not been released, but the Secretary has already rejected the proposal, am I right to say that the Secretary has set the tune with one beat of the gong, in the sense that he has rejected the proposal of setting up a central trustee put forth in the consultation document …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SIN, just now, I heard the Secretary give a clear reply on the existing policy of the authorities. Moreover, the Secretary has also said that if the consultation yields a different result, the authorities will consider the matter.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): In the past, securities dealers were only required to register with the SFC before they could engage in various types of financial business, including asset management under the Type 9 licence. But in 2003, the SFC divided the registration into 10 categories, requiring practitioners to pay an annual fee for each type of business licences. At that time, for the purpose of reducing costs, some securities dealers refrained from paying the fee for the Type 9 licence as the licence was not popular.

Given the Government's strenuous efforts in developing asset management business (which is the business under the Type 9 licence) at present, can those practitioners licensed before 2003 obtain the licence through training only, so that they can participate in this aspect of development? In other words, is it possible that the relevant practitioners are only required to enrol on continued training programmes to obtain the licence?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, as I am not quite so familiar with this issue, may I ask you how your supplementary question is related to the main question?

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, as securities dealers' participation in asset management business will definitely produce LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1471 significant and positive effects on Hong Kong's financial development, I would say they are related.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, in respect of the Type 9 licence and the historical backgrounds in 2003, as I said just now, we have looked into this matter with the trade, including small and medium intermediaries and securities dealers. They have proposed that we offer opportunities for further studies and continued education programmes (that is, "CBD"), so that more existing trade practitioners and newcomers to the trade can take part in the business under the Type 9 licence.

As for those practitioners who obtained their licences before 2003 as mentioned by the Member, I believe if they reach the professional accreditation standards set by the SFC concerning the Type 9 licence, they will be granted the licence under the Securities and Futures Ordinance.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council has spent almost 23 minutes on this question. Third question.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)

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

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount.

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

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Prof Joseph LEE, please raise your main question.

1472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Use of Force by Police Officers

3. PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): In the early hours of the 15th of last month, a local news agent recorded a video footage of a subdued participant in an assembly being allegedly kicked and punched by police officers in Tamar Park, Admiralty. Regarding the use of force by police officers, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as the Police guidelines on the use of force stipulate that police officers 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, of the meaning of "minimum force", and whether it includes kicking and punching persons who have been subdued; if it does not, of the level of force to which such an action belongs; of the respective forms of force and weapons involved in the "minimum force" that may be appropriately used under different circumstances;

(2) as the Police said on the same day after the occurrence of the aforesaid incident that the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) had received a relevant complaint and would handle it in accordance with the established procedures, of the details of the "established procedures"; and

(3) of the number of complaints received by the Police in the past three years about police officers having allegedly assaulted other people while on duty and the details of such complaints, including whether the complaints were substantiated in the end and the penalties imposed on the police officers involved in the substantiated cases?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, regarding a case of police officers' suspected assault of a protester in Admiralty on 15 October, given that the Police have received formal complaints and reports about the case and that the case is under criminal investigation, the Administration considers that, as a matter of fairness, it is inappropriate to provide comment in public, lest the investigation be affected.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1473

The Administration's reply to Prof LEE's question is as follows:

(1) The Police have the responsibility to maintain public safety and public order, as well as to safeguard life and property in accordance with the law. On occasions where an act causing danger to others is occurring or is about to occur, the Police shall, based on the circumstances at scene, make assessments and exercise professional judgment to take appropriate actions, which include using the minimum force required for public safety and public order. Police officers maintain self-discipline with a high degree of restraint in the discharge of duties. The Police have very clear guidelines and rigorous training to instruct their officers not to use force unless it is necessary and there are no other alternatives to accomplish their lawful duties. The level of force to be used shall be minimal and reasonably required under the prevailing circumstances. Prior to the use of force, police officers shall, as far as circumstances permit, give warnings while the person(s) involved shall be given every opportunity, whenever practicable, to obey police orders before force is used. The use of force shall cease once the purpose has been achieved. Generally speaking, the force to which the Police may resort includes the use of empty-hand control, OC foam, batons and firearms. The meaning of "minimum force" depends on the prevailing circumstances at scene and no particular decision would fit all cases.

(2) Public complaints against police officers are handled under a statutory two-tier police complaints mechanism. According to section 11 of the Independent Police Complaints Council Ordinance (the Ordinance) (Cap. 604), a complaint received by the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) must be categorized as a reportable complaint if the complaint relates to the conduct of a member of the HKPF while on duty or in the execution or purported execution of his duties, whether or not he identified himself as such a member, and, at the same time, meets other conditions that make it a reportable complaint under the Ordinance in that, for instance, it is made by a complainant directly affected by the police conduct, irrespective of whether the allegation involves any criminal elements. Such a complaint shall be investigated by the CAPO with the investigation report submitted to the Independent Police Complaints Council 1474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

(IPCC) for examination in accordance with the statutory requirements under the Ordinance.

The CAPO under the HKPF is specifically responsible for handling and investigating public complaints against police officers, including general complaints as well as the criminal investigations involved. To ensure that complaints are handled in a fair and impartial manner, the CAPO is independent of other police units. In the course of the investigation of a complaint case, if criminal elements are detected, the CAPO shall instigate criminal investigation and may consider classifying the case as "sub-judice" in which case the involved criminal allegations shall be handled first, and, where necessary, advice from the Department of Justice shall be sought. Only upon completion of the criminal investigation and the related judicial proceedings shall CAPO re-institute the mechanism of the complaint investigation.

The person concerned in the suspected case of unnecessary use of force by police officers mentioned in the question, in reporting his case to the Police, had indicated that it was a complaint against police officers. As the allegations were related to the complainees' conduct in the discharge of duties, the case was referred to the CAPO for following up. A dedicated special investigation team has been set up under the CAPO to handle the case under the established mechanism and procedures. The CAPO has decided to commence criminal investigation towards the case and has classified the case as "sub-judice". The CAPO shall re-institute the mechanism of the complaint investigation only upon completion of the criminal investigation and the related judicial proceedings. A complaint investigation report shall also be submitted to the IPCC for examination in accordance with the statutory requirements under the Ordinance. The complaint is related to the "Occupy Central" (or referred to as the "Occupation Movement"). Given that the IPCC has decided to refer all reportable complaints arising from the "Occupy Central" to the Serious Complaints Committee (SCC) for monitoring, the CAPO shall, in accordance with SCC's requirement, report the investigation progress of such reportable complaints on a monthly basis.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1475

(3) According to the CAPO, a total of 829 complaint cases involving allegations of assault by police officers were handled between 2011 and 2013. Of the allegations involved, over 84% were endorsed by the IPCC as "not pursuable" or "withdrawn", while the remaining 16% were mostly classified as "no fault", "false" or "unsubstantiated" upon thorough investigation, without any case being classified as "substantiated".

Upon analysis of the statistical data, the CAPO pointed out that a substantial number of complainants alleging that they had been assaulted by police officers were themselves involved in some criminal cases while lodging such complaints to the Police. The complainants or their legal representatives generally used the substance of their complaints as defence in the criminal trial. Once the criminal cases were closed, the complainants would often take the initiative to withdraw their complaints or refuse to contact or respond to the CAPO. As a result, a considerable number of complaints involving assault were eventually classified as "not pursuable" or "withdrawn" every year.

Between 2011 and 2013, a total of three allegations involving assault were endorsed and classified as "not fully substantiated" by the IPCC, that is, there was some reliable evidence to support the complainants' allegation but such evidence was insufficient to fully substantiate the complaint. Upon examination, the Police considered that the cases were stand-alone incidents involving individual officers' integrity, and was unrelated to Police's procedures and guidelines. To follow up, the Police took disciplinary actions against the three officers involved, including warnings and disciplinary proceedings.

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, my main question is very direct. I have not asked the Secretary to comment on individual cases in any of the three parts of the question. Although some lawyers have expressed that they will represent these "seven heroes and five gallants" to save them, I do not intend to comment on the case concerned.

1476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Since some people in police uniform kicked and punched an arrested person, I am most interested in asking the Secretary what minimum force this violence is? Has it been stipulated in the police guidelines on the use of force? The Secretary has not answered this part.

However, this is not my supplementary question. The Secretary mentioned in part (3) of the main reply that over the past three years, there have been 829 complaints involving allegations of assaults by police officers and they have been referred to the CAPO or the IPCC. I would like to ask the Secretary: Among these complaints, is there any information to indicate that those involved had been kicked and punched upon arrest?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, we do not have information in this regard.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Since 10 Members are queuing up to raise supplementary questions, I would like to remind Members and the Secretary to be concise as far as possible in their questions and replies.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): The Secretary's reply is irrelevant. We are now talking about seven police officers assaulting an arrested person. They are flagrant delict, am I right?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please stop making your comments.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Why were they not arrested? We can access the information of the CAPO online. Is it necessary for the Secretary to mention it? What Secretary for Security is he? What we saw then were kicks and punches.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please raise your supplementary question straight away.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1477

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Although it was not under broad daylight, they said they played it straight but the arrested person was in fact taken to a corner and beaten up. We all saw that, it was under our watchful eyes …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please stop making your comments immediately.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): … what was he saying? President …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please come to your supplementary question.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is very simple: Will he admit that he is shameless? It is enough for me to ask this, to save him from beating about the bush. President, please ask him if furnishing such a reply to this incident is shameless.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, your supplementary question is not raised with reference to the main question.

MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): The legal sector has this saying: "Justice delayed is justice denied", meaning that it is unrighteous to delay law enforcement. President, at present, society harbours numerous queries about the Police Force, and among them is whether the Police have been impartial in enforcing the law. I thought the Secretary would make use of this opportunity to prosecute as soon as possible these police officers who have battered a protester, but three weeks have passed and despite having witnesses and material evidence, we have seen no action yet. My supplementary question is very simple: Can the Secretary tell this Council how soon he expects prosecutions to be made? Moreover, are there any prevailing circumstances hindering him from making that decision?

1478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, when it comes to law, we have to respect due process. Whenever we investigate a case, we of course have to spare no efforts, be timely and swift, but we also have to follow the procedures fully and do everything that is necessary, for example, take statements and collect relevant evidence. In case the relevant evidence cannot be obtained from the scene and is held by a third party, we have to make a request to see if he is willing to hand the evidence over. Therefore, we must first go through the above procedures before the officers responsible for investigating the case can arrive at an idea based on the information at hand. In general, especially when a case involves civil servants, they will pass the information gathered from their investigation to the Department of Justice (DoJ) for direction, and this process takes time.

I have earlier mentioned clearly in the main reply that we are acting in accordance with the established procedures and have also set up a special investigation team. We have not been slack. I wish Members would understand that whether it is this case or any case, we have to follow the established procedures fully and handle it in a fair and impartial manner.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TONG, has your supplementary question not been answered?

MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): He has not replied when prosecutions will be made. Do we need to wait till 1 July next year?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, can you answer this?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Once the Police have completed their investigation, the case will be referred to the DoJ for direction.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, as far as the handling of this case is concerned, the attitude of the Police and the Security Bureau has been slack. Although it has been quite a while since the incident happened, neither LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1479 prosecution nor arrest has been made, and this makes us very angry. President, the Secretary mentioned in the main reply that the Police will use minimum force to accomplish lawful duties. I would like to ask the Secretary: When the Police have to clear the protest area, and the protesters have shown no intention of putting up resistance with any force and just remain at the scene, will it be regarded as minimum force if the Police lift up the protesters' goggles to use pepper spray, tear bombs or even batons against them?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): I do not agree with Dr Fernando CHEUNG's view that the special investigation team set up by the CAPO is handling this case in a slack manner. Although I will not disclose the details of the investigation here, the Police have been explaining to the public the progress of the case through the media by way of the press conference held daily at 4 pm.

As regards Dr CHEUNG's supplementary question, my reply is very simple. If the Police have to use minimum force, they of course have to consider the prevailing circumstances. Members are aware that the Police have been doing their utmost to assist the peaceful protesters to protest legally and peacefully. However, on 28 September, the day which Dr CHEUNG referred to, the situation had persisted for a long time and we could see from the shots that some protesters were charging at the police cordon line in an organized way. Thus, overall speaking, not all those at the scene were protesting peacefully as some of them had actually used violence. The Police were in fact in a passive position. As the cordon line had been charged at, they had to take corresponding action.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): And therefore the Police had to fire 87 tear gas canisters at the protesters, so to speak? Was that minimum force?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, you are debating with the Secretary. If you are not satisfied with the Secretary's reply given just now, please raise your question in other occasions.

1480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, we have the saying "There is no way to name it." In my opinion, accusing this Government of being shameless has failed to serve any purpose. So I will not do so.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please refrain from making comments.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): All right. Secretary, please look at me, I have asked this over and over again. Many Members are now accusing you of mishandling the case. Let me repeat: Those seven police officers have been suspended from duties, that is, the Police have confirmed their identities, otherwise, it is not possible to suspend them. Will the prima facie evidence of kicks and punches alone be sufficient for arresting them immediately, rather than bringing about prosecution? If the shots captured by the television station had shown seven protesters or civilians, with their identities confirmed, they would have been charged on that day with kicking and punching a police officer who had been tied up. In that case, should the seven protesters or members of the public be arrested? As you said, you have already arrested 160 persons.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, if you have raised your supplementary question, please sit down.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am afraid he has not caught my words clearly because he is really too cunning. I am not talking about prosecution, so, there is no need to seek the views of the DoJ. Judging purely from the angle of police authority, should they be arrested?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, eight Members are still queuing up to raise supplementary questions. If you have asked yours, please sit down and let the Secretary reply.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): He is really too cunning, confusing prosecution with arrest.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1481

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please sit down and let the Secretary reply.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, although Mr LEUNG may not be satisfied with my reply, I have to solemnly point out that my reply is not cunning. We are handling this case in accordance with the procedures which have been laid down over time. When handling such complaints, we must follow the procedures fully. Regardless of what case it may be, it will be totally unfair to the party involved and the complainant if the procedures are not followed. If upon the completion of criminal investigation and the legal opinion sought believes it is warranted, we will definitely take action. We will not hesitate and will handle the case seriously. On 15 October, I have at the first instance expressed my stance clearly in this Chamber to Members.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not replied.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): He has not replied if those seven persons were not police officers but ordinary citizens or protesters, regardless of whether they belong to the blue or yellow ribbon camp …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please be concise as far as possible.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): … if they had committed an offence, why were they not arrested? Last Saturday, when the Police discovered two groups of people quarrelling, they immediately made arrest.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please stop and let the Secretary reply.

1482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Why were the police officers not arrested?

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

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): If anyone can be arrested …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, stop and sit down right away. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): When we handle complaints pertaining to alleged irregularities by police officers while on duty, we will fully follow the procedures for lodging complaints against the Police. This incident is no exception. I remember mentioning this in my main reply earlier. Some Members enquired if similar situations have happened before and I also replied in the positive. We handled those cases in exactly the same way, without any difference.

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please sit down. We have spent nearly 23 minutes and 30 seconds on this question. Fourth question.

Access to Computer with Criminal or Dishonest Intent

4. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, when the authorities amended the Crimes Ordinance in 1993, section 161 was added to provide for the offence of "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent" (section 161). The then Secretary for Security explained that the new section 161 was aimed at "penalizing access to a computer for acts preparatory but falling short of the commission of a fraud. Examples would include someone obtaining access to computerized bank records to obtain details of credit balances for later fraudulent use". Last month, the Police noted that some persons had posted messages on the Internet to incite members of the public to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1483 take part in the unlawful assemblies in Mong Kok and Admiralty. After investigation, the Police arrested a man for allegedly committing the offence under section 161 and that of "unlawful assembly". Regarding the scope of application of section 161, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the details of the cases in which prosecutions were instituted by the authorities under section 161 in the past three years, including case numbers, other charges in the same case (if applicable), sentencing outcome, appeal outcome (if applicable), and case type (for example, criminal intimidation, blackmail, indecent assault, theft, deception, criminal damage, public safety, soliciting for an immoral purpose, sale or use of non-compliant electronic products and network attacks), and set out such information in a table; among such cases, the number of those involving fraud or acts preparatory of the commission of a fraud and their case numbers; and

(2) as most of the laws for prevention of crimes in the physical world apply equally to the cyber world, whether the authorities have planned to review and amend section 161 to bring its scope of application more in line with its legislative intent, that is focusing on tackling crimes such as computer frauds and network attacks, instead of imposing criminal liabilities on people posting on the Internet messages which are not in violation of other legislative provisions?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, according to section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) (that is, access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent), any person who obtains access to a computer with any of the following intention or purpose:

(i) with intent to commit an offence;

(ii) with a dishonest intent to deceive;

(iii) with a view to dishonest gain for himself or another; or

(iv) with a dishonest intent to cause loss to another,

1484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 whether on the same occasion as he obtains such access or on any future occasion, commits an offence.

The above section aims at combating acts of "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent", such as technology crimes like online fraud and illegal access to a computer system, urging or inciting others to engage in illegal activities, as well as other crimes committed through the use of computer. Any persons who commit such an offence are subject to a maximum penalty of five-year imprisonment on conviction upon indictment.

Between 2011 and 2013, there were a total of 128 prosecution cases pertaining to section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). During the same period, there were 114 convicted cases. Detailed figures of prosecution cases, convicted cases and non-convicted cases between 2011 and 2013 are at Annex. The authorities, however, did not have any information on whether the charges in prosecution cases were laid as alternative charges, whether the cases involved "access to a computer for acts preparatory of the commission of a fraud", or other categories of crimes involved in such cases.

In early October this year, a hacker group threatened to launch cyber attacks on the network systems of Hong Kong government departments, and even incited others to join in the attacks by using hackers' websites or software. Meanwhile, the Police found that some people, via social networking platforms on the Internet, were inciting members of the public to take part in the attacks, as well as making available certain tools for such attacks. Despite that the Police had required the Internet Service Providers concerned to delete those messages inciting others to commit crime, some members of the public, taking no heed of their criminal liabilities, responded to the appeals on the social networking platforms by participating in the illegal cyber attacks. The Police have, since early October, received a number of reports of "Denial of Service Attacks" on the network systems of Hong Kong government departments and private organizations. Some of their websites experienced an unusually high hit rate, leading to network congestion and intermittent service disruption. Upon in-depth investigation, the Technology Crime Division under the Commercial Crime Bureau of the Police launched a number of actions, in which 11 persons were arrested for suspected "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent" under section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance, with two arrested persons being charged by the Police, while the remaining nine were released on police bail pending further investigation. These persons were arrested for having been incited to join the cyber attacks by using the hackers' websites or software.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1485

The case mentioned in the Mr MOK's question was about a man urging members of the public to participate in the unlawful assemblies at Mong Kok and Admiralty. On an Internet discussion forum, the person in question incited others to join the unlawful assembly at Mong Kok and to storm the Police, suggesting protesters to paralyse the railway system by gathering on railway platforms in an attempt to create chaos, in case Mong Kok could not be successfully taken back. Upon investigation, the Police arrested the man on 18 October for having involved in the acts of "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent" and "unlawful assembly".

As another issue, during Occupy Central or Occupation Movement, a person uploaded the personal data of a police officer, and even those of his family members and children, onto the Internet. Apart from incessant personal attacks via social media, the person posted messages on an online discussion forum, claiming that somebody had been directed to assault the police officer's family members. The police officer and his family members were consequently subject to unnecessary nuisances and personal safety concerns. Upon in-depth investigation, the Police arrested the man on 22 October for suspected "criminal intimidation".

I have to stress that it is an act of extreme irresponsibility by inciting others to participate in illegal activities and making threatening remarks on the Internet. The Police and I severely condemn such acts. As legal proceedings for the cases that I just mentioned have commenced or are going to commence, I am not in a position to make further comments. However, as seen from the above cases, any persons committing unlawful acts in the real world or cyber world, like launching cyber attacks on network systems, inciting others through online platforms to conduct illegal activities, and making remarks that put others' personal safety at risk, shall be criminally liable and be brought to justice.

The Police shall, in consideration of the nature of individual crimes, take enforcement actions in accordance with relevant laws. The Police have internal guidelines in which police officers are instructed to seek advice from the Department of Justice (DoJ) before pressing charges against any persons arrested for having involved in public order events. Police officers will also seek the DoJ's advice as to which legal provisions shall be invoked when pressing charges. In handling other types of cases, including Internet-related cases, the Police shall determine the charge(s) to be laid with regard to the evidence of individual cases, 1486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 and, where necessary, the DoJ's advice shall also be sought before prosecution. Whether a person is to be convicted is a matter of which the Court shall pass a fair and impartial judgment upon considering all evidence available.

The Police always remind the public that the Internet is not an unreal world that is beyond the law. As far as the existing legislation in Hong Kong is concerned, most of the crime prevention laws in the real world are applicable to the Internet world. As reminded by the Police, the public should not risk breaking the law. They are also advised to use the Internet properly and lawfully, while refraining from sending any irresponsible messages and inciting others to engage in illegal activities. The Police shall definitely collect evidence on any illegal online activities for follow-up investigations and take arrest actions where necessary.

The authorities consider that the law in place is effective in meeting the demand for combating technology crime and safeguarding cyber security and there is no plan for legislative amendments at this stage.

Annex

Figures of prosecution cases, convicted cases and non-convicted cases pertaining to "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent", section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) (2011-2013)

Number of Number of Number of prosecution cases convicted cases non-convicted cases 2011 34 32 2 2012 39 32 7 2013 55 50 5

Note:

The respective year of the above figures represents the year in which the trial was concluded. The year in which a case was prosecuted may be different from the year in which the trial was concluded.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1487

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has been quite busy lately because he has to come to the Legislative Council very often. Actually, it is better for him to ask Senior Superintendent KONG Man-keung and Chief Superintendent Steve HUI to attend our meetings instead, because he has just been repeating their remarks or scripts. The main point of my question concerns whether section 161 about "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent" has been abused. Are the prosecutions concerned deviations from the original legislative intent? Here, let me quote the opinions of Andrew RAFFELL, a barrister who is a Professional Consultant in the Faculty of Law of The Chinese University of Hong Kong. According to him, the original intent of this section when it was passed in 1993 is not the monitoring of opinions on the Internet. The Police and the monitoring authorities have now gone so far as to expand their own function to distort the original legislative intent of this section. Many people therefore comment that section 161 has already been turned into the Internet version of Article 23. The Secretary has kept describing the details of all those cases, saying that those people were outrageous. My question is not about this aspect, but about whether this particular section should be invoked to press the charges concerned.

The most important point of my question is: Did the Police press the charges concerned based on the original legislative intent of this section, that is, "access to a computer for acts preparatory of the commission of a fraud"? But he has told me that they do not have any information about this. I have been asking him for the case numbers of these prosecutions for two years ― I have decided to do the research myself since he is reluctant to do so. But he has never replied to my request. Therefore, President, I wish to put forth this supplementary question via you: When can I get, or when will he be willing to provide me with, the case numbers of the relevant prosecutions in the past three years? There were just about 100 such cases. Can he provide the case numbers? When can he do so? If he cannot do so, what are the reasons? If he cannot do so, can we say that he is trying to cover up something?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, we are not trying to cover up anything. My colleagues have already compiled a set of prosecution figures. But if Mr Charles Peter MOK asks for such detailed statistics, I am afraid I am unable to give him any reply here. We will see what we can do after the meeting, but there is no guarantee that we can find anything.

1488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I have actually sent him a written request for the relevant information. Therefore, President, if one of them alone cannot provide the supplementary information I request, then it will be much better for the two of them to do it together.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The government official can hear your request already.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, this is very similar to the case where the Government invoked the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance to treat the display of a Goddess of Democracy statue by the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China as an exhibition that was held without any licence. This was similarly a contravention of the original intent of the Ordinance. Actually, there is a subsection (2) under section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance. This subsection provides that gain and loss shall mean gain and loss in money or other property, and it is not about any inciting as mentioned by the Secretary just now. If he wants to lay any charges of inciting against others, he should actually invoke section 17(1) of the Public Order Ordinance. First, he has abused section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance. Second, has he decided to invoke section 161 when pressing charges because it can lead to conviction more easily? Has he resorted to the shortcut of abusing section 161 because of the difficulty in providing evidence and achieving successful prosecution under section 17(1) of the Public Order Ordinance?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, before pressing any charges, the Police will certainly examine all the evidence collected and then consider what charges should be most appropriate. When necessary, the Police must also seek advice from the DoJ. In many cases, the circumstances in which the crime was committed were such that different criminal ordinances can be invoked for the purpose of prosecution. The charge eventually brought against the accused will have to depend on the evidence available, the specific circumstances of the case and if need be, the advice of the DoJ on which possible charge will be more appropriate. Therefore, in regard to the unlawful access to a computer, will the Police invoke section 161 for the purpose of prosecution in each and every case? Not necessarily. In some cases, it may be necessary to do so. But in other cases, there may not be any need.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1489

Let me quote a number of actual cases to prove that the Police have truly been handling their prosecution work in the way I have just described. In January 2013, a man left a message in a social networking medium, saying that a bomb had been planted in the Hong Kong International Airport, and calling upon passengers not to fly on a specified flight. After arrest, the man admitted the misdeed of making a bomb threat hoax report. Following trial, the man was convicted of a charge of bomb hoaxes under section 28(2) of the Public Order Ordinance and penalized under section 28(4) of the same ordinance. In August 2005, a man twice called for the formation of a "flash rape gang" on the Internet. The arrested man admitted leaving such messages and was accused of "outraging public decency". In August 2006, a man threatened to destroy the American Consulate General and a theme park by suicide bombing. The Police subsequently invoked section 91(2) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance and brought a charge of wasteful employment of the Police against him.

Therefore, the invoking or otherwise of section 161 for the purpose of prosecution in any particular case must eventually depend on the evidence collected by the Police and the chances of conviction. We are very careful in the process. I have already provided to Members some statistics which show that between 2011 and 2013, there were a total of 128 prosecution cases pertaining to section 161, and the number of convicted cases stood at 114. We can see that the invoking of this section was based on the principle I have described. There was no deviation from this principle, as can be seen in the number of convictions.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms HO, has your supplementary question not been answered?

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my question. He has been giving us circumlocutions without replying to my question. The supplementary question I have asked is: Has he been driven by the desire for conviction to abuse the legislation concerned for prosecution, brushing aside the question of whether these Occupy Central-related cases really involved any loss in money or other property? He replied to the first part of the question when he talked about higher chances of conviction. But regarding the latter part, does he admit that he has abused the legislation concerned?

1490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms HO, the figures provided by the Secretary just now can show a very high conviction rate for prosecutions instituted under section 161. He has therefore given a reply. Secretary, in reply to Ms HO's question on whether section 161 has been abused, can you give a reply in the form of "yes" or "no"?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, we have never abused section 161.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, many people think that they can do whatever they like on the Internet. On the Internet they will do without check the things they dare not say and do in the real world. The present generation of young people was brought up on the Internet. Peer pressure often leads to cyber-bullying, and we can see from many such cases that teenagers may even contract depression and melancholia and sustain heavy mental harm. Some of them may even commit suicide. In such cases of malicious personal attacks, even the pressing of libel charges against the persons concerned cannot solve the problem, because monetary compensation can never make up for the harm already inflicted on the victims. Can we do something with our legislation so that we can better handle such problems? I am of the view that such acts of bullying do constitute a kind of pressure on youngsters and this should be squarely addressed by the law. I hope the Secretary can answer this supplementary question.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): What Dr Priscilla LEUNG has said seems a bit different in perspective from the questions asked by the several Members just now. As Members all know, the Internet has by now become an indispensable part of modern-day living. We must therefore enforce the law strictly to deal with all unlawful acts on the Internet.

Speaking of Dr Priscilla LEUNG's supplementary question, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (OPCPD) has recently said publicly that the situation is getting increasingly serious because in the previous three years, the number of such complaints it received showed a drastic increase. The OPCPD therefore advised victims to lodge complaints with it or the relevant social networking media. On the part of the Police, in case the acts concerned LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1491 are so serious as to involve suspected criminal intimidation, they will carry out investigation. But as a pre-condition, the victims themselves must stand forward to report their cases. Once we receive a report, we will definitely take steps to handle it. I believe that the present mechanism is able to handle the general cases of criminal intimidation received by us. The present mechanism is capable of doing so.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)

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

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount.

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

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Elizabeth QUAT, please state your supplementary question.

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): The OPCPD pointed out on 30 October that since the beginning of Occupy Central, it had received as many as 70 enquiries and complaints about cyber-bullying. This already exceeds the total of 48 cases last year. In some of these cases, the backgrounds and personal particulars of police officers and their families were "dug out and exposed" by pro-Occupy Central netizens. They were also insulted and intimidated. Some supporters of Occupy Central even threatened on the Internet to harm the children of police officers by chopping off their limbs. But well, some people, on the other hand, claim that all this may just be said for fun, may just be a joke.

1492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Do you think that such cyber-bullying or oppression may constitute the offence of "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent"? What constitutes the offence of criminal intimidation? Can a person avoid prosecution by saying that his words are merely a joke which is not to be taken seriously?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Thanks to Dr Elizabeth QUAT for asking this supplementary question. In respect of each and every reported case, we need to conduct investigation before we can ascertain whether there is any evidence to show that the persons concerned may have committed certain criminal offences, including cyber-bullying.

Here, I wish to point out that there is no definition of cyber-bullying under existing legislation. But if any acts or messages on the Internet involve any criminal elements … What are criminal elements? Some examples are criminal intimidation, blackmailing or access to a computer with dishonest intent. In such cases, we will take follow-up actions. The kinds of follow-up actions to be taken and whether they can yield any results later will have to depend on the collection of evidence, including the amount of information provided by the informant, whether the Police can locate the sender of the relevant messages after investigation and the wording of the messages concerned. All these factors must be studied as a whole.

But I can assure Dr QUAT that we are all gravely concerned about all unlawful acts on the Internet. The Police will therefore do their utmost to investigate each and every reported case.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council has spent more than 22 minutes 30 seconds on this question.

(Dr Elizabeth QUAT stood up)

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Secretary, can a person avoid prosecution by saying that his words are merely a joke which is not to be taken seriously?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1493

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, please reply.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): I think if the person is really just telling a joke … I do not know how different people will define telling a joke. If all is just a mere joke, there may not be any mens rea.

As Members know, any criminal prosecution shall in general require the presence of mens rea, in addition to actus reus. In the absence of any mens rea, actus reus alone cannot constitute a crime.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth question.

Public Order Events Section in Prosecution Code of DoJ

5. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): The Department of Justice (DoJ) added a Public Order Events section to its newly revised Prosecution Code (the new Code) released in September last year to provide guidelines and pointers to prosecutors. The section states that as there are provisions in the Basic Law guaranteeing Hong Kong residents freedoms in respect of speech, association, assembly, procession and demonstration, and so on, "[o]ffences alleged to have been committed in conjunction with the exercise of these constitutionally guaranteed freedoms may give rise to special considerations" (special considerations). I have learnt that regarding this type of cases, the Police need to await the DoJ's consent before they may institute prosecutions even if they have got sufficient evidence. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the DoJ has issued to the prosecutors specific working guidelines on how they should make the special considerations, and what measures it has put in place to ensure that making the special considerations will not complicate and lengthen the prosecution procedures;

(2) of the total number of cases involving public order events handled by the DoJ since the issuance of the new Code and, among such cases, the respective numbers of those for which prosecutions have been and have yet to be instituted; the average time taken by the 1494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

authorities for making prosecution decisions for such cases, and how it compares with the time taken for other cases in which the Police may institute prosecutions directly; and

(3) given comments that despite a number of people having been arrested at the assembly venues of the recent occupation movement for alleged breaches of the law, the authorities have not, after a long time, instituted prosecutions against such people because the Police have to gather substantial evidence for such cases to enable prosecutors to make the special considerations, resulting in the public misunderstanding that persons breaching the law at the assembly venues will neither be prosecuted nor incur criminal liabilities, of the DoJ's remedial measures to clear such public misunderstanding?

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): President, Article 63 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) provides that the DoJ shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference. The DoJ has always been controlling criminal prosecutions on behalf of the HKSAR on that basis so as to ensure that justice is done. A decision on whether to prosecute any individual or organization is just as important for the suspect and the victim as it is for the community as a whole. Hence, with public interest in mind, prosecutors must act without fear or favour, and in accordance with the relevant law and evidence. The DoJ will treat all implicated parties equally and in accordance with the law, irrespective of their background, identity and social status.

Prosecution should only be brought when there is cogent and credible evidence in support. According to paragraph 5.3 of the current Prosecution Code, when considering whether to prosecute, prosecutors must first consider whether there is sufficient evidence. If so satisfied, prosecutors should next consider and balance all issues of public interest. A prosecution shall not be commenced or continued unless there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. A prosecution which is not supported by evidence will not only be unfair to the defendant(s), but will also lead to a waste of court resources. Prosecutors have always acted in strict compliance with the Prosecution Code in handling prosecutions and incidental works to ensure that an effective and fair criminal justice system is maintained.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1495

All prosecution decisions are made in accordance with the law, the Prosecution Code and the evidence, totally free from any political, media or public pressure. In considering whether or not to prosecute an alleged breach of criminal law during a public order event, the DoJ will adopt the same principles as those adopted when handling other criminal cases, that is, to consider whether there is sufficient evidence in support of the charge, and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.

The DoJ's reply to the three-part question raised by Dr Elizabeth QUAT is as follows:

(1) Taking into account the circumstances in which prosecutors operate and operational need, the DoJ published the latest Prosecution Code in September last year. The Prosecution Code covers specific offences in the form of dedicated sections. In the section on Public Order Events, it makes references to the Basic Law, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and landmark court decisions, including the judgment delivered by the Court of Final Appeal in YEUNG May-wan v HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 137, so as to remind prosecutors of the well-established legal principles applicable to the handling of cases related to public order events.

The Prosecution Code also reminds prosecutors that offences alleged to have been committed in conjunction with the exercise of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms may give rise to special considerations. The purpose is to ensure that in handling such cases, prosecutors will strike an appropriate balance between the interest of society and maintaining public order on the one hand, and the right of individuals to lawfully and peacefully exercise their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms on the other.

In fact, prosecutors have all along made references to the relevant statutory provisions, judgments and principles involved when handling cases involving public order events. It should be pointed out that the Prosecution Code does not prescribe any special procedures to be followed before the prosecution of cases involving public order events can be commenced. The new Code does not complicate or lengthen the prosecution procedures. Nor is there any need for more specific working guidelines for prosecutors in the handling of these cases.

1496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

(2) The Prosecution Code took effect on 7 September 2013. The DoJ has not, whether before or after this date, kept figures about the number of legal advices rendered in relation to public order events or the number of cases involved, or any breakdown as to the number which have recommended prosecution and the number which have yet to. We also have not maintained statistics on the average time taken for making prosecution decisions for such cases.

Based on the figures on prosecutions involving public order events maintained by the Police, for the period between September 2013 and June 2014, the number of public order events is 5 529. As at 8 September 2014, the number of public order events involving prosecutions is 12, and the number of protestors prosecuted is 16.

(3) As I have pointed out in part (1) of the reply, the section on Public Order Events added to the new Code only serves to remind prosecutors of the basic legal principles applicable to the handling of cases concerning public order events. Hence, there is no question of imposing new requirements on the gathering of evidence by law-enforcement agencies, nor resulting in any more time spent by the Police in gathering evidence or delaying the decision to institute prosecution. The DoJ will at all times seek to provide legal advice to law-enforcement agencies including the Police as expeditiously as possible, and the actual time that it takes to provide legal advice on each case depends on various factors, including mainly the nature and complexity of the case. Among cases submitted to the DoJ for legal advice, the number of suspects and the complexity of the cases may also vary. The responsible prosecutor may require more time to go through the evidence, analyse the facts of the case, and, where necessary, advise on the appropriate manner to handle the case.

In order to achieve better efficiency in the handling of cases concerning public order events and with a view to ensuring consistency of approach as far as possible, the DoJ has set up a small dedicated team of prosecutors within the Prosecutions Division to handle such cases, so that professional legal advice can be provided to the Police as expeditiously as possible so as to enable early referral of cases which merit prosecution to the Courts for adjudication.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1497

Lastly, I hope to take this opportunity to emphasize that the DoJ will continue to maintain communication with the Police in respect of any illegal acts involved in the Occupy Central activities, and will handle relevant prosecution work in a timely manner.

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, although the Secretary for Justice has mentioned that the new Code does not hamper persecution actions, the fact is, however, since the Occupy Central movement, many members of the public think that having the new Code is tantamount to having no standards, as no one has been prosecuted. Everyone can disregard the laws, and the Government seems to be helpless. Some Occupy Central organizers have also indicated that they would surrender themselves to the Police after the movement has come to an end, and that would mean completion of law proceedings and realization of the rule of law. At the same time, some intellectuals say that when the occupiers are arrested under the charges of "contempt of court" or "unlawful assembly", the Judge should consider the factor of civil disobedience on the part of the occupiers and impose a lighter penalty by discretion.

Secretary, I want to know if the above arguments are correct in the context of the law. In terms of the Prosecution Code, does he agree with what is said above?

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): President, Dr QUAT, first of all, I have reservation on these arguments. In regard to the Occupy Central-related unlawful acts which have already happened, as we said earlier, I will continue to keep contact with the Police and will take prosecution actions at the appropriate time.

However, I hope Members can understand that a few aspects are involved in the whole process of prosecution. That will include arresting, after which the Police will submit the information related to the case to the DoJ. The colleagues responsible for the case concerned in the DoJ need to consider the details of the case before making a decision to prosecute or otherwise. In the course of consideration, as I pointed out in part (1) of the main reply, they need to make consideration in accordance to the relevant legislation and the evidence, as well as the relevant provisions in the existing Prosecution Code. In regard to the unlawful acts covered in the prosecution, we will carry out the prosecution work afterwards in accordance with this procedure.

1498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

I hope that the public will not have such a misunderstanding. At present, there may be some related cases in which prosecution is yet to be instituted. But it does not mean that charges will not be pressed in future. I also hope the public would not think that we have the idea of relaxing our efforts due to the present situation.

As mentioned by Dr QUAT just now, some intellectuals or other people think that the Court, should handle cases involving civil disobedience leniently or in a special way. I think this should be left to the Court, or when such cases happen in future, the Judge will consider whether he agrees with this. At this stage, it is not appropriate for the Secretary for Justice to comment at a Legislative Council meeting on how the Judges should deal with these cases.

DR LAU WONG-FAT (in Cantonese): President, since the new amendment involves the understanding of the Basic Law, has the DoJ organized any training courses for the prosecutors at the same time when this amendment is announced so that the prosecutors can be clear about the prosecution requirements under the new amendment? If so, how many people have received the training concerned?

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr LAU for raising this supplementary question. Internal training is held from time to time in the DoJ. To ensure the professional standard of colleagues in the DoJ, including those in the Prosecutions Division, we organize different training courses from time to time, which of course include those relating to public order events. Besides, there is not only internal training. Together with the legal experts outside the DoJ, who may even be overseas scholars and legal experts, we will explore ways to handle criminal offences in Hong Kong. I do not have the substantial figures at the present moment. I may provide them to Dr LAU in future. (Appendix II)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Could the Secretary and the officials sitting near the Secretary please check whether there are electronic devices yet to be switched off, so as not to affect the audio effects when the Secretary speaks.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1499

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, the organizers of Occupy Central have already admitted that this is against the law, and the protesters on the scene may face prosecution. It is recently reported by the mass media that some overseas tourists went to the occupied area and stayed in the tents there after obtaining permission from the occupiers. I would like to ask the authorities whether the tourists staying in the tents are already breaking the law. If so, on the premise of public interests, will the authorities handle make special arrangements in the prosecution procedures as tourists only stay in Hong Kong for a short period of time? We have to prevent these unlawful situation from spreading and affecting Hong Kong's international reputation.

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr YIU for his supplementary question. At the present moment, we still need to understand the situation concerned. As I pointed out at the beginning of my reply to the question, every case involves arresting, gathering evidence and the decision to institute prosecution. I need to first understand whether the tourists mentioned by Mr YIU just now have been arrested before we can decide whether the evidence and public interests should be considered in accordance with the related provisions in the Prosecution Code, and then decide whether to institute prosecution. I totally understand what Mr YIU has said, as this involves tourists whose stay in Hong Kong may be shorter, and will affect our international image in handling tourist issues. As to the weight of these factors, we will give appropriate consideration according to the substantial situation of each and every case.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, Secretary, at that time, Mr Kevin ZERVOS, former Director of Public Prosecutions and at present a judge of the High Court of Hong Kong, amended the Prosecution Code, especially on prosecutions in which the Basic Law provisions guaranteeing Hong Kong residents freedoms in respect of speech, association, assembly, procession and demonstration, and so on, are involved. As he feels precisely that if these freedoms are involved in a case, it has to be handled with care. I want the Secretary to confirm that when in future there are prosecution cases similar to those of Occupy Central, the Secretary will make promise to this Council that senior counsels or barristers from outside the DoJ will be invited to conduct independent review, and before a decision on criminal prosecution is made, 1500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 senior counsels or barristers from outside the DoJ will be invited to conduct a review.

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr KWOK for his supplementary question. First, Mr KWOK mentioned that the purpose of the former Director of Public Prosecutions making amendments to the Prosecution Code was for handling cases involving public order events with care. In fact, as I already pointed out earlier, the existing provisions reflect the relevant legal principles. The situation is that we will always handle these cases with care, in the same manner as we handle other cases which may involve breaching of criminal law.

Second, Mr KWOK asked whether we can, at this stage, undertake to invite external independent barristers to provide legal advice on Occupy Central-related cases. I think this supplementary question is not appropriate, as it is too vague and general. Every time when we decide whether to institute prosecution, we have to take into account the situation of individual cases. If the legal matter involved in the case is complicated, or the persons involved are rather sensitive individuals, or there are other reasons, we will consider inviting external independent barristers to provide legal advice. We adopted this method in quite a number of cases in the past. However, we cannot make sweeping generalizations and say that we should adopt this method in all the Occupy Central-related criminal cases. This is not a responsible way, nor is it an appropriate approach.

For instance, among the incidents derived from Occupy Central, some may be very obvious criminal acts, such as assault, indecent assault and theft. If these are involved, we do not find it necessary to invite external independent barristers to provide legal advice. And this will also waste public money. Of course, we will not rule out the possibility that we will consider this approach when dealing with Occupy Central-related cases in which we find it really necessary, especially due to individual persons or the specific conditions of individual cases. However, we cannot make sweeping generalizations.

MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, I would like to ask the Secretary a question. The Prosecution Code mentions that when dealing with situations in which the freedoms guaranteed in the Basic Law are being LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1501 exercised, the prosecutors may need to give special considerations. But at the same time, it also clearly states that when the acts concerned are beyond a rational scope or reasonable limit, criminal prosecutions should be instituted. A large number of Occupy Central protesters are involved in illegal assemblies and road occupation. They also make offensive road barricades and openly show contempt of court orders. Can the Government tell us whether this kind of acts, which are seriously trampling the rule of law, are beyond a rational scope or reasonable limit? If not, what are the reasons? If yes, why has the prosecution department not taken actions yet?

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): Yes.

(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, let us allow the Secretary to have more time to study and consider the question. I would request a headcount.

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

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, please answer Mr TAM Yiu-chung's supplementary question.

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr TAM for his supplementary question. The principle mentioned by Mr TAM just now is exactly the principle mentioned by the Court of Final Appeal in the YEUNG May-wan case in regard to the prosecution work on public order events. In this Occupy Central incident, since a large number of people are involved, many categories of criminal law might have been breached. There are criminal acts related to public order, as well as other general acts. Therefore, in regard to the former, the principle mentioned by Mr TAM will definitely be applicable in our 1502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 consideration. In regard to the latter, we will refer to other related legislation and principles.

Here I would like to state clearly to Mr TAM and other Legislative Council Members: We understand that at present some members of the public are of the view that Occupy Central has already seriously breached and damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong. In this regard, the DoJ, including our prosecutions department, will definitely handle the related cases strictly in line with our law and the Prosecution Code. It is also against our hope that the people who have seriously damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong will remain at large.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council has already spent 22 minutes on this question. The last oral question.

Allegations of Involvement of External Forces in Occupy Central Movement

6. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, the Chief Executive said earlier in a media interview that external forces were involved in the Occupy Central movement (Occupy Central). The Chief Executive subsequently indicated that he would duly consider at appropriate time whether to disclose the related evidence. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has conducted any form of intelligence gathering or investigation on the alleged involvement of external forces in Occupy Central, and whether it has gathered intelligence in collaboration with the State security organs of the Central People's Government or overseas intelligence agencies; if so, of the details; if it has not conducted any investigation or gathered intelligence, the basis for Chief Executive's comment that external forces were involved in Occupy Central;

(2) whether it has concrete evidence on hand at present about the involvement of external forces in Occupy Central; if so, of the details (including the overseas countries or organizations involved), and the reasons for the Government not making public such evidence at present; of the circumstances under which it would be appropriate time to consider whether to disclose the related evidence; and

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1503

(3) whether it will take any form of follow-up action on the alleged involvement of external forces in Occupy Central; if so, of the details?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, since the beginning of Occupy Central, different analyses have been made and views expressed by Hong Kong and overseas communities, politicians and media on whether external forces have been involved in or have influenced the movement directly or indirectly. The issue has aroused concerns locally and overseas. In response to a question raised by the programme host at a TV interview on 19 October 2014 and when speaking at a media stand-up on 21 October 2014, the Chief Executive pointed out that the involvement of external forces in Occupy Central was not a mere speculation. Hong Kong, as part of China and itself a highly open city, has been operating within a rather complicated international environment and exposed to the influence of external forces.

At a regular press conference on 20 October 2014, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs remarked that some foreign individuals and forces attempted to interfere with Hong Kong affairs, exert influence on Hong Kong's development, and even side with or incite illegal activities such as Occupy Central. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also reiterated that Hong Kong affairs fell entirely within China's internal affairs, and the Chinese side resolutely opposed the intervention in Hong Kong affairs by any external forces in any form.

We believe that our community and the general public do not wish to see, and will not accept, any direct or indirect involvement of external forces in the internal affairs of Hong Kong or our nation, not to mention in such activities as Occupy Central which disrupts social order and breaks the law. Nor do they wish to see any change in the nature of Hong Kong's political or social activities or their complication as a result of influence of external forces. We understand that the general public and the Legislative Council are concerned about how external forces get involved in and have influenced Occupy Central, and the impact so caused. However, the issue involves national and local security as well as a lot of other complicated and sensitive information. In dealing with matters of this kind, we consider it inappropriate for the HKSAR Government, as for any other governments, to conduct an open discussion. Having said that, the HKSAR Government will face and deal with the intervention of any external forces, to ensure that Hong Kong's constitutional reform may proceed within the 1504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 framework of the Basic Law and on the basis of the decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. As far as Occupy Central is concerned, the HKSAR Government will restore social order in accordance with the law as soon as possible. The Chief Executive has also indicated that the HKSAR Government would consider, at an appropriate time, how to disclose details of external forces' involvement and influence on Occupy Central.

It has been more than a month since the beginning of Occupy Central. Large-scale road blockage and acts of charging have adversely affected people's daily life and posed great pressure on Police work. Worse still, Occupy Central participants have not only tried to rationalize their unlawful activities such as road blocking and charging on the pretext of "civil disobedience", they have recently also acted in open defiance of the temporary court injunctions. The spread of this sense of lawlessness and its erosion of Hong Kong's rule of law are truly worrying. Whether participants are joining the movement of their own volition or with the benefit of assistance from external forces, the continuation of the movement will only cause grave and long-lasting damage to the community of Hong Kong as a whole.

Occupy Central is an unlawful gathering. The Government will deal with this illegal activity, including its organization, planning and funding, in a serious manner. I must stress that Hong Kong is a city of rule of law. The law-enforcement agencies will deal with the illegal activities in accordance with the law. Once again, I appeal to all organizers and participants to leave peacefully and stop obstructing the roads as soon as possible, so that social order and people's life may return to normal as early as possible.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary "turned in a blank examination paper"; his answer is "fabricated". As the Secretary has claimed that it is inappropriate to conduct an open discussion, it would be better for him to submit just a blank sheet of paper to this Council.

LEUNG Chun-ying is so irresponsible and has resorted to "framing up people", "distorting the truth", "making things up" and labelling to defame and suppress Occupy Central and Umbrella Movement. This labelling approach adopted during the Cultural Revolution is nothing new to us, as it has been employed to deal with LIU Xiaobo and the students before 4 June 1989. He is just copying …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1505

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHAN, more than 10 Members are waiting to raise their supplementary questions. Please do not make lengthy comments.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): … the defaming approach of the "old communist". President, the remarks and comments made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, including the comments made by the royalists, are anything but the facts.

My supplementary question is: I think the authorities do not have sufficient evidence to enable them to make any specific or concrete accusation. May I know whether the Secretary agrees with this view of mine?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I do not agree. I have already pointed out very clearly in my main reply that both the Chief Executive and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have commented on the involvement of external forces. Let me reiterate that as the issue involves national and local security as well as a lot of other complicated and sensitive information, it is inappropriate for the HKSAR Government, as for any other governments, to conduct an open discussion in this respect. I have nothing further to add.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, as I have already said, those comments are anything but the facts. What are the facts? Here are the facts: LEUNG Chun-ying has actually received money from some foreigners, and his is now distorting the truth disclose by others, he is in fact a devil rebuking sin.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHAN, please do not make any comments. There are 14 Members waiting to raise their supplementary questions. Members please be reminded once again to keep your supplementary questions as concise as possible and refrain from making any comments, and will the Secretary please keep your answers short as well.

1506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, according to the Secretary, the question of whether external forces are involved in Occupy Central has aroused concerns locally and overseas. This is just natural, and one of the concerns is the reason why the Chief Executive has to make such a remark in the absence of any supporting evidence. Countless foreign journalists have asked me about that, and I asked in reply why they put the question to me. They should put the question to LEUNG Chun-ying. As the authorities have claimed that it would be inappropriate to conduct an open discussion in respect of the issue, why did LEUNG Chun-ying have to raise this issue on his own initiative?

President, the Secretary has referred to Hong Kong as a city of rule of law, and he also said just now that the issue involved a lot of sensitive information; but then, this issue does involve the legislation as well. Which piece of legislation does it involve? Does Hong Kong care about the legislation, does Hong Kong care about reasons? I do not care what kind of government officials they are, so long as they do not have any evidence or reasons, they should make such remarks openly, and the same rule applies to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing as well. I wish to ask the authorities whether they consider it very irresponsible to make such remarks openly without any supporting evidence.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, the Chief Executive was answering a question put to him when he made the remarks referred to in my main reply. I have already made it clear in this Chamber, and I have nothing further to add. If any person should have acted in violation of the laws of Hong Kong, our law-enforcement agencies would certainly follow up the case in accordance with the law.

MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is: Is it very irresponsible of the Chief Executive to make such remarks?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, will you answer this question?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): I do not agree with what Ms LAU has said.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1507

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, this is an important question. Please do a headcount and summon more Members back to the Chamber to listen to the supplementary question I am going to raise, thank you. I am referring to Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

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

(While the summoning bell was ringing, some Members spoke loudly)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please raise your supplementary question.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, just now the Secretary said in his reply that he was worrying about Hong Kong's rule of law. I believe Members present in this Chamber also share his worry. This is because the Police are "acting honourably in front of others but beating people up in dark corners". Seven police officers have jointly beaten up a member of the general public, have they not? The CNN …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please do not make any comments.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): … President, my supplementary question is related to this incident. The CNN consider this collusion between the Police and the criminals, or collusion between Hong Kong and the triad societies. Some have also said that the triad societies have now become the Hong Kong Auxiliary Police Force, and hence the impact of the Police Force on social security and rule of law is indeed worrying. In particular, the Chief Executive 1508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 has a habit of telling lies, and this may also affect our social security. All in all, the Secretary has not earnestly answered the question of whether or not external forces are involved in "affecting our social security".

I wish to ask the Secretary about the external forces involved. Is it because he has seen in the square many slogans in English, not only in English but also many other foreign languages, including French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and even Thai? In addition, we have also seen "Spider-Man", "Captain America" …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please keep your question short, as 15 Members are waiting to raise their supplementary questions.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is related to all these things. Is it because the Secretary has seen all these things, such as "Spider-Man", "Captain America" and "Lennon Square", that he believes external forces must have been involved?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): First of all, I need to respond to the part of this supplementary question which the President has referred to as irrelevant just now. Will the President please let me respond to that. I definitely do not agree with the phrase used by Mr CHAN for many times ― not only this time ― which is "collusion between the Police and the criminals". It has always been the first and foremost task of the Police to combat crime and criminals. The Police are irreconcilable with triad societies.

(Mr Albert CHAN spoke loudly in his seat)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please do not speak loudly in your seat, or I will order you to leave the Chamber. I will not let you violate the Rules of Procedure.

(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1509

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, that was all because I felt so excited upon hearing the Secretary's reply.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please sit down and let the Secretary reply.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, regarding the question of external forces, when the Council debated the motions moved by Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr Andrew LEUNG at the last meeting, many Members have mentioned about that in their speeches, and they have also raised many different views and opinions. I believe each and every Member can find the answer in their hearts basing on their understanding of the matter.

As regards the slogans shown at the square, no matter what languages they are written in, I believe they are all written by Hong Kong residents.

(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. I asked him whether it was because he had seen "Captain America", "Spider-Man" and "Lennon Square" that he believed that external forces must have been involved.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, the Secretary has already replied.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, given that Hong Kong is a world city, it is totally not surprising to see many external forces involving in various local activities. Even Michael PILLSBURY, Consultant at the United States Department of Defense, has admitted that the National Endowment for Democracy of the United States are allocating millions of US dollars every year for organizing activities in Hong Kong. Hence, I really cannot understand why today Dr Kenneth CHAN and some other Members have to …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, please raise your supplementary question.

1510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): … worry so much about the absence or presence of evidence when the investigation still has yet to commence …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, please raise your supplementary question to the Secretary.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): … As such, I would like to ask the Secretary this question: Now that the Chief Executive has openly remarked that such was the case, do we have in place any legislation to deal with external forces participating in, providing assistance for, supporting or organizing unlawful activities in Hong Kong?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, if any persons assist in, organize, encourage ― perhaps I should use the word "instigate" rather than encourage ― instigate any unlawful acts, they have breached the law. Hence, if any persons, Hong Kong residents and non-Hong Kong residents alike, should have committed any offence of such kind, the law-enforcement agencies would definitely take appropriate follow-up actions and investigate into the case.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, questions like whether external forces are involved in Occupy Central and whether different forces are offering assistance have been discussed over and over at last week's debates. If Members care to take note, they can see that different forces have been offering assistance in terms of funding, hardware installation, as well as all sorts of supplies, and the evidence is so clear and obvious. Those who believe can see the evidence, and those who do not believe will consider the evidence "fabricated".

President, my supplementary question is: Last week a number of Members have painstakingly dug out various kinds of information for the Secretary, whether the Government, the Police and the relevant investigation agencies have commenced any formal investigation into the issue of "whether different forces have been illegally assisting in Hong Kong's Occupy Central actions"?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1511

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, the Hong Kong Police have all along been keeping a close watch on the development of Occupy Central. The Police would definitely take follow-up actions if any unlawful acts should be involved. Nevertheless, Ms LEE, I am sorry to disappoint you, as details regarding the way the Police follow up the relevant cases, collection of intelligence, action planning investigation, and so on, are confidential aspects of our actions, we cannot disclose them openly in this Council. The Police Force is a law-enforcement agency. It is the duty and mission of the Police to safeguard Hong Kong's social order, and hence the Police will make every effort to tackle any unlawful acts.

MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): President, speaking of external forces involving in Hong Kong, I have no idea why many pan-democratic Members of the Council get so furious and respond so fiercely on hearing this issue. Is that because "this is not the burial ground for 300 taels of silver", or "they are feeling the pain inflicted on other people"?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please raise your supplementary question.

MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): Sure, President, I will now raise my supplementary question. Here is my supplementary question: Mr Secretary, Hong Kong has been reunified with China for 17 to 18 years, and yet we still have not legislated for national security. In the absence of a national security law, does Hong Kong have in place any legislation or power to safeguard national security and conduct investigation to find out whether external forces are involved?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): I thank Mr WONG for his supplementary question. Regarding the issue of legislating for Article 23 of the Basic Law, our stance is very clear, as this is a constitutional responsibility of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Nevertheless, as we have a number of more urgent issues to tackle, we are not dealing with that at the moment.

1512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Hong Kong is a city of rule of law; it is an offence for any person to instigate, assist in or advocate unlawful acts. Undoubtedly, Occupy Central is an unlawful gathering, and participating in it is an unlawful act. I watched the news before coming to the Council, and I saw some Occupy Central organizers reiterating this point, only that they considered they were practising civil disobedience. As regards the question of whether civil disobedience can override the law, I believe Members are aware of a recent judgment passed down by the Court in respect of an application for interim injunction, and the judgment is in fact an answer to the question.

Hence, even though we have yet to legislate for Article 23, helping or instigating some persons or organizations to conduct unlawful activities, including providing funding and other forms of assistance, may still constitute an unlawful act, and the law-enforcement agencies will certainly take follow-up actions solemnly.

MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): President, in my view, it would definitely be politically unacceptable if any external forces should try to subvert the stability of Hong Kong. However, President, as the public officer present in the Chamber to respond to this question is Secretary T K LAI rather than Secretary Raymond TAM, I believe the focus of the question should be the enforcement of the law.

I would like to ask the Secretary whether Hong Kong has in place any law legislating against non-government bodies accepting extraterritorial donations. If so, how is the law enforced? In the event that the non-government body concerned conducted some unlawful acts upon receiving the donation, will the donor be taken as having breached the law? And if so, how will the relevant law be enforced?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, Mr TONG's supplementary question is rather complicated. I am afraid it is very hard to give a short reply to this supplementary question of his. Perhaps his question is asking about whether the provider of a sum of money has breached the law if the money is being used for some unlawful purposes. If I have interpreted correctly, his supplementary question should be asking about this.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1513

I believe we have to evaluate the entire process of the case and the way things have developed. If there is indeed such a sum of money, we have to see how the money is handled, used and transferred, and whether any acts or incidents in breach of the laws of Hong Kong are involved in the entire process. In the absence of a specific case and any specific information, it may be rather arbitrary to say that a certain piece of legislation will be violated or not violated. Nevertheless, the law-enforcement agencies will certainly deal with any matter that is suspected of having violated the law or may have violated the law.

MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): President, the first part of my supplementary question is actually rather simple, but the Secretary has not answered it yet.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please repeat your supplementary question.

MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): The first part of my supplementary question is very simple, and that is: Whether there is any law forbidding non-government bodies in Hong Kong from accepting extraterritorial donations. This is a very simple question, do we have such a law?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): I think I have already replied. We need to see how the money is donated, the purpose of the donation, and so on. We cannot arbitrarily give a specific answer to a single sentence.

MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): I was asking whether there would be any violation of the law, in other words, I was asking whether there were any laws in this respect. How come he is unable to answer such a question? President, he represents the law-enforcement agencies.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent more than 22 minutes and 30 seconds on this question. If you are not satisfied with the Secretary's reply, you can follow up through other channels. Oral questions end here.

1514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Assemblies Triggered by Occupy Central Movement

7. DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Chinese): President, the Chief Executive indicated earlier that external forces were involved in the Occupy Central movement, and that Hong Kong, being a part of China and a highly open city, was caught in a complicated international environment. When asked about whether he would disclose related evidence, Chief Executive indicated that he would duly consider the matter at appropriate time. In addition, during the period when the assemblies triggered by the Occupy Central movement (Occupy Central assemblies) were being held, physical confrontations occurred from time to time among assembly participants, people opposing the assemblies and police officers, causing injuries to many people of various sides. It was even reported that such confrontations involved triad members. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has assessed if the fact that the evidence relating to the involvement of external forces in Hong Kong's affairs is not disclosed immediately will adversely affect national security and the stability of Hong Kong society; how the authorities will guard against the involvement of external forces in Hong Kong's affairs;

(2) whether it knows if persons advocating independence of Xinjiang, Xizang and Taiwan as well as Falun Gong have participated in the Occupy Central movement and are involved in Hong Kong's internal affairs; if it knows, of the details;

(3) as it has been reported that the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) of the United States has provided funds for pan-democratic organizations in Hong Kong in recent years for promoting the development of democracy in Hong Kong, whether it has taken the initiative to find out or investigate if NED has participated in the Occupy Central movement; if investigation has been conducted and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the details, including the political parties or organizations in Hong Kong which have received such funds and the amount of funds involved; if investigation has not been conducted, the reasons for that;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1515

(4) whether it knows if triad members have participated in activities of organizing, planning, commanding and funding assemblies in support of and opposing the Occupy Central assemblies; if the triad members have done so, of the details; the number of related triad members arrested by the Police so far, and whether prosecution will be instituted against them;

(5) whether it knows if personnel from the Ministry of State Security have participated in organizing, planning, commanding and funding actions to charge at the participants of the Occupy Central assemblies by people opposing such assemblies; if such personnel have done so, of the details;

(6) since the occurrence of the Occupy Central assemblies, of the police manpower deployed by the Police for maintaining public order at assembly venues, and how the numbers of crimes such as robbery, theft, indecent assault, and so on, in each District Council district compare with the corresponding numbers in the same period of the year before;

(7) since the occurrence of the Occupy Central assemblies, of the number of police officers who received psychological counselling due to excessive pressure, tendered resignation or refused to perform duty at areas where the assemblies were held;

(8) since the occurrence of the Occupy Central assemblies, of the respective maximum daily numbers of persons participating in such assemblies and those assemblies opposing the Occupy Central movement in Mong Kok, Causeway Bay, Admiralty and Central;

(9) of the total number of canisters of tear gas that the police officers handling the Occupy Central assemblies in the area around Admiralty on the 28th of September this year were equipped with; whether it has assessed if that number is adequate;

(10) whether it has assessed if the Police have adequate equipment (for example, anti-riot shields, protective helmets, extendable batons and pepper spray, and so on) for handling the Occupy Central assemblies; if it has, of the outcome;

1516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

(11) whether it has compiled statistics on the number of canisters of pepper spray used by the Police since the occurrence of the Occupy Central assemblies; whether it has reviewed if any police officer had used pepper spray inappropriately; if it has conducted such a review, of the outcome;

(12) since the occurrence of the Occupy Central assemblies, of the respective response time performance (RTP) of ambulances and fire appliances in each of the divisions under the Ambulance/Fire Commands, and the number of service calls attended at venues of such assemblies (set out in a table);

(13) according to the data obtained by the authorities, of the number of persons injured or feeling unwell in the Occupy Central assemblies so far, with a breakdown by the identity of such persons (that is, assembly participants, police officers, tourists, journalists and other persons); among them, the number of persons who required hospital treatment;

(14) whether it has compiled statistics on the number of public properties (such as mills barriers, water barriers, rubbish bins, three-coloured recycling bins, and so on) being damaged or stolen at venues of the Occupy Central assemblies so far, and the number of persons arrested by the Police for alleged vandalism of government properties; and

(15) given that in reply to a question raised at the meeting of this Council on the 15th of last month regarding whether the three initiators of the Occupy Central movement would be prosecuted, the Secretary for Security indicated that the Police would definitely conduct in-depth investigations into illegal acts and would take appropriate actions in due course, whether related investigations have been initiated by the Police, and of the circumstances under which it would be the appropriate time to institute prosecutions against the initiators, organizers and assembly participants of the Occupy Central movement?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1517

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, following a spate of unlawful acts by radical protesters, the public meeting on the pavement outside the Central Government Offices since 26 September has developed into an unlawful assembly affecting various areas on Hong Kong Island and in Kowloon. Protesters, staging large-scale unlawful assemblies in the areas of Admiralty, Mong Kok and Causeway Bay in recent days as well as in Tsim Sha Tsui previously, have blocked a number of major trunk roads in an illegal manner. Occupy Central or the Occupation Movement has persisted for over a month, causing extremely widespread, serious and substantive impact on traffic and transport, emergency rescue services, government operation, daily life of the community and even various kinds of economic activities. The Government severely condemns such irresponsible and illegal acts.

Our consolidated reply to Dr LAM Tai-fai's question is as follows:

External Forces

Since the beginning of Occupy Central, different analyses have been made and views expressed by Hong Kong and overseas communities, politicians and media on whether external forces have been involved in or have influenced Occupy Central directly or indirectly. The issue has aroused concerns locally and overseas. In response to a question raised by the programme host at a TV interview on 19 October 2014 and when speaking at a media stand-up on 21 October 2014, the Chief Executive pointed out that the involvement of external forces in Occupy Central was not a mere speculation. Hong Kong, as part of China and itself a highly open city, has been operating within a rather complicated international environment and exposed to the influence of external forces.

At a regular press conference on 20 October 2014, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs remarked that some foreign individuals and forces attempted to interfere with Hong Kong affairs, exert influence on Hong Kong's development, and even side with or incite illegal activities such as the Occupy Central. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also reiterated that Hong Kong affairs fell entirely within China's internal affairs, and the Chinese side resolutely opposed the intervention in Hong Kong affairs by any external forces in any form.

1518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

We believe that our community and the general public do not wish to see, and will not accept, any direct or indirect involvement of external forces in the internal affairs of Hong Kong or our nation, not to mention in such activities as Occupy Central which disrupts social order and breaks the law. Nor do they wish to see any change in the nature of Hong Kong's political or social activities or their complication as a result of influence of external forces. We understand that the general public and the Legislative Council are concerned about how external forces get involved in and have influenced Occupy Central, and the impact so caused. However, the issue involves national and local security as well as a lot of other complicated and sensitive information. In dealing with matters of this kind, we consider it inappropriate for the HKSAR Government, as for any other governments, to conduct an open discussion. Having said that, the HKSAR Government will face and deal with the intervention of any external forces, to ensure that Hong Kong's constitutional reform may proceed within the framework of the Basic Law and on the basis of the decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. As far as Occupy Central is concerned, the HKSAR Government will restore social order in accordance with the law as soon as possible. The Chief Executive has also indicated that the HKSAR Government would consider, at an appropriate time, how to disclose details of external forces' involvement and influence on Occupy Central.

Demonstrations triggered by Occupy Central

Over the past month, Occupy Central has turned from a student assembly to an unlawful assembly with a mix of participants including a large number of people of different backgrounds and from different radical organizations, with some protesters forced their way into government buildings, violently charged the police cordon, seized mills barriers, assaulted police officers, occupied major trunk roads and paralysed the traffic. Their illegal occupation of roads is an act of deliberate contravention of the law in that they have blocked the roads with stolen government properties including mills barriers, rubbish bins and recycling bins, and have even put up large barricades with bamboo poles, wooden planks and plastic straps to reinforce their road blockage. As a result, emergency vehicles can neither gain direct access to nor pass through the illegally occupied areas, posing unnecessary safety risk to people in the neighbouring areas. We condemn such acts.

In recent days, there have been confrontations and crimes of different scales in various illegally occupied areas or in other Occupy Central-related LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1519 public order events. In crowded areas, there is always a risk of confrontation. Gatherings of people holding different views are prone to verbal disputes and scuffles, which may end in chaos with physical confrontations. As at 3 November, the Police have arrested 324 persons in total for illegal acts directly related to Occupy Central. The alleged offences include unlawful assembly, disorderly conduct in a public place, common assault, criminal damage, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, resisting arrest, assault on a police officer, obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duties, indecent assault and so forth. Some of the arrested persons have triad backgrounds. The cases involved in such arrests are currently under police investigation, and prosecution shall not be ruled out where sufficient evidence is available.

As crime figures are classified by police region and such figures for September and October this year are still under compilation, a comparison between the crime figures since the launch of Occupy Central for all districts and those in the same period of last year, as requested in the question, is not available.

The Police have stressed repeatedly their utter intolerance of illegal conduct. Where there is evidence for the alleged offences, the Police shall definitely take follow-up actions in accordance with the law, and seek advice from the Department of Justice when necessary for consideration of prosecution.

Handling of large-scale unlawful assemblies by the Police

As a law-enforcement department, the Police have the statutory duties to maintain law and order, as well as to safeguard life and property. In the face of a considerable number of large-scale unlawful assemblies for more than a month, front-line police officers have been in full gear around the clock to deal with such assemblies and storming by groups of protestors, which involves substantial police manpower and resources, and they are, at the same time, well-equipped for the handling of such assemblies and the relevant police operations. To maintain day-to-day police services, the Police have allocated sufficient manpower to every region through resource and manpower deployment. However, the manpower and equipment utilized by the Police in the operation are not to be disclosed, as they were a matter of operational particulars. In addition, as the unlawful assemblies associated with Occupy Central are still ongoing, the figure on the use of Oleoresin Capsicum foam in the operation is subject to verification.

1520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

The Police do not have any daily figures of people participating in assemblies for and against Occupy Central at various locations of unlawful occupation. As Occupy Central is still ongoing, statistical information on stolen or damaged public property is not available at this point of time.

Occupy Central is still going on in different districts where large-scale unlawful assemblies have been involved. The complexity of Police's operations in response to Occupy Central is unprecedented. Police officers are facing immense challenge and are under enormous stress. The Force management has been maintaining close liaison and communication with officers of different ranks, rendering them support and encouragement, as well as listening to their views on the operations. Police Clinical Psychologists are assigned to visit police officers at the front-line to understand their needs and the state of their morale. Since the onset of Occupy Central, the Police have received requests for psychological counselling from a total of five police officers and immediate assistance has been provided by the Psychological Services Group. Moreover, Force Welfare Officers have offered welfare support to those wounded in the operation. Up to now, the Police do not have any reports of resignation or refusal to perform duty at areas of assemblies from regular police officers due to stress.

During the operations in recent weeks, Hong Kong Police have stood fast to their posts and performed their duties with perseverance and untiring devotion in a professional and impartial manner while exercising a high level of restraint. The HKSAR Government fully supports the Police in their continued efforts to handle with professionalism such extremely difficult tasks.

Number of casualties

The storming and confrontations at different locations of unlawful assemblies in recent days have resulted in the injury of 65 police officers. According to the records of the Fire Services Department (FSD), as at 3 November, a total of 262 persons, including 40 police officers, were sent to hospital by FSD ambulances due to injury or not feeling well during the protest assemblies. The FSD does not have any breakdown of other categories of persons being sent to hospital.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1521

The impact of Occupy Central on emergency rescue services

The illegal occupation of a number of major trunk roads by assembly participants on Hong Kong Island and in Kowloon during Occupy Central has resulted in serious traffic congestion. Emergency vehicles often need to detour. Although various government departments have been monitoring and assessing the development with a view to making corresponding arrangements, responses to some emergency calls have inevitably been delayed.

The FSD has not compiled the statistics of the RTP of every individual ambulance/fire division since the start of Occupy Central. Nonetheless, the department releases the RTPs of emergency ambulance services and building fire calls of the three affected areas on a daily basis. From the onset of Occupy Central up to 3 November, the RTPs for emergency ambulance services in the three affected areas, that is, Central (including Admiralty), Causeway Bay and Wan Chai, and Mong Kok were 81.1%, 90.1% and 95.1% respectively, while the RTPs for building fire calls in Central, Causeway Bay and Wan Chai, and Mong Kok were 84%, 94.1% and 86.5% respectively. The RTPs for emergency ambulance services and building fire calls in these three areas have dropped as compared to those before Occupy Central.

The Administration reiterates that time is of vital importance in fire-fighting and rescue services as well as in emergency ambulance services. A small fire may turn into a disaster with severe loss of life and property because of a few minutes' delay. To those injured persons and patients requiring emergency ambulance services, one minute of delay can mean a difference between life and death. Hence, the Administration urges all protesters, who have illegally occupied the roads for a long span of time, to remove their obstacles as soon as possible and to leave in an orderly manner, so that the roads can be reopened to emergency vehicles for provision of timely emergency rescue services to those in need, sparing the public from unnecessary risks.

Retail Jobs Offered by Organizations Participating in Job Fairs

8. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Chinese): President, regarding the two job fairs organized by the Labour Department (LD) from 18 to 19 September and from 21 to 23 October this year respectively, will the Government inform this Council:

1522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

(1) of the number of retail establishments participating in the two aforesaid job fairs, with a tabulated breakdown by type of product/retailer (including cosmetics, watch, clock and jewellery, fashion and accessories, general merchandise, electronic and electrical/telecommunication products, furniture and home accessories, food, health and beauty chains, supermarkets and convenience stores);

(2) of the respective numbers of full-time and part-time job vacancies offered in the two aforesaid job fairs, and set out in Table 1 and Table 2 a breakdown by salary and academic qualifications required;

Table 1: Number of full-time job vacancies Number of full-time job vacancies Job fair held Job fair held from 18 to 19 from 21 to 23 September October Below $8,000 $8,000-$10,000 Monthly $10,001-$12,000 salary: Above $12,000 Total Secondary Three or below Academic Secondary Four to Six qualifications Above Secondary Six required: Total

Table 2: Average hourly wage of part-time jobs and number of such vacancies Job fair held Job fair held from 18 to 19 from 21 to 23 September October Average hourly wage Number of Secondary Three or below vacancies Secondary Four to Six requiring the Above Secondary Six academic Total qualifications listed on the right:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1523

(3) whether it knows the details of the eligibility requirements and remuneration package of the retail jobs offered in the aforesaid job fairs, and set out a breakdown of such details using tables of the same format as Table 3 and Table 4 by type of product/retailer and rank of post, including (i) number of job vacancies, (ii) number of job vacancies requiring applicants to have work experience, (iii) maximum and minimum academic qualifications required, (iv) highest and lowest salaries, (v) maximum and minimum numbers of days of annual leave, (vi) maximum and minimum numbers of weekly work hours, (vii) number of job vacancies with a five-day week work pattern, (viii) number of job vacancies with a commission or sales bonus scheme, and (ix) number of job vacancies with a year-end bonus scheme, and

Table 3: Eligibility requirements and remuneration package of full-time jobs Type of product/retailer:______Rank (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) Shop Manager/ Store Manager Shop Officer/ Supervisor Shop Assistant/Sales Trainee Shop Assistant/Sales Cashier Others: for example, storekeeper, truck driver and cleaner, and so on

Table 4: Eligibility requirements and remuneration package of part-time jobs Type of product/retailer: ______Rank (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) Shop Manager/ Store Manager Shop Officer/ Supervisor Shop Assistant/Sales Trainee Shop Assistant/Sales Cashier 1524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Rank (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) Others: for example, storekeeper, truck driver and cleaner, and so on.

(4) whether it knows, among the establishments participating in the aforesaid job fairs, the number of those which have joined the Pilot Earn-and-Learn Scheme (the Scheme) co-organized by the Vocational Training Council and the retail industry, the types of retailers to which they mainly belong, and the number of internship jobs they have offered for the Scheme?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, my reply to the question raised by Mr KWOK Wai-keung is as follows:

(1) The LD organized three job fairs dedicated for the retail industry on 18 and 19 September and 21 October(1). Altogether 74 retail establishments participated. A breakdown of these participating establishments by type of product/retailer is provided in the table below:

Number of Participating Type of Product/Retailer Establishments Cosmetics 4 Watch, clock and jewellery 5 Fashion and accessories 25 General merchandise 7 Electronic and electrical/ 4 telecommunication products Furniture and home accessories 6 Food 10 Health and beauty chains 4 Supermarkets 3 Convenience stores 0 Others 6

(1) The job fairs held on 22 and 23 October covered establishments from other industries. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1525

(2) The three aforesaid job fairs altogether offered 3 542 full-time and 1 661 part-time job vacancies in the retail industry. The breakdowns by salary and academic qualifications required are provided in Table 1 and Table 2 below:

Table 1：Number of full-time job vacancies Number of full-time job vacancies Job fair held on Job fair held on 18 and 19 21 October September Below $8,000 194 679 $8,000-$10,000 909 1 109 Monthly $10,001-$12,000 216 196 salary: Above $12,000 173 66 Total 1 492 2 050 Secondary Three or below 737 1 291 Academic Secondary Four to Six 741 748 qualifications Above Secondary Six 14 11 required: Total 1 492 2 050

Table 2： Average hourly wage of part-time jobs and number of such vacancies Job fair held on Job fair held on 18 and 19 21 October September Average hourly wage $39 $38 Secondary Three or Number of 290 700 below vacancies Secondary Four to requiring the 330 335 Six academic Above Secondary qualifications 6 0 Six listed on the right: Total 626 1 035

(3) The participating establishments had to confirm with the LD that the wage level of the job vacancies offered would comply with the requirements of the Minimum Wage Ordinance. As the participating establishments provided a large number of job vacancies, they were not required to provide the LD with details of 1526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

the eligibility requirements and remuneration package of the vacancies offered, while job seekers could seek detailed information on the job vacancies from the participating establishments on the spot. The LD does not keep statistics on the breakdown of the eligibility requirements and remuneration package by type of product/retailer and by rank of post offered by the participating establishments.

For job vacancies offered at the job fairs, the LD would release overall statistics covering salaries offered, academic requirements and work experience required for the reference of job seekers. Regarding the three aforesaid job fairs, around 68% of the vacancies were full-time posts. Most vacancies offered monthly salaries ranging from $8,000 to $15,000. About 99% of the vacancies required a Secondary Six education level or below. Around 60% of the vacancies did not require relevant work experience.

(4) Of the participating establishments of the aforesaid job fairs, seven have joined the Scheme co-organized by the Vocational Training Council and the retail industry. These establishments cover retail categories of fashion and accessories; general merchandise; electronic and electrical/telecommunication products; furniture and home accessories; health and beauty chains; and supermarkets. The LD does not have information on how many internship jobs were provided by these establishments to the Scheme.

Measures to Tackle Problem of Family Violence

9. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, according to the statistics from the Social Welfare Department (SWD), there were 2 044 newly reported spouse/cohabitant battering cases in the first half of this year. Projecting from that, the number of cases for the whole year will exceed the 3 836 cases of last year. Also, the number of cases of last year rose by 40.3% from the 2 734 cases of the preceding year. It is therefore evident that there is an upward trend in the number of family violence cases. Meanwhile, last year saw 692 family violence cases involving male victims, that is, 18% of the total number of cases, which was an increase of over 60% from the 434 cases of the preceding year, indicating that the problem of family violence involving male victims has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1527 also worsened. Some social workers dedicated to handling family violence cases have pointed out that, given the extremely tight supply of places in the refuge centres that provide temporary accommodation for family violence victims, provision of additional beds and over-enrolment occur from time to time. They are also of the view that as the Anti-Violence Programme (AVP) and the Batterer Intervention Programme (BIP) implemented by SWD have low participation rates, they cannot effectively prevent the problem of family violence from occurring or deteriorating. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the authorities will provide additional resources for the social service organizations concerned, so as to assist them in providing more temporary accommodation places for family violence victims;

(2) as some social workers have indicated that male victims of family violence cases generally do not proactively seek help, and that it is relatively more difficult to identify these victims because they are mainly subjected to psychological abuse instead of physical abuse (the latter form of abuse can result in noticeable injuries), whether the authorities have studied how these male victims can be more effectively identified so that assistance can be provided for them; if they have conducted such studies, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) of the respective numbers of participants in the AVP and the BIP in each of the years since 2010; whether the authorities have reviewed and improved the coverage and effectiveness of these programmes; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, my reply to the question raised by Dr Elizabeth QUAT is as follows:

(1) At present, the SWD subvents non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to operate five refuge centres for women offering a total of 260 temporary residential places for women suffering from domestic violence. As there has been an increase in the average utilization of refuge centres in 2013-2014, the refuge centres have exercised 1528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

flexibility in admission with a view to meeting the service demand as far as possible. Moreover, there is a mutual referral mechanism among the five refuge centres to ensure that women and children in need will not be denied access to the service owing to shortage of places in the refuge centre which the victim approaches. The SWD will continue to closely monitor and review the utilization of the refuge centres and consider increasing the residential places of refuge centres when necessary.

(2) According to the Central Information System on Spouse/Cohabitant Battering Cases and Sexual Violence Cases, the majority of newly reported spouse/cohabitant battering cases involved physical abuse, accounting for 83.6% of the total number of cases for the period January to June 2014. Physical abuse was also the most common form of abuse for cases with male victims, accounting for 85.5% of such cases, while another 10.2% of the cases involved psychological abuse.

The SWD has set up 11 Family and Child Protective Services Units (FCPSUs) as specialized units to centrally handle problems of spouse/cohabitant battering. When receiving referrals from the Police or other persons, designated social workers will contact the victims (including male victims) and provide outreaching and crisis intervention services so as to minimize the trauma brought by the abuse incident to the victims and their family members.

Apart from the services provided by SWD, NGOs (such as Po Leung Kuk and Harmony House) have also set up hotline service for men in order to get in touch with men suffering from domestic violence more effectively. The hotline service aims at rendering timely counselling and support to emotionally distressed men so as to assist them in finding their way out of predicament and fulfilling their roles effectively in family/partner relationship and to promote a harmonious life.

To help problem families and domestic violence victims (including male victims) lacking motivation to seek assistance, SWD has launched the Family Support Programme in FCPSUs, Integrated Family Service Centres and Medical Social Service Units since 2007. Social workers and volunteers provide service information to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1529

hidden families, and proactively approach and identify needy families through promotional street booths, outreaching, visits and networking with local departments/organizations, and so on, with a view to further strengthening the support for and providing appropriate service to disadvantaged families which lack motivation to seek assistance.

In addition, SWD has launched a number of public education publicity campaigns in recent years. For instance, a new series of docu-drama "The Moment II" covering the issues of spousal abuse and child sexual abuse, and so on, was broadcast from May to July 2013. One of the episodes was about the situation of a male victim of spousal abuse.

(3) Currently, SWD is implementing two psycho-educational programmes for perpetrators of domestic violence, namely the AVP and BIP.

Participants of AVP are mandated by the Court to attend the programme in accordance with the Domestic and Cohabitation Relationships Violence Ordinance (DCRVO). Between April 2010 and September 2014, one perpetrator was referred by the Court and completed the programme. The SWD has been promoting AVP through publicity and training so that applicants of injunction orders, judges handling the cases, legal professionals and front-line social workers can understand more about AVP.

On the other hand, participation in BIP is voluntary. BIP helps those who have used violence in intimate relationship to change through a series of 13 sessions of psycho-educational group activities. Between 2006 and September 2014, 744 perpetrators (301 perpetrators between April 2010 and September 2014) had participated in BIP. BIP helps the participants stop their violent behaviour and improve the relationship with their partners. The SWD will continue to actively promote this programme.

Since not every perpetrator will be mandated by the Court to attend AVP or voluntarily participate in BIP which is of longer duration, SWD launched the Educational Programme on Stopping Domestic Violence in October 2013 to provide another service alternative to 1530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

those perpetrators who are in need and willing to receive short-term counselling. The programme is currently run by NGOs. Through brief and focused education, the programme provides the participants with basic and practical knowledge and skills on anger management and conflict resolution with their spouses/cohabitants. Up till September 2014, a total of 137 participants had completed the programme.

Demand of Public Works Projects for Construction Manpower

10. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Chinese): President, there are comments that the Government's implementation of major infrastructure projects one after another and endeavour to construct more public housing have resulted in manpower shortage in the construction industry and a surge in the costs of various public works projects. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the following information in respect of each of the public works projects completed in the past three years with project costs of $1 billion or above: (i) name of the project, (ii) cost of the project, (iii) respective numbers of construction workers and professionals hired during the peak construction period, and (iv) date of completion of the project (set out in Table 1);

Table 1 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

(2) of the following information in respect of each of the public works projects currently under construction with project costs of $1 billion or above: (i) name of the project, (ii) projected cost of the project, (iii) respective projected numbers of construction workers and professionals to be hired during the peak construction period, and (iv) estimated date of completion of the project (set out in Table 2);

Table 2 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1531

(3) whether it knows the respective total numbers of construction workers hired for the public/subsidized housing projects under the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) and the Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS) in each of the past three years, as well as the respective projected total numbers of construction workers to be hired for these two types of projects in each of the coming two years;

(4) whether it knows the total number of construction workers hired under the railway projects undertaken by the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) in each of the past three years, as well as the projected total number of construction workers to be hired for such projects in each of the coming two years;

(5) of the respective shortfalls in construction workers for works projects undertaken by the Government, HA and MTRCL in each of the past three years, and the details (set out in Table 3); and

Table 3 Projects Construction workers Year undertaken by shortfall details (by trade) 2011 Government 2012 2013 2011 HA 2012 2013 2011 MTRCL 2012 2013

(6) whether it has conducted long-term tracking studies to find out if the students of the training programmes offered by the Construction Industry Council (CIC) are engaged in the construction industry within 24 months after completion of such programmes, and if such students have intention to stay in the industry for the long term; if it has conducted such studies, of the details; if not, whether it will consider conducting such studies?

1532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, my reply to the six parts of Mr WU Chi-wai's question is as follows:

(1) In respect of the public works projects completed in the past three years with project costs at $1 billion or above, the project title, project cost, completion date, average daily number of construction workers hired during peak construction periods of these projects are set out at Annex 1. Under the terms of public works contracts, contractors will be required by the relevant works departments to appoint only persons holding relevant professional qualifications to key posts such as site agents and project managers. Contractors will hire relevant professionals at different stages of the projects on a need basis. Although we do not have a full picture of the data of the number of professionals hired by the contractors, the number of jobs created for professionals/technical staff were estimated by the relevant works departments when funding approval for individual public works projects was sought from the Legislative Council. The relevant information is also set out at Annex 1.

(2) In respect of public works projects under construction with project costs at $1 billion or above, the project title, project cost, anticipated completion date and number of construction workers required to be hired during peak construction periods of these projects are set out at Annex 2. Although works departments do not have a forecast on the number of professionals required to be hired during peak construction periods, they estimated the number of jobs for professionals/technical staff to be created in seeking funding approval for individual public works projects from Legislative Council. The relevant information is also set out at Annex 2.

(3) According to information provided by the Housing Department under the Transport and Housing Bureau, the number of construction workers hired for public housing projects under the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HKHA) and the HKHS for the past three years, and the forecast number of construction workers to be hired for public housing projects under construction in the coming two years are set out below:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1533

Average Daily Number of Construction Workers Hired Year (approximation) HKHA HKHS 2011-2012 6 400 50 2012-2013 6 800 180 2013-2014 7 500 420 2014-2015 7 100 (forecast)* 500 (forecast)* 2015-2016 7 400 (forecast)* 240 (forecast)*

Note:

* Figures are based on the number submitted by contractors of HKHA and HKHS respectively from April to September 2014 and the projection for the forecast number of public housing units to be constructed.

(4) According to information provided by Transport and Housing Bureau and prepared by the MTRCL, the number of construction workers hired for the railway projects of the MTRCL for the past three years, and the forecast number of construction workers to be hired for this kind of projects in the coming two years are set out below:

Average Daily Number of Construction Workers Hired Year (approximation) 2011 4 200 2012 7 000 2013 11 400 13 800 (from January to September) 2014 16 800 (forecast) 2015 10 500 (forecast) 2016 7 000 (forecast)

(5) According to information provided by Transport and Housing Bureau and prepared by MTRCL, the shortfalls in construction workers for the railway works projects for the past three years are set out below:

Shortfalls (by Trades) (approximation) Overall Bar Structural Year shortfall Carpenter Tunnel Electrical bender Concretor steel Others (approx.) (formwork) worker fitter and fixer welder 2011 950 Information not available 2012 1 630 Information not available 2013 3 340 530 440 490 30 690 120 1 040

1534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Works departments and the Housing Department do not have figures on the shortfalls of construction workers for their works projects for the past three years.

To grasp the manpower situation of construction personnel, the CIC has been conducting manpower studies on the forecast supply and demand of construction professionals, site supervisory personnel, technicians and workers over the coming 10 years. According to the latest report on manpower forecast for construction workers released by CIC in September 2014, the construction industry as a whole (including public and private works) needs close to 10 000 additional skilled workers in 2014. This has taken into account the forecast construction output, number of in-service workers and their age distribution, training and other relevant factors.

As regards labour shortage of individual trades, the manpower demand for each trade varies with work progress, which is in turn affected by various factors. Thus we have difficulty in making more accurate projection or estimation on short-term manpower shortage of individual trades. Nonetheless, CIC set up, in early 2014, a Task Force on Short-term Labour Supply (the Task Force(1)). Having considered the relevant manpower studies (including the aforementioned manpower forecast conducted by CIC), surveys and training schemes, and following thorough discussions, 26 shortage trades have now been identified by the Task Force. Please refer to Annex 3 for the list of these trades.

Since mid-2013, telephone surveys have been conducted by CIC on a regular basis to collect and analyse data relating to registered construction workers so as to better gauge the employment situation of registered construction workers. According to the data collected by CIC in mid-2014, construction workers work for about five days a week on average. Given that the construction work is physical demanding, these workers are considered fully engaged. This also reflects the tight manpower situation of the construction industry.

(1) The Task Force comprises representatives of the Hong Kong Construction Association, the Hong Kong Federation of Electrical & Mechanical Contractors Ltd., the Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union, the Federation of Hong Kong Electrical and Mechanical Industries Trade Unions, Construction Site Workers General Union of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, MTRCL, HKHA and the Development Bureau. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1535

(6) To keep track of the retention situation of graduates of full-time training courses for construction workers, CIC has conducted telephone surveys on the employment situation of its graduates 12 months after graduation. For graduates who completed the full-time adult short courses (including courses under the Enhanced Construction Manpower Training Scheme as well as regular short courses) in 2012 and 2013, their retention rates at 12 months after graduation are set out below:

Retention rate 12 Retention rate 12 Full-time adult months after graduation months after graduation short course for 2012 graduates for 2013 graduates(2) Enhanced Construction About 65% About 70% Manpower Training Scheme Regular short Statistics not available About 66% courses

Note:

(2) The statistics were compiled in mid-2014 which only took into account the data of trainees who had graduated for 12 months prior to June 2014.

According to CIC's previous surveys, the reasons of their graduates to continue to work in the industry include satisfaction with their salaries, being content with the prospect of the industry, being able to apply the skills acquired and being familiar with the situation of the industry, and so on.

Annex 1

Average Daily Estimated Project Number of number of jobs of Cost construction professional/ (Approved Completion workers hired Project Title technical staff to Project Date during peak be created by the Estimate) construction works ($ billion) period (approximation) (approximation) 3063KA ― Tamar September 5.53 4 000 280 Development Project 2011 1536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Average Daily Estimated Project Number of number of jobs of Cost construction professional/ (Approved Completion workers hired Project Title technical staff to Project Date during peak be created by the Estimate) construction works ($ billion) period (approximation) (approximation) 4276DS ― Sha Tin Sewage Treatment Works 2.42 April 2012 310# 80 ― Stage III Extension 4103CD ― Drainage Improvement in Northern Hong Kong Island ― 3.38 June 2012 580 90 Hong Kong West Drainage Tunnel 3075KA ― New Civil Aviation Department 2.00 June 2012 1 200 90 Headquarters 7343CL ― Central September Reclamation Phase III ― 5.76 500 450 2012 Engineering Works 4155CD ― West Kowloon Drainage October 1.67 350 40 Improvement ― Lai Chi 2012 Kok Drainage Tunnel 8063MM ― North Lantau December 2.48 850 70 Hospital, Phase 1 2012 4111CD ― Drainage Improvement in Tsuen Wan, Kwai Chung and 1.49 March 2013 310 70 Tsing Yi ― Tsuen Wan Drainage Tunnel 3007GA ― Cruise Terminal Building and Ancillary Facilities for the 5.85 May 2013 2 430 270 Kai Tak Cruise Terminal Development 8003MR ― Expansion of November 1.94 800 40 Tseung Kwan O Hospital 2013 3054RG ― Town Park, Indoor velodrome-cum-sports December 1.13 300 60 Centre in Area 45, Tseung 2013 Kwan O

Note:

# Only the two contracts with the highest values in the project are included.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1537

Annex 2

Estimated Average Daily Estimated Project Number of number of jobs of Cost Anticipated construction professional/ (3) (Approved Project Title Completion workers hired technical staff to Project Date during peak be created by the Estimate) construction works ($ billion) period (approximation) (approximation) 6746TH ― Reconstruction and December 6.80 1 360 380 Improvement of Tuen 2014 Mun Road 9182WC ― Replacement December and Rehabilitation of 3.16 270# 200 2014 Water mains, Stage 2 3051RG ― Redevelopment of Kwun December Tong Swimming Pool 1.32 620 40 2014 Complex and Kwun Tong Recreation Ground 8015QJ ― Redevelopment of the December 1.71 270 110 Hong Kong Sports 2014 Institute 3109KA ― Construction of Trade and Industry 2.65 April 2015 750 100 Tower in Kai Tak Development Area 4369DS ― Harbour Area Treatment Scheme, Stage 2A ― Construction of the Sewage 9.29 June 2015 720# 390 Conveyance System and Advance Works for Upgrading of Stonecutters 3266RS ― Redevelopment of Victoria Park Swimming 1.20 July 2015 550 30 Pool Complex 3173BF ― October Redevelopment of Fire 3.56 1 100 80 Services Training School 2015 1538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Estimated Average Daily Estimated Project Number of number of jobs of Cost Anticipated construction professional/ (3) (Approved Project Title Completion workers hired technical staff to Project Date during peak be created by the Estimate) construction works ($ billion) period (approximation) (approximation) 9191WC ― Replacement and Rehabilitation of December 6.26 210# 280 Water Mains, Stage 4 2015 Phase 1 9186 WC ― Replacement December and Rehabilitation of 5.56 1 140# 360 2015 Water Mains, Stage 3 9189WC ― Replacement and Rehabilitation of December 4.51 180# 230 Water Mains, Stage 4 2015 Phase 2 4371DS ― Sewerage in December 1.34 260# 80 Western Tuen Mun 2015 3031LJ ― West Kowloon 2.72 End 2015 1 100 130 Law Courts Building 6846TH ― Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link ― Detailed 1.91 Early 2016 100 90 Design, Site Investigation and Advance Works 3055RG ― Sports Centre, Community February 1.08 290 40 Hall-cum-public Library 2016 in Area 14B, Sha Tin B566CL ― Development 3.47 April 2016 400 220 at Anderson Road 8073MM ― Tin Shui Wai 3.91 May 2016 900 120 Hospital 8071MM ― Reprovisioning of Yaumatei Specialist Clinic 1.89 June 2016 430 60 at Queen Elizabeth Hospital 4341DS ― Harbour Area Treatment Scheme, Stage 2A ― Upgrading of Stonecutters December 7.91 330# 280 Island Sewage Treatment 2016 Works and Preliminary Treatment Works LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1539

Estimated Average Daily Estimated Project Number of number of jobs of Cost Anticipated construction professional/ (3) (Approved Project Title Completion workers hired technical staff to Project Date during peak be created by the Estimate) construction works ($ billion) period (approximation) (approximation) 6844TH ― Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge 25.04 End 2016 1 850# 860 ― Hong Kong Link Road 4140CD ― Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Kai Tak Nullah from Po Kong Village Road to Tung 1.60 May 2017 120 60 Kwong Road ― Remaining Works 8076MM ― Establishment of Centre of Excellence in 13.00 June 2017 >2 500 270 Paediatrics 5233DS ― Sludge 5.15 June 2017 1 710 60 Treatment Facilities 7677CL ― Wan Chai Development Phase II, 4.64 June 2017 800 430 Engineering Works 7761CL ― Kai Tak Development ― Stages 3A and 4 Infrastructure at 2.26 June 2017 230 160 North Apron Area of Kai Tak Airport 9334WF ― Expansion of Tai Po Water Treatment Works and Ancillary Raw 6.18 August 2017 590# 260 Water and Fresh Water Transfer Facilities ― Part 2 Works 5042DR ― Development December of Southeast New 3.22 Not applicable* Not applicable* 2017 Territories Landfill 4169CD ― Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Kai Tak Nullah from Tung December 1.24 50 50 Kwong Road to Prince 2017 Edward Road East ― Main Works 1540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Estimated Average Daily Estimated Project Number of number of jobs of Cost Anticipated construction professional/ (3) (Approved Project Title Completion workers hired technical staff to Project Date during peak be created by the Estimate) construction works ($ billion) period (approximation) (approximation) Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen ― 66.90 End 2017 Not provided 1 800 Hong Kong Express Rail Link 6579 TH ― Central-Wan Chai Bypass and Island 36.00 End 2017 1 990 1 180 Eastern Corridor Link 6845TH ― Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ― Hong Kong Boundary 30.43 End 2017 3 710 1 410 Crossing Facilities ― Reclamation and Superstructures 5045CG ― District Cooling System at the Kai 3.15 End 2017 430# 330 Tak Development 4160CD ― Happy Valley February Underground Stormwater 1.07 130 30 2018 Storage Scheme 7167CD ― Kai Tak development ― 2.49 April 2018 120 90 reconstruction and upgrading of Kai Tak Nullah 5033DR ― Development December of Northeast New 1.84 Not applicable* Not applicable* 2018 Territories Landfill 6857TH ― Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link 44.80 End 2018 2 750 2 290 ― Construction Works 5019GB ― Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point and Associated Works 16.25 End 2018 1 160 540 ― Site Formation and Infrastructure Works LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1541

Estimated Average Daily Estimated Project Number of number of jobs of Cost Anticipated construction professional/ (3) (Approved Project Title Completion workers hired technical staff to Project Date during peak be created by the Estimate) construction works ($ billion) period (approximation) (approximation) 6720 TH ― Widening of Tolo Highway/Fanling Highway between Island 4.32 End 2018 370# 190 House Interchange and Fanling ― Stage 2 5041DR ― West New December Territories Landfill ― 2.68 Not applicable* Not applicable* 2019 Remaining Phase Shatin to Central Link 2018 (East West Corridor) 2020 (North South Corridor) *In view of the extended archaeological survey at To Kwa Wan and 79.80 the effect of 6 000 2 800 other infrastructure projects at Hong Kong Island, part of the works of SCL are lagging behind the target programme.

Notes:

(3) Category A works under construction currently

# Only the two contracts with the highest values in the project are included.

* As the projects commenced in 1990s, the number of jobs of professional/technical staff were not estimated then.

1542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Annex 3

List of shortage trades

1. Bar Benders and Fixer 2. Carpenter (Formwork) 3. Concretor 4. Riggers/Metal Formwork Erector 5. General Welder 6. Leveler 7. Plasterer 8. Bricklayer 9. Metal Scaffolder 10. Metal Worker 11. Structural Steel Welder 12. Painter and Decorator 13. Curtain Wall Installer 14. Structural Steel Erector 15. Escalator Mechanic 16. Lift Mechanic 17. Plumber 18. Fire Service Mechanical Fitter 19. Fire Service Electrical Fitter 20. Refrigeration/Air-conditioning/Ventilation Mechanic (Air System) 21. Refrigeration/Air-conditioning/Ventilation Mechanic (Water System) 22. Tunnel Worker 23. Compressed Air Worker (Tunnel) 24. Plant and Equipment Operator (Tunnelling) ― Tunnel Boring Machine 25. Trackworker 26. Shotfirer

(Source : The CIC)

Immigration Arrangements for Mainlanders and Foreigners Participating in Local Culture, Arts and Sports Events

11. MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Chinese): President, each year, many culture, arts and sports events and competitions are held in Hong Kong, and the authorities have also been promoting Hong Kong as the Events Capital of Asia. However, some members of such sectors have coincidentally relayed to me that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1543 all Mainlanders and foreigners intending to participate, whether on a paid or unpaid basis, in culture, arts and sports events or competitions in Hong Kong are required to obtain work visas before they are permitted entry and this requirement has caused inconvenience to such persons and impeded exchanges between members of the local sectors and their counterparts outside Hong Kong. Such members of the sectors have also pointed out that foreigners who are invited to participate in culture, arts and sports events in such countries as Singapore, Sweden and Canada are exempted from obtaining work visas prior to entry. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the authorities have introduced immigration convenience measures to facilitate Mainlanders and foreigners to participate in culture, arts and sports events or competitions in Hong Kong; if they have, of the details of such measures; if not, the reasons for that; and

(2) of the justifications for the authorities requiring Mainlanders and foreigners to obtain work visas prior to entering Hong Kong to participate in culture, arts and sports events or competitions; whether they will consider exempting such persons from obtaining work visas by making reference to the practices of the aforesaid countries; if they will, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, my reply to the Member's question is as follows:

(1) The Immigration Department (ImmD) has all along processed visa/entry permit applications for participation in local culture, arts or sports events or competitions pragmatically in accordance with the law and maintains close communication and co-ordination with the organizers of the events or competitions. The ImmD will provide appropriate facilitating measures taking into consideration the dates and circumstances of the events or competitions, including streamlining visa/entry permit application procedures (such as waiving the submission of supporting documents on academic qualifications and the need for sponsors to fill in application forms), according priority to urgent applications, and so on, in order to meet the actual needs of the participants and organizers.

1544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

(2) According to section 7 of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115), a person may not land in Hong Kong without the permission of an immigration officer or immigration assistant unless he enjoys the right of abode or right to land in Hong Kong. Section 11(2) of the Ordinance also stipulates that where permission is given to a person to land or remain in Hong Kong, an immigration officer or immigration assistant may impose a limit of stay and other conditions of stay. In addition, according to regulation 2(1) of the Immigration Regulations (Cap. 115A), persons permitted to land in Hong Kong as a visitor shall be subject to stipulated conditions of stay, including not being allowed to take up any employment, whether paid or unpaid.

Whether visitors' participation in culture, arts or sports events or competitions during their stay in Hong Kong constitutes employment depends on the actual circumstances of individual event or competition, and cannot be generalized. Consideration factors include whether the event or competition is commercial in nature, or whether it involves employment contracts, service contracts, remuneration, and so on. The ImmD will continue to process visa/entry permit applications for participation in local culture, arts or sports events or competitions pragmatically in accordance with the law, and will provide appropriate facilitating arrangements for visa/entry permit application matters for organizers based on their actual needs. The Administration will review our visa/entry permit policy from time to time to ensure that the policy meets Hong Kong's actual circumstances and needs.

Regulation of Listed Companies

12. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Chinese): President, although the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has, in recent years, strived for maintaining the order of financial markets and enhancing protection for small investors, some small investors have expressed dissatisfaction with the SFC's handling of problematic listed companies. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1545

(1) of the total number of complaints received by the authorities in the past five years which were made by investors due to dissatisfaction with the SFC's handling of listed companies, with a breakdown by nature of the complaints;

(2) whether it knows the current number of listed companies whose securities were suspended from trading (suspension) at the SFC's direction, with a breakdown by the duration of suspension so far and the reasons for suspension; among them, the number of cases in which the suspension decisions were not consistent with the earlier decisions of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong (SEHK) and the details of such cases; whether the SFC will review its division of work with SEHK in respect of the regulation of listed companies in order that investors will not get confused or suffer unnecessary losses;

(3) whether it will request the SFC to (i) review the existing arrangements with a view to setting a time limit for suspension and providing the public with regular updates (including the progress of relevant investigations) on long-standing suspension cases so as to reduce the anxiety and dissatisfaction of the affected investors, and (ii) take measures to prevent investors' interests from being undermined as a result of the reduction in the asset value of the listed companies concerned during suspension; and

(4) whether it knows if the SFC presented in the past five years any petition to the Court under section 212 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) for a listed company to be wound up; of the criteria for presenting such petitions, and how it explained to the public that such a move could protect the best interest of the public and small investors?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President,

(1) In the past five years, the Administration received a total of 10 complaints involving dissatisfaction with the SFC's handling of listed companies. The complaints raised mainly the concern that 1546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

the SFC has not regulated listed companies properly, and/or the SFC has failed to provide satisfactory responses to the complaints.

(2) Generally speaking, suspensions are usually requested by individual companies or imposed by the SEHK. It is relatively less common for the SFC to impose suspension.

According to the information provided by the SFC, there are two companies that are currently suspended by the SFC under sub-rule 8(1) of the Securities and Futures (Stock Market Listing) Rules (the Rules). The Rules provide that suspensions may be invoked in a number of instances, including where it appears the company has included false or misleading material in any document it has issued to the market, or where it is necessary to maintain a fair market or to protect the investing public. The Rules permit the company to make representations to the SFC, and for the SFC to lift the suspension or to cancel the listing.

The SFC will not comment publicly on the circumstances of these companies under suspension.

(3) Together with the SEHK, the SFC considered the issue of prolonged suspension in mid-2013. This led to the revised Prolonged Suspension Status Report which is issued regularly on the HKExnews website to provide investors with the latest information concerning companies under suspension. The report summarizes the status of companies which have been suspended for three months or more, and sets out clearly what a company has to do in order for a suspension imposed by the SEHK to be lifted. For each of the individual cases, the report also provides the major developments concerning the relevant companies based on the companies' announcements and the outstanding issues involved.

(4) Section 212 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance provides that the SFC may present a petition for a company to be wound up and the Court will appoint a liquidator. However, this is usually a last resort step where there is sufficient evidence to believe the company's affairs are being conducted in a fraudulent manner to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1547

protect the company's shareholders and creditors. So far, the SFC has used this provision once and the proceedings of the relevant case are still ongoing. The Court has appointed a provisional liquidator to the company to preserve and protect the interests of the minority shareholders and the creditors pending a full hearing. The SFC is unable to make any further comment about this case while it is before the Court.

Arrangement for Allocation of Public Columbarium Niches

13. MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Chinese): President, an investigation report released last month by the Office of The Ombudsman has pointed out that the Diamond Hill Columbarium and Wo Hop Shek Kiu Tau Road Columbarium Phase V, which were completed in 2012, provide a total of some 45 000 columbarium niches (niches), but the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) has been allocating these niches by three phases over a period of three years, of which more than 24 000 niches are reserved for allocation at the last phase. At present, the FEHD processes only 110 applications for niches each day. The Ombudsman has urged FEHD to expeditiously review its allocation arrangement. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of cases in which used niches were returned to FEHD in each of the past five years;

(2) of the justifications for FEHD to allocate new niches by way of ballot, instead of adopting a registration system and allocating them by order of registration; and

(3) as it has been reported that FEHD will review the niche allocation system only by the end of 2015 (that is, after the completion of the allocation of the aforesaid niches), of the reasons for FEHD not conducting such a review right away?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, in recent years, public demand for niches cannot be satisfied solely by public niches constructed and managed by the FEHD. The Government addresses the social 1548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 need in this respect through a three-pronged strategy, that is, making efforts to promote wider use of green burials such as scattering human ashes in Gardens of Remembrance or at sea, enhancing the supply of public niches (including relaxing the cap to allow storing added sets of ashes in each niche), and taking forward actions to better regulate the operation of private columbaria.

The FEHD has been upholding the principles of fairness, openness and impartiality in the use of public resources, when allocating new niches to eligible persons in need. The existing allocation method involves assigning, on a random basis, a computer-generated priority number to eligible applications for new niches. Applicants will then be invited to select niches according to their priority numbers. The FEHD allocates new niches at the new Wo Hop Shek Kiu Tau Road Public Columbarium and the Diamond Hill Columbarium extension in three phases. Allocation of niches under the first and second phases had been completed in May 2013 and May 2014 respectively, with a total of 20 697 niches allocated. The third phase, involving 24 474 niches, commenced in September 2014. Some 31 342 eligible applications were received. Drawing on the experience of the first and second phases, the FEHD has increased the number of applicants invited to select niches from 110 to 125 per day, so as to expedite the allocation process.

My reply to the question raised by Mr WONG Yuk-man is as follows:

(1) The number of niches returned in each of the last five years is as follows:

Year Number of niches returned 2010 639 2011 416 2012 255 2013 230 2014 (as at September) 152 Total 1 692

(2) In 2009, the FEHD adopted the recommendation of the Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) when allocating the 18 501 new niches available in a new building inside the Diamond Hill Columbarium. In an open balloting exercise, all 22 097 eligible LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1549

applications were allocated, on a random basis, a computer generated priority number. The applicants were then invited to select niches according to their priority numbers. By the time the allocation exercise was completed, all applicants were given a chance to select niches.

In 2012, the new public columbarium at Kiu Tau Road of Wo Hop Shek (providing 43 710 new niches) and the Diamond Hill Columbarium extension (providing 1 540 new niches) were completed. After consulting ICAC and taking into account the following factors, the FEHD decided to keep using the allocation arrangements adopted in 2009:

(i) the allocation method must accord with the principles of fairness and transparency;

(ii) Since the demand for public niches outstrips supply in recent years, any attempt to set, on top of the basic legal requirements governing the entitlement of residents to inter ashes at public columbaria(1), other added conditions or qualifying criteria pertaining to the priority and allocation is liable to cause disputes among the public and stakeholders. It would be difficult to reach consensus over such matters; and

(iii) Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts that we are making to solicit support from local communities and the public to

(1) According to section 13(3) of the Cremation and Gardens of Remembrance Regulation (Cap. 132M), … any person shall, upon payment of the prescribed fee, be entitled to have the ashes of the human remains of any person:

(a) who was a resident of Hong Kong at the time of his death and whose remains were cremated in a Government crematorium within three months after his death; or

(b) who was a resident of Hong Kong for a period of at least 10 years during the period of 20 years immediately preceding his death and his remains were cremated outside Hong Kong,

deposited at a Government crematorium or columbarium …

Under section 13(5) of the Cremation and Gardens of Remembrance Regulation (Cap. 132M), without prejudice to the provisions of subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4), upon application … and payment of the prescribed fee, the ashes of the human remains of any person may, at the discretion of the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene, be deposited at any crematorium or columbarium the management and control of which is vested in the Director. Examples include ashes of human remains lawfully exhumed and cremated in a Government crematorium. 1550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

expedite the building of new public columbaria, there remains uncertainty about the future volume of new supply in niches. In the circumstances, there is hardly any one allocation mechanism that could satisfy all demands. Should the "first-register-first-allocated" approach be taken, allocation will in effect be made on a first-come-first-served basis. Nonetheless, since supply is falling short, it is highly likely that those who pass away in later years would be denied access to public niches.

(3) When the allocation of new niches at Diamond Hill and Kiu Tau Road of Wo Hop Shek commenced in 2012, the FEHD announced the allocation procedures for all three phases of the exercise at one go. For the sake of fairness and to avoid confusion, it is incumbent upon FEHD to stick to and follow through the exercise according to the arrangements that had been publicly announced. The FEHD has taken note of the views received during the exercise and will review the situation in detail after the whole exercise is completed, including studying the possibility of speeding up allocation to improve the future allocation arrangement.

Manpower Situation of Lifeguards Under LCSD

14. MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Chinese): President, some lifeguards employed by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) have relayed to me that shortage in the lifeguard manpower of LCSD is a long-standing problem, which not only creates a heavy workload for the serving lifeguards but also poses serious safety hazard to swimmers. Also, they have said that for years they have been urging the authorities to recruit more lifeguards and review their grade structure, but to no avail. They consider that lifeguards should be detached from the artisan grade and be re-graded as a professional grade so as to improve their remuneration packages, thereby attracting more young people to become lifeguards and addressing the long-standing problem of manpower shortage. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the current number of lifeguards in the civil service establishment (civil service lifeguards);

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1551

(2) of the respective current lifeguard establishments for different types of public swimming pools, that is, main pools, secondary pools, training pools, teaching pools, leisure pools and sunbathing pools, managed by LCSD (set out in a table);

(3) of the current establishment and strength of lifeguards in various public beaches (set out in a table);

(4) in each of the past three financial years, of the respective numbers of civil service lifeguards and lifeguards recruited by LCSD on a seasonal basis (seasonal lifeguards), their respective average weekly working hours and average monthly salaries (set out in Table 1), as well as their respective age distributions (set out in Table 2);

Table 1 Average Mode of Average weekly Year Number monthly appointment working hours salary Civil service lifeguards 2013-2014 Seasonal lifeguards Civil service lifeguards 2012-2013 Seasonal lifeguards Civil service lifeguards 2011-2012 Seasonal lifeguards

Table 2 Age Mode of Year 60 or appointment 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 above Civil service lifeguards 2013-2014 Seasonal lifeguards 1552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Age Mode of Year 60 or appointment 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 above Civil service lifeguards 2012-2013 Seasonal lifeguards Civil service lifeguards 2011-2012 Seasonal lifeguards

(5) in this and each of the next two financial years, (i) of the actual/projected number of civil service lifeguards who retired/will retire, and the respective numbers of civil service lifeguards and seasonal lifeguards to be recruited by the Government (set out in Table 3), and (ii) whether the Government has plans to recruit lifeguards to fill the vacancies arising from the retirement of existing lifeguards; if it does not, of the reasons for that; and

Table 3 Actual/projected Number of Mode of number of Year lifeguards to appointment lifeguards who be recruited retired/will retire Civil service 2016-2017 lifeguards Seasonal lifeguards / Civil service 2015-2016 lifeguards Seasonal lifeguards / Civil service 2014-2015 lifeguards Seasonal lifeguards /

(6) of the number of seasonal lifeguards who were appointed as civil service lifeguards through open recruitment, in each of the past three financial years?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1553

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, the LCSD manages 43 public swimming pools, 41 gazetted public beaches and five water sports centres in Hong Kong. The safety of swimmers is always the Department's prime concern in considering the manpower requirement for lifeguards, in order to ensure that sufficient lifeguard services are available at all its swimming pools and beaches, and reviews are conducted from time to time. Further to the reviews conducted in the past three years, the LCSD has made an additional annual provision of about $14 million to increase the lifeguard quota by more than 160 at different times at pools and beaches in order to enhance lifeguard services and meet actual operational needs.

To provide for a more comprehensive review of lifeguard manpower requirements, in 2013 LCSD established a working group including representatives from both the management and the staff sides. In the light of the working group's recommendations, the Department allocated about $4 million to increase the lifeguard quota by 42 at different times at pools and beaches. Through the working group the Department will continue to review and consider manpower requirements according to the circumstances of individual swimming pools and beaches in line with the principles of securing the safety of swimmers and optimizing the use of public resources.

The proposal from staff unions for LCSD to separate lifeguards from the artisan grade would require a review of grade structures. Under current policy, a grade structure review can be conducted according to two criteria, namely: whether there are proven and persistent recruitment and retention difficulties for the grade concerned; and whether there are fundamental changes in job nature and responsibilities. The Government considers that at present there are insufficient grounds to support a grade structure review for the artisan (beach/swimming pool) grade. The Department welcomes and will examine new grounds for review put forward by staff unions.

Our reply to the six parts of the question is as follows:

(1) As at 1 August 2014, there were 951 civil service lifeguards in LCSD.

(2) As the swimming complexes managed by LCSD provide different types and numbers of swimming facilities and the design and utilization of each swimming complex varies, the actual requirement for lifeguards on duty at each swimming complex may differ. The 1554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

basic lifeguard establishment for major pool facilities managed by LCSD is tabulated below:

Number of Lifeguards Required Type of Pool in Each Shift 50-metre standard main pool 4 (with a depth of 1.9 m) 50-metre secondary pool (with 3 a depth of 1.4 m) Diving pool 1 Training and teaching pools (in 2 groups of 3) Children's pool 1 Toddlers' pool 1 Leisure pool 1-10 (depending on the size and design features of individual pools) First aid post 1

Senior lifeguards are on duty at swimming pools in each shift. They are responsible for supervising lifeguards, assigning routine duties and maintaining discipline as well as commanding and performing life-saving operations and first aid duties. In the case of a 50-metre main pool, there are four lifeguards on duty per shift for a standard pool and additional lifeguards are deployed in each shift for individual pools with a depth of more than 1.9 m, or of a larger size or 50-metre main pools with high patronage. For example, the 50-metre main pool in the Kowloon Park Swimming Pool is manned by six lifeguards per shift all year round in view of its high annual patronage and large size with a depth of more than 1.9 m, whereas the main pool in the Shing Mun Valley Swimming Pool with an adjustable pool floor is manned by five lifeguards per shift to meet operational needs.

In addition to the above basic manpower provision, the Department employs seasonal lifeguards during the peak swimming season to cater for the increased number of swimmers. It also regularly reviews the provision of lifeguard manpower, taking into account actual circumstances such as changes in the facilities or their utilization.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1555

(3) Given that each public beach varies in terms of geographical environment, size and patronage, the LCSD does not have a standard lifeguard staffing establishment applicable to all beaches. It therefore deploys lifeguards taking the above factors into account. Please refer to the Annex for the number of lifeguards to be employed and the actual number of lifeguards employed at public beaches as at 1 August 2014.

(4) According to the terms of appointment of lifeguards, the number of working hours of civil service lifeguards and seasonal lifeguards is 45 hours net per week. However LCSD may require some lifeguards to work overtime according to operational needs. For example, overtime work is required for extended life-saving services at beaches on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays during the peak swimming season, and for the enhanced cleaning of swimming pools after daily closure. Overtime work is compensated by time off or an overtime allowance as and when appropriate. The total numbers of civil service and seasonal lifeguards employed by LCSD, their average weekly working hours and monthly salary after compensation by time-off or overtime allowance, as well as their age distribution in the past three financial years are compared as at 1 August each year and tabulated as follows:

Table 1 Average Average Mode of Number of Year Weekly Monthly Appointment Lifeguards Working Hours Salary Civil service 955 45 $15,410 lifeguard 2013-2014 Seasonal 955 45 $12,960 lifeguard Civil service 855 45 $14,825 lifeguard 2012-2013 Seasonal 927 45 $12,230 lifeguard Civil service 764 45 $14,010 lifeguard 2011-2012 Seasonal 950 45 $11,615 lifeguard

1556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Table 2 Age Mode of Year 60 or Appointment 16-17 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 above Civil service 0 185 390 240 140 0 lifeguard 2013-2014 Seasonal 6 818 63 37 30 1 lifeguard Civil service 0 160 355 217 123 0 lifeguard 2012-2013 Seasonal 5 794 61 38 26 3 lifeguard Civil service 0 124 304 217 119 0 lifeguard 2011-2012 Seasonal 7 788 81 41 31 2 lifeguard

(5) The actual/projected number of civil service lifeguard retirees and the number of civil service and seasonal lifeguards to be recruited for the current year and the next two financial years are tabulated as follows:

Table 3 Actual/Projected Number of Lifeguards Mode of Year Number of to be Recruited Appointment Retirees (Provisional Figures) Civil service 12 12 lifeguard 2016-2017 Seasonal / 983 lifeguard Civil service 4 4 lifeguard 2015-2016 Seasonal / 983 lifeguard Civil service 10 10 lifeguard 2014-2015 Seasonal / 983 lifeguard

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1557

Posts vacated by retiring civil service lifeguards are filled by civil servants. If such vacancies are not filled immediately, they are filled on a temporary basis by seasonal lifeguards to meet operational needs.

(6) The LCSD has not encountered difficulty recruiting civil service lifeguards. The number of seasonal lifeguards converting to civil service lifeguards through open recruitment in the past three financial years is tabulated below:

Number of Seasonal Lifeguards Converted to Civil Year Service Lifeguards through Open Recruitment 2013-2014 17 2012-2013 35 2011-2012 52

Annex

The number of Lifeguards to be Employed and the Actual number of Lifeguards Employed at Public Beaches (as at 1 August 2014)

District Number of Actual Number Council Public Beach Lifeguards to be of Lifeguards District Employed Employed Big Wave Bay Beach 13 10 Middle Bay Beach 10 9 Shek O Beach 32 30 Stanley Main Beach 16 15 Southern Southern Bay Beach 11 10 District Repulse Bay Beach 30 27 Deep Water Bay Beach 28 27 St. Stephen's Beach 11 10 Chung Hom Kok Beach 11 10 Turtle Cove Beach 10 9 1558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

District Number of Actual Number Council Public Beach Lifeguards to be of Lifeguards District Employed Employed Cafeteria Old Beach 17 17 Castle Peak Beach 14 14 Golden Beach 30 30 Tuen Mun Cafeteria New Beach 14 14 Butterfly Beach 33 32 Kadoorie Beach 10 10 Ma Wan Tung Wan Beach 14 13 Ting Kau Beach 13 13 Anglers' Beach 11 10 Tsuen Approach Beach 11 10 Wan Lido Beach 17 16 Cassam Beach 10 9 Hoi Mei Wan Beach 11 10 Silverstrand Beach 14 12 Clear Water Bay First Beach 12 12 Clear Water Bay Second Beach 34 30 Sai Kung Hap Mun Bay Beach 16 13 Trio Beach 17 16 Kiu Tsui Beach 13 12 Kwun Yam Beach 10 8 Upper Cheung Sha Beach 10 9 Pui O Beach 10 9 Cheung Chau Tung Wan Beach 14 13 Island Hung Shing Yeh Beach 10 9 Tong Fuk Beach 11 9 Silver Mine Bay Beach 10 9 Lo So Shing Beach 10 7 Lower Cheung Sha Beach 10 8 Total number of lifeguards 578 531

Note:

The actual number of lifeguards employed includes civil service, contract and seasonal lifeguards. The discrepancy between the numbers of lifeguards to be employed and the actual number of lifeguards employed is due to the fact that LCSD could not recruit sufficient seasonal lifeguards for the current year and the fact that some of civil service lifeguard vacancies cannot be filled. Vacancies arising from civil service lifeguards' appointment on trial to other grades are filled unless and until the civil service lifeguards in question have passed the trial bar.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1559

Safety of Edible Lard

15. DR HELENA WONG (in Chinese): President, on the 15th of last month, the Centre for Food Safety (CFS) under the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) announced that having assessed the latest developments of investigations into the incident of substandard edible oil by the Taiwanese authorities, it had decided to impose, with immediate effect, a total ban on import and sale within Hong Kong of all edible oil produced in Taiwan. In addition, there was information showing that a trading company in Hong Kong had, in recent years, exported edible lard to several Taiwanese companies involved in the production of substandard lard. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as it has been reported that according to the export statistics, Hong Kong exported edible lard in each of the past three years, but the Director of FEHD advised that no edible lard was produced in Hong Kong, whether the authorities have followed up the reasons why there had been exports of edible lard;

(2) of the total number of companies in Hong Kong which exported edible lard in the past three years and the countries/places to which the edible lard was exported;

(3) whether it has investigated if the companies mentioned in part (2) have provided edible lard to local food factories as raw materials; if it has investigated and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the names of these factories; and

(4) whether it has investigated if the edible lard sold by the companies mentioned in part (2) is fit for human consumption, as well as the places of origin and the names of the manufacturers of such lard; if it has investigated, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, any premises manufacturing edible lard for human consumption in Hong Kong must have a food factory licence issued by the FEHD under the Food Business Regulation (Cap. 132X). If the manufacturing process involves the boiling of lard, the premises should also obtain an offensive trade licence issued by FEHD under the Offensive Trades Regulation (Cap. 132AX). According to the records 1560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 of FEHD, there are currently nine licensed food factories which are allowed to process or manufacture edible oil, but not edible lard. As such, no licensed premises in Hong Kong are allowed to engage in the business of manufacturing edible lard. However, according to the domestic export declaration records, there has been domestic export of edible lard, giving rise to concern about whether edible lard is being illegally produced for domestic export by unruly manufacturers.

In this connection, the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) has checked carefully the domestic export declaration records under the Hong Kong Harmonized System (HKHS)(1) code 15011000(2) between January 2013 to July 2014 and found out that the declaration involved four exporters. Except for Globalway Corporation Limited which is still under police investigation for allegation of fraud, the C&ED has come into contact with the other three and checked their records on the import and export of the relevant products.

It was found that the three exporters had made errors in their trade declaration. For one of the exporters, the commodity concerned had been correctly declared as lard not for human consumption on the export declaration but the HKHS code had been incorrectly declared. For the other two exporters, the edible lard not manufactured in Hong Kong had been incorrectly declared as domestic exports instead of re-exports. The C&ED had already reminded the three exporters of the correct method of lodging trade declarations. In response to public concern about the incident, the Administration will step up monitoring with a view to further enhancing the declarants' understanding of the relevant commodity code classification.

The investigation results of C&ED have revealed that the existence of records of domestic exports of edible lard, as mentioned in the first paragraph above, is the result of incorrect declaration by the relevant exporters. There is no evidence that any of these exporters has manufactured edible lard in Hong Kong for domestic exports or for the use of local food factories as an ingredient.

(1) HKHS is a classification list which adopts the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System designed by the World Customs Organization. The classification list, issued by the Commissioner of Customs and Excise, is used for import and export declarations and amendments to the list where necessary is announced in the Government Gazette.

(2) HKHS code 1501 1000 refers to lard, other than that under heading 0209 (pig fat, free of lean meat, and poultry fat, not rendered or otherwise extracted, fresh, chilled, frozen, salted, in brine, dried or smoked) or heading 1503 (lard stearin, lard oil, oleostearin, oleo-oil and tallow oil, not emulsified or mixed or otherwise prepared). LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1561

As it has taken significant time and resources for C&ED to check the relevant records of export declarations and carry out follow-up investigation, we have only in hand the information for 2013 and the period from January to July 2014.

On the other hand, the CFS of FEHD has all along been monitoring the quality of local edible oil through the risk-based regular Food Surveillance Programme to ensure that the oil meets the legal requirements and is fit for human consumption. In 2013, CFS took some 450 edible oil samples at different levels for testing of chemicals including benzo[a]pyrene, aflatoxins, peroxide value and metal contaminants. All results were found to be satisfactory.

In response to the substandard lard incident in Taiwan, CFS took some 210 samples of high-risk and possibly contaminated food products and lard for testing. Except for one lard sample the peroxide value of which exceeded the relevant limit, all samples passed the tests. The risk assessment conducted by CFS with reference to the test results showed that while the consumption of the food concerned might increase food safety risk, the risk was considered to be not high and there was no cause for undue concern.

Considering public concern over the safety of edible oil, CFS will step up the testing of edible oil from other places in the coming year. It is expected that the number of samples to be collected for testing will increase by at least 20% over last year.

Internet Access Services for Residents in Remote Areas

16. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, some residents in the remote villages in Sai Kung and Tai Po have relayed to me that as there is only one operator providing fixed network broadband Internet access services (FNO) in their areas of residence, they have no other choice but to patronize it. Regarding the access to Internet access services through the fixed network, the mobile network and the public Wi-Fi network by residents in remotes areas in the New Territories, will the Government inform this Council:

1562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

(1) of the number of complaints received by the authorities in each of the past three years from residents in remote areas against the only FNO in their areas of residence;

(2) whether it has specific plans to encourage more FNOs to provide fixed network broadband services for residents in remote areas in order to introduce competition;

(3) whether the "Digital 21 Strategy" currently implemented by the Government has included policies on catering for the needs of residents in remote areas for telecommunications services; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(4) as it has been reported that an academic has pointed out that Hong Kong excessively relies on third-generation or fourth-generation data services, thus giving rise to frequent occurrences of serious network congestion, whether the authorities will consider allocating the television services spectrum which is currently left idle for the provision of such services, in order to ease network congestion; and

(5) given that the information provided by the Government in its reply to a question raised by a Member of this Council last year indicated that the number of Wi-Fi hotspots provided by commercial organizations in the North District, Tai Po and outlying islands were fewer than those in other districts, whether the authorities know the reasons for that and whether they will discuss with those organizations the feasibility of increasing Wi-Fi hotspots in remote areas?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President,

(1) Over the past three years, the Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA) has received and handled some enquiries and complaints from members of the public concerning fixed broadband network coverage. However, the OFCA has not specifically compiled statistics on the number of complaints received from LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1563

residents in remote areas concerning the provision of service by only one fixed network operator (FNO) in their areas of residence.

(2) and (3)

With the full liberalization of the telecommunications market in Hong Kong, the provision of fixed broadband service, the network coverage and the type of technologies adopted are primarily decided by FNOs based on their commercial considerations.

With a view to encouraging and assisting FNOs to invest in network expansion, the OFCA has all along been committed to offering facilitation measures, including assisting FNOs in rolling out network across public streets, government-owned bridges and tunnels, and explaining to property management companies and owners' corporations the responsibilities and duties of FNOs and the advantages that would bring to the residents in respect of network rollout in private premises so as to enhance network coverage and access.

If OFCA receives enquiry or complaint alleging that the provision of fixed broadband service cannot satisfy the demand of residents in remote areas, OFCA will relay it to FNOs and encourage them to explore feasible options with a view to enhancing the network coverage of those areas and meeting market needs.

In respect of the "Digital 21 Strategy" implemented by the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, it aims to leverage on new technologies to propel the overall development of information and communications technology industry instead of focusing primarily on telecommunications.

(4) The mobile network operators have endeavoured to install radio base stations in various districts of Hong Kong over the years so as to establish mobile network coverage and meet the needs of subscribers for mobile data services. Although mobile network may be relatively congested in highly crowded locations (such as MTR stations in busy areas) during peak hours, the overall capacity of the mobile network is adequate for service demand. With intense 1564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

competition in the market, we believe that the operators will continue to optimize their network coverage and capacity to satisfy the continuously increasing service demand.

As regards the existing television channels in the Ultra High Frequency band (that is, 470-806 MHz) in Hong Kong, they have all been used for free-to-air terrestrial television service or mobile television service, and there is no vacant channel available.

(5) Since the local telecommunications market has been fully liberalized, the coverage of public Wi-Fi services provided by commercial organizations and the number of hotspots provided are decided by individual operators based on their commercial considerations in a competitive environment of the market, and may be affected by various factors, such as the extent of commercial activities in the district.

With a view to encouraging and assisting FNOs concerned in Wi-Fi network expansion, the OFCA has all along been committed to offering facilitation measures, including assisting FNOs in rolling out network at public streets, government-owned bridges and tunnels, and facilitating their installation of Wi-Fi equipment on government facilities (for example, lamp posts, footbridges and flyovers).

Measures to Reduce Medical Incidents

17. MR JAMES TO (in Chinese): President, in September this year, medical incidents occurred in Tseung Kwan O Hospital and Haven of Hope Hospital respectively in which healthcare personnel mistakenly inserted a feeding tube into a patient's lung and infused excessive amount of drugs into another patient's body. Thereafter, the patients passed away. I have also received requests for assistance from patients' family members regarding medical incidents. They suspect that some healthcare personnel made wrongful diagnoses due to negligence and some patients even died as a result. These family members indicated that the successive occurrence of medical incidents in public hospitals has made them worry about the quality of public medical services, and they gave up pursuing their cases because they encountered numerous obstacles in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1565 course of tracking down the responsible party for medical blunders. As a result, their interests have been undermined and they have lost confidence in the public healthcare system. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it knows:

(1) the respective numbers of sentinel events and serious untoward events that occurred in public hospitals in each of the past five years, with a breakdown by name of hospital and type of sentinel events requiring reporting to the Department of Health; the respective numbers of cases among these events involving mistakes made by nursing staff and doctors;

(2) if the Hospital Authority (HA) has assessed the effectiveness of implementing the patient safety round programme and using two-dimensional barcode and radiofrequency for patient identification in reducing medical incidents; if the HA has, of the findings;

(3) given that the HA staff informed a relevant Panel of the Legislative Council in November 2009 that it would set up a central Staff Discipline Committee to advise the Cluster Chief Executives on disciplinary actions for sentinel events, and would establish a central mechanism to review such incidents, of the current arrangement and progress of the relevant work;

(4) the types of disciplinary actions taken by the HA against the healthcare personnel proved to have made mistakes; the respective numbers of times for which various disciplinary actions were taken by the HA in each of the past five years; if the HA has examined whether the existing span of disciplinary actions is adequate; if the HA has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(5) if the Medical Council of Hong Kong (MCHK) will take the initiative to investigate the medical incidents that occurred in public hospitals; and

(6) if the HA has long-term plans to enhance the quality of medical services in public hospitals; if the HA does, of the details?

1566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, the HA has attached great importance to service quality and patient safety. It has put in place mechanisms and guidelines to conduct clinical audits and deal with medical incidents. My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) The HA has implemented a policy on the reporting of sentinel events since October 2007 to standardize the practice and procedures in handling sentinel events in all hospital clusters, mandating hospitals to report nine types of "sentinel events"(1). Subsequently in January 2010, the HA improved the reporting mechanism and required hospitals to report two additional types of "serious untoward events"(2). Under the policy, hospitals/clusters should report sentinel and serious untoward events within 24 hours through the Advance Incident Reporting System. They should also handle the incidents properly in accordance with the established procedures so as to minimize any possible harm of the events to patients and at the same time provide support to the staff involved. The hospitals concerned will investigate the causes of the events and submit reports to the HA Head Office.

The number of sentinel and serious untoward events reported to the HA Head Office in the past five years are set out by type in Annex 1 and Annex 2.

The provision of healthcare service requires the collaboration among healthcare professionals of different disciplines and the support of advanced technologies. With the advancement of medical technology, treatment procedures have become more sophisticated. The emergence of complications, side-effects of drugs and changes

(1) The nine types of "sentinel events" required to be reported are: (i) Surgery/interventional procedure involving the wrong patient or body part; (ii) Retained instruments or other material after surgery/interventional procedure; (iii) ABO incompatibility blood transfusion; (iv) Medication error resulting in major permanent loss of function or death; (v) Intravascular gas embolism resulting in death or neurological damage; (vi) Death of an in-patient from suicide (including home leave); (vii) Maternal death or serious morbidity associated with labour or delivery; (viii) Infant discharged to wrong family or infant abduction; and (ix) Other adverse events resulting in permanent loss of function or death (excluding complications).

(2) The two types of "serious untoward events" required to be reported are: (i) Medication error which could led to death or permanent harm; and (ii) Patient misidentification. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1567

in patients' conditions may also increase the risks involved in treatment procedures. The causes of medical incidents are multifaceted, with system and procedural factors, rather than human issues, as the main causes. The aim of the HA's sentinel event policy is to enable healthcare professionals to learn from and share experiences on the incidents, so as to enhance safety and quality of service and achieve the long-term objective of continuous service quality improvement.

The HA will conduct a detailed analysis on each sentinel and serious untoward event with a view to identifying the possible cause of the incident and formulating improvement measures to avoid recurrence of a similar incident. Each year, the HA Head Office will submit to the HA Board a report of sentinel events, which will also be released to the public. Internally, the HA facilitate the healthcare professionals to share among themselves the experience of handling medical incidents through staff training and the quarterly "Risk Alert" newsletter.

(2) The HA has implemented various initiatives to enhance patient safety and service quality, including patient safety rounds. Senior management of the HA Head Office, hospitals and clusters will lead the patient safety rounds and listen to the front-line staff on their concerns and suggestions regarding protocols and procedures in their daily work settings which concern patient safety. The aim is to encourage the front-line staff to provide feedback to the management to identifying safety issues, formulating improvement measures and simplifying work process.

Regarding the use of 2D barcode, the 2D barcode system has been adopted for all blood and microbiological tests in the HA hospitals. The phase 3 Unique Patient Identification (UPI) project for specimens collection has also been completed. The HA will continue to explore the adoption of 2D barcode system in different areas, such as mobile X-ray examination in Accident & Emergency Departments and wards, so as to enhance patient identification and reduce human errors. Since the introduction of reporting serious untoward event in January 2010, there has only been one case of patient misidentification related to sample mislabelling, which 1568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

occurred at a clinical department that had not adopted the 2D barcode system.

In addition, the HA has introduced Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and UPI to eliminate possible errors on the identification of dead bodies. The installation of RFID system has been completed in 12 mortuaries and is underway in six other mortuaries. There has been no incident relating to the misidentification of dead bodies in public hospitals since 2007.

(3) The HA has put in place an established mechanism to handle disciplinary matters of its staff, including those arising from medical incidents. The relevant procedures of the disciplinary actions are laid down in the Human Resources Policies Manual so that hospital clusters can adopt a consistent approach to handle disciplinary matters. Based on real cases happened in various clusters, the central human resources department has also set up a Disciplinary Cases Inventory for reference by human resources departments of clusters in handling disciplinary cases. Since the HA has already had an established disciplinary mechanism in place, it, after careful consideration, has not set up a central Staff Discipline Committee to handle disciplinary actions arising from sentinel events.

(4) The HA has an established and proper arrangement for disciplinary actions. It will consider appropriate disciplinary actions according to different factors of individual cases. Types of disciplinary actions include verbal warning, written warning, stoppage of increment, deferment of increment and dismissal, and so on. The number of disciplinary actions taken in the past five years are as follows:

Year Number of disciplinary actions 2009-2010 296 2010-2011 267 2011-2012 324 2012-2013 302 2013-2014 363

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1569

(5) Upon receiving information or complaints about the professional conduct of registered medical practitioners, the MCHK will handle the case according to the Medical Registration Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation, that is, Medical Practitioners (Registration and Disciplinary Procedure) Regulation (Cap. 161E).

When MCHK investigates into medical incidents that occurred in public hospital, the HA will provide assistance to facilitate the investigation as far as possible.

(6) The HA has all along been making every effort to enhance the quality of medical service in public hospitals. With the policy steering and support of the Government, the HA launched the Pilot Scheme of Hospital Accreditation in 2009. The objective of the scheme is to assess and improve hospital service through an independent accrediting agent which adopts a set of internationally recognized framework of standards. The participating hospitals have to conduct self-assessment on their performance in accordance with international standards every year. Afterwards, the accrediting team will conduct survey at the hospitals and make suggestions on improvement. After taking follow-up actions and making improvements, the hospitals have to report to the accrediting team, so as to ensure that their services can meet international standards and the quality of the services can keep improving.

The HA has also set up a communication and electronic platform in order to facilitate the sharing and follow-up of the suggestions of the accrediting teams and improvement measures. In the past few years, the HA has co-ordinated improvement suggestions which involved substantial input of resources and wide implications on hospital operation, in order to promote the overall enhancement of the HA. For example, on clinical aspects, the HA has conducted a comprehensive review on the sterilizing facilities in operating theatres since 2011-2012. A broad variety of improvement programmes have been implemented in hospitals by stages, including the replacement and addition of sterilizing facilities in operating theatres, acquisition of additional surgical instruments and endoscopes, development of the surgical equipment tracking system and enhancement of staff training, and so on.

1570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

In order to equip healthcare personnel with proper clinical skills and improve patient safety, the HA is actively preparing for the development of credentialing and defining scope of practice. The central committee concerned will continue to discuss and collaborate with stakeholders to decide on the medical procedures which require qualification accreditation and the relevant professional standards.

Annex 1

Number of Sentinel Events in the HA (1 October 2008 to 30 September 2013)

1 October 1 October 1 October 1 October 1 October 2008 to 2009 to 2010 to 2011 to 2012 to 30 September 30 September 30 September 30 September 30 September 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (12 months) (12 months) (12 months) (12 months) (12 months) 1. Surgery/ 10 5 3 5 4 interventional procedure involving the wrong patient or body part 2. Retained 13 12 18 14 10 instruments or other material after surgery/ interventional procedure 3. ABO 0 0 1 0 0 incompatibility blood transfusion 4. Medication error 0 1 1 0 0 resulting in major permanent loss of function or death 5. Intravascular gas 0 1 0 0 0 embolism resulting in death or neurological damage LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1571

1 October 1 October 1 October 1 October 1 October 2008 to 2009 to 2010 to 2011 to 2012 to 30 September 30 September 30 September 30 September 30 September 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (12 months) (12 months) (12 months) (12 months) (12 months) 6. Death of an 15 11 20 10 9 in-patient from suicide (including home leave) 7. Maternal death 2 2 1 2 1 or serious morbidity associated with labour or delivery 8. Infant discharged 0 0 0 0 1 to wrong family or infant abduction 9. Other adverse 0 1 0 3 1 events resulting in permanent loss of function or death (excluding complications) Total 40 33 44 34 26

Annex 2

Number of Serious Untoward Events in the HA (1 January 2010 to 30 September 2013)

1 January 2010 1 October 2010 1 October 2011 1 October 2012 to to to to 30 September 30 September 30 September 30 September 2010 2011 2012 2013 (9 months) (12 months) (12 months) (12 months) 1. Medication error 72 88 92 96 2. Patient 9 9 10 8 misidentification Total 81 97 102 104

1572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Operations to Destroy Fireworks

18. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that as the National Day fireworks display originally scheduled for 1 October this year had been cancelled, some 24 000 pieces of fireworks valued at $6 million in total had to be destroyed due to safety concerns. The fireworks were transported to Tai A Chau, south of Lantau Island, on the 10th of last month for destruction. The destruction operation lasted 11 hours, during which loud noise and large plumes of black smoke were generated. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) which government departments were involved in the destruction operation and of the relevant decisions made and tasks undertaken by them;

(2) of the various types of air pollutants emitted during the destruction operation and their respective quantities;

(3) of the legislation governing the destruction of fireworks, and whether the authorities have, before deciding on the site for destroying the fireworks, conducted environmental impact assessment studies on the sites concerned; if they have, of the details;

(4) whether the authorities have monitored, in the vicinity of Tai A Chau, (i) the concentration of air pollutants and noise levels during the destruction of fireworks, and (ii) the air quality and the impact caused to the ecological environment in the week following the destruction of fireworks; if they have, of the respective results; and

(5) of the quantity of fireworks destroyed in Hong Kong in the past five years and the locations involved?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, on 29 September 2014, the Government decided to cancel the 2014 National Day Fireworks Display. My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1573

(1) As in previous years, the National Day Fireworks Display Organizing Committee provided assistance to the sponsor of the fireworks display in the operation and organization of the National Day Fireworks Display.

Following an assessment by the sponsor's technical producer and the relevant government departments, it was decided that the fireworks should be disposed of by burning them at the remote location of Tai A Chau. The government departments involved in the disposal included the Mines Division of the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD), the Marine Department (MD), the Police Marine Division and the Fire Services Department.

(2) The rules for applicants to sponsor fireworks displays specify that sponsors should not purchase or use fireworks containing harmful substances such as mercury, chromium, lead, zinc, nickel, magnesium and arsenic.

(3) The disposal of fireworks is regulated under the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations (Cap. 295B). Vessels conveying and handling dangerous goods in Hong Kong waters are regulated under the Dangerous Goods Ordinance (Cap. 295) and its subsidiary legislation (mainly the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations (Cap. 295B) and the Dangerous Goods (Shipping) Regulations (Cap. 295C)). The MD is responsible for monitoring and other matters relating to the issue of permits for the carriage and handling of dangerous goods under the regulations.

As regards the disposal in question, the MD issued the appropriate permits, namely the "Removal Permit for Explosives" (Regulation 4 of Cap. 295B) and the "Permit for Fireworks Display" (Regulation 59 of Cap. 295B) to compliant vessels to allow them to carry and handle fireworks. The MD gave prior notification of the disposal operation to government departments concerned and to cross-boundary ferry operators, advising vessels to stay away from the areas concerned. In addition, the MD officers conducted on-site marine traffic control during the disposal operation.

1574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

The fireworks disposal operation took place on Tai A Chau which is far away from residential areas. Since the disposal was carried out on a level close to the ground surface, the burnt residues were confined within the immediate vicinity of the site where the fireworks were destroyed. The departments concerned cleared up the site immediately after the disposal was completed.

(4) According to data collected at the Environmental Protection Department's Tung Chung air quality monitoring station, which is the closest station to Tai A Chau, no abnormalities in air pollutant concentration were recorded at the time of disposal or during the following week. Regular monitoring of the marine water quality nearby also showed no abnormal conditions.

(5) According to the CEDD, in the past five years its Mine Division has disposed of an average of about 4 700 kg of fireworks annually in the incinerator at the Kau Shat Wan Government Explosives Depot on Lantau Island.

Implementation of Amendments Made to Nurses Registration Ordinance

19. PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Chinese): President, it is learnt that since 1997, the nursing sector has been advocating the introduction of amendments to the Nurses Registration Ordinance (Cap. 164) so as to enhance the credibility, transparency and governance of the Nursing Council of Hong Kong (the Council) as well as to achieve the aim of professional autonomy. In June 1997, the former Legislative Council passed the amendments to the Ordinance, which included the addition of section 3(2)(ca) to stipulate that six of the members of the Council must be elected among registered nurses and enrolled nurses in a manner provided for by the Ordinance. However, this provision has not yet been implemented. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of the provisions of the Ordinance which have yet to be implemented; the contents of such provisions (set out in table form); the reasons why such provisions and section 3(2)(ca) have not yet been implemented; whether the authorities have set a timetable for the implementation of such provisions and section 3(2)(ca); if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1575

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, the Nurses Registration Ordinance regulates matters relating to the registration or enrolment of nurses as well as their professional practice and conduct. Amendments were made to the ordinance in 1997 to bring it up-to-date in keeping with the development needs of the nursing profession. The key contents of the Nurses Registration (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 (the Amendment Ordinance) include:

(i) Setting up the Nursing Council of Hong Kong (the Nursing Council) to replace the Nursing Board of Hong Kong;

(ii) Introducing six elected members and two additional lay members into the Nursing Council;

(iii) Empowering the Nursing Council to make regulations governing the election of members, registration or enrolment of nurses, examinations and disciplinary matters;

(iv) Removing the minimum age requirement for registration or enrolment of nurses;

(v) Introducing limited registration to allow persons who are qualified to practise nursing overseas and are in Hong Kong for the purpose of further study and clinical experience to practise nursing here;

(vi) Requiring applicants for a practising certificate to supply information on any conviction of criminal offence; and

(vii) Revising the level of certain penalties set out in the provisions.

To fully implement the provisions in the Amendment Ordinance, the two existing pieces of subsidiary legislation under the Nurses Registration Ordinance, that is, the Nurses (Registration and Disciplinary Procedure) Regulations and the Enrolled Nurses (Enrolment and Disciplinary Procedure) Regulations, have to be repealed and superseded by four new pieces of subsidiary legislation for regulating election procedures, registration and enrolment, disciplinary procedures and fees respectively. As it involves extensive and complex issues, legal advice suggested that the Amendment Ordinance should be implemented in phases. In the first phase it would involve setting up the Nursing Council to replace the original Nursing Board of Hong Kong, expanding its composition and empowering it to make regulations, such that the Nursing Council would proceed 1576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 to formulate regulations relating to the procedures for election of members, and hold the first election thereafter. After completing the work in the first phase, the Nursing Council with elected members could then formulate other regulations relating to nurse registration, enrolment and disciplinary procedures so as to implement the remaining provisions of the Amendment Ordinance.

Since the enactment of the Amendment Ordinance, the Administration has been following up on the implementation of the relevant provisions, including the setting up of the Nursing Council in 1999. In the process of drafting subsidiary legislation for the election of six members of the Nursing Council, legal advice further pointed out that amendment to the Nurses Registration Ordinance was necessary before the subsidiary legislation could be introduced. Such would include the stipulation of clearer empowering provisions in the primary legislation to prescribe the grounds for disqualifying elected members. After deliberation, the Nursing Council agreed that amendments should be made to the Nurses Registration Ordinance before implementing the provisions on the election of Council members.

Facing the challenges brought to our healthcare system by an ageing population, the Government has been taking forward the healthcare reform, including setting up a high-level steering committee in 2012 to conduct a strategic review on healthcare manpower planning and professional development in Hong Kong. The steering committee will formulate recommendations on how to cope with anticipated demand for healthcare manpower, strengthen professional training and facilitate professional development. We will follow up as necessary upon completion of the review. As the review will examine the existing legislation governing different healthcare professions, including the Nurses Registration Ordinance, and put forth recommendations for strengthening regulation, the issue of implementing the remaining provisions of the Amendment Ordinance can be dealt with in the exercise.

Measures to Ease Congestion at Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point

20. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that parallel trading activities at the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point (the Control Point) are very rampant these days. Several car parks near the Control Point have been used as the distribution venues for parallel goods, causing nuisance to the residents. The taking of taxis by many parallel traders to commute frequently to and from the Control Point has resulted in traffic LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1577 congestion in the vicinity of the Control Point, while their travelling to and from the Control Point by green minibuses (GMBs) has greatly prolonged the waiting time of members of the public for GMBs. It has also been reported that congestion inside the Control Point is particularly serious when school finishes in the afternoon, rendering school buses having to wait for a long time before they can enter the Control Point to pick up and drop off students, while cross-boundary students (CBS) competing with parallel traders dragging hand baggage carts for the use of the passageway leading to the departure hall. Moreover, the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) has recently launched a concession scheme under which Shenzhen residents holding fare coupons will enjoy a 50% discounted ride from 29 September this year to 25 January next year when they take MTR from Lok Ma Chau Station to Hong Kong at specified time, while Hong Kong residents may also enjoy a 50% discount ride from specified stations to Lok Ma Chau Station during the concession period. There are views that the concession scheme attracts even more parallel traders to engage in parallel trading activities via the Control Point, thus aggravating the congestion at the Control Point. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the design capacities of the Control Point for handling cross-boundary passenger trips and accommodating cross-boundary vehicle trips; whether the relevant passenger and vehicle trips have reached their capacities; if so, of the authorities' improvement measures or counter-measures;

(2) in each month from January 2012 to September this year, of (i) the number of cross-boundary trips through the Control Point made by Hong Kong residents, (ii) the number of cross-boundary trips through the Control Print made by visitors, and (iii) the number of vehicular trips entering and exiting the Control Point (set out in the table below);

Year Month (i) (ii) (iii) January 2012 February … January 2013 February … … 2014 September 1578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

(3) of the measures taken last year and those to be taken by the authorities to reduce the congestion at the Control Point;

(4) of the measures to deal with the problems of school buses failing to pick up and drop off students at the Control Point in a timely manner, and CBS competing with parallel traders for the use of the passageway leading to the departure hall;

(5) whether it knows if the MTRCL had estimated, before the launch of the concession scheme, the additional cross-boundary passenger trips at the Control Point to be brought about by the scheme, as well as the impact of the scheme on the patronage of other means of transport; if it had, of the figures; since the launch of the concession scheme, how the average daily cross-boundary passenger trips at the Control Point compares with the previous figures;

(6) whether policies are in place to curb the engagement in parallel trading activities by Mainland and Hong Kong residents, so as to alleviate the congestion at the Control Point; and

(7) whether the authorities carried out joint departmental operations in the past six months to combat parallel trading activities at the Control Point; if they did, of the details and the effectiveness of the operations?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, Mr LEUNG's question involves the policy purview of the Security Bureau and the Transport and Housing Bureau. The Administration's consolidated reply is as follows.

(1) and (3)

The Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point (Spur Line Control Point) was originally designed to serve only railway passengers (similar to Lo Wu Control Point). Following a proposal raised by the Legislative Council's Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways at its meeting on 27 November 2002, the Government subsequently agreed to build a public transport interchange (PTI) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1579 adjacent to the Spur Line Control Point, so that members of the public may use public transport services other than railway to access this control point for cross-boundary trips. Given its geographical constraints and the need to protect the environment nearby, the size of the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line PTI is not big and it can only accommodate limited public transport services.

As regards the passenger throughput of the Spur Line Control Point, according to a review report on the daily handling capacity of control points prepared by the Planning Department in 2013, the designed daily handling capacity of passenger clearance of the hardware facilities of the Spur Line Control Point is 204 000 passenger trips. The actual daily average passenger throughput of the Spur Line Control Point between January to September 2014 is 141 911 passenger trips.

To cope with the growing demand of various cross-boundary passenger groups (including ordinary passengers and CBS) in recent years, the Administration has been keeping in view the situation and implemented practical measures, including:

(i) increasing the number of parking spaces for local school buses and alighting spaces for taxis at the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line PTI, and improve the boarding arrangement for taxi passengers by allowing several taxis to be boarded at the same time;

(ii) allowing Franchised Bus Route No. B1 and GMB Route No. 75 to suitably use the school bus parking spaces for boarding and alighting activities and stacking of reserve vehicles during the period when school buses do not need those spaces;

(iii) requiring empty taxis to obtain chits before entering the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line PTI to prevent such taxis from causing traffic congestion when they await for passengers;

1580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

(iv) encouraging cross-boundary passengers to use railway service for travelling to and from the Spur Line Control Point during festive long holidays; and

(v) implementing crowd control and traffic management measures at the Spur Line Control Point when necessary by the Police to cater for the demand of cross-boundary passengers.

(2) The daily average passenger throughput of Hong Kong residents and visitors by the number of passenger trips through the Spur Line Control Point between 2012 and 2014 (as at end September) is as follows:

Year Hong Kong residents Visitors 2012 79 829 33 209 2013 84 062 43 800 2014 (January to September) 87 821 54 090

Statistics on non-cross-boundary vehicles using the Spur Line Control Point are not compiled on a regular basis. In May or June each year between 2012 and 2014, the Transport Department (TD) conducted traffic count surveys at that control point. Based on the survey results, the TD estimates that the numbers of daily vehicle trips at the Spur Line Control Point in these three years were 8 420, 8 380 and 9 300 respectively.

(4) There are 11 pick-up/drop-off spaces and four stacking spaces at the Spur Line Control Point designated for local school buses to pick up and drop off CBS issued with closed area permit. These spaces can cater for up to 44 school bus trips per hour, which are able to cope with the current demand of CBS. In the morning and afternoon rush hour every school day, the Police deploys additional police officers to implement crowd management and ensure public order on site, facilitating CBS to cross the border in a safe and speedy manner. The Immigration Department (ImmD) and the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) have set up designated counters and channels for CBS during peak hours in the immigration and customs hall of the Spur Line Control Point to separate the flow of CBS from that of ordinary passengers and to expedite the immigration and customs clearance of CBS.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1581

(5) As a listed company, the MTRCL operates under prudent commercial principles. Taking into account the prevailing market condition, the MTRCL has, from time to time, introduced various kinds of promotion schemes to offer fare concessions to passengers.

The MTRCL points out that as compared to Lo Wu Station, there are currently less cross-boundary passengers using Lok Ma Chau Station. The 50% fare discount promotion scheme is therefore introduced to encourage and divert cross-boundary passengers to use Lok Ma Chau Station. This scheme was launched at the end of September this year and will last until the end of January 2015. According to the information provided by the MTRCL, there are on average about 480 passengers per day who enjoy the fare concession since its introduction for Mainland-bound trips to Lok Ma Chau Station from 10 designated MTR stations, while the average daily number of passengers travelling to Hong Kong from the Mainland via Lok Ma Chau Station under the scheme is about 200. The total number of beneficiaries is close to the forecast of the MTRCL projected before the introduction of the scheme. With a limited number of beneficiaries and the scheme being a short-term one, its impact on cross-boundary traffic at the Spur Line Control Point and other transport services is minimal. Besides, due to the specific terms and conditions of this scheme (that is, only applicable to Mainland-bound trips to Lok Ma Chau Station from 10 designated MTR stations, and Hong Kong-bound trips that begin after 9 am with a discount coupon provided by the MTRCL), it is considered not "user-friendly" to parallel traders.

(6) and (7)

The Government is very concerned about the nuisance of parallel trading activities caused to the operation of boundary control points. The law-enforcement agencies (LEAs) have been implementing a series of countermeasures, for instance, conducting surprise spot-check operations, repatriating visitors who are suspected to be involved in parallel trading activities immediately, gathering intelligence at black-spots of parallel trading activities in the vicinity of the boundary control points, and maintaining close liaison with the Shenzhen boundary control points to allow for immediate notification and interception of suspected parallel traders, so as to crack down on the supply chain of parallel goods more effectively.

1582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

The ImmD has established a "watch list of suspected parallel traders" which contains information of persons suspected to be involved in parallel trading activities collected through various means, including information of arrested and convicted persons, intelligence and analysis of immigration data. The ImmD will target and examine visitors on the "watch list of suspected parallel traders", and, if their purposes of visits are in doubt, will consider refusing their entry and repatriating them immediately. As at end October 2014, the ImmD has included information of more than 11 900 suspected parallel traders in the watch list and refused over 20 600 entries.

Further to the above, the LEAs mount joint operations from time to time to raise the effectiveness of operations against parallel trading at the boundary control points. The ImmD and the Police jointly mounted a total of 23 operations in the North District (including Sheung Shui and Lok Ma Chau) between May and October 2014. In these operations, 223 Mainland visitors were arrested for breaching their conditions of stay by involving in suspected parallel trading activities. The C&ED also mounts joint operations with Shenzhen Customs to combat parallel trading activities on a regular basis, and between May and October 2014, a total of five joint operations were mounted, in which 38 cases were involved with a seizure value of HK$440,000.

The Government will continue to take targeted measures against parallel trading activities, including intelligence collection and exchange, joint operations, immigration control, and so on, as well as enhancing co-operation and conducting joint operations with relevant Mainland authorities.

Enforcement of Injunctions Granted by the Court

21. MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Chinese): President, on 20 October this year, the High Court granted interim injunctions restraining participants of the assemblies triggered by the Occupy Central movement from continued occupation of certain passageways in Mong Kok and obstruction of the entrance to the car park, the fire access and emergency vehicular access of a building in Admiralty. Protesters are also forbidden to obstruct the plaintiffs from removing the obstacles in question. However, some protesters refused to obey the injunctions. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1583

(1) whether it knows the total number of interim and formal injunctions granted by the High Court in the past five years, and the enforcement situation of such injunctions; and

(2) as some protesters refused to obey the aforesaid injunctions, what actions the law-enforcement agencies intend to carry out; whether, in the light of this incident, the authorities will consider comprehensively reviewing and improving the mechanism for enforcing injunctions?

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Chinese): President, the rule of law is the cornerstone of Hong Kong's success and the Government places great importance in upholding the rule of law. Amongst others, respect for the authority of the Court is a fundament aspect of the concept of the rule of law. Court orders, including injunction orders (whether interim or permanent), should be fully respected and strictly followed. Even if a party does not agree that an injunction should be granted, the party should lodge an appeal or make other appropriate application to the relevant court pursuant to the relevant procedure instead of deliberately acting in breach of the injunction. Loss of respect for the Courts and the orders they make will erode the rule of law, which in turn will cause harm to our society.

The Government's reply to the Member's question is as follows:

(1) Application for injunction is a type of civil proceeding dealt with by the Courts. We have consulted the Judiciary on this part of the question. We have been advised that the Judiciary does not have readily available statistics on the number of injunctions granted by the Courts in the past five years.

Enforcement of injunctions is generally dealt with by the parties to the relevant civil proceedings, although the Bailiffs will render assistance as and when appropriate and Judges will deal with such applications as may be incidental to the enforcement of injunctions. According to its records, the Judiciary has received a total of six applications in the past five years requesting the assistance of the Bailiffs in the serving of injunction orders. All of the orders in these six requests have been duly served.

1584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

(2) Since applications for injunction are civil (as opposed to criminal) in nature, they are generally and mostly handled by private litigants. Accordingly, in the absence of specific court direction or order, the Police are generally not involved in the enforcement of an injunction order. However, the Police have a statutory duty under the Police Force Ordinance, Cap. 232 to take appropriate actions if a breach of the peace occurs or when suspected criminal acts have been committed. If the relevant court order expressly directs the Police to perform certain specified acts for the purpose of assisting a party to enforce an injunction, the Police will provide such assistance as is specified in the relevant court order.

An injunction is a solemn order made by the Court and that it is in the overall and long-term interests of the rule of law and the proper administration of justice that all injunction orders should be complied with. With a view to protecting the due administration of justice (which is fundamental to the upholding of the rule of law), the Government (through the Police or otherwise) is ready and willing to assist in the enforcement of the injunction orders in such ways as the Court may find it appropriate to direct.

As regards the specific cases referred to in the question, before the Court hands down its judgments, the Police will continue to dispatch appropriate manpower and make appropriate deployment to maintain public order and protect public safety. The Government also urges those who are unlawfully blocking the roads should strictly and fully observe the relevant court orders as soon as possible.

On the mechanism for enforcing injunctions, the Government will, as usual, keep the relevant law under review and will consider the need of any reform as and when necessary.

Residential Requirement for Registered Electors

22. MS EMILY LAU (in Chinese): President, under section 28(1) of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap. 542), one of the eligibility criteria for registration as an elector in the register of geographical constituencies is that the person must ordinarily reside in Hong Kong. The authorities conducted a public consultation from January to March 2012 on the improvement measures of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1585 the voter registration (VR) system. In April of the same year, the authorities indicated in the consultation report that during the consultation, they had received public views on the definitions of "ordinarily reside in Hong Kong" and "principal residential address" in relation to VR, but such definitions were outside the scope of the consultation exercise and were complicated issues that had to be handled carefully by the fourth-term Government. Meanwhile, it was reported in May this year that a member of the public had complained to the Registration and Electoral Office (REO) that there were a number of suspected vote rigging cases in his constituency during a District Council (DC) by-election. Upon investigation, REO found that in those cases, some electors were currently not residing in their registered addresses due to various reasons, and REO indicated that it was taking follow-up actions. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the fourth-term Government has handled the aforesaid issue regarding the definition of "ordinarily reside in Hong Kong"; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(2) if it has assessed whether electors no longer residing or working in their registered constituencies but continuing to vote in that constituency will render it impossible for elected members (especially DC members) to effectively take care of the interests of electors; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, whether the Government has put in place any improvement measure; if the assessment outcome is in the negative, of the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President,

(1) According to section 28(1) of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap. 542), a person is not eligible to be registered as an elector in the register of geographical constituencies unless, at the time of applying for registration, the person satisfies the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) that he/she ordinarily resides in Hong Kong and that the residential address provided is the person's only or principal residence in Hong Kong.

The Government has repeatedly pointed out in the relevant discussions at the Panel on Constitutional Affairs of the Legislative 1586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Council that the definition of "ordinarily resides in Hong Kong" is a complicated issue: the definition of "ordinarily resides in Hong Kong" is not set out in the existing legislation; whether a person "ordinarily resides in Hong Kong" depends on the facts of each case and is a matter involving judgment on the specific circumstances of an individual case and the relevant previous court judgments.

In processing applications for VR, the ERO will decide whether the applicant ordinarily resides in Hong Kong by taking into account the specific situation of an individual case and referring to the previous court judgments. If the REO receives a concerned enquiry or complaint, it will carefully examine the details of the case and, where necessary, seek legal advice on the specific situation and/or refer the case to the law-enforcement agencies for follow-up investigation. Besides, the REO publishes the provisional registers of electors, the omissions lists and the final registers of electors each year for public inspection to ensure that a highly transparent VR system is maintained. During the period when the provisional registers of electors and the omissions lists are published, the public may make objections or claims to the ERO against the entries on the registers and the lists. Such cases will then be referred to the Revising Officer and a determination will be made after representations from both parties are heard at an open hearing. Hence, a mechanism is already in place in the VR system to handle applications under various situations and to allow for public monitoring.

(2) The Government attaches great importance to maintaining the fairness, openness and integrity of the electoral system, and adopts various measures to ensure a high degree of transparency, the integrity and accuracy of the VR system. On the one hand, the Administration actively encourages the public to register as electors; on the other hand, we have repeatedly reminded applicants that they have to provide true and accurate information. Any person who makes a false statement in an application for VR or change of his residential address violates the electoral law. The Government has also reminded electors through various publicity channels to fulfil their civic responsibility to notify the REO to update their registered addresses after moving home.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1587

Besides, to maintain the credibility of the VR system and to enhance the accuracy of the information in the registers of electors, the REO has launched a series of improvement measures from 2012, including verification checks on electors' registered residential addresses through cross-matching of data with the Housing Department and the Home Affairs Department; checks on multiple electors or multiple surnames of electors registered with the same residential address; random sample checks on the existing electors; checks on addresses with incomplete information, commercial addresses or suspected non-residential addresses; as well as checks on addresses in buildings that have already been demolished or that have already been vacated pending demolition, and so on. If the REO receives a complaint against a suspected false registered address of an elector, it will check against the relevant registration record and whenever necessary, request the elector concerned to confirm the relevant registered address and/or refer the case to the law-enforcement agencies for follow-up investigation. In addition, the REO will continue to strengthen education and publicity to remind electors to fulfil their civic responsibility to ensure that the registration particulars are accurate. Electors should, upon moving home, notify the REO to update their residential addresses as soon as possible before the statutory deadlines so that they can vote in the constituency they are currently residing.

The VR arrangements mentioned above aims to ensure that, on the one hand, the system is convenient to the public to register as electors and, on the other, a high degree of transparency, integrity and accuracy of the VR system, and striking a right balance between the two.

Regarding the complaint in May 2014 concerning a suspected case of individual electors providing false residential addresses, the REO, upon receiving the complaint, wrote to the electors concerned immediately and requested them to confirm in writing the relevant information about their registered residential addresses. It was confirmed that some of the electors had passed away and some of them had moved while some of the electors had not replied. As a result, the REO updated the relevant registration particulars in accordance with the relevant legislation when compiling the 2014 final register and deleted the electors who could not confirm their registered residential addresses.

1588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions. Motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Before I invite Members to speak in this motion debate, I wish to point out to Members that under Rule 41(7) of the Rules of Procedure, the conduct of the Chief Executive otherwise than in the performance of his official duties shall not be raised in the speeches of Members in this debate. Since the motion seeks to appoint a select committee to inquire into the allegation of the Chief Executive receiving the benefits of an Australian corporation, it will be difficult for the debate to proceed sensibly and meaningfully if the abovementioned rule is enforced to prevent Members from mentioning the relevant acts. For this reason, during the debate on this motion, I will pay attention to the acts mentioned by Members to see whether they are directly related to the motion topic, so as to strike a proper balance between enforcing the Rules of Procedure and allowing Members to conduct a meaningful debate.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button.

I now call upon Ms Claudia MO to speak and move the motion.

MOTION UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ORDINANCE

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.

President, LEUNG Chun-ying is devoid of any political integrity. Article 47 of the Basic Law provides expressly that the Chief Executive shall be a person of integrity, dedicated to his or her duties. The Chief Executive shall declare his or her assets to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal. However, after his assumption of office, LEUNG Chun-ying received a big sum LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1589 of money amounting to £4 million, or $50 million, and he has so far failed to explain clearly why he did not make any declaration, as though it was alright not to do so.

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

He has disclosed so little, and he really owes Hong Kong people an explanation. Was there any commercial dishonesty, fraud, or even acceptance of bribery? Some may say that the whole thing was all about standard business practices, but I instead think that the case not only reflects the problems with his moral character and integrity but also involves Article 47 of the Basic Law. Given the abundance of information and evidence, or even with none such information and evidence, simply his refusal to answer the many queries may already constitute a justification for impeaching him and asking him to step down.

LEUNG Chun-ying is not only devoid of political integrity but also totally without any political wisdom. Today is Wednesday. In here, we are asking for invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the allegation of LEUNG Chun-ying receiving advantages. Yet, two days ago on Monday, instead of facing the press, the people of Hong Kong and all Legislative Council Members, he selected a group of friendly Members representing the pro-establishment camp (Their representativeness is doubtful to me) and met with them on the issue. The meeting was a brazen attempt to solicit votes, and it gave people a very poor perception of him. Has he got any political wisdom at all?

LEUNG Chun-ying is simply the biggest negative asset of Hong Kong. He is also the largest barricade to freedom of thinking in Hong Kong. No one knows where he is dragging Hong Kong to. He thinks that patting the shoulders of his "good friends", cronyism, soliciting votes and doing chit-chat behind closed doors will make the whole incident disappear. Ideally, he hopes, the incident can abate like noises fading in the distance, in which case everybody can pretend that nothing has happened and go on partying and having fun. This will not happen, because the incident is no longer just a major political and commercial incident in Hong Kong; some foreign countries are also conducting investigation.

1590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

As we can all see, LEUNG Chun-ying has given no explanation. He owes an explanation not only to the Legislative Council but also to all Hong Kong people. A man of virtue is always upright and has nothing to hide, and "God is always watching you from above wherever you go". If he is willing to convene a press conference, all television stations will give him live coverage. He can then explain everything clearly in the press conference. Is there anything really so dreadful about holding such a press conference? However, the disclosure of certain details will obviously lead to very serious repercussions, to the extent that he simply cannot reveal them. Therefore, he thinks that by talking it over once with his "good friends", he can bring the whole incident to an end.

Of course, his act has delivered the political message that he will treat people differently on the basis of affinity or lack of it, and that he will meet with his "good friends" only and ignore all others. In addition to treating people differently on the basis of affinity, he also thinks that once he can succeed in soliciting votes, all will be fine. He thinks that the incident will then disappear like dissipating clouds and smoke because Hong Kong people are very forgetful. So, he thinks that as long as he can secure enough voting support, no one can do anything about him. This is the political message he has delivered. But ironically, the Chinese press has reported that one of the "good friends" summoned by him, the Vice Party Chair of the Liberal Party, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, remarked that it would be better for LEUNG Chun-ying himself to explain everything to Hong Kong people. But CHUNG at the same time estimated that for fear of a surge of strong public sentiments following his appearance, LEUNG Chung-ying would probably not to do so. Mr IP Kwok-him also said similar things. His exact words were not quoted, but he was reported to have said that it would be better for LEUNG Chun-ying to give a comprehensive explanation on one single occasion. This is how the Legislative Council is like. In this Chamber, all pro-communist elements and all those who gain benefits in the Mainland must serve as the puppets of Beijing, and they will condone and harbour such a Chief Executive without any fear and shame.

It is quite clear that his "good friends" have not made any special efforts to explain his case after the meeting with him. But aren't they supposed to be his spokespersons? It is obviously not enough to rely solely on Carrie LAM, because he must solicit votes. Even so, he has still disclosed so little, so little that even his "good friends" must ask him to offer an explanation himself. As for the exact contents of their discussions, we can only learn from media reports. We do not know the whole story, and we only know very little.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1591

LEUNG Chun-ying claims that one half of the £4 million (or as much as $50 million) was meant as resignation payment, and this was a standard business practice. The other half was for requiring him to guarantee his non-compete and non-poach positions after his resignation. But was the whole story really so simple? If it was really so simple, he can always come out and explain it clearly, but he must of course produce documentary proof, as mere words cannot be taken as evidence. It is claimed that one half of the £4 million was meant as resignation payment, and the other half was for requiring him not to engage any competition and poaching acts in the future. But the press will definitely ask: did these payments of money really have nothing to do with the provision of service? Did these payments really have nothing whatsoever to do with his promise of supporting, consenting to and not opposing the Australian corporation's acquisition of DTZ?

If the agreement was really so simple, how can he explain the extensive coverage given to it by the Sydney Morning Herald, a paper under the Fairfax Media Limited ― the largest Australian media corporation and an icon of journalism? Those people are all journalists, so they are not supposed to take any frivolous actions, right? If it was really a minor issue, why should LEUNG Chun-ying be so startled, so startled that he even warned the media organization not to report on the agreement, or else he would bring the matter to court? He did issue a lawyer's letter on this matter. He has never denied this, right? Since he has never denied this, there must be something mysterious and secretive about the agreement, and this explains why he does not have the courage to say anything in public, right? Admittedly, we must note that the Australian authorities are still conducting their investigation at this moment. But well, who knows, he may be accused of accepting bribery later on, in which case the relevant authorities may seek to extradite him to Australia to stand trial. This will certainly make an international laughing stock of Hong Kong.

There is one more thing which is even more ironic. Yesterday, a local English newspaper, the South China Morning Post, carried a news story on what LEUNG Chun-ying had said in the closed-door meeting with his "good friends". One of those who reportedly recounted LEUNG's words was Mr Christopher CHEUNG. It was reported that Mr Christopher CHEUNG quoted the following words of LEUNG Chun-ying: "The information might not be easily understood even if it was released to the public". These words mean that the information may be too abstruse for the public to understand even if it is made public. What is he saying anyway? There is no problem with Mr Christopher CHEUNG. I 1592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 believe his quotation is true. The problem is connected with LEUNG Chun-ying. These words actually mean: "You will not understand even if I tell you".

What does he take Hong Kong people for? Does the information concerned involve nuclear physics or space science? Why can't we understand? Speaking of complexity, can such information be more complex than the definitions of mobile television, applications and related matters as explained by Ricky WONG in a press conference about six months ago? In fact, Ricky WONG's explanation that day really baffled many journalists, because most of it was related to information technology. The Chief Executive's saying that the public would not understand even if the information is disclosed or made public simply amounts to a slap on people's faces. The Government's attitude is similar in nature to what Mrs Regina IP said as the Secretary for Security back in 2003, when she attempted to force through the legislative proposal on implementing Article 23 of the Basic Law: restaurant waiters, workers at McDonald's and taxi drivers would not understand the content of the Bill. The essence is to absolve responsibility by downgrading the public to a low level and saying that they will not be able to understand anything.

Deputy President, basically, this is nothing but "doublespeak". Last week, I followed up Mr Albert HO's oral question, which was also about the acceptance of benefits from UGL Limited (UGL). In reply to my supplementary question, Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM said before everything that the agreement was not a secret deal as such. She said that in the sale of DTZ, the agreement between LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL was not a secret deal, only that it was not disclosed, and it was open to question as to whether the expression "not disclosed" was really the same as "secret". However, she subsequently said that DTZ and the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) were aware of the agreement, and the £4 million deal was transacted in the United Kingdom. At that time, she quoted an announcement made by UGL in English, "The vendor, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and their advisors were fully aware of UGL's intention to enter into an arrangement with Mr LEUNG". The important word here is "intention", mere intention. This is just like my being informed that a certain someone intends to get married. I know of his or her intention, but this does not mean that I know whom this person will marry, how his or her prospective spouse looks like and the background of the prospective spouse. I will not know all these details.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1593

Then, she went on to say, "DTZ Holdings plc played a significant role in initiating and negotiating those terms with Mr LEUNG". This only means that the relevant sides in the United Kingdom did "initiate" (or make the proposal) and "negotiate" (hold talks). But this merely means that they also took part. What she said was just "initiating and negotiating", but she did not mention "concluding". The final details of the agreement show that the £4 million paid to LEUNG Chun-ying was deducted from the purchase price, meaning that he profited at other shareholders' expense. They have not mentioned anything about this. Did other people know of this? This is still largely unclear.

The second doublespeak tactic employed by Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM was her argument that though the declaration of "財 產" (translated as "assets" in the English version of the Basic Law) was required under the Basic Law, it was questionable as to whether "資 產" (or money assets) was the same as "財 產"("assets"), and she also said that this was not clearly defined in the Basic Law. Please do not play with words in this way. Our rule of law is all about ordinary people and their common sense, and it does not require any interpretation based on astronomical precision. According to the Oxford Advanced Learner's English-Chinese Dictionary, the Chinese the term "asset" may be rendered as either "財 產" (assets) or "資 產" (money assets) in Chinese. Was she actually saying that there was indeed a huge difference between "財 產" (assets) and "資 產" (money assets), and it could thus be proved that $50 million should be treated as "資 產" ("money assets"), rather than "財 產" (assets)? And, did she thus mean to say that since the Basic Law only required the declaration of "財 產" (assets), he did not need to make any declaration of the sum of money? Please do not deceive Hong Kong people like this. Don't treat us like children and think that we will believe whatever they say.

The agreement is still valid, but the Chief Secretary for Administration insists that the Chief Executive has never provided any service. I must say that whether he ever provided any service in the past is not the point. Our first and foremost concern is that we cannot know whether he will provide any service in future. But in any case, whether he ever provided any service is simply not the point. The important point is that there exists this agreement, and as the incumbent Chief Executive of Hong Kong, he has been engaged in business dealings and has even received money for that. In the eyes of the public, this is really very deplorable. We have already talked about side jobs, part-time jobs and the like.

1594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

More ridiculously, Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM said last week that she would not know too much about the Chief Executive's personal assets. In that case, why did she answer on behalf of the Government? What we discuss now is an income earned by the Chief Executive. Under the Basic Law, the Chief Executive is required to declare the income but he has refused to do so. And, the Chief Secretary for Administration has tried to put up a defence on his behalf, dwelling on "財 產" (assets) and "資 產" (money assets), and making her personal interpretation of the Basic Law. This is indeed very ridiculous.

Deputy President, it is very unlikely that this motion, which proposes to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to investigate whether LEUNG Chung-ying accepted any bribery, can be passed. However, we should show our accountability to history "for the record". I must make an appeal to the Liberal Party in particular, because people describe it a clear stream within the pro-establishment camp. I hope the Liberal Party will think twice and support this motion.

Thank you.

Ms Claudia MO moved the following motion:

"That this Council appoints a select committee to inquire into the allegation of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Mr LEUNG Chun-ying receiving the benefits of UGL Limited, an Australian corporation; and that in the performance of its duties the committee be authorized under section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) to exercise the powers conferred by section 9(1) of that Ordinance. "

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO be passed.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1595

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I request a headcount under Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

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

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration, please speak.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Ms Claudia MO moved a motion today under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to appoint a select committee to inquire into matters related to the "resignation agreement" reached between Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and the UGL Limited (UGL). It is regrettable that in the speech she delivered just now, Ms MO attacked the Chief Executive willfully and levelled groundless accusations against him. Deputy President, on behalf of the SAR Government, I wish to express my opposition to this motion.

With regard to media inquiries on the relevant issue, the Chief Executive's Office has openly responded to a large number of questions. Meanwhile, the issue has likewise been sufficiently discussed for a number of times in the Legislative Council. First, on 17 October this year, the motion jointly moved by Ms Claudia MO and Mr Dennis KWOK was negatived in the meeting of the Legislative Council House Committee after ample discussions. In the Council Meeting held on 29 October, I also replied in detail to the oral questions raised by Members on the issue. Subsequently, with regard to the "resignation agreement" reached between Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL, Ms Cyd HO and Mr Kenneth LEUNG have again moved a motion to invoke the P&P Ordinance for appointing a select committee to inquire into whether the Chief Executive has contravened Article 47 of the Basic Law and issues relating to possible conflict of interests. This proposal was similarly negatived at the meeting of the House Committee held on 31 October.

1596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Deputy President, as I have cited the information provided by the Chief Executive's Office in response to Members' questions raised on 29 October, the "resignation agreement" is only a non-compete agreement reached between Mr LEUNG and UGL to ensure that Mr LEUNG is not going to take up appointment with a competitor, nor to set up a firm to compete with UGL, nor to poach employees from DTZ Limited (DTZ), and thereby protecting the commercial value of DTZ after acquisition. This agreement is kept as a confidential commercial arrangement in line with common commercial practices. The relevant agreement and payment stem from Mr LEUNG's resignation from DTZ and not from any future service to be provided by him. After signing the "resignation agreement", Mr LEUNG has not provided any service to UGL and this fact has been openly verified by UGL in a statement.

In terms of declaration, the Chief Executive has fulfilled the requirement of Article 47 of the Basic Law in declaring his assets to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the declaration has been put on record. The current system of declaration of interests by Members of the Executive Council does not require a declaration of the abovementioned "resignation agreements". Furthermore, both Mr LEUNG's resignation from DTZ and the "resignation agreement" between UGL and him were made before he was elected Chief Executive, at a time when he has stepped down as Executive Council Member.

The above were the material statements made by the Chief Executive on the relevant matters and they have been clearly presented by me in reply to Members' queries raised at the Council Meeting held on 29 October. Hence, I do not see any reason for us to dwell on the issue at this Council. The Government considers that the Council does not have to, nor should it appoint a select committee for inquiry and hence is decidedly opposed to the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO.

Deputy President, I will respond further after hearing the speeches of Members. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, last month, Fairfax Media of Australia reported that when LEUNG Chun-ying was running for the post of the Chief Executive, he entered into a "secret agreement" with the listed Australian company UGL (UGL), in which he would be paid £4 million in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1597 the sale of DTZ Holdings. The relevant payment was made by two instalments in 2012 and 2013, after LEUNG had become the Chief Executive. However, he did not report the payment to the SAR Government.

The Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying promptly responded to the report in a television interview in which he gave reasons for accepting the payment and emphasized that no conflict of interest was involved in the case. However, Members from the pan-democratic camp are reluctant to let go of him, as they suspect him of taking bribes, evading tax, failing to make declaration, and betraying the shareholders. They wish to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to inquire into the case in question. I oppose such a proposal as the queries raised by Members from the pan-democracy camp against LEUNG Chun-ying are invalid. I am going to explain each of these queries with my knowledge in business.

It is learnt that this agreement arose from LEUNG Chun-ying's announcement on 24 November 2011 of his resignation from DTZ which came into effect on 4 December in the same year. At that time, UGL was making a bid for DTZ and it signed the resignation agreement with LEUNG Chun-ying on 2 December. That was a non-competition agreement which ensured that LEUNG Chun-ying would not accept any appointment from competitors after leaving DTZ, that he was not going to set up a new firm to compete with UGL nor to poach employees from DTZ, and thereby protecting the commercial value of DTZ against any possible harm after the acquisition. Hence, subject to the retention of principal staff in DTZ within two years of LEUNG's departure, UGL made payment to him in two yearly instalments, on top of committing to paying him the £1.5 million bonus which had previously been agreed upon. Recently, LEUNG Chun-ying has further disclosed to Members from the pro-establishment camp the detailed calculation of the payment which consisted of a two million pound departure gratuity and another two million pound compensation for a "non-compete, non-poach" requirement. I therefore see this as a gentlemen's agreement under the acquisition, a "golden handshake" agreement, a confidential commercial arrangement and a practice which is common in merger and acquisition, signed with the objective of protecting the value of the acquired assets. Furthermore, the relevant payment stemmed from LEUNG's resignation from DTZ and was not a delayed reward for any future service to be provided by him. Though he was required under the agreement to provide advisory services and assistance in business promotion, LEUNG had handwritten on the contract that support would only be made on the condition that it would not create any 1598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 conflict of interest. After taking office as the Chief Executive, he has neither provided nor been asked to provide any service to UGL. I therefore do not think LEUNG Chun-ying is suspected of any conflict of interest.

Furthermore, LEUNG Chun-ying is allegedly suspected of committing a bribery offence under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. Fairfax Media has earlier quoted a response from the chairman of DTZ as saying that he was unaware of the deal between LEUNG and UGL. Likewise, the spokesman for DTZ's main creditor, the Royal Bank of Scotland, has also indicated that the Bank was not involved in the negotiation of the agreement. LEUNG Chun-ying was thus accused of covering up the deal concerned. But strange enough, Fairfax Media suddenly revealed in a report on 15 October that, upon examining more emails exchanged during the sale of DTZ, the agreement in question was found out to have been negotiated with the understanding of all major stakeholders. The main creditor the Royal Bank of Scotland, the administer Ernst & Young and the DTZ chairman all participated in the negotiation, and more importantly, the DTZ chairman was then the leading and co-ordinating negotiator. UGL has earlier issued a statement saying that it is groundless and misleading to describe the agreement as a "secret" one, as the DTZ management and its main creditor the Royal Bank of Scotland were all aware of the arrangement. Moreover, as said a moment ago, the payment made by UGL to LEUNG is a non-competition compensation, a practice commonly adopted in the business sector. Hence, the allegation against LEUNG Chun-ying for receiving a secret payment or an illegal commission is unfounded.

With regard to the accusation that LEUNG Chun-ying's non-payment of tax on the £4 million is an act of tax evasion, LEUNG Chun-ying and his office have already responded that according to the written professional advice of an accountant, salaries tax is only applicable to income arising in or derived from an office, employment or any pension in Hong Kong. Incomes such as these are all subject to the salaries tax. But the £4 million was paid to compensate LEUNG for not competing with UGL nor poaching DTZ's staff. According to the taxation legislation in Hong Kong, such earnings are not chargeable to salaries tax nor personal assessment. The relevant tax for the bonus, in contrast, has been paid. I have also listened to the views of my accountant friends who agree that the agreement is a normal and common non-compete restrictive covenant which does not constitute to an employment of LEUNG, nor his contribution in service provision or business operation. Such payment should be seen as capital income, a one-off compensation made with the rationale that LEUNG would LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1599 suffer from a perpetual loss of a capital asset. Additionally, UGL has never asked LEUNG Chun-ying to provide service for them and LEUNG has never provided any owing to the conflict of interest restriction. Therefore, the payment UGL made to LEUNG was actually free of any compensation for service. I thus maintain that no salaries tax nor profits tax should be paid by him.

Another query raised against LEUNG Chun-ying is about his failure to report the payment, allegedly in breach of the code on disclosure for principal officials under the political appointment system. The Chief Secretary for Administration Mrs Carrie LAM has told us a moment ago as well as last week that the current system of declaration of interests by Members of the Executive Council does not require Members to declare a resignation agreement. And both LEUNG's resignation from DTZ and the resignation agreement between UGL and him were made before he was elected the Chief Executive and after he had stepped down as Executive Council Member. As resignation agreement falls outside the scope of mandatory declaration of interests, the relevant accusation is invalid. With regard to LEUNG's transference of all his shares in DTZ Holdings Plc and its subsidiaries to a trust whose trustee is a practicing certified public accountant, he has made a declaration according to the declaration system of the Executive Council. On assumption of office, LEUNG Chun-ying has also declared his assets to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal in accordance with the stipulation of the Hong Kong Basic Law.

Separately, a Tianjin enterprise was also in the race at that time for the acquisition of DTZ. It offered a price about £100 million higher than that offered by UGL but was rejected by the DTZ's board of directors, leading to a suspected betrayal of DTZ's shareholders. However, according to the archived reports retrieved from the Telegraph website, DTZ rejected the bid from the Tianjin enterprise out of the consideration that any overseas investment project of more than US$100 million proposed by an enterprise was subject to the approval of the National Development and Reform Commission, the State Council, the Ministry of Commerce and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange. The approval was usually lengthy in duration, involving a lot of uncertainties and instability, and hence making the offer extremely risky. Recently, LEUNG Chun-ying has also explained to Members from the pro-establishment camp that the board rejected the acquisition proposal from the Tianjin firm as the latter had demanded DTZ to relocate its headquarters from the United Kingdom to Tianjin. And on the day DTZ turned down the acquisition offer, LEUNG Chun-ying had 1600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 already resigned from the board and did not take part in making the decision. Hence, the accusation of his betraying the shareholders is also unfounded.

Deputy President, the accusations made by Members from the pan-democratic camp are readily explicable by the Chief Executive. As the case has earlier been reported to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, it should be followed up and investigated by the Commission. Members from the pan-democratic camp routinely invoke the P&P Ordinance for conducting investigations ― they have raised such a demand for many times since the commencement of the current legislative year ― but the move in fact wastes this Council's resources and is completely unnecessary. The case of LEUNG Chun-ying's acceptance of benefits from UGL is actually a normal commercial activity. But then people try to make up false allegations with unconvincing evidences, make a fuss of the case and blow it up out of all proportion, for the sake of putting up a political performance. Besides, the motion for invoking the P&P Ordinance comes at the time when the Occupy Central protesters are demanding LEUNG's stepping down and the intention behind is therefore obvious to us all. The motion is put forward in co-ordination with Occupy Central, taking advantage of the situation for mudslinging and dealing a further blow to the credibility of LEUNG Chun-ying's governance.

Deputy President, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and I have known each other for many years. To me, Mr LEUNG is enthusiastic, conscientious and diligent, indeed a man of action. After he has taken the helm as Chief Executive, I can see that he bravely undertakes responsibilities. He faces up to difficulties courageously, is committed to improving the current social conditions and proactively resolves the deep-rooted conflicts in society. In addition to being pragmatic, he shares the urgent concerns of the public and rolls out welfare policies once they are ready ― his efforts are undeletable. However, since he has taken office, the integrity of the governing team has all along been the target of criticism by the opposition. The credibility of governance is thus undermined and the Government has dire difficulties in policy implementation.

Deputy Chairman, I think we should focus on whether Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, as a social leader, is capable of and committed to resolving social problems, leading Hong Kong out of predicament and seeking long-term development for the territory. We should not blow up or play up all his words and deeds as well as his unintended mistakes, nor to hold back his progress with the intention of instigating social conflicts and public resentment, undermining LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1601 his governance, and toppling him eventually. The latter is an act of destruction which hinders social development. It is impossible to fully tailor social policies to everybody's interests or demands and undeniably, there are bound to be shortcomings in governance. However, as Members of the Legislative Council who monitor the Government, shouldn't we adopt a constructive and broad perspective when advancing advice to the Government for further improvement? Some Members from the opposition take up unco-operative, radical or indiscriminately destructive approach when striving to realize their demands. These people are in fact inviting troubles and chaos, causing irrevocable damage to Hong Kong.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I oppose the motion.

MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, what an eye-opener! The Secretary and Mr WONG just now gave their speeches in a manner which is truly eye-opening. In nowhere else but this Council can we find people who call a stag a horse and blame others so cheekily.

Deputy President, as a Member of this Council, one of our key responsibilities is to keep a watch on the Government and the Chief Executive and identify any area of inadequacy. However, the Secretary and Mr WONG seem to say that LEUNG Chun-ying's receipt of some $50 million in private was a result of our faults and mistakes. He received such a big amount of money for our sake. Likewise, his lack of integrity and the public doubts on his integrity are also a result of our faults and mistakes. It is even more wrong for us to raise these topics and spend time on discussing them in this Council. Deputy President, how could they make such a comment?

Mr WONG also commented that the incident is simple and it was merely a "golden handshake". Honestly, he as a businessman should not make such a comment. Try to imagine, for instance, a prospective buyer proposes to acquire your company, but it offers another director of the company and your subordinate $50 million as the reward for lobbying Mr WONG Ting-kwong and his decision to dispose the company to this buyer. If you are entirely uninformed about this, how would you respond? Would you rationalize this as something unimportant, a mere "golden handshake" which is a common business practice, and you allow them to do so as you do not mind pocketing a bit less? Mr WONG, would you allow this to happen?

1602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Deputy President, I dare not say even a 10 year-old kid or a person of little education is able to understand what this issue is about. But a "golden handshake" should be a sum of money paid by an employer to its employee as a gratitude reward for the latter's long service with the company, and absolutely not the sum of money that a subordinate to receive from a business competitor behind the employer's back. I have never heard anyone call this a "golden handshake". I find this eye-opening because this is totally unheard of so far in my life, despite my experience as a lawyer for decades.

Members can think about this: If a buyer pays out $50 million subsequent to its acquisition of the company, such payment can constitute a problem as it may arouse accusation of providing deferred reward. In that case, for any payment made before the acquisition, would it be even more suspicious? I would like to draw Members' attention to section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, which states that any agent, including directors, subordinates and persons with special positions, such as LEUNG Chun-ying, who accepts any advantage for doing or forbearing to do any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business or showing favour or disfavour to other persons, shall be guilty of taking a bribe. Given that this is stipulated in the laws of Hong Kong, if a person wants to prevent the charge of taking a bribe, what should he do? He should obtain approval or permission from the principal before his acceptance of advantage, or if impossible to do so, expeditiously apply for permission from or report to the principal subsequently in order to obtain the necessary approval. In that case, the acceptance of advantage does not contravene the laws. This is provided in the laws of Hong Kong.

Mr WONG may immediately refuted that if LEUNG Chun-ying has contravened the law, the ICAC is in all reason to investigate into the matter. His point is right. If Mr LEUNG has committed an offence, the ICAC should conduct an investigation on him; if he has not committed any offence, the ICAC will never investigate him. Deputy President, but the problem is, technically speaking, the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance is not applicable to his case. Why is it inapplicable? I believe Members may still recall that at the time when the amendments to the Ordinance were debated in the Council, the proposal of the pan-democratic camp to amend section 9 was rejected by the Government and the pro-establishment camp. Eventually only section 3 and 4 were amended.

Hence in technical terms, first, section 9 is not applicable to the Chief Executive. Second, given that the deal was made in an overseas country, the laws of Hong Kong cannot be applied to such deal and possibly cannot be applied LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1603 to the Chief Executive as well. Deputy President, but this does not mean that we cannot conduct an investigation. I marginally agree to the argument that we should not investigate into his criminal behaviours, as we should pass the case to the Police for their investigation. As I clearly pointed out in my speech last week, the Legislative Council is not duty-bound to conduct investigation on criminal behaviours, which should be the duty of the enforcement authorities. In that sense, if the ICAC is already probing into the matter, the Legislative Council should not conduct an investigation.

However, in the event that he has not committed any offence and no investigation is conducted by the enforcement authorities, if one says that the Legislative Council should not conduct an investigation in this case, then what role should the Legislative Council perform? Members may make reference to Article 47 of the Basic Law, which stipulates clearly that the Chief Executive must be a person of integrity. It puts the emphasis on his "integrity" rather than his "law abiding" quality. Why is there no mention of the "law abiding" quality? The reason is that a more stringent set of standards are adopted to measure the conduct of the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive must be a law abiding person, yet that does not mean he has discharged his responsibilities as a Chief Executive, otherwise what is the point of emphasizing "integrity"?

Some question whether the Member who had received money from others should apologize openly and surrender all the money received. Even Members have to face these queries. As one of the 70 Members of this Council, how big is his power and influence? He can at most cast an opposing vote, but would his vote affect the policies and legislating procedures of the Government? The tricks most frequently played include staging a filibuster, asking the President to ring the bell to summon Members or counting quorum, that is all they can do. But for the Chief Executive, it is another story. Deputy President, under the executive-led approach, all powers exercisable in Hong Kong under the Basic Law, including the power to enact laws and launch policies, are all in the hands of the Chief Executive, hinging upon the decision and consideration of this single man. Nonetheless, what is demanded of this single man is even more lenient than that demanded of a Member. While we insist that it is necessary to investigate on a Member's receipt of some $1 million, we regard the Chief Executive's receipt of some $50 million a common business practice without much importance, and an investigation is unnecessary. Deputy President, if this is not an application of double standards, what on earth is this?

1604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Deputy President, let us return to the facts, okay? The fact is LEUNG Chun-ying himself has admitted that to ensure a successful acquisition is one of the conditions stated in this contract valued over $50 million. To that end, what must he do? We have no idea. What has he done? We have no idea either. The fact is the acquisition was successful, and another prospective buyer lost the deal. What made DTZ take the Australian company's offer and reject the one given by the state-owned enterprise? No one knows. This is truly the best example of collusion with foreign forces.

After all, this is not important. Some consider this a commercial practice, but how much money was paid for this purpose? Did these behaviours have any connection with the affairs of the principal? In other words, if the deal was made in Hong Kong, LEUNG Chun-ying might be under criminal investigation. No investigation had been conducted on him simply because the deal was made in an overseas country. Are these what we call the criteria? If these are our criteria, things are simple. Whoever has done anything illegal, irrespective of its nature, can go abroad, say, to the United Kingdom or United States, and set up a company there for receiving money. If being questioned subsequently, one can call it a commercial practice, a kind of company affairs, and he is only a company director and the behaviour in question was not conducted in Hong Kong. In that case, why bother to conduct an investigation? I believe members of the public watching this meeting through the television right now must be pissed off when hearing the above excuses.

Deputy President, there was an even more ridiculous event which we find unacceptable. Now we query whether LEUNG Chun-ying should give the public a justification for his doing, yet because of the mass sitting outside the Legislative Council, he refused to come here and give a justification. Fine, but the problem is, some pro-establishment Members asked him to give a justification, not in this Council, but at his home over a meal gathering while they were drinking tea and eating buns. Then today we saw Mr WONG stand up to give a speech with a script in his hand. Is this what a Member should do in order to monitor the Chief Executive? They attended a meal gathering at his place, and what did they talk over the meal? I do not know, not to mention the general public of Hong Kong who would never find a clue …

(Mr WONG Ting-kwong said that he had not attended those meal gatherings while sitting on his seat)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1605

MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): Sorry, I do not know whether you had literally taken the meal. Perhaps you did not take the meal, just had a cup of …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, this is not your speaking time.

MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): … only drank a cup of tea and ate a bun … (Members reminded that it should be a glass of water) should be a glass of water and a bun …

(Mr WONG Ting-kwong continued to speak while sitting on his seat)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, please stop speaking.

MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Deputy President. Excuse me, where was I? Drinking a cup of tea and eating a bun, right?

Deputy President, if a Member had a query, why did he not raise it out in the Council, so that the Chief Executive could explain it openly to all the people of Hong Kong? He, on the contrary, after having secret talk with the Chief Executive, indicated in front of the television camera that he thoroughly under the circumstance as the Chief Executive had explained everything clearly. On the following day, he even stood up to give a speech with a script in his hand, claiming that there was no problem. Has he fully discharged his responsibility as a Member? He seems to have discharged the responsibility of Mr LEUNG Chun-ying's entourage, not quite that of a Member.

This is not merely a pecuniary issue. As I elaborated earlier, behaviours like these are defined as bribery under the laws of Hong Kong. In other common law jurisdictions, these behaviours, if not classified as bribery, are suspected of breaching integrity. Why does this constitute a breach of integrity? A director or employee is entrusted by other people or the employer. Even the Chief Executive, in his position, is entrusted with the well-being of the entire society of Hong Kong. Hence, not only should he assume the legal responsibility, he should also fulfil the moral and integrity requirements. 1606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Moreover, the standard of conduct imposed on persons like him under the law is particularly high.

More than once, I had cited certain cases openly, one of which was the case of Phipps vs Boardman. The trustee in that case was a smart lawyer ― Deputy President, lawyers are smart in most cases ― who made a lucrative profit through an opportunity he came across while acting as the trustee. According to the court judgment back then, the trustee should not have the opportunity to earn that profit as he was not allowed to do so. That said, the Judge still ruled that the trustee had contravened the law, and ordered him to return all the money he earned to the beneficiaries. The Court ruled that, according to the law, the trustee's behaviours were in breach of integrity. All the profit he had made or received was advantages obtained in his capacity as the trustee, hence he should return them all to his employer, and that is, the beneficiaries. In other words, LEUNG Chun-ying should return the $50 million received to the employer, meaning that he should return that sum of money to DTZ for returning it to the shareholders of DTZ before the acquisition.

In Mr WONG's opinion, the shareholders did not suffer any loss. I really do not have a clue about this opinion. This sum of money, if it had not been given to LEUNG Chun-ying, a large part of it would have been injected into the consideration in a bid to win the deal. In other words, if LEUNG Chun-ying had not pocketed this sum of money, all or a large part of it should have gone into the hands of the shareholders. The law provides that any receipt of advantage by a trustee must obtain prior approval from the principal ― what does it mean? A company is regarded an intangible object which can only be represented by persons. In that sense, does it mean a trustee must obtain prior approval from all the shareholders? This is one of the interpretations, yet it is not substantiated in legal terms. For if there is collusion among the shareholders, who together agree on giving LEUNG Chun-ying this sum of money, eventually some people would be deceived. This can be easily achieved simply through collusion between several shareholders.

Thus the law also provides that, under circumstances like these, in addition to obtaining approval from directors, a general meeting should be summoned in order to obtain approval from all shareholders. In the present case, do we have any approval like this? In fact we have raised questions a number of times. We have been asking questions, we asked questions immediately after the unveiling of this incident. But up till today and this moment, this kind of approval is still absent. What else can the Legislative Council do? Should we LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1607 tolerate quietly? Given that the Chief Executive provided explanation to several pro-establishment Members while having tea and buns with them, this incident can be nullified and should no longer be discussed in the Legislative Council. The discussion we now have is only an attempt to overturn LEUNG Chun-ying. But if he has not done anything against his conscience, how can we overturn him?

Deputy President, I do hope the rest of the debate can be of higher quality.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, before I speak, I request a headcount.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, which clause of the Rules of Procedure are you invoking?

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): What?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please say which clause of the Rules of Procedure you are invoking.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Clause 17(2).

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

(While the summoning bell was ringing, some Members spoke in their seats)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If any Member wishes to raise a point of order, he must stand up and say which clause of the Rules of Procedure he is invoking. The President shall then make a ruling.

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

1608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please speak.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to investigate the scandal relating to the alleged acceptance of secret payments from an Australian enterprise, UGL Limited (UGL), by Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying.

Since 8 October, when an Australian media organization disclosed LEUNG Chun-ying's failure to declare the staggered secret payments of nearly $50 million which he received respectively in 2012 and 2013 from UGL, LEUNG Chun-ying, as the Chief Executive, has been hiding in his "tortoise shell". Apart from turning down requests for an open explanation, he even refused to attend the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session on 16 October. Subsequently, he only asked Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM, who is present today, to attend a Legislative Council meeting to answer questions on this scandal, thus making Hong Kong people think that he tried to evade Members' questions because he had a guilty conscience and knew only too well that he could not offer any satisfactory explanation.

Earlier today, before the Legislative Council formally scrutinized this motion moved under the P&P Ordinance, LEUNG Chun-ying even made an appointment to meet with a selected group of "royalist" and pro-establishment Members behind closed doors, in an attempt to explain away the scandal relating to his acceptance of benefits. His action has not only ignored and downgraded the status of the Legislative Council, but has also trampled on the right of the public to know and weakened the power of the Legislative Council to monitor the Chief Executive.

Deputy President, according to press reports, LEUNG Chun-ying explained to the "royalists" at the meeting that half of the $50 million payment was his resignation payment, and the other half was for preventing him from headhunting the top management of DTZ after his resignation. He even avowed that he had never provided any service to UGL. What is so unbelievable is that his explanation was totally accepted by all the "royalist" Members, such as Mr WONG Ting-kwong. Despite the clear provision that he must serve as a referee and adviser to both UGL and DTZ, they still did not even query the Chief LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1609

Executive's claim of having provided no service to UGL and his reluctance to terminate the agreement after his assumption of office. He pocketed all this money but did not have to provide any service. Would any company, any employer accept any such arrangement? It does not stand to reason that UGL, as the one making the payment, should have agreed to pay LEUNG Chun-ying for nothing in return.

Deputy President, Mr James TIEN told the media earlier that the job of a Chief Executive was a difficult one because it was necessary to serve too many bosses. But let us not forget that the annual salary of the Chief Executive is more than $4 million, plus an extra non-accountable entertainment allowance of $800,000 every year. If we look at the international community, we will see that such a salary is 40% higher than that of the United States President. The sum of nearly $50 million given by UGL to LEUNG Chun-ying is 10 times his annual income as the Chief Executive, and he is not even required to render any service after receiving the money. How can there be such a windfall? How can this possibly be true at all? Deputy President, anyone who believes LEUNG Chun-ying's words must be mentally retarded.

Deputy President, the "royalists" describe the secret agreement between LEUNG Chun-yin and UGL as "a golden handshake" (that is, the compensation given by the employer to a resigning top management staff member). But when this secret agreement was concluded, UGL was only a prospective buyer, not the owner, of DTZ. In other words, suppose UGL failed to acquire DTZ at the end of the day, or DTZ was purchased by another company, the so-called "golden handshake" between LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL would be a lie. Therefore, there was definitely an incentive for LEUNG Chun-ying to assist UGL in successfully purchasing DTZ, even if this would mean turning down the higher prices offered by other companies and betraying other shareholders' interests. In that case, apart from having problems with his personal conduct, LEUNG Chun-ying might have even contravened the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. For this reason, on 9 October, the Neo Democrats already reported the case to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, asking for a thorough investigation.

Deputy President, since we are discussing a very serious topic, I wish to request a headcount under Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

1610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

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

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please continue with your speech.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as I mentioned a moment ago, LEUNG Chun-ying himself stressed that since he already resigned from the DTZ Board on 24 November 2011, he had nothing to do with the decision of the Board to sell DTZ on 4 December. But then, LEUNG Chun-ying was later able to recount the various considerations of the Board in rejecting the offer made by another prospective buyer, a state-owned enterprise in Tianjin. An example of such considerations was the removal of the DTZ headquarters to the Tianjin Economic-Technological Development Area as an attached condition in the purchase proposal and other fine details like the need for obtaining the State Council's approval of the deal. LEUNG Chun-ying's knowledge of such confidential details is evidence that even if he had not taken part in making the decision of announcing the sale of DTZ, he must have at least participated in all the deliberations of the DTZ Board on the purchase proposals. And, this period of time could already enable DTZ to discharge its obligations under its agreement with UGL, and LEUNG Chun-ying could thus exert his influence in the DTZ Board.

Deputy President, when LEUNG Chun-ying was running for the post of Chief Executive, he responded specifically to the scandal of unauthorized building works (UBWs) besetting his rival Henry TANG, avowing that if he was elected Chief Executive, he would certainly act in an up-front and open manner. But what has happened in reality? The reality is that LEUNG Chun-ying has all the time been secretive and evasive, whether we are talking about the row over the Jury for the West Kowloon Reclamation Concept Plan Competition, the UBWs of his own residence and even the criteria of issuing free television licences. In all these disputes, he never told the whole truth right at the beginning. Regarding his secret deal with UGL, we simply do not know the answers to many questions, such as whether the DTZ Board and shareholders, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1611

Royal Bank of Scotland (its creditor) and Ernst & Young (its administrators) were aware of the inside stories of the deal, how much they knew, when they started to know, and so on.

All along, what Hong Kong people have been able to hear is just the story told by LEUNG Chun-ying himself. He claims that there is no problem with his moral integrity, apparently thinking that a lie repeated 100 times will become the truth. But what is the truth? The truth is that the Chief Executive received huge sums of money from UGL after his assumption of office without declaring to the public; he did not disclose the reasons for receiving the money, nor whether there were any attached conditions. It was not until the agreement was revealed by the media that he eventually made certain selective disclosures. All this has totally violated his election promise of acting in an up-front and open manner. LEUNG Chun-ying himself has totally wiped out the little credibility he may otherwise still command.

Deputy President, as the head of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, he should be monitored by the Legislative Council and all Hong Kong people with regard to everything he says and does. This is a point that even LEUNG Chun-ying, who describes himself as not a born political talent, should also realize. What is more, even if it is indeed true that he has never rendered any service to UGL, he must not forget that under the provisions of the secret agreement, he is still obligated to do so any time upon the request of UGL. Therefore, the point is not about whether LEUNG Chun-ying has provided any service or whether any conflict of interests is involved in his own personal judgment. Rather, the point is that since LEUNG Chun-ying is under contractual obligation to provide service and has continued to receive money without terminating the agreement after his assumption of office, this very act of his already constitutes "outside work", and he must make a prior declaration of interest, otherwise he shall be considered dishonest and suspected of dereliction of duty.

Many "royalist" and pro-establishment Legislative Council Members are concurrently Hong Kong deputies to the National People's Congress and Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Constrained by the straitjacket of a united position required by the Beijing Government, the "royalists" will of course bear in mind their concurrent membership when casting their votes. Therefore, this motion moved by Ms Claudia MO under the P&P Ordinance actually stands very little, or 1612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 virtually no, chance of passage. But anyone who can think a bit more intelligently will realize that the incumbent Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying, is untrustworthy. LEUNG Chun-ying has over and over again put his personal interests above the overall interests of Hong Kong. For the sake of his own power and position, he has sought to deceive all people and cover up all evidence of his acceptance of personal benefit.

Rather than once again choosing to have blind faith in the Chief Executive's "doublespeak" and one-sided story, the "royalists" should support the motion on empowering the Legislative Council to conduct a thorough investigation into this incident. LEUNG Chun-ying should be requested to disclose: the contents of his agreement with UGL; whether and when the agreement was brought to the full attention of the DTZ Board, its creditor and its administrators; whether UGL ever requested LEUNG Chun-ying to provide any service when the agreement was valid; and whether LEUNG Chun-ying actually rendered any service. All these questions should be left to the Legislative Council for investigation, so as to enable Hong Kong people to see everything clearly and give them back the right to know. For all these reasons, I rise to speak in support of Ms Claudia MO's motion.

With these remarks, Deputy President, pursuant to Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure, I once again ask the Deputy President to conduct a headcount.

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

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

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Prof Joseph LEE, please speak.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1613

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of this motion moved by Ms Claudia MO under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance).

Over the last two to three weeks, the incident involving the $50 million secret agreement signed between the Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying and the Australian corporation UGL Limited (UGL) has been fermenting, giving rise to many queries. For example, the other day, LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL, from which he has received a huge sum of money, issued a statement expressing that the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), the major creditor, was aware of UGL's intention to sign an agreement with LEUNG Chun-ying. However, the RBS subsequently issued a statement saying that it was not involved in the drawing up of the agreement, and that it had no knowledge of the terms of the agreement and the amount received by LEUNG Chun-ying. Moreover, Ernst & Young also issued a statement reiterating that as an administrator, it did not know of the content of the agreement signed by UGL and the other party. So, is anybody lying? With each party telling its story, what is the fact? Given all these doubts, an inquiry is required before the truth can be uncovered.

In addition, some media reports pointed out that LEUNG Chun-ying holds a 30% stake in DTZ Japan through an overseas registered company, and the major client of DTZ Japan is Hong Kong Resort International Limited (HKRIL), as DTZ Japan is providing property valuation service to it. However, Victor CHA Mou-zing, the Chairman of HKRIL, is one of the shareholders of Asia Television Limited (ATV). Although ATV has been repeatedly replaying old television programmes, it has managed to survive for a long time and has its licence renewed. Thus, queries arise as to whether LEUNG Chun-ying has a conflict of interest over the renewal of the free-to-air television licences. As a public officer, does LEUNG Chun-ying have a conflict of interest? If not, what problem is there for us to conduct an inquiry under the P&P Ordinance for the public to know the truth? Such doubts must be cleared. An inquiry is all the more warranted when whether ATV has been favoured is involved.

There have been media reports … I remember a colleague raised a question last week during the question session to ask if LEUNG Chun-ying had declared his assets when he assumed office as the Chief Executive and President of the Executive Council. However, through the media, I learned that the Chief Secretary had furnished a rather interesting reply. She said there was absolutely no conflict of interest for LEUNG Chun-ying, and that the agreement was not any 1614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 secret agreement but a commercial arrangement that was not made public. I would like to ask, since there are so many queries … Does the Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying or other senior officials have other similar commercial arrangements that are not required to be made public? If so, why should there be the mechanism for declaration of interests? We have the mechanism in place but public officers are neither required to declare nor set examples themselves. That being the case, how should we behave?

President, just now, I have only briefly repeated the media reports in the last two to three weeks. My colleagues may have done so earlier. These many queries have given rise to one problem. The Office of the Chief Executive issued a legal letter to the Australian reporter but some media said this letter served to tacitly admit LEUNG Chun-ying's "five sins". First is corruption. This runs counter to the general direction of President XI. Should this kind of corruption be subject to suppression? Second is immorality. Is it right not to make declarations? Is it correct to keep everything secret? Third is favouritism. Should only certain people be favoured? Fourth is dishonesty. He has refrained from telling what he should have. Is he employing the art of double-talk? Fifth, is he still qualified to be a public officer? How should these "five sins" be addressed?

In my opinion, this motion moved by Ms Claudia MO under the P&P Ordinance to investigate precisely brings out the check-and-balance role of the Legislative Council. As Members of the Council, we absolutely have to play the role of checks and balances, which includes asking the Chief Executive to explain clearly the queries relating to the incident as we mentioned earlier. After the incident has surfaced, we can hear the different views put forward by Members. Our query is: How can there be such a bargain for a person to receive $50 million without having to provide service and declare? Moreover, the person involved can say that there exists no conflict of interest, he has told no lies and can continue to be a public officer. All these warrant an inquiry.

I believe the Chief Executive has done all those but has chosen not to explain to the public as he was not elected by universal suffrage, but through a coterie election. Therefore, before the start of the debate on this motion, he only explained to a few "buddies", then ― interestingly ― these "buddies" clarified on his behalf. Why does the Chief Executive not hold a press conference voluntarily to explain to the public that the issues we mentioned earlier are wrong and not the fact? This move can at least do him justice.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1615

I believe this inquiry invoking the P&P Ordinance can help the Chief Executive. I wish Members will support the invoking of the P&P Ordinance, which will help the Chief Executive clear the doubts about the "five sins" which I just put forth or other queries through this inquiry. I wish the Chief Executive can play it straight and not "be corrupt in the dark corner", so that Hong Kong can remain prosperous and stable.

Thank you, President.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, if the Chief Executive has, in any other democratic society, involved himself in an incident similar to the present case of UGL Limited (UGL), he should have stepped down already. For example, two Japanese Cabinet members have to assume responsibility recently and resign for making some minor mistakes, probably for acquiring movie tickets as giveaways with public monies. What we are talking now is a case involving a huge sum of HK$50 million, that is, a remuneration of £4 million plus a bonus of £1.5 million, amounting to £5.5 million in total. In fact, things should be most difficult for the Chief Secretary for Administration since it has been clearly stated in her reply to a question raised by Mr Albert HO last week that the response was given after consultation with the Chief Executive's Office. I just cannot help but suspect that when the Chief Secretary for Administration was giving her reply that day, even she herself did not really know if she was telling the truth since it was a reply prepared for her by the Chief Executive's Office, and she had no alternative but to read the reply to us as written.

Why should LEUNG Chun-ying try to evade the investigation by this Council and that by the media? There are several possibilities. First of all, it is believed that solicitors sitting here beside me would definitely advise us that when we are subjected to criminal investigation, we should never answer any question and should as far as possible avoid making explanation to the public, lest what we have said would be taken as evidence. This is one of the possibilities. LEUNG Chun-ying worries that something may go wrong in the course of criminal investigation, and therefore he makes every endeavour to avoid answering questions about the case. The second possibility, which also comes from the advice given by senior counsels sitting here beside me, is: he need not answer at all since "Grandpa" will definitely back him up. There is absolutely no need for him to answer because this is just a sheer waste of time. With the 1616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 support of Beijing, he can surely serve out his full term of office. There is no need to "blow the whistle" either, since Members will definitely "kneel down" and the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO today to try to initiate investigation will undoubtedly be negatived.

I speak today to support Ms Claudia MO's motion since there are far too many doubtful points concerning the incident. I am not going to repeat the points raised by colleagues earlier, though I will also touch on the issues later. However, I would like to point out that there is one point which colleagues have not brought up just now and that is the issue of taxation. With regard to the issue, Mr LEUNG has once mentioned that under the legislation of Hong Kong, the remuneration of £4 million is not taxable. It is common knowledge for any average person that the remuneration, though not taxable in Hong Kong, should be taxable in the United Kingdom. Frankly speaking, this type of contracts can be drafted in such a way that they will come into effect and the amount involved be taxable in Hong Kong. It is the common hope of all normal persons to pay less tax. So, what do you prefer, to pay tax in the United Kingdom or in Hong Kong? In which places will a lower amount of tax be levied, in Hong Kong or in the United Kingdom? Why did he choose to pay his tax for the remuneration in the United Kingdom instead of Hong Kong? These are the questions he has to answer.

President, a secret agreement has been reached between LEUNG Chun-ying, the Chief Executive and UGL, an Australian enterprise, when the former was standing for the Chief Executive Election in 2011. Under the agreement, he received £4 million for selling the business of DTZ Holding Inc. (DTZ), subject to his support for the business development of UGL in Asia and his provision of service as a "referee and adviser". The said amount was paid to LEUNG Chun-ying in two tranches in 2012 and 2013 after he has taken office as the Chief Executive. I do not know if LEUNG Chun-ying has declared the remuneration he received to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal pursuant to Article 47 of the Basic Law.

The agreement with UGL also undertook … according to the reply given by the Chief Secretary for Administration last week, there is no requirement for the Chief Executive to declare such payments. However, it is general accounting knowledge that such payments are actually accounts receivable, that is, money owed for products and services provided on credit and are usually regarded as assets. UGL also undertook in the agreement to underwrite for DTZ LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1617 the payment of a bonus of £1.5 million to LEUNG Chun-ying, though it was a bonus that DTZ has agreed to pay. Why did UGL need to pay the bonus? It involves the transfer of corporate equity to DTZ without the consent of the asset manager, Ernst & Young. Therefore, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that UGL has offered advantages to LEUNG Chun-ying with the aim of enticing his support for the acquisition plan. Nevertheless, LEUNG Chun-ying will not get away with this because investigation will be carried out by the Australian Government. Deliberation will probably be conducted in the first quarter of next year and by then, we can have a clearer picture of the detailed account of the incident.

As President of the Executive Council, the Chief Executive has to observe the system of declaration of interests for Executive Council Members, including the requirement for regular declarations. Under the requirement, registrable interests of Executive Council Members include remunerated employments, offices, trades, profession, and so on. LEUNG Chun-ying has explained that the agreement had been reached with UGL before he was elected as the Chief Executive and the remuneration was termination payment for which there was no requirement to declare. At the Council meeting of 29 October, the Chief Secretary for Administration repeatedly emphasized in her reply to the oral question raised by Mr Albert HO that the agreement was a resignation agreement, and that LEUNG Chun-ying had not provided any service to UGL. It is both confusing and misleading in saying so because the crux of the problem is not the provision or otherwise of service to UGL by LEUNG Chun-ying, but the existence or otherwise of any contractual obligations on his part to provide service to UGL. Although he has provided no substantial service, if he is required by the agreement to provide service, he still has the contractual duties to do so. It is the contractual duties that counts.

According to the agreement with UGL, LEUNG Chun-ying is required to assist in the promotion of UGL and DTZ as a referee and adviser from time to time and details of the requirement are as follows: "provide such assistance in the promotion of the UGL Group and the DTZ Group as UGL may reasonably require, including but not limited to acting as a referee and adviser from time to time". Under the agreement, he has contractual obligations to provide such assistance. Thus, after LEUNG Chun-ying has received the remuneration of £4 million in accordance with the agreement with UGL, he actually has the responsibility of providing service as mentioned above and so far, the agreement is still in force. The contract is valid and there are contractual obligations on the 1618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 part of LEUNG Chun-ying to deliver what he has promised. Such being the case, he should have made declarations in accordance with the system of declaration of interests for Executive Council Members since he is required to provide service to a private company. President, worse still, should the Chief Executive engage himself in any part-time work? Apart from assuming office of the Chief Executive, he has even taken up a part-time job. Why should he work part-time? Is there any other reasons for that? Furthermore, the statement released by UGL on 9 October also revealed that the agreement was effective until 2013, that is, after LEUNG Chun-ying had taken office as the Chief Executive. Therefore, the Chief Executive has obviously acted in violation of the requirements under the system of declaration of interests for Executive Council Members, and is suspected of concealing the agreement he has reached with UGL as well as accepting the advantage of £4 million.

Pursuant to Article 47 of the Basic Law, the Chief Executive, on assuming office, shall declare his or her assets to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal and the declaration shall be put on record. Since LEUNG Chun-ying has failed to declare the remuneration in question under the section of remunerated employments when declaration of interests was made to the Executive Council, we also have reasonable grounds to suspect that he has not made declaration as required by Article 47 of the Basic Law in respect of the financial interests, and this may constitute a serious breach on his part of the relevant requirement under the Basic Law.

President, as the Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying should know very well that the post of Chief Executive has been vested with the greatest public power. However, he has failed to meet the reasonable expectation of the public on his impartiality in performing his public duties as the Chief Executive, since he is suspected of withholding from the public his acceptance of a huge sum of £4 million as well as a bonus of £1.5 million, and providing service on a confidential basis to a private company. Not only has he been suspected of abusing his power for personal gains, he may have also been involved in false or incomplete declarations under the declaration system for Executive Council Members. As the integrity of the Chief Executive is under challenge, he is definitely not suitable for holding public office anymore.

As regards the agreement reached between LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL, the crux of the matter is whether the Board of DTZ, its main creditor the Royal Bank of Scotland and DTZ's asset manager, that is, Ernst & Young of the United LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1619

Kingdom are aware of the relevant arrangement. The Chairman of DTZ, Tim ROSS, has told the Australian media that they knew nothing about the agreement between Mr LEUNG and UGL and the account given by him is at variance with the statement released later by UGL. In the statement released by UGL, it has been pointed out that the Royal Bank of Scotland, a creditor of DTZ, was fully aware of UGL's intention to enter into an arrangement with LEUNG Chun-ying and DTZ played a significant role in negotiating those terms with Mr LEUNG. It is important to let the public have a better understanding of the truth and confirm whether the Board of DTZ has resolved to support the arrangement. Most important of all, we have to ascertain if any decision has been made by the Board to support the acceptance of £4 million as well as £1.5 million of bonus on the part of LEUNG Chun-ying. In simple terms, if the issue has never been discussed by the Board but instead, LEUNG Chun-ying has only informed individual directors of the arrangement, can the advantages he accepted be regarded as authorized? Clarification and investigation are required in this regard.

President, there is in fact no need for us to evade the motion moved today. Everything will be fine if a press meeting can be timely convened by LEUNG Chun-ying as the person concerned of the incident to have the whole story explained clearly, the documents concerned disclosed openly and all questions put answered fully. Alternatively, a meeting can be arranged through the Chairman of the House Committee of this Council to offer clear, upright and honest reply to all questions put by Members. However, not only has he failed to offer his explanation to the public and to this Council, he has even chosen to approach a few Members of this Council and clarify the case to them in private, which is a contempt of both this Council and the public. In order to address the many queries raised, it is extremely necessary for this Council to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to summon all the people concerned and go through all related documents so as to present a full account of the facts of the incident. Some Members of the pro-establishment camp have repeated to us just now what LEUNG Chun-ying had told them in explanation and there may be a certain degree of reasonableness in the arguments presented, but it would be far more satisfactory if LEUNG Chun-ying can produce all the relevant documents to this Council so that members of the public may come to realize that LEUNG Chun-ying has actually been treated unjustly once again. He has the liberty to do so and may choose to do so any time but why did he opt to evade such queries raised over and over again? Even if LEUNG Chun-ying, in December that year, did not expect his campaign for the Chief Executive would be successful and had therefore decided to reach the agreement with UGL, 1620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 could the agreement be cancelled after he was elected as the Chief Executive? Is it possible to conclude another supplementary agreement for early payment of the remuneration or a 50% reduction of the amount from £4 million to £2 million, so that every endeavour could be made for him to maintain an untarnished reputation by fulfilling all the contractual duties before taking office as the Chief Executive? Was it possible for him to do so?

LEUNG Chun-ying, in his capacity as the Chief Executive, is granted access to government papers of highly confidential nature while at the same time, he has undertaken to provide service to a private commercial organization as a so-called "referee and adviser". It is totally incredible. Why could he hold the position of the Chief Executive for two years when the agreement was still binding on him? Why did he not terminate the agreement before taking office as the Chief Executive? As he had taken office as the Chief Executive and was so well-off as living at the Peak, was it really necessary for him to receive the remuneration? Although it is not of a small amount and no one would consider "money stinks", why did he not effect early termination of the agreement if he considered it not clear-cut enough to handle the matter this way?

Besides, it is also guaranteed in the agreement that LEUNG Chun-ying may, at any time within seven years after the acquisition of DTZ by UGL, sell the remaining shares he is holding to UGL with a minimum value of £200,000 (about HK$2.5 million), plus 30% of the company's earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization. This proves that the agreement is still in force and will remain valid until December 2018. Therefore, without taking the initiative to cancel the agreement upon assumption of office, LEUNG Chun-ying has obviously ignored public interests. Are there any other things he is still withholding and hiding as he is hankering after the financial interests which come with the agreement, or are there some other hidden reasons that cannot bear the light of the day?

On knowing that LEUNG Chun-ying has been elected as the Chief Executive, UGL should have realized that it would be quite impossible for him to perform his duties as a "referee and adviser". Why did UGL not ask for the cancellation of the agreement and stop the payment of the remuneration? This has provided us with much room for imagination as far as the possible reasons behind are concerned. Such being the case, it is necessary for this Council to set up a Select Committee to inquire if an extensive transfer of interests is involved at the back, in which private interests overrided public interests.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1621

President, there is in fact another point we have to debate but our discussion today will not touch on the issue. It is about UGL and DTZ Japan. I understand that Ms Cyd HO will try to discuss in details next week such issues as the shares held by LEUNG Chun-ying in UGL and DTZ, whether any conflict of interests is involved and whether it has led to the decision of not issuing a domestic free television programme service licence to Hong Kong Television Network Limited, as well as his favouring the interests of Hong Kong Resort International Limited or Asia Television Limited. President, if LEUNG Chun-ying is upright and honest in the incident … President, I can understand the frustration of Members of the pan-democratic camp today since it is believed that all Members of the pro-establishment camp will definitely stay here and defend LEUNG Chun-ying, especially under the compelling support to LEUNG Chun-ying's Government from Beijing and after the recent revocation of Mr James TIEN's membership of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Nevertheless, members of the public would not forget how LEUNG Chun-ying has repeatedly withheld or hidden the whole truth and President, things have become more and more depressing and people have no alternative but to accept such political scandals of abuses and corruption. If he is not involved in any of these scandals, why has he not made any clarification? Since he is reluctant to offer a full explanation, it is only natural that he will be suspected of having involved in the scandals.

With these remarks, I support Ms Claudia MO's motion.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): President, Ms Claudia MO's request to appoint a Select Committee and invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the allegation of the Chief Executive receiving the benefits of UGL Limited (UGL), an Australian corporation, is just a farce we have repeatedly seen at the meeting of this Council. The request originates mainly from a news report which, in total disregard of facts, has large elements of exaggeration …

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?

1622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, since a quorum is not present in the Chamber, I request a headcount in accordance with Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

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

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam, please continue with your speech.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): President, such farces have been going on in this Council for some time and the request in question originates from a news report which, in total disregard of facts, has large elements of exaggeration. A number of pan-democratic Members have also made their assertion in this regard today but in my opinion, what I have heard are just arguments premised on distorted facts. Members of the opposition camp would of course regard the incident as a golden opportunity not to be missed and try to make a big fuss of the matter.

Judging from the facts released by both UGL and DTZ about what happened on 5 December 2011, it is not difficult to understand that the acquisition plan of DTZ by UGL is a very great move which will be of very great help to its corporate development. On 8 October this year, an Australian media reported that the Chief Executive had concluded an agreement with UGL, a listed company in Australia, before he was elected as the Chief Executive and under the agreement, UGL undertook to make a payment of £4 million to Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, subject to Mr LEUNG's undertaking of not to compete with and poach employees from DTZ. However, the agreement was described in the news report as a secret arrangement and a deal made under the table which both the creditor, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and the receiver, Ernst & Young, of DTZ were unaware of. The legitimacy of the arrangement was also queried so as to deal a direct blow to the integrity of the Chief Executive and arouse LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1623 widespread community concern. Nevertheless, arguments should after all be based on facts. A statement was released immediately by UGL on the next day, alleging the reference to "secret" agreement a groundless and misleading statement since DTZ's creditor, the Royal Bank of Scotland, was fully aware of the arrangement. It has also been pointed out directly in the statement that during the last two years, UGL did not request Mr LEUNG Chun-ying to undertake any task, nor did Mr LEUNG offer to perform any tasks for UGL. The truth has obviously come to light and the statement made is also found to tally with the explanation given by the Chief Executive's Office.

Nonetheless, journalists and those in the opposition camp continue to make up a big story about the case in order to smear the reputation of the Chief Executive. They just want to storm the whole city and let the trouble brew so as to provide a ground for hurling invectives by those who are good at playing politics in Hong Kong. Media pushing through the Occupy Central action is more than amused at making news on the issue by hyping it over and over again and foreign media has also tried to add insult to injury. However, according to the clarification made by a news report in the Australian media on 15 October, it turned out that the whole thing was just a misunderstanding since further perusal of the electronic mails and information at hand has revealed that all people and organizations of critical importance were actually aware of the agreement. It is as clear as daylight that in the course of negotiation, they were all fully aware of the agreement. The ethic and intention of the media concerned are thus open to question since at the outset, news reporting was performed recklessly without investigation and verification, apparently with an ulterior motive as well as treacherous intent.

As a media group of such a large scale, the Australian media should have verified comprehensively the authenticity of every single piece of information with the companies and the people concerned when reporting cases which may have such significance and the news article should only be published when it is supported by evidence. However, as specifically pointed out in the statement released by UGL, all companies and people concerned were aware of the arrangement but obviously, no investigation and verification whatsoever has been carried out by the Australian media reporting the case. I wonder if this is an oversight or a conspiracy. The journalist concerned has also stated frankly that anything which can do harm to LEUNG Chun-ying at this very moment is highly newsworthy. This is an indisputable fact. Apparently, though knowing so well 1624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 the possible impact of the information published, the journalist was determined to prepare the article at such a sensitive moment in a reckless manner without tracing the source of information, verifying the news with the persons involved and following up the case with the one who spilled the beans. It so happened that the news report has provided those in the opposition camp with an excuse to make a demand for the Chief Executive to step down, thus giving new impetus to Occupy Central, which has already cooled down, and enabling the movement to come to another climax. With public attention diverted, the journalist is in fact working in co-ordination with those in the opposition camp. It is even more paradoxical that the journalist who wrote the news article has met with persons including Martin LEE, the founding chairman of the Democratic Party, and CHAN Kin-man, one of the Occupy Central Trio, at the occupied area in Admiralty on 23 October. Members of the public may judge for themselves whether foreign media is scheming for something with those participating in Occupy Central.

Let me say a few words on the issue of conflict of interests. There are a few main points in the accusation made by those in the opposition camp against the Chief Executive. It is said that LEUNG Chun-ying is suspected of violating section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance but it has already been stated clearly in the clarification made by both the Chief Executive's Office and UGL that the allegations about the so-called secret payments or unauthorized payment of commission, and so on, are sheer fictions that cannot be substantiated at all and are smearing of a political nature. The agreement is standard business practice and is in no way a special arrangement. As regards the suspicion of tax evasion, compensation payments for non-competition undertaking or payments made under restrictive covenant are considered capital income under local legislation on taxation. The rationale behind is to offer payments of a compensatory nature to persons suffering a permanent loss of their capital asset and thus, the allegation about tax evasion cannot be substantiated too. Regarding the disclosure of interests, as repeatedly emphasized by the Chief Executive's Office and the Chief Secretary for Administration, the Chief Executive has already observed the system of declaration of interests. He has neither breached the rules nor acted against the law, and therefore the allegations made by those in the opposition camp are all groundless charges. Such being the case, why should an investigation be carried out in this Council?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1625

Moreover, even if he had acted against the law, investigation should not be initiated by this Council. Instead, it should be carried out by the Chief Justice or the relevant law-enforcement agencies. There should be no question of conflict of interests since the Chief Executive has not provided any service to UGL in these two years, and the question of personal integrity does not exist either, as the deal was made openly under broad daylight. Since neither the question of conflict of interests nor the issue of personal integrity is involved, it would be even more unjustifiable to have taxpayers' money wasted on such an investigation.

Hong Kong is a commercial society and we should respect all business arrangements which are in conformity with the law and long-standing rules observed by those in the business sector. Investigation into commercial decisions should not be carried out merely because of the strong advocation espoused by some Members since it will be tantamount to exercising public power to interfere directly with business operation, which will deal a severe blow to the free market in Hong Kong. Members of the pan-democratic camp spoke vehemently last week to assert that if a precedent was set in deploying the "imperial sword" to inquire into cases involving private organizations and civil bodies, this Council will be endowed with infinite power. Why should an investigation be carried out into the conclusion of a lawful agreement by Mr LEUNG Chun-ying in his personal capacity with a business establishment if the request to investigate into illegal acts committed by private organizations is considered unnecessary? Apparently, the stance of those in the opposition camp is based on a dual standard.

Speaking of the adoption of a dual standard, a few words have to be said about the acceptance of political contributions, which is recently the talk of the town. Acceptance of payments is the key issue involved in both the case concerning Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and the offer of political contributions by Mr Jimmy LAI but in the former case, payments were made under an agreement and in accordance with the clear terms and conditions contained therein, and a clear and open explanation has been offered to address public queries. However, though suspected of accepting over $40 million of political contributions from Mr Jimmy LAI, Members of the opposition camp have refused to offer any explanation to the public, thus rendering the arrangement truly a deal made under the table. Both Mr Gary FAN and Prof Joseph LEE have repeatedly 1626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 cited the reference to "reaping without sowing" just now but does such an overwhelming advantage really exist in this world? Let us see how Members of this Council have it today by accepting the said political contributions.

Some people has definitely disgraced themselves with what they have done in Occupy Central as well as the long-term campaign of acting against China and stirring up troubles in Hong Kong and they have shames deep down their hearts. According to media investigation and information exposed through the Internet, Mr Jimmy LAI, contributor of the black money, has secretly met with the officer-in-charge of the United States' intelligence agency in international waters before and after the start of Occupy Central, followed by the disclosure of a large number of bank statements, accounting documents and correspondence on the Internet, showing that not a single political party out of the Civic Party, the Democratic Party, the Labour Party has not accepted contributions of a huge sum from Jimmy LAI.

Take Ms Claudia MO, the mover of today's motion, as an example. Though Mr Jimmy LAI has acknowledged payment of $500,000 to her, Ms MO denied and claimed that the money was a gift from her husband. There is thus a greater need for us to interrogate Ms Claudia MO and ask about the relationship between her and Mr Jimmy LAI.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): … How is his speculation of his motives related to the issue under discussion? He is now directing serious personal attacks against me. At the press conference broadcast live on television, I already gave a clear account of everything …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, it is not the time for you to speak. Please observe the Rules of Procedure.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I know that. But, President, you cannot allow him to say so. I even produced my bank records. If you ask LEUNG Chun-ying to produce …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1627

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, it is not the time for you to speak. Please sit down immediately.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Why does LEUNG Chun-ying not produce his bank records?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Member please speak in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. The Member may rise to raise a point of order. Ms MO, are you saying that Mr CHAN Kam-lam's speech has violated the Rules of Procedure? If yes, please point out which provision of the Rules of Procedure he has violated.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I think he has digressed from the subject matter, and he has made malicious personal attacks against me by saying things contrary to the facts.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): While the Rules of Procedure does not contain any stipulation that Members shall not say anything contrary to facts, it does provide that a Member shall not use offensive or insulting language about another Member, or impute improper motives to another Member.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, please explain how your earlier speech is related to the issue under discussion in this Council.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): President, I am telling the truth. Ms Claudia MO did accept the $500,000. And, Mr Jimmy LAI has told the media himself that he was the very person who offered this sum of money.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): How is this related to the issue under discussion?

1628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): I now talk about this solely because Ms Claudia MO has moved a motion today on requesting an inquiry into Mr LEUNG Chun-ying's acceptance of monetary benefits from the UGL. I must therefore also make it a point to say that actually, many Members in the Legislative Council have likewise accepted doubtful donations from Mr Jimmy LAI recently. Regarding these acts of accepting money … Just as some Members said a moment ago, windfalls simply do not exist in this world, right? Therefore, I must mention some instances for illustration and rebuttal purposes. While some Members have said in the Chamber of this Council that we must find out certain facts involving a person, many other matters are also in need of clarification.

Accepting money is one thing …

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I think his remarks are seriously offensive. He maintains that his remarks are based on facts. But I must point out that while the Rules of Procedure does not contain any stipulation that Members shall not lie, none of his remarks is based on facts …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, what you are saying does not constitute a point of order. Please sit down and do not interrupt the other Member again.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, however, you said just now that he should not use any offensive language.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, please point out which part of Mr CHAN Kam-lam's speech you think is in breach of the Rules of Procedure, and also the offensive language he has used.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): He keeps repeating Jimmy LAI's admission of giving me $500,000. When was that? Will he tell us "who", "what", "when", "where" and "why", please.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1629

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, please sit down.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I have already sat down.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam, please stop repeating your remarks concerning Ms Claudia MO's acceptance of $500,000 from Jimmy LAI. Please speak on the subject matter of this motion.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): President, I will not repeat her acceptance of $500,000 from Jimmy LAI, because Members can know about this clearly as long as they read recent newspaper reports again. Therefore, I will not talk about this any further.

While accepting money is one thing, accepting money without making any declaration according to the requirements is a serious matter. If Members do not make any declaration, and if they then speak up for a media organization of the donor in the Legislative Council in an attempt to prove the presence of suppression of the organization concerned, they will be suspected of committing conflicts of interest. And, if they accept the money for the purpose of assisting in organizing any large-scale illegal movement, the accusations they face will be even more serious. What is more, the political parties concerned could have accepted the donations directly. In that case, why should those Members keep the donations first? Regarding such huge sums of money, are there any arrangements allowing them to receive the donations on behalf of the political parties concerned? And, are there any minutes of meetings that can be shown to the public?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, what you are saying now is likewise irrelevant to the subject matter under debate. Please speak on the subject matter.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): All right. President, I am simply talking about an issue which people are most concerned about ― the issue of accepting benefits. I must point out any misconduct shown by any Legislative 1630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Council Members, or else the public will cast doubts on the credibility of Members' remarks. Therefore, I must also bring up this matter, and I have only talked about it very briefly.

In addition, it was discovered recently that two of the Occupy Central initiators and Dr Robert CHUNG, Director of the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong, were also involved in certain doubtful donations. This has turned them into the new protagonists of this "black money" scandal. Mr Benny TAI knew only too well that he would be questioned if he handled the donations to the university in the name of "Anonymous". Well, everything happens for a reason. If the sources of the donations could not be disclosed, why didn't he make this clear? Why should he instead covertly and secretly … After being questioned repeatedly, he eventually revealed that the donor was a priest.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you have still digressed from the subject matter. Please speak on Ms Claudia MO's motion.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): All right. President, thank you. There is never any free lunch in politics. Political donations are a kind of political investment. And, just like other kinds of investment, it also stresses investment returns. Dr Thomas CHAN from The Public Policy Research Institute of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University once talked about the ills of money politics brought about by political donations. He said that even year-one university students were already able to understand this clearly, and he went on to question why the pan-democratic camp could simply pretend to have no such knowledge or think that people did not understand this. I must therefore say that the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO today is totally unnecessary. And, from my observation of her speeches over the past period of time, I notice that she has gone after the Chief Executive relentlessly. Before Chief Executive Mr LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office, she already demanded him to step down. And, over these two years, she has kept defaming or smearing Mr LEUNG Chun-ying on various pretexts. I think Members from the pan-democratic camp should reflect on themselves, as they are the very ones who give people the feeling that the Legislative Council today commands no popular support. Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1631

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, the royalist Members repeatedly criticized the pan-democratic Members for creating troubles for themselves and making troubles in a bid to prompt LEUNG Chun-ying to step down. Nonetheless, the fact is that LEUNG Chun-ying himself has admitted the existence of this contract, his receipt of money, and that it is not necessary for him to render the relevant services pursuant to the contract, as well as his receiving two secret payments during his term of office ― in other words, he had indirectly admitted his provision of service to an outside party during his term of office.

All of the above will certainly arouse doubts. Moreover, his behaviours were not in compliance with Article 47 of the Basic Law, which stipulates that "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must be a person of integrity, dedicated to his or her duties", and inconsistent with the remark he made when running in the election: "As a political figure, he must be whiter than a white sheet".

In our view, it is absolutely necessary to carry out an investigation against the conducts of LEUNG Chun-ying, hence I give my speech to support Ms Claudia MO's motion. But I think what is more important is to find out whether the decisions and arrangements by LEUNG Chun-ying are in contravention of the requirement to hold him accountable to the SAR Government …

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, please hold for a moment. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I think a quorum is not present in this Chamber. Will the President count the quorum according to Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

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)

1632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please continue with your speech.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, Mr CHAN Kam-lam just mentioned that receiving political contributions would have very serious consequences. I think what he said is remarkable. His remark has actually explained why the pan-democracy camp has been longing for a clear investigation into the matters involving conflict of interests or impaired credibility on the part of the Chief Executive of the SAR. We understand that politicians should in fact need to be whiter than a white sheet.

Members from the pro-Government camp said earlier that investigation was unnecessary, as Mr LEUNG Chun-ying had already explained clearly. However, why did Mr LEUNG Chun-ying deliberately hold a meeting behind closed door on 4 November with some Members from the pro-establishment camp, in which he explained the details on his receiving the money, and why he made in the board of directors a decision which might be detrimental to the interests of shareholders and creditors ― selling the DTZ to the UGL Limited (UGL) instead of China's state-owned Tianjin Innovation Financial Investment Company (Tianjin Company), which offered a higher bid? For all these queries, he needs to expound clearly to us.

As a matter of fact, all members of the public want to know what Mr LEUNG Chun-ying did in the process, and why he made this decision and arrangement. However, it is unfortunate that he only selectively explained to some Members from the pro-Government camp. If you think that it is not necessary for him to explain, neither will it be necessary for him to explain to you. Why did he have to particularly explain to you? Of course, he has to tell you that he is all right, and ask you to explain for him. However, why would he let you explain for him, instead of explaining by himself? That is the crux of the question.

After reading the news coverage, I think that investigation is even more necessary. Perhaps I try to present the case in another perspective and let Members think about it. According to what Mr LEUNG Chun-ying said, he thought it was better to sell the DTZ to the UGL rather than to Tianjin Company, and there were two reasons: Firstly, the transaction period with the latter was LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1633 too long, and he deemed it risky. Secondly, the latter requested that the headquarters of the DTZ be moved from the United Kingdom to Tianjin, and he found it inappropriate.

I think this aspect is very important and warrants investigation, as this decision is a very big insult to a state-owned enterprise in regard to its ability to complete an international transaction. Besides, this will also leave an impression to the public that after a state-owned enterprise has acquired another international enterprise, it is an inappropriate arrangement to move the headquarters of that international enterprise to Tianjin in the Mainland. If we do not investigate clearly, we will actually put the blame wrongly on the country. Even Mr LEUNG Chun-ying said he felt that this international transaction could not be completed if the DTZ was sold to a state-owned enterprise. Apart from that, it was also inappropriate to move the headquarters of the DTZ to Tianjin. In my opinion, a thorough investigation into the reasons leading Mr LEUNG Chun-ying to make this judgment is very important.

There is another flaw in his judgment. The shareholders and creditors of the DTZ have indeed lost £100 million on the acquisition price due to his judgment. Therefore, this decision made by him as a director has obviously run against the fiduciary duties of directors in striving for maximum benefits for the shareholders. In fact, if someone was worried that accepting the acquisition proposal of Tianjin Company would affect the interests of shareholders, we will then have to ask whether Tianjin Company has no money to conduct the transaction. If Tianjin Company has money to conduct the transaction, and after the transaction has been completed, the shareholders and creditors would really receive £100 million more in the acquisition. How would it be possible that Mr LEUNG Chun-ying's decision did not incur losses to the shareholders?

In my opinion, the agreement states clearly that after Mr LEUNG Chun-ying has received this sum of money, he will be responsible for allowing the UGL to complete the acquisition. This arrangement will actually incur losses to the shareholders and creditors. If the media coverage is correct, neither the creditor, Royal Bank of Scotland, nor the trustee, Ernst & Young, were aware of the agreement arrangement, and this is a rather serious matter. Hence, due to these few reasons, if the case can be investigated clearly, I think it will be a good deed.

1634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

If an investigation is not conducted, to say the least of it, the pro-establishment camp can invite Mr LEUNG Chun-ying to reveal the information discussed or noted in your private meeting, so that the public will have the opportunity to raise questions. This is a very desirable arrangement, and the "imperial sword" can also be spared. However, why did Mr LEUNG Chun-ying not adopt this arrangement? Why can Mr LEUNG Chun-ying not let the public know the reasons behind his decision?

I consider it carefully and at length, but it has me at my wit's end. I can only support this motion moved in accordance with the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) by Ms Claudia MO, in order to have the truth unveiled to the world without any cover. Perhaps Members may laugh and say that I gagged up a little in my speech just now. Nonetheless, the general public very much want to know the truth indeed. They want to know why Mr LEUNG Chun-ying would think that Tianjin Company, which offered a higher bid in the acquisition, was not an ideal choice.

In my opinion, all these factors are worth of careful consideration, and the P&P Ordinance should be invoked to carry out an investigation so as to be fair to the state-owned enterprise.

With these remarks, I support the motion. Thank you, President.

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Point of order. I request a headcount, I think in the Chamber at present, a quorum is not present.

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

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, please speak.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1635

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of Ms Claudia MO's motion to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to investigate LEUNG Chun-ying.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam expressed earlier that we said on the last occasion the "imperial sword" would not be used to investigate private organizations. I wish to make it clear that we are now using the "imperial sword" to inquire into the Government, the Chief Executive, and the "imperial sword" actually should be used to inquire into the conduct of the Government and those with public power. It is now very obvious that LEUNG Chun-ying holds public power; it is only right to use the "imperial sword" to inquire into him.

We of course know that under the escort and defence of the pro-establishment Members, this motion moved today will definitely not be passed, but it is my sincere wish that every pro-establishment Member can declare his interest when he rises to speak because among those Members, quite a number are members of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Committee (CPPCC). Right now, the NPCSC and the CPPCC have given them the highest instruction to support LEUNG Chun-ying. Under this premise, no matter what wrong LEUNG Chun-ying has done, they have to lend their blind support. Under such circumstances, I would like them to state clearly.

As we all know ― Mr James TIEN is not in attendance ― As Mr James TIEN asked LEUNG Chun-ying to resign … He suggested instead of asked. He only suggested LEUNG Chun-ying to resign but was dismissed and stripped of his membership. So, how can we expect those members of the NPCSC and the CPPCC who are now in attendance to treat this matter fairly? They have to blindly support LEUNG Chun-ying because they are afraid of being dismissed. They are afraid of not being able to be members of the NPCSC and the CPPCC. Did they pledge their allegiance to the people of Hong Kong or the Chinese Communist regime? This is crystal clear to us, and we do not have to speculate. Therefore, no matter how sufficient the arguments are for this motion, the pro-establishment Members will definitely veto the invoking of the P&P Ordinance.

Looking back at our arguments, they are actually very simple. Article 47 of the Basic Law stipulates that the Chief Executive must be a person of integrity, dedicated to his or her duties. In the UGL Limited (UGL) incident, we have to 1636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 look at whether LEUNG Chun-ying has lived up to such requirements. First, we all know that he has received $50 million (£4 million). This is a hard fact, but has he declared it? When Mrs Carrie LAM replied to Members' questions in the Legislative Council that day, she expressed that cash was not included in the assets which had to be declared to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal. In other words, he did not make such declaration. I would like her to further clarify if he has made a declaration on the whole issue. Although she said even his wife might not know how much money LEUNG Chun-ying had, the amount under discussion now is astronomical ― $50 million, as we all know. He should explain clearly whether he has declared it. Yet, he has not done so from day one.

President, the second point is about being dedicated to his duties. Is "moonlighting" an act of dedication to his duties? While being the Chief Executive, he was at the same time performing another duty for UGL. In this regard, I know the Chief Secretary for Administration had said that there was nothing wrong since a so-called "non-competitive, no poaching" commercial agreement was involved, and the Chief Executive did not have another contractual duty to provide any service to UGL. The Chief Secretary said, "The agreement is not a public commercial arrangement, and the agreement and money stem from LEUNG Chun-ying's resignation from DTZ instead of from any service he has to provide".

This is what the Chief Secretary said, "Not because of any service provided by LEUNG Chun-ying. Upon the signing of the agreement, LEUNG Chun-ying had not provided UGL with any service". I do not consider that such words have revealed the full picture. Let us take a look at the entire contract, and would the Chief Secretary also open her eyes and read clearly the contract between UGL and LEUNG Chun-ying? Apart from guarding against poaching and competition, the contract subjected him to "provide such assistance in the promotion of the UGL group and the DTZ group as UGL may reasonably require, including but not limited to acting as a referee and adviser from time to time". The provisions clearly stated that services must be provided to UGL, including both advisory service and assistance. If these provisions are not about providing services, what are they about? If no duties had been involved in the entire incident and he has not provided any service, I would like to ask the Chief Secretary what purpose the provisions in the contract serve?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1637

Of course, the Chief Secretary would argue that upon making amendments to the agreement, LEUNG Chun-ying had not provided service to UGL. We do not know if this is the case, and that is why we have to conduct an inquiry. Even if he had not provided service, he was duty-bound to do so. Then, there is an issue with being "dedicated to his or her duties" and "moonlighting". He pledged allegiance when he took office as the Chief Executive, but at the same time he had an undertaking to perform other duties for another corporation. Could he still be regarded as dedicated to his duties? Even if he had not performed his duties or provided service ― I have no idea if he had done so or not, this is what we have to inquire into ― and even if he had not, he had the duty to provide service. Therefore, we can clearly see that in this incident, LEUNG Chun-ying has in fact received $50 million, and he had to provide service while in office. Of course, we can say that he has put down in writing "provided no conflict of interest" and signed, but this represents a case of "he really confesses all when he denies all". Apparently, he had the intention to provide service but being very shrewd, he added a note on his own stating that there must be no conflict of interest. Nonetheless, even with this note, it is very clear that he was aware he was duty-bound to provide service.

It is obvious that after receiving $50 million, LEUNG Chun-ying did not declare it. It is also very clear that he had to provide service and these two aspects are in breach of Article 47 of the Basic Law. We can see no reason for not carrying out an inquiry. LEUNG Chun-ying always mentions the need to be open and transparent, but we can see how sneaky he was when handling this matter. We can say that LEUNG Chun-ying is a male who is extinct from this world because sneaky people as such are non-existent.

At the outset, he issued a legal letter to the reporter, warning that in case of a report, legal action would be taken. Although the reporter asked him to respond to some enquiries, he issued a legal letter to the reporter instead. Why must he do that if he was not feeling guilty? Moreover, why has he all along been reluctant to come out to explain and just resorted to making statements, thus denying people of the chance to ask questions? Why did he, out of no reason, meet with five pro-establishment Members afterwards for unknown discussion? We really are at a loss. There are in fact numerous ways for LEUNG Chun-ying to handle the matter, but he has chosen the least desirable and the most disgusting one, giving the impression that he is only explaining to the pro-establishment camp. Why can he not explain to all the people of Hong Kong? Why has he to 1638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 choose the least desirable way? I have no knowledge what information has been made available to the pro-establishment Members or how much they have discussed. They may not divulge because they have to be loyal to LEUNG Chun-ying.

The way he handled the whole incident already makes one feel that an inquiry is necessary. If he has no sense of guilt, why has he to act sneakily and refrain from making an explanation up to now? He has been reluctant to hold even one press conference for questions to be asked, and every time he just resorts to issuing statements which involve other parties or stakeholders, including the RBS, which is not aware of this agreement. LEUNG Chun-ying intentionally sold DTZ to UGL instead of a Tianjin company. Was that the result of a higher offer price or some tricks, and did he do that to pay UGL back? No one knows. What the various stakeholders have been saying differs from that told by LEUNG Chun-ying. Should there not be an inquiry?

Thus, President, with regard to this incident, I do not consider that we should let LEUNG Chun-ying off the hook with no reason, saving him from having to explain ― this is of course what the pro-establishment Members most hope for. I think the people of Hong Kong have seen the fact. They have seen how they have let LEUNG Chun-ying off.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam earlier made slanderous accusations as he always does. He often queries if Jimmy LAI has made donations to the democratic political parties, but Jimmy LAI is the only person he has cited all over. However, on a dinner party, the DAB received $60 million. Would they please name the donor? Since they said there was no unearned income, how would I know what they had done? Please name all the consortia for us to see how much they have done for them. President, I see that despite having always made slanderous accusations, they have failed to consider their situation and explain the source of their political donations. I find this smearing of other people very regrettable.

Finally, I wish Members today can focus our discussion on the responsibility of LEUNG Chun-ying in this incident. The matter definitely warrants an inquiry. In addition, the Chief Secretary has the duty to give a clear reply too, since she did not give the full picture when she said just now the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1639 agreement did not stipulate that LEUNG Chun-ying had to provide service. This in fact does not tally with the content of the agreement. She should clarify this point and not mislead the Hong Kong people.

Thank you, President.

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, under Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure, I would like to have a headcount.

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

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NG Leung-sing, please speak.

MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): President, take a look at our surroundings and you will find that they are rather desolate. Many people are probably aware of the current situation of the Legislative Council and notice the various tricks and moves that have been employed in this Council recently, as well as the summoning bell ringing habitually, which is a waste of our time. Lately, the so-called "exhaustion tactic" is often deployed, with different moves made frequently at short intervals, in a bid to exhaust the opponents who are made to react frantically, and thus incessantly wasting everybody's energy. The opposition plays tricks of various sorts, including the introduction of the type of motion in question, at the expense of our society's money and energy. Seizing on the slightest pretext available, they spearhead an array of moves, repeatedly playing familiar tricks which wear thin our patience in the Council. Of course, 1640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 there are some who enjoy putting up opposition just for the sake of opposing and these moves are in fact part of a series of "non-co-operation movement" which aims at paralysing the governance of the Government, causing the Government to get blamed for everything and thus bringing it to a standstill. Regrettably, this kind of exhaustion is wasting the precious resources of society, the hard-earned money of taxpayers, and even the priceless time available for improving the livelihood and reviving the economy, and thus depleting all Hong Kong's competitiveness in the end.

The opposition has fabricated an accusation, a serious one, but with flimsy evidences that are enriched with rumours and speculations. Just now, a barrister even talked about whether a lawyer is smarter and stands taller in the crowd. I do not wish to arouse any controversy as we should not discriminate against others. Therefore, I am not going to say whether a lawyer, or a doctor, or someone else is smarter. But then, it was really an eye-opener just now to hear the spontaneous sophistry coming from a barrister.

Judging from the information available from open sources, this is a simple commercial deal that has however been described as very problematic. This kind of agreement is very common in the commercial sector. A senior executive in charge of an accounting firm has also commented on the case from a merger and acquisition perspective, stating clearly and openly on newspaper that such stipulations are found commonly in merger and acquisition deals. When these transactions were taking place, Mr LEUNG was neither a Member of the Executive Council nor the Chief Executive, and therefore he had the full right to sign such kind of agreement. Furthermore, this agreement which allowed Mr LEUNG to leave the business sector afterwards and cease participating in DTZ's business operation is clearly drawn up to reasonably provide a gratuity for his departure from the sector, on top of a commercial compensation for a "non-compete, non-poach" undertaking. This kind of documents and such agreements are definitely not secretive. DTZ's main creditor, the Royal Bank of Scotland, its administer Ernst & Young and the DTZ chairman have all participated in the negotiation of the contract. These are all clear evidences. People who try to complicate the case are in fact harbouring ulterior motives.

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1641

Deputy President, all these actual facts show that these people are indeed very smart, as claimed by a certain barrister just now. With their natural oratory power, they are able to give the impression that Members from the pro-establishment camp are greedy and gluttonous. They also suggested that Mr WONG had taken a meal ― such that Mr WONG had to ask on the spot for details of the meal. In reply, the barrister said, "Taking a cup of tea and having a bun, perhaps." Everything can be made up by them without any regard to the truth or falsity, and simply for the sake of creating a certain ambience. They never cease to fabricate tall stories out of scant data, escalate the significance of all trivial matters with the ultimate objective of undermining the governance credibility of the Government, smearing the names of public officers, business executives and all other relevant professionals, with a view to aiding the opposition to gain political advantage amidst the chaos. Hence, all Hong Kong people have to realize and stay alert to the plot behind these motions, together with the fact that more instances of white terror will be faced by the business sector in their political participation, under the recent political circumstances which are increasingly complicated.

Finally, I am going to cite people's responses to this motion. They consider that the varying amounts of financial contributions made to Members of the opposition by media people who were under investigation earlier ― we all know which media firm they work for ― and by those foreign foundations, have definitely a much bigger impact to Hong Kong's security than this standard commercial agreement concerning Mr LEUNG. These members of the public have further reminded me, "As Members of the Council, please avoid getting sidetracked by the opposition."

Deputy President, I so submit.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I rise to speak against the motion to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to inquire into the incident involving Mr LEUNG Chun-ying. I oppose the attempt to use this UGL incident to turn the Council into an open court of law to achieve the political goal of "overthrowing LEUNG".

Deputy President, even though the Council has discussed for many times the question of whether the P&P Ordinance should be invoked, in order to make it easier for the public watching the live broadcast to understand the entire matter, I have to stress again the effects of invoking the P&P Ordinance. Once this 1642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Council should pass the motion to invoke the P&P Ordinance to set up a Select Committee, the said Select Committee will immediately have the power to summon witnesses and require the submission of documents, just like that of the Court. In other words, the Legislative Council will immediately turn into an open court in front of the television camera. Besides, each and every Member will be the juror or judge, asking questions and eventually writing reports or judgment with reference to the information collected during the hearings. The P&P Ordinance is an "imperial sword" of the Council, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong will not use it arbitrarily. Most important of all, we need to consider whether huge public interest is involved in the matter to be inquired into, whether there is sufficient evidence, and whether it is appropriate for the Legislative Council to inquire into the matter.

Deputy President, the focus of this debate today is that a Member requests this Council to invoke the P&P Ordinance to inquire into an incident involving the incumbent Chief Executive. It is a major constitutional matter for the Legislative Council to investigate the incumbent Chief Executive, and yet none of the Members who spoke before me mentioned about this point. I would like to first place the focus on the question whether it is within this Council's constitutional role to investigate the Chief Executive. In other words, we need to sort out the relationship between the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council under the Basic Law. Let us first look at the relevant provisions of the Basic Law. According to Article 47 of the Basic Law, "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must be a person of integrity, dedicated to his or her duties. The Chief Executive, on assuming office, shall declare his or her assets to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. This declaration shall be put on record." Moreover, Article 73(9) stipulates, "If a motion initiated jointly by one-fourth of all the members of the Legislative Council charges the Chief Executive with serious breach of law or dereliction of duty and if he or she refuses to resign, the Council may, after passing a motion for investigation, give a mandate to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal to form and chair an independent investigation committee. The committee shall be responsible for carrying out the investigation and reporting its findings to the Council. If the committee considers the evidence sufficient to substantiate such charges, the Council may pass a motion of impeachment by a two-thirds majority of all its members and report it to the Central People's Government for decision." Deputy President, from the aforementioned provisions we can see that under the Basic Law, the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal is the major execution agency LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1643 responsible for monitoring the integrity and dedication of the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive is required to declare his assets to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal rather than the Legislative Council. Likewise, it is the responsibility of the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal and the independent investigation committee to investigate whether the Chief Executive is really involved in serious breach of law or dereliction of duty. As regards the Legislative Council, its role is to move a motion on the basis of reasonable suspicion and specific evidence to give a mandate to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal to form and chair an independent investigation committee to carry out an investigation, and to study the report of the investigation committee before deciding whether or not to commence the impeachment process.

Deputy President, the provisions under the Basic Law are in fact full of wisdom. The distribution of work under the Basic Law serves to ensure that if the need to investigate the Chief Executive should arise, the investigation would be carried out by an independent investigation committee chaired by the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal. Besides, instead of leaving the investigation in the hands of Council Members with political stance, the investigation must be carried out conscientiously and the principle of procedural fairness must be upheld. An independent investigation committee chaired by a judge is highly trusted by members of the public, as they believe that the investigation committee will carry out the investigation impartially, and is therefore the appropriate agency for the job. On the contrary, if this Council passes the motion to invoke the P&P Ordinance to investigate the incumbent Chief Executive, Members with clear political stances will be fully responsible for conducting the hearings and drafting the investigation report. How, then, can we ensure that the entire process is in line with procedural fairness? I hope Honourable colleagues who support invoking the P&P Ordinance to conduct the investigation can give some good thoughts to this question.

Deputy President, we all know it clearly that the Legislative Council is a platform for political forces to wrestle against each other, and Members of the Council hold very different views, and particularly so if the Government led by LEUNG Chun-ying is involved. Some Members of the opposition faction had already urged LEUNG Chun-ying to step down even before he assumed office. Given such a demand and their "topple LEUNG" stance, Members of the opposition faction have been using each and every opportunity available at Council meetings since the commencement of the current term of the Council to 1644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 undermine the governance of the Chief Executive and hinder the work of the Government. The means they have employed include filibustering, invoking the P&P Ordinance to move a motion of no confidence or even a motion of impeachment. Just now Mr LEE Cheuk-yan mentioned about the need for interests declaration, I likewise request that Members of the opposition faction make a declaration: Which one of them has never asked LEUNG Chun-ying to step down before they join this discussion today? Just imagine, will members of the public believe in the investigation carried out by Members with clear political stances and the report written by them? Will the investigation and report have any credibility? In the face of continuous political attacks, the pro-government faction certain has to stand firm and say no to any destructive moves. Naturally, we will be "supporting LEUNG" to different extents. Our objective is very clear: We just want to ensure that a legal, constitution-abiding, wholehearted and competent Chief Executive can implement his policies effectively and free of any malicious attacks.

Deputy President, giving that the "support LEUNG" and "topple LEUNG" camps in this Council are so obvious and hard to reconcile, if today's motion is passed and a Select Committee is set up to investigate the Chief Executive, this Council will certainly be turned into a court for "toppling LEUNG", thereby enabling Members with ulterior motives to further damage the credibility of the SAR Government. Hence, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong will not support invoking the P&P Ordinance or turning this Council into a court for "toppling LEUNG". Every person is equal before the law, and this is a fundamental principle of law. We have to ensure the procedure fairness of the investigation carried out to investigate the Chief Executive, so as to realize the spirit of rule of law in Hong Kong.

Deputy President, the Secretary for Justice has announced earlier on that in order to avoid any possible perception of bias, partiality or improper influence, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Mr Keith YEUNG, is delegated with the authority to handle the matter including (should it eventually become necessary to do so) considering and deciding whether any prosecution action against any persons is warranted. Now that the Secretary for Justice has authorized the DPP to handle the matter, why can't Members of this Council wait a little longer? Why must they try every possible means to anxiously turn the Legislative Council into a court of politics? I believe members of the public can understand very well the political motive behind all these.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1645

Deputy President, let me come back to the content of the agreement involved in today's motion. Some of the Members who spoke earlier on have overstated the matter too much: Mr Gary FAN said the agreement was a secret agreement; Mr Ronny TONG accused the Chief Executive of violating the law and cheating DTZ's board of directors and small shareholders. Actually, all these allegations have yet to be validated. An agreement in black and white is certainly not a secret agreement. I wish to tell Mr Gary FAN what a secret agreement is. Earlier on, the media brought to light the political donation made by Jimmy LAI via Mark SIMON in the absence of any contract, and this may most probably point to a secret agreement.

Some allegations also accuse LEUNG Chun-ying of cheating the shareholders, claiming that the board of directors was not aware of the matter. As Mr CHAN Kam-lam has pointed out, the respective statements issued by UGL and the Chief Executive's Office have both made clarifications in this respect, only that the Members concerned have chosen not to quote them, and they selectively quoted some unverified information instead. Their objective is very simple: to repeat the unverified information incessantly or some simple slogans like "making secret agreement", "reaping without sowing", "bribe-receiving Chief Executive" to further undermine the credibility of the Chief Executive and keep on smearing him. Deputy President, I really hate to see such kind of comments. As such, I will make some good quality comments on the body text of the contract involved.

It is revealed in the disclosed information that the Chief Executive does not have any conflict of interest in this incident, and I also consider that he has not done anything in violation of the integrity requirement. After consolidating the various relevant information, I would like to first speak on the beginning and subsequent development of the entire matter. Before running in the Chief Executive election, Mr LEUNG was a CEO of the DTZ Holdings (DTZ) responsible for DTZ's businesses in north Asia, and he was also the founder of such businesses. On 24 November 2014, Mr LEUNG resigned from DTZ, and UGL bought DTZ in December 2011 at a price of £7.75 million. Mr LEUNG signed an agreement with UGL on 2 December 2011, and according to the UGL agreement, DTZ would pay Mr LEUNG the following sums of money: First, DTZ would pay a £1.5 million cash bonus to Mr LEUNG, and the cash bonus was for the period between 1 May 2010 and the date when the transaction was completed; and Second, UGL would pay Mr LEUNG £4 million within two years 1646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 after the transaction was completed. According to the disclosed text of the agreement, UGL would pay Mr LEUNG the aforementioned £4 million on these conditions: First, Mr LEUNG should not, directly or indirectly, hold any licences, assets, agreements or approvals that are relied upon by the DTZ Group for the purpose of performing its business, and if Mr LEUNG should still hold such, he had to transfer them to UGL; and Second, if Mr LEUNG should accede to DTZ's request, he would need to resign from all the positions he held in DTZ; Third, upon resignation from the relevant posts, Mr LEUNG would be subject to the following constraint: (a) he would not solicit or entice away any DTZ or UGL personnel and clients with whom he had business dealings in the 12-month period immediately prior to his resignation; (b) he would not conduct any business with the personnel, companies or clients mentioned in (a); (c) he would not solicit or entice away any employees or senior executive personnel of DTZ or UGL; and (d) he would not set up or be employed in any businesses in Hong Kong, China and other places specified in the contract that are related or rival to DTZ or UGL.

Deputy President, according to UGL's agreement, Mr LEUNG did add an additional undertaking. First, he would provide such assistance for the UGL Group or the DTZ Group as UGL may reasonably require, including but not limited to acting as a referee and adviser, provided that such assistance does not create any conflict of interest; besides, he would support the acquisition of the DTZ Group by UGL and not make any statements (whether public or private) criticizing the purchase, disparaging any member of the DTZ Group or the UGL Group or any of their officers or employees.

Deputy President, basing on the aforesaid contract terms, I have made the following analysis. First, according to the UGL agreement, Mr LEUNG has made an undertaking with UGL, the main points of which are that Mr LEUNG can no longer hold any licences and assets which are relied upon by DTZ for performing business, he cannot participate in any businesses in competition with UGL or DTZ, and he cannot entice away any clients or important employees of UGL or DTZ. These are normal and established terms and conditions used in business acquisitions to impose limitations and constraints to prevent competition. Besides, the purpose of such terms and conditions is very clear, which is to safeguard the interest of the acquirer and ensure the commercial value of the acquired asset within a reasonable period of time. As such, the agreement concerned is by no means any secret agreement.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1647

To achieve the aforementioned purpose, UGL paid Mr LEUNG £4 million. The ratio of this £4 million to the acquisition price is about 5%. The major profit-generating businesses of DTZ come from the Asia-Pacific region, and Mr LEUNG was the founder of the businesses in this region. Hence, I cannot see why it is unreasonable for UGL to pay 5% of the acquisition price to reach a non-competition agreement with Mr LEUNG. As regards the additional undertaking made in the agreement, according to UGL's press release, UGL has not asked Mr LEUNG to provide any assistance after the acquisition, and both the Chief Executive and the Chief Secretary have also made it clear in their replies to the Legislative Council questions that the Chief Executive had not provided any services. Even though the aforesaid condition is included in UGL's agreement, in reality, UGL has never asked Mr LEUNG to provide any services and Mr LEUNG has not provided any services either. Under the principle of "substance over form", the said UGL agreement is in effect an agreement signed to prevent Mr LEUNG from joining any rivalry activities after UGL has acquired DTZ. This is by no means any agreement guaranteeing "reaping without sowing" as referred to by other Members earlier on. Indeed, Mr LEUNG has to make a non-competition undertaking to receive the relevant sum of money.

Judging from the points raised just now, the £4 million that Mr LEUNG has received is not an income generated from any general employment, and it is not an income earned by providing services or operating businesses. It may actually be counted as a restrictive capital income for the prevention of competition. As such, he may not have to pay any income tax or profits tax. Furthermore, as UGL had signed the agreement with Mr LEUNG before he stood as a candidate in the Chief Executive election, Mr LEUNG's capital income and his capacity as the Chief Executive have no real clash of interest at all. And this certainly has nothing to do with acceptance of bribes.

Some Members, including Mr SIN Chung-kai, have queried the tax obligation involved in this sum of £4 million. Actually, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue has already made it clear that the Inland Revenue Department will follow up the case, as this issue falls within the portfolio of the Department. As such, the Legislative Council should not and need not go beyond its own duties at this stage. Deputy President, I know that Members still have many questions, but there are actually many channels through which they can raise their questions, and the Chief Executive's question and answer session is one example. 1648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

However, so far we still cannot have the question and answer session because we cannot provide an interference-free passageway for the Chief Executive. Hence, I hope that Members who wish to raise their questions will do so by way of other platforms, rather than proposing to invoke the P&P Ordinance in the absence of any evidence to turn the Council (The buzzer sounded) … into a court of politics.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, just now Ms Starry LEE said we should not bring up an allegation without evidence. Now we need to examine what facts constitute the so called evidence. She mentioned earlier that under the Basic Law, there is a provision for the impeachment of the Chief Executive. It is true that such an arrangement is in place under the basic Law. The impeachment motion has to be initiated jointly by one fourth of all the Members of the Legislative Council, and after the motion is passed, the Chief Justice will conduct an investigation. However, first of all, it requires one fourth of all the Members of the Legislative Council to initiate the motion, then it has to be passed by the Legislative Council. Hence the fundamental facts are required in the first place.

The problem before us is that the incident has already drawn concerns not only from Hong Kong but also many other places in the world. This business dealing, which involves the integrity of the Chief Executive, has caused a lot of questions, allegations and speculations. Perhaps we have not had a full grasp of some of the facts yet. Nevertheless, we have already pointed out so many questions, allegations, many prima facie and indisputable facts or evidence. It is already adequate for us to carry out an investigation in view of these prima facie facts and evidence. That is it.

Everybody knows that it depends whether prima facie evidence is sufficient to initiate or start any investigation. I wish to tell Members that in this case, if one says there is no sufficient prima facie evidence, how can we explain the whole thing to the society at large that the Legislative Council has done its best under its purview to ensure that our Chief Executive is at least a person of integrity who is dedicated to the duties and capable of performing them?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1649

Deputy President, we have talked a lot about the acquisition of DTZ by UGL and many of them are indisputable facts. I will just tell the facts and examine why people consider these facts insufficient for us to query the Chief Executive's credibility and integrity. Why shouldn't we be allowed to ask whether certain civil law requirements, even if they are not criminal law requirements, have been breached. For instance, is there any breach of fiduciary duties, has he breached the business ethics, has he defrauded minority shareholders, and thereupon engaged himself in some terribly unethical business practices? Why are these things important? If he has breached the fundamental fiduciary requirements which we have mentioned, many people will ask, "Can the Chief Executive, who is in a high position of power, maintain our confidence in him? Has he possessed at least an impartial and honest personality for him to perform such important duties?"

Deputy President, many people say that it was not a secret deal. I do not know what this so-called undisclosed but not secret deal is. Everyone knows that if this agreement has not been disclosed, nobody would know it, and he would not take the imitative to make it public. Nor would the stakeholder disclose the matter. One can see in the entire acquisition that even the administrator has not mentioned that in the report.

Everyone knows that the deal involves the transfer of substantial benefits. Many people may think that not much money was involved and LEUNG Chun-ying deserved the reward. However, we are talking about 5% of the total purchase price, and in this company, the most affected are those unsecured creditors, not to mention the shareholders. I think LEUNG Chun-ying has quite a number of shares of the company. What was the worst thing? Sorry, the most affected party was not RBS, as it still had some collaterals. The most affected party was not Ernst & Young, as it received the money and acted as the administrator. The most affected parties were those unsecured creditors who had nothing at all.

In the transaction, LEUNG Chun-ying received about 5% of the purchase price from a bidder. We can see from LEUNG Chun-ying's interview that he pointed out the fact that the 5% UGL acknowledged to pay him was reflected in the purchase price. What does it mean? It means that the interest of unsecured creditors was undermined. Who was to protect them? Was the administrator aware of the deal, the entire story and the terms of the agreement, before giving its consent on behalf of the creditors? Was that the case? Please do not just 1650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 say that I know the intention; that is not enough. It should be an informed consent as we always say. Was that an informed consent? From the existing information, we cannot see any at all. Ernst & Young claimed in the initiate response that they were not aware of the deal. However, someone said later that they were aware of some of the details. With regards to a matter of utmost importance like this, I did not see any document showing that the administrator was aware of the story as well as the details of this agreement, and I did not see the representative of unsecured shareholders made the consent, nor this important document of consent was filed. No such thing happened. If someone says such a document is in place, I would be interested to know why such a renowned accounting firm, Ernst & Young, did that. What was the reason?

Someone said that it was a golden handshake. If Ernst & Young was aware of the matter, the proper practice was to use part of the purchase price as the payment. Ernst & Young should be aware of the agreement that the buyer was willing to acquire the business under such condition, thereby giving the consent in the interest of all shareholders. That should be the proper approach. Actually, the money should be paid to DTZ, and then DTZ would give it to LEUNG Chun-ying, as it should know that it should pay LEUNG Chun-ying something if it wants to have a successful transaction, otherwise LEUNG Chun-ying would jeopardize the whole transaction. In so doing, it would be a totally legal golden handshake in line with common business practice. That is to say, a golden handshake deal should not be concluded privately.

Up to now, I really cannot see that the practice adopted was normal or in line with business ethics. Of course, someone may argue that perhaps I do not have a clear picture of it, but that does not matter. These are exactly the area that we should look into. If a person in a high position of power act this way, how can we have confidence in him? For the time being, let us set aside whether the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance or the requirements of listed companies in Australia or the United Kingdom have been violated. Even so, the practice and approach will make Hong Kong people wonder how we can have the least confidence in him. This is the most fundamental point.

Deputy President, there is another point about the agreement. Our efforts were just in vain after we did so much talking. Let me return to the text now. I presume everyone here should be literate. The relevant text covers not only non-compete arrangement. Today, the Chief Secretary for Administration has mentioned several times that it mainly involves the non-compete arrangement, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1651 that is, the provisions are to guarantee that no competition would take place. In fact, it is clearly more than that. Just now Members have mentioned that many times. As to some common resignation arrangements, such as not to contact the clients of other parties or not to poach their staff, let us not argue about these for the time being. The most important thing is that according to the arrangement, he would keep on providing service. Another extremely unethical thing, in my opinion, is that he should not oppose to the acquisition. He had to stand by the acquisition and should make no criticism. After receiving the payment from someone, one should render one's support blindly and makes no criticism, just like the NPC or CPPCC representatives who have to blindly support everything and cannot make any criticism, otherwise they would lose their posts. The mentality is the same. As the agreement required him to give full support, he should not say anything even if he saw anything wrong. That is written in the agreement. If he does anything otherwise, it is tantamount to a breach of the agreement. He has to stand by the agreement and make no criticism. The money will later go into his bank account. Had he not let that company down? Could it be said that it was a golden handshake? Would it be beneficial to the company? This is why the deal was unethical.

I wish to listen to LEUNG Chun-ying's explanation. I would be very much interested if he would come to the Legislative Council. For that reason, I do not agree with what Mr Ronny TONG has said. I consider most people who have studied laws are a little bit dumb. At least we should ask him questions with our layman's wisdom and see how he explains. With regards to accepting other people's money and standing by the acquisition, while the money was part of the purchase price and a Tianjin company was willing to pay 10% more later on, perhaps he could give the explanation subsequently. Nevertheless, as far as the current moment is concerned, that is, given the suspicious circumstances, we have every reason to cast doubts on him.

Moreover, it is about the service. He said he didn't provide much service. Of course, a lot of colleagues have pointed out that he was not reaping without sowing. However, what has he done? What service has he provided? The Secretary explained that on his behalf, and that is, he has not provided any service practically. I do not know whether he has provided the service or not. Perhaps we need to conduct further investigation later on. Nevertheless, one thing is certain. If there is an agreement, there are liabilities. As long as the agreement is valid and the $50 million has not been fully paid up, we have reason to believe that the liabilities to pay up and the liabilities to perform the agreement are 1652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 linked. That is, it is a performance-linked payment. If you are not performing a task then I will not pay; or if something is not properly done, I will not pay, and I can even debit you. We are really disturbed by all of these.

Secretary, you may explain that to me in your subsequent reply. It is clearly stated in the declaration requirements that he has to declare if there is any paid job, that is, a declaration should be made if he has any remunerated post or job. Remuneration means salary or any payment, and it is also known as return or rewards. First of all, how can it be anything other than remuneration? Second, as to anything the agreement requires one to do, such as acting as a referee or adviser, how can there be no work? Whether he would do it or not is another thing, but he was liable to do it. Therefore, Secretary, why has he not declared? Perhaps you will argue that it doesn't matter, anything written down is tantamount to not being written down. Deputy President, it should not be the case. Instead of deleting that sentence, he even added one more line to it. That is, no conflict of interest should be involved. In other words, he has to do something. Otherwise, why should this line be added? The more he tried to cover up, the better-known it would become. He was trying to gild the lily. Or he was making a clumsy denial resulting in self-exposure. Just because he had to do something, what I wish to ask now is: What had he done, or what was he preparing to do? No matter whether he was prepared to do it, or he had something to do, he was required to declare. In that case, Secretary, can you tell me why he did not make declaration? Why was it not a remunerated job? At least it can be said so according to the agreement, please do not deny it. If you insist on denying it, you are just insulting us for being illiterate or not even knowing or understanding the simplest words.

For that reason, Deputy President, as long as it involved remuneration, there would be conflict of interest in future, which might require him to submit a declaration to the Executive Council, but he did not do so. Therefore, we need to know the truth of these things, and we probably need to initiate the impeachment process. Nevertheless, to be fair, we want to know more facts before deciding the next step to take.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak …

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1653

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I think a quorum is not present in the Chamber now. According to Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure, I would request a headcount.

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

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please continue with your speech.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I speak in support of Ms Claudia MO's request to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to inquire into the case in which the Chief Executive has secretly received $50 million from an Australian engineering company, the UGL Limited (UGL).

This secret agreement and the case of the Chief Executive secretly receiving $50 million are basically known as facts at present. As the Chief Executive, he received this sum of money based on a secret commercial agreement during his term of office, and the time of this agreement falls into his term of office as the Chief Executive. I cannot see any reason why this Chief Executive does not need to declare this agreement and payment.

I believe anyone who has common sense will know that as a chief executive of a metropolis, the interests under his control are basically very difficult to state generally. Hence, if the public officers in general (including the Chief Executive of course) have any commercial agreement or commercial interests, they have to declare at the least. If an officer has not completely 1654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 broken off all these relations, he has to inform the public openly and transparently that he has these agreements and he has received these commercial interests. Otherwise, how can we monitor these public officers?

The reasoning is just so simple. However, our Chief Executive is still hiding inside a cave to date, unwilling to come out and give an account. He also categorically denied the need to declare. Besides, he has even enlisted the support of all royalists, the Chief Secretary and our entire Government. They have to stake their credibility in order to defend such a Chief Executive. The reasoning is extremely simple. Is it not a serious mistake if a public officer bearing commercial interests and a commercial agreement says that it is not necessary to declare them?

He as the Chief Executive, not to mention other aspects, is in control of various government-owned enterprises, including the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRC). Seventy-seven per cent of the MTRC shares belong to the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR). The Chairman of the MTRC Board of Directors is appointed by the Government. Who is in control of our Government? He is Mr LEUNG Chun-ying. Dr Raymond Ch'ien, Chairman of the MTRC Board of Directors, was re-appointed by the SAR Government on 29 October 2012 as the Chairman of the Board of Directors. He was also a director of UGL, the Australian engineering company, at that time.

This UGL has been in commercial co-operation with the MTRC, and there is a commercial agreement. It was reported in New York Times on 10 October 2014 that UGL has a long-term agreement with the MTRC. That agreement involves more than $300 million and this is a kind of commercial interests. Apart from that, UGL and the MTRC have a lot of co-operation plans in Australia, including the railing system in Melbourne as well as some engineering projects in Sydney, such as building tunnels, railways and setting up signal systems.

UGL is linked to the commercial interests of the MTRC. The major shareholder of the MTRC is the SAR Government, while the Chief Executive of the SAR Government is Mr LEUNG Chun-ying. He has a secret agreement with UGL and has received payment from it. The amount of money involved is not small, as much as $50 million. After receiving this amount of money, has he LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1655 been turning the MTRC in favour of UGL and is there any conflict of interests? For example, has he failed to perform his duties fairly and impartially to ensure that the interests of Hong Kong people will not be harmed?

Moreover, as the Chairman of the MTRC Board of Directors, Dr Raymond Ch'ien was also a director of UGL at that time. How could he be re-appointed as the Chairman of the MTRC Board of Directors? Under the general business conditions, people will find this situation very awkward, not to mention that the major shareholder of the MTRC is the Hong Kong SAR Government.

Therefore, these incidents have ostensibly involved very serious clashes of interests, and have run against the moral standard and requirement of transparency warranted to be observed by public officers in general. However, while our Chief Executive is still hiding today, these Members are still defending for him. What I said just now is only one of his many stories.

Mr LEUNG Chun-ying was a partner and a director of DTZ. When this company was facing a problem of insolvency and was about to sell the company, a buyer gave a sum of money to Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and asked him to co-operate. The buyer made it clear that after giving him the money, this transaction had to be completed smoothly. This is really weird. A buyer gave a sum of money to a partner of that company so that transaction could be completed smoothly. After that transaction was completed, it was found that another buyer offered a much higher bid. However, the transaction was already completed, the contract was already carried out and the company was already sold. Were there any intricacies in the matter? Why was it like that?

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

Many leading figures in the commercial field are present here. I would like to ask them for advice. They always say that these are general commercial agreements. I then have to ask them for advice. In one example, someone had a joint venture with his friend in operating a store. He later found that the business was not promising and would be facing insolvency very soon. He wanted to sell the business. A buyer asked whether he could purchase the store for one million dollars. The store was then sold for one million dollars. However, since his business partner had already received $50,000 from the buyer, 1656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 the buyer would only pay $950,000. That person later also found that another buyer was willing to pay $1.1 million for the store. Would that person blame himself for being so stupid? He had only received $950,000 but another buyer was willing to pay $1.1 million for the store. However, that partner had already promised the former buyer and had received $50,000 himself. Is there any problem with this? Is that a kind of general business operation?

To our surprise, that is what they refer to as business operation. It is full of deceit and dishonesty. They simply care about their own interests, without caring others. As a director of DTZ, did Mr LEUNG Chun-ying have the responsibility to safeguard all the interests of DTZ? Did he have the responsibility to safeguard the interests of creditors? Furthermore, the receipt of $50,000 ― I refer to my example just quoted ― was completely unknown to others. No one knew it beforehand. People only know it now when it is disclosed.

As a matter of fact, different news coverage has clearly indicated that Ernst & Young, the accounting firm responsible for carrying out the acquisition, and Mr Tim MELVILLE-ROSS, ex-Chairman of DTZ, did not notice such an agreement between Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL. It was totally unknown to anyone. It was a secret agreement. The creditors of DTZ were actually betrayed and being cheated. If you do business with this partner, will you scold him for biting the hand that feeds him? Will you like a person who betrays you? In order to pocket more money, he will sell the company at a very low price. Are you willing to find such a person as a business partner? However, the person who holds that moral standard is now our Chief Executive. After doing this shady business, he chose not to reveal it. After it was being disclosed, he said it was not necessary to declare interests and no rules had been broken. That is unbelievable. Nonetheless, the pro-establishment camp still has to stand by him. Do they have to defend a Chief Executive who engaged in secret business? In order words, he can, at his own will, have agreements with other commercial companies, continue to receive payments without revealing any information. Is that possible?

When we ask further, we learn that ― I am not sure whether this is a rumour ― through BVI (an offshore company set up in British Virgin Islands, the information of which do not need to be revealed) Mr LEUNG Chun-ying was in control of DTZ Japan. One of the major clients of this company is the Hong Kong Resort International Limited (HKR), which is a major shareholder of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1657

Asia Television Limited (ATV). Would the commercial interests of Mr LEUNG Chun-ying in DTZ Japan have any influence in his refusal to issue a licence to the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN)? As we all know, once HKTV is issued a licence, ATV will be affected most. If HKTV is given a licence, ATV will be doomed. One of the major shareholders of ATV is HKR, and HKR has commercial relations with DTZ Japan. Mr LEUNG Chun-ying ― it may just be a hearsay and I am not sure whether it is true or not, but it just sounds like to be real and I doubt if someone will acknowledge this ― holds the shares of DTZ Japan through BVI, of which he is a major shareholder.

Let us think about it. These matters are intertwined and highly complicated. For the sake of personal interests, he pockets everything and nothing needs to be declared. These Members should also have thought clearly. He is going to fall down. Do you still have to hold him high, and blindly say that there is nothing wrong with him? We can see that after Mr James TIEN asked him to step down, Mr TIEN was immediately dismissed from his political position in China. Hence, Members have to safeguard their own status and privileges. Just keep going. Perhaps they would like to be chosen into the Government House or whatever places, as our Chief Executive only selected five representatives from the pro-establishment camp and gave an account to them. Ms Starry LEE said that since the Legislative Council was unable to provide a passage free from interference, the Chief Executive could not come to the Legislative Council and gave an account to the public on these matters concerning the secret agreement and secret receipt of payment. Is there anything wrong? Such a Chief Executive … Just forget it. These Members still have to defend him. Do they feel that there is nothing wrong with him? If there is something wrong with him in the future, what should they do? If he really has to step down, what should they do? How do they face themselves and the public? How can this be endured? Could they ask their conscience? I know nothing about business. However, merely by looking through the information, I have already found that it was not possible. How could a Chief Executive be spared of making a declaration after signing a commercial agreement and have received commercial interests? We now ask to inquire in accordance with the P&P Ordinance, but the pro-establishment camp say that we cannot do so. These royalists are just going too far. What they should do is to keep their conscience.

1658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

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

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I think a quorum is not present at the Chamber right now. President, in accordance with Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure, I would request a headcount.

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

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

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

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I think we may adopt two different attitudes to discuss whether LEUNG Chun-ying's secret agreement with UGL involves any irregularities, contravention of the law and integrity problems. The first is similar to the attitude displayed by Ms Starry LEE when she questioned the Police earlier today. She said that she believed there was foreign intervention in Hong Kong. Her argument was that those convinced of such intervention would see the evidence, while those in disbelief would dismiss the whole thing as mere fabrication. This is one of the attitudes. This attitude truly exists, and is quite a popular one. The other attitude is rationalism. Let me stress that we should adopt the attitude of rationalism to deal with LEUNG Chun-ying's problems, rather than Ms Starry LEE's religious attitude.

President, her religious attitude reminds me of religious philosophy. In one of his books, Paul TILLICH, a famous American theologian, introduced a very significant concept called "ultimate concern". President, let me quote a description of this concept in the book: "The perception of its reality is felt as so overwhelming and valuable that all else seems insignificant, and for this reason LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1659 requires total surrender". In other words, you will perceive the reality of your ultimate concern as so overpowering and valuable that nothing else seems significant to you anymore. As a result, you think your ultimate concern requires your total dedication. This is religious faith.

Actually, KIERKEGAARD, a famous Danish existentialist religious philosopher, also divides human existence into three different stages, namely the aesthetic stage, the ethical stage and the religious stage. When describing the religious stage, he expounds that one needs to make a leap of faith in order to move to this stage of human existence. One needs to rely on faith to overcome doubts and things that are usually considered impossible by the rational mind. Only faith can enable one to regain the hope that everything is possible. Therefore, it is absolutely proper to describe Ms Starry LEE's mindset as religious faith. This also explains why so many powerful and influential people in Hong Kong and so many people in this Chamber still insist on having faith in "Hong Kong communists ruling Hong Kong". This is all about blind religious faith, similar to the faith that led many to worship MAO Zedong during the Cultural Revolution. In the end, tens of millions of people died, but people still had blind faith in MAO Zedong's leadership. This was a kind of religious superstition in politics.

The Communist Party has been ruling China for 60 years, and totally 78 million people have since died. But many people in this Chamber, especially those hired guns of the Hong Kong communists who come from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) and the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, still choose to follow communist rule. Personal interest aside, religious superstition must also be a reason. Ms Starry LEE therefore said that people in disbelief would not notice the intervention of any foreign forces. President, you are very wise, and you once remarked that LEUNG Chun-ying was able to notice something that had eluded your attention. Well, this is just because LEUNG Chun-ying has blind and religious faith in communist rule, but the President is still a man with human feelings. President, you therefore remarked that you could not notice the presence of any foreign forces in Hong Kong. But Ms Starry LEE can detect such forces, right? As the founding Chairman of the DAB, you cannot detect any foreign forces in Hong Kong. But LEUNG Chun-ying can notice the presence of such forces, so can Ms Starry LEE and those hired guns of the Hong Kong communists coming from the DAB. The only reason must be their religious superstition. Once the Chinese Communist God says something, its disciples will all follow blindly.

1660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Hence, if we look at the issue of whether LEUNG Chun-ying is guilty of corruption from the perspective of religious superstition, we will at once see the same logic, the logic that those in disbelief will not see anything. All is because "Grandpa" has asked us not to look at it, "Grandpa" has asked us to close our eyes, and "Grandpa" has asked us to have faith in the rule of the Hong Kong communists. LEUNG Chun-ying is a Chief Executive hand-picked by the communists, so people who bark at him or criticize him will be in trouble, and even members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) will be disqualified for that. The President should therefore ask Dr LAM Tai-fai, but probably, as a member of the CPPCC National Committee, he dare not give any response for fear of disqualification. Actually, Dr LAM Tai-fai really deserves disqualification because he has also queried the political wisdom of LEUNG Chun-ying. In other words, he has queried the ruling ability of the Communist God, its very existence and its might. Since he has doubts about the might of God, he must not be accepted as a son of God and hence a deputy to the National People's Congress (NPC) and a member of the CPPCC National Committee. The logic here is very straightforward. The hired guns of the Hong Kong communists who are NPC deputies and members of the CPPCC National Committee are all required to adopt the mindset of religious superstition. For this reason, people looking at LEUNG Chun-ying's corruption case with the mindset of religious superstition are definitely unable to notice any problems. They will go on noticing nothing. These powerful and influential Hong Kong communists will continue to see nothing. Mr Abraham SHEK is one of these people. In comparison, he is a "royalist" with a bit more wisdom, but under the command of God … Some people worship two Gods, the God of religious faith and the God of politics. In this Chamber, the God of politics reigns. But outside this very door, the God of religious faith is in control. As a result, those people must very often speak and vote against their consciences. This is the present situation.

President, let us return to the ethical stage of human existence discussed by KIERKEGAARD. The ethical stage he talks about is very meaningful. He thinks that "a person in the ethical stage is practical and full of a sense of commitment and duty towards the world" ― the prerequisite is a sense of commitment and duty, rather than any absolute faith in communist rule based solely on religious superstition ― "he clearly understands the moral standards of the world" ― can those hired guns of the Hong Kong communists understand all this? Can they understand what the moral standards of the world are? ― "as well as its ethics". Such should be the characteristics of a person in the ethical LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1661 stage. Let me repeat these characteristics in one single piece: a sense of commitment and responsibility and also clear knowledge of the moral standards as well as ethics of the world, as opposed to a blind faith in any almighty god that totally disregards the moral standards, ethics, reality and truth of the world.

President, speaking of LEUNG Chun-ying again, I personally think that he will be the first Hong Kong person to become a fugitive wanted by the international community, and he will probably be the first and the last of his kind. This will become yet another scandal. I therefore hope that the Beijing authorities can pay attention to this probable reality in the future because the situation then will be very embarrassing. JIANG Zemin, a former State President, is now a fugitive wanted by Spain. If he goes to Spain or other countries in the European Union, he may be arrested any time, right? The existing leaders of the Central Authorities are not yet wanted fugitives, but Falun Gong has already brought a case against JIANG Zemin before a Spanish court and turned him into a wanted fugitive. Apart from alleged violations of Hong Kong laws, LEUNG Chun-ying is also involved in alleged violations of the laws of Australia and the United Kingdom. As shown by certain company practices, he may be involved in some degree of omission in tax return. Besides, he is also suspected of failing to disclose certain company information, and this may have affected the regulation and monitoring of the company in question by the local governments of the countries concerned. His withholding of the information concerned may constitute … unfair treatment to certain stocks investors under listing laws and information disclosure rules.

President, I am not going to repeat the four queries raised by Fairfax Media of Australia concerning LEUNG Chun-ying's case. As a matter of fact, some Members already talked about these queries during their discussions in this Chamber. All these queries … The query concerning the secret fee, in particular, might have constituted one of the factors that compromised the interests of many listed companies and shareholders. The case involves Australian laws and I am no expert in this, so I should not pretend to be one here. But the point is that the concern of the Australian media will certainly cause the Australian Government to carry out investigation and follow up the case. Another thing is of course that the case may also involve many Hong Kong laws. LEUNG Chun-ying may have contravened section 9(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance for the reason that as a director, he might have accepted an advantage and assisted UGL in the purchase without the knowledge of the DTZ 1662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Board. Under section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, if it is proved that due to the advantage concerned, LEUNG did provide incorrect information to the DTZ Board administrators with the intent of misleading the persons concerned into preparing inaccurate accounts, he shall be guilty of an offence. He may also have committed the offence of misconduct in public office. If it is proved that after accepting the advantage, he did not make any declaration according to the requirements of the Government, thus giving rise to a conflict of interest, he shall be guilty of the offence. As instructed by God, some "royalist" Members simply turn a blind eye to all this, arguing that since the relevant agreement was signed before LEUNG Chun-ying's assumption of office as Chief Executive, these points are not relevant. But there are two facts here. He did receive payment of money afterwards. Second, due to the requirements of the agreement, he might have done some acts, or forborne to do certain acts that he should do in his capacity as Chief Executive. Moreover, the requirements of the agreement might have led him to discharge his duties as Chief Executive in ways that enabled certain companies to reap advantages. Or, he might have exerted influence as Chief Executive to enable certain companies to obtain advantages in other areas.

In Australia, there is the Criminal Code, and clause 70.2 of this code regulates the bribery problems between Australian companies and overseas or other places. This clause provides that any Australian companies which accept any advantages from public officers in other places may commit an offence. Since the company which signed the agreement with LEUNG Chun-ying is an Australian company, and this company and the Chief Executive of Hong Kong … Although the agreement was signed before he assumed office, it was still valid for some time after his assumption of office as Chief Executive. In other words, he provided advantages to this company sometime during his term as Chief Executive. To a very large extent, this agreement is in contravention of the criminal laws in Australia. I have not even mentioned the tax evasion issue, though I am sure that both Australia and the United Kingdom may think that he was involved in tax evasion. We all know that a famous media columnist or academic does not dare to come back to Hong Kong and has been staying in the Mainland due to some tax problems with the United States Government. If the United Kingdom and Australia both put the Chief Executive on their lists of wanted fugitives for reasons of tax problems and violations of criminal laws, companies laws and listing laws, Hong Kong will face yet another scandal.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1663

Actually, scandals about successive Chief Executives of Hong Kong have never stopped. This is true of all the three Chief Executives. The first Chief Executive, "TUNG the Old Fool" stepped down on the excuse of his "sore legs". When he was in office, Hong Kong experienced the outbreak of SARS, a financial turmoil and the "85 000 units" problem. All this made the life of people very miserable. As for the second Chief Executive, Donald TSANG, the last two years of his term were marked by numerous instances of corruption. His top-level assistants, including the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Chief Secretary for Administration, were involved in acts of corruption. Hong Kong therefore moved from "an age of foolishness" under "TUNG the Old Fool" to "an age of corruption". Now, it is the age of treachery, corruption, rotten administration and incompetence. In this present age, the "foolishness" of "TUNG the Old Fool" is also … "TUNG the Old Fool" was certainly a bit stupid, but he was still kind-hearted. In contrast, the incumbent Chief Executive is stupid, incompetent, sinister at heart, greedy and inane. Nothing can be worse than all this indeed. Many people in this Chamber are also greedy but they know how to hide their avarice smartly. In contrast, our Chief Executive is ruthlessly and foolishly greedy. Such governance … Also, his subordinates are all trying to emulate him in corruption, ruthlessness and stupidity. How can we possibly imagine that even a Bureau Director can be so "infantile" as to operate "subdivided units"? I suppose even District Council (DC) members will not do so. But by the way, a certain Tsuen Wan DC member nearly got front-page coverage from the Ming Pao due to his operation of "subdivided units".

Therefore, the calibre of this Chief Executive is actually similar to that of those DC members belonging to the DAB. Well, that Tsuen Wan DC member who operated "subdivided units" actually belongs to the DAB. It is indeed a shame on Hong Kong that the acts of the Chief Executive are similar to the acts of certain "infantile" politicos. His acts have even become an international scandal and a focus of media concern in the United Kingdom and Australia. Sadly, President, all those "God worshippers" led by the Hong Kong communist regime will fail to see these hard facts all the same. Ms Starry LEE and her like still cannot see these facts because she says that if you believe, you will notice. She says that if you believe, you will notice, and if you do not believe, you will see nothing. They will therefore fail to see these facts all the same. As long as such blind religious faith in political management is not shattered, Hong Kong 1664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 will surely continue to sink and languish in the abyss under the rule of the Hong Kong communist regime (The buzzer sounded) … Hong Kong people must then continue to live a hard and miserable life.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)

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

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Point of order. I request a headcount under Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

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

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

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

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, many Members want to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) for carrying out investigation against LEUNG Chun-ying, the maladministration of this term of government and its lies, yet a number of attempt to do this ended up unsuccessful. Looking back, last time when a motion was proposed to invoke the P&P Ordinance for carrying out an investigation against LEUNG Chun-ying, it seemed that he was not yet the Chief Executive. Back then, given that the incident of the West Kowloon Reclamation Concept Plan Competition was brought to light, the Legislative Council conducted an investigation on the incident by invoking the P&P Ordinance. The fact is, anyone who has taken the office of the Chief Executive is immune from any investigation conducted under the P&P Ordinance. This is also a good point as the pro-establishment camp will make their best endeavours to defend the Chief LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1665

Executive. Regretfully, last time they did not realize that LEUNG Chun-ying was the chosen one, I believe you guys also felt embarrassed.

I absolutely support Ms Claudia MO's motion, despite that it will be voted down for sure. Once again, the people of Hong Kong will never know the truth; and once again, the Legislative Council is castrated.

This time the Chief Secretary Carrie LAM came forth to explain on behalf of the Chief Executive LEUNG ― I do not know how many times she had done so before ― I really do not think this is fair to her. For instance, last week she attended the meeting of the Legislative Council to provide explanation and answer questions. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan asked whether there were signs showing that the properties of the Chief Executive came from illegal sources. Chief Secretary Carrie LAM smiled and replied that it was impossible for her to know the details of the personal properties owned by Mr LEUNG. She doubted that even Mr LEUNG's wife might not necessarily know all the details. She replied in a humorous and light-hearted manner, but it was miserable indeed. She is an outsider and not the one who received $50 million. If even Mrs LEUNG knows nothing, it would be impossible for the Chief Secretary to know more than she does. Unfortunately, Chief Secretary Carrie LAM has no other option but to attend the Council meeting of the Legislative Council today and defend for LEUNG Chun-ying.

President, though I am not an accountant, I used to run a small business. I would like to cite the comments given by Mr Kenneth LEUNG, the representative of the accounting sector of The Professional Commons. Mr LEUNG said he did not mean to say that all of the £4 million from the deal between Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL should be stated as taxable items, but in most cases, the payments in restraint of trade are not subject to income tax. According to the contract, in addition to the provision on the restraint of trade, Mr LEUNG should provide consultation service to UGL from time to time and ensure the successful acquisition of DTZ by UGL. No matter whether he did render any consultation service, there are indeed other terms and conditions in the contract. Before commenting on whether the reward of £4 million was excessive, Members can make reference to the income that Mr LEUNG earned from DTZ over the last three years, which was £600,000, £1 million and £1.5 million respectively. Mr Kenneth LEUNG said that based on his experience in handling acquisition and merger cases, the payments in restraint of trade were usually 50% to 80% of 1666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 the annual income of the senior executive concerned. The £4 million that Mr LEUNG received was even more than the total income he earned from DTZ over the last three years. In exchange, he was only required to make a non-competition undertaking, according to which he would not compete with UGL or DTZ within two years. Try to think about the value of this contract and Members would have a clue.

Of course, UGL had the discretion to determine how much it wanted to pay Mr LEUNG, and it could label these payments as non-taxable. However, since such payments involved three types of activities, the focus should not be limited to income tax. It should cover profits tax as well. For that reason, Mr Kenneth LEUNG has written to Mr WONG Kuen-fai, the Commissioner of the Inland Revenue Department, asking the Department to advise on how to objectively apportion the £4 million into non-taxable and taxable items.

Moreover, Mr LEUNG mentioned that golden handshake was indeed a very common practice. But it was rather unusual in the incident of UGL. In most cases, the payments in restraint of trade are stated in the main merger and acquisition contract for the board of directors of the buyer side and seller side to give their endorsement respectively. However, the £4 million contract between Mr LEUNG and UGL was only signed by the Chief Executive Officer of UGL and Mr LEUNG himself, and so far no direct evidence showing that the deal had been endorsed by the board of directors of both parties can be found in the contract. In the event that DTZ has entered into administration process, this payment will require approval from the administrator, which is, as far as this deal is concerned, Ernst & Young, the accounting firm, and RBS (the Royal Bank of Scotland), the major debtor. This is the end of my quote.

Apart from the $50 million received by LEUNG Chun-ying, Members should bear in mind that ― in fact Mr LEUNG has repeatedly reminded Members about that ― the agreement between LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL also refers to the arrangement regarding the disposal of the sale option of DTZ (Japan) that he is still holding. This part remains in effect and it is optional. LEUNG Chun-ying can make his choice, or reserve the right to make his choice. As he has a choice and has the right to decide how to handle the options, by no means can one say that under the contract, the Chief Executive can do nothing and therefore there is no problem. In fact, he is working on something and he can work on something. Moreover, now there is still some interests, and these LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1667 interests should be declared. At least there is possible conflict of interests. How can one say that given the trust in him, we have no need to address the issue?

Moreover, after the deal with DTZ (Japan), Mr LEUNG's reward hinges on the company's current and future business results, which can generate considerable profits for him. Hence, this is a very important point. However, Mr LEUNG has not given an explanation openly so far.

President, some arguments raised by certain Members just now remind me of another point of doubt. As just now a Member told us in this Council, in addition to UGL, an enterprise from Tianjian also indicated its intent to acquire DTZ. However, as the Member explained, although the Mainland company gave a more generous offer, there were additional terms and conditions. For instance, DTZ should move its headquarters to the Tianjian Development Zone, and the deal must be approved by Mainland authorities. The acceptance of the offer from this Mainland company therefore means that the deal would take longer time to complete. For that reason, it was blown at the end.

I do not know why, perhaps from my business experience and intuition, the first question came to my mind was: Why did they want to complete the deal expeditiously? Who would like to have the deal completed quickly? Who would be benefited most by this? Seemingly ― I must emphasize the word "seemingly" ― Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, who was preparing to run in the Chief Executive election at that time, and UGL, the company that was very eager to acquire DTZ and would certainly like the deal to complete quickly and at a lower price, would be benefited most. Members can easily come to think that these two parties ― Mr LEUNG and UGL, had the strongest incentive to have the deal completed expeditiously. Moreover, Members would doubt why the deal involved £4 million, which is a big sum of money. In fact, this "invisible golden handshake" has become an "unusual golden handshake" which even the board of directors of both parties and the debtor know nothing about.

This incident is indeed very unusual, and no wonder LEUNG Chun-ying wanted to play it down so far. The commercial operation in the incident is probably beyond the comprehension of the public at large. $50 million seems to be a big sum of money. The public only knows that he has received the money, but has no idea whether this payment to him is justifiable or not. Indeed, 1668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 ordinary people are unable to comment on the seriousness of this incident. Consequently, LEUNG Chun-ying and the pro-establishment camp seem to have treated the incident as a normal one.

Speaking of the pro-establishment camp's treatment of this incident, given that the Party is now determined to give strong backing to LEUNG Chun-ying, the pro-establishment Members really need to make the most of their creativity in order to come up with more ideas to defend him. I recall that during a meeting of the House Committee, a pro-establish Member made a point: Any duties not performed in an office should not be considered as part-time work. I could not help thinking that it was not bad to work for his bank. Yet one must not believe this; the staff members of that bank must not believe this. One must bear in mind that ordinary wage earners are unlike the Chief Executive, and no one will defend them. Earlier on, a Member described the acquisition of DTZ by UGL as a great transaction. I could not help bursting into laughter: How great was it? This is the language of the Party. We in the business sector would describe this as a major acquisition rather than a great acquisition.

The pro-establishment camp is in fact miserable as they only have this tiny bit of creativity. In the past, what they needed to defend, in most cases, were the administrative blunders committed by the Government. Later on, they needed to defend the personal behaviours of the Chief Executive, for instance, the existence of illegal structures, which was a rather thorny issue. Now the Chief Executive is suspected of taking a bribe, and they still have to defend him. No matter how hard they think, they really cannot come up with a good justification. Perhaps LEUNG Chun-ying knew that the pro-establishment camp found it very difficult to fabricate a good reason to defend him, he invited some pro-establishment Members to meet with him a few days ago in order to give them some sort of briefing, but I am not sure if he wanted to give them some information in advance. Yet Mr LEUNG is still reluctant to clearly explain the incident to the public. He even made up excuses to avoid attending the Question and Answer Session of the Legislative Council. He is even more reluctant to give an explanation to the pan-democratic Members, who find the incident most doubtful. Why did he explain to the pro-establishment camp but not to us? We cannot help doubting if they have rehearsed beforehand to ensure the consistency of their statements.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 1669

In fact, there is no need to rehearse for the consistency of their statements. Given that Mr LEUNG himself refused to come forth to explain the incident, there is indeed no need to rehearse for the consistency of their statements. Such a blame should not be put on them. Only that I find something even more weird: The pro-establishment camp has been defending LEUNG Chun-ying right from the beginning and they keep saying that he has no problem. But in the middle of the defending process, they suddenly want to listen to his explanation, which is indeed unnecessary as they have concluded that LEUNG Chun-ying has no problem at the outset. In terms of logic, this is questionable, but this is probably consistent with their illogical way of thinking.

Just now some pro-establishment Members criticized this as a farce, which is true indeed. Only that this farce was staged by them. How dare they accuse us for distorting the facts. They must clarify what we have distorted. We have only spelt out all the details and raised dozens of questions for him to answer. It is impossible for us to distort the problem. We have not provided any information, and in that case, how can we distort the facts? But the pro-establishment Members have turned a blind eye to this.

President, the people of Hong Kong indeed have the right to know the truth of this incident. In particular, this Chief Executive was not elected by the people of Hong Kong, who had no part to play in the election. Now he is suspected of taking a bribe, yet the public still have no right to know the truth. President, do you think the people of Hong Kong are very miserable? How can they not feel angry? How can the people outside not feel outrageous? For this reason, President, I support Ms Claudia MO's motion and support invoking the P&P Ordinance to carry out an investigation against the incident relating to LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL.

Thank you, President.

SUSPENSION OF MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9 am tomorrow.

Suspended accordingly at 8.00 pm.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014 A1

Appendix I

WRITTEN ANSWER

Written answer by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury to Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan's supplementary question to Question 2

As regards whether the proposed extension of tax exemption for offshore funds to private equity funds would apply to private equity funds investing in the innovation and technology business, we propose to extend the profits tax exemption for offshore funds to include transactions in private companies which are incorporated or registered outside Hong Kong and do not carry out any business in Hong Kong and hold minimal Hong Kong properties. Any private equity funds that could satisfy the conditions for profits tax exemption under the proposal would enjoy tax exemption, regardless of the types of business run by the overseas private companies transacted by the private equity funds.

A2 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 5 November 2014

Appendix II

WRITTEN ANSWER

Written answer by the Secretary for Justice to Dr LAU Wong-fat's supplementary question to Question 5

As regards the training provided to prosecutors to ensure their understanding of the new requirements under the Prosecution Code (the Code), as the Secretary for Justice pointed out in his main reply to part (1) of the main question, the section on public order events added to the latest edition of the Code serves to remind prosecutors of the well-established legal principles applicable to the handling of cases concerning public order events. In fact, prosecutors have all along made references to the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions (including those in the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights), judgments and other applicable legal principles involved when handling cases involving public order events, and the Code does not prescribe any special procedures to be followed before the prosecution of cases involving public order events be commenced.

This notwithstanding, in order to keep our prosecutors abreast of all relevant laws in relation to various aspects of their work (including the handling of public order event cases), apart from tailor-made in-house training programme for new recruits on various legal topics, general court procedures, rules of evidence and advocacy skills, all counsel are also encouraged to attend seminars and conferences on different topics organized from time to time with in-house and outside local and/or overseas speakers, as well as the more structured training under the Continuing Legal Education Programme (the CLE). With a legal academic as the course co-ordinator, the contents of the CLE are specially commissioned and cover crucial and commonly occurring legal topics which are useful and relevant to the work of prosecutors. Indeed, a specific session covering latest court judgments regarding the handling of public order event cases was held as recently as in May 2014 (with 28 counsel participated therein) as part of the last run of the CLE.

Apart from specific courses relating to prosecution work, since 2009, the Department of Justice also conducts in-house seminars on Basic Law for all counsel (include those from the Prosecutions Division) from time to time. The total number of Prosecutions Division counsel who participated in the four runs of the course is 27.