LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 521

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 28 October 2020

The Council met at Eleven o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG*

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI*

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG*

* According to the announcement made by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government on 11 November 2020 pursuant to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Issues Relating to the Qualification of the Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Kenneth LEUNG, KWOK Ka-ki, Dennis KWOK Wing-hang and Alvin YEUNG were disqualified from being members of the Legislative Council on 30 July 2020. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 523

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG*

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

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

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

* According to the announcement made by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government on 11 November 2020 pursuant to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Issues Relating to the Qualification of the Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Kenneth LEUNG, KWOK Ka-ki, Dennis KWOK Wing-hang and Alvin YEUNG were disqualified from being members of the Legislative Council on 30 July 2020.

524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

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

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

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

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

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

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

MEMBERS ABSENT:

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 525

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

THE HONOURABLE FRANK CHAN FAN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

PROF THE HONOURABLE SOPHIA CHAN SIU-CHEE, J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH

THE HONOURABLE EDWARD YAU TANG-WAH, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

THE HONOURABLE KEVIN YEUNG YUN-HUNG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION

THE HONOURABLE ERICK TSANG KWOK-WAI, I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER HUI CHING-YU, J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

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

MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

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

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

LAYING OF PAPERS ON THE TABLE OF THE COUNCIL

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

Subsidiary Legislation Legal Notice No.

Inland Revenue (Double Taxation Relief with respect to Taxes on Income and Capital and Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidance) (Republic of Serbia) Order ...... 210 of 2020

Inland Revenue (Double Taxation Relief with respect to Taxes on Income and Capital and Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidance) (Georgia) Order ... 211 of 2020

Other Papers

Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund Board Annual Report 2019-20 (including Independent Auditor's Report and Audited Financial Statements)

Traffic Accident Victims Assistance Fund Annual Report for the year from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020 (including Financial Statements and Report of the Director of Audit)

Government Flying Service Welfare Fund Report by the Controller, Government Flying Service on the Administration of the Fund for the year ended 31 March 2020 (including Financial Statements and Report of the Director of Audit) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 527

Urban Renewal Authority Annual Report 2019-20 (including Independent Auditor's Report and Financial Statements)

The Land Registry Trading Fund Hong Kong Annual Report 2019-20 (including Certified Financial Statements and Report of the Director of Audit)

Electrical and Mechanical Services Trading Fund Report 2019/20 (including Financial Report and Report of the Director of Audit)

West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Annual Report 2019/20

The Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 74 of July 2020

ADDRESS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Address. The Chief Secretary for Administration will address the Council on "The Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 74".

The Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 74 of July 2020

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): President, I lay on the table at this Council today the Government Minute responding to Report No. 74 of the Public Accounts Committee ("PAC") which was presented to the Legislative Council on 15 July this year.

I welcome the Report of PAC and am grateful for the time and efforts devoted by the Chairman Mr Abraham SHEK and members of PAC. The Government accepts PAC's various recommendations and sets out in detail the specific responses of the relevant bureaux and departments in the Government 528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Minute. PAC has conducted public hearings on two Chapters, namely "Management of funding for sports development through the Arts and Sport Development Fund (Sports Portion)" and "Sports Federation & Olympic Committee of Hong Kong, China", in Report No. 74. I would like to highlight the key measures taken and progress made by the Government and relevant organizations in response to the recommendations of PAC.

Effective management of the Arts and Sport Development Fund (Sports Portion) ("ASDF") not only meets the principle of value for money, but is also conducive to the Government's work in taking forward the development of sports in Hong Kong. The Home Affairs Bureau ("HAB") and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD") have reviewed ASDF's mechanism for providing funding for Hong Kong athletes to prepare for and participate in international games, revised the relevant guidelines, application forms and programme report templates, and adopted a series of improvement measures. These include requiring applicants to set performance targets in their funding applications and report actual achievements, imposing a penalty on grantees for any delay in the return of unspent balances, requiring auditors to certify grantees' compliance with the procurement requirements and the Code of Conduct, as well as requiring grantees to provide explanations for any significant variance between the approved and actual expenditures.

Regarding ASDF's funding support for hosting international sports events in Hong Kong, HAB and LCSD have updated the application guidelines to require timely submission of programme reports by grantees, mandate auditors' certification of grantees' compliance with the code formulated by HAB and LCSD, and require explanations from grantees for any significant variance between the approved and actual expenditures. LCSD has also improved the arrangements for on-site inspections of local international events to strengthen monitoring.

As regards ASDF's funding support to the Hong Kong Football Association ("HKFA"), HAB has urged HKFA to take effective measures to follow up on the recommendations made by the Audit Commission ("the Audit") and PAC and, as proposed by the Sports Commission ("SC") and the Football Task Force ("FTF"), requested HKFA to submit an action plan on how to follow up on the issues raised by the Audit and PAC and make improvements. To underline the importance of this action plan, HAB has made its timely submission a condition LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 529 for the release of funding to HKFA for the implementation of its Vision 2025 Strategic Plan ("the V2025 Plan"). HKFA has already submitted its action plan to HAB in September 2020 and adopted a range of improvement measures.

To improve the operation of the HKFA Board and committees, the HKFA Board has reconstituted the Audit Committee in accordance with its terms of reference and taken additional administrative measures to properly maintain the agendas and minutes of meetings of the HKFA Board and committees and to collect the first-tier declaration of interest forms duly completed by all members. To further perfect the operation, the HKFA Board has resolved to conduct a review on the structures and major areas of governance of the Board and its committees. The review is expected to be completed by June 2021.

In terms of funding allocation and monitoring by the Government, HAB will continue to closely monitor the performance of HKFA in using the funding support provided under ASDF for the development of football in Hong Kong. HAB has accepted the recommendations of SC and FTF to provide HKFA with time-limited funding support for three football seasons from 2020-2021 to 2022-2023 for the implementation of its V2025 Plan. The performance targets and indicators will be set out in the funding agreement signed between HAB and HKFA. In the event of a significant gap between HKFA's performance and the performance targets and indicators, HAB would consider reducing the funding amount or shortening the funding duration with a view to providing greater financial motivation for HKFA to make the expected improvements. HAB will conduct a mid-term review of HKFA's performance in implementing the V2025 Plan by end of 2022 and, based on the review outcome, determine the funding arrangements for HKFA for the remaining football seasons.

HAB has all along been working in close partnership with the Sports Federation & Olympic Committee of Hong Kong, China ("SF&OC") in an endeavour to promote sports development in Hong Kong, and providing recurrent subvention to SF&OC for its administrative and programme expenses for the implementation of various initiatives.

SF&OC is actively following up on the recommendations of the Audit and PAC on its operation and governance. To increase the transparency in the selection of athletes for participation in international multi-sports games, SF&OC is reviewing the selection procedures (including the review and appeal procedures) with reference to the best practices in the "Best Practice Reference for Governance of National Sports Associations―Towards Excellence in Sports Professional Development" drawn up by the Independent Commission Against 530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Corruption as well as overseas practices. SF&OC expects to complete the review by end of March 2021 and will promulgate the revised procedures afterwards.

On the governance front, SF&OC has adopted a new two-tier declaration mechanism since 1 July 2020. It is also conducting a review of its committee structures, including the categories, number, membership and frequency of meetings of committees, with a view to improving meeting management and the attendance rates of members at its Board and committee meetings.

To enhance the governance of various national sports associations ("NSAs"), HAB will be providing SF&OC with time-limited funding of HK$5 million per year for five years (from 2020-2021 to 2024-2025) for reviewing the operation and internal monitoring mechanisms of NSAs. In this regard, SF&OC has established a dedicated team to take charge of the review exercise, which mainly includes formulating a code of governance and conducting an audit of NSAs' Articles of Association, board composition and election mechanisms, financial reporting and auditing mechanisms, athletes selection and appeal mechanisms, etc. SF&OC will also set a good example by conducting a review of its own operation and internal monitoring mechanism and taking appropriate improvement measures. HAB will closely monitor the progress of the review exercise.

The Government has always attached great importance to the recommendations made by the Audit and PAC. In the light of PAC's recommendations, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau has already updated the related Financial Circular in September 2020, emphasizing that all bureaux, departments and relevant public organizations should respond positively and constructively to the audit reviews conducted by the Audit. They are also reminded to ask their representatives to be well prepared before attending PAC's hearings to facilitate the smooth conduct of the hearings.

President, I would like to thank the Chairman and members of PAC again for their guidance. The bureaux and departments concerned will strictly adhere to their responses in the Government Minute and implement the improvement measures as soon as possible.

Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 531

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. First question.

External voting arrangement

1. MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, it has been reported that the Government is studying the issue of allowing Hong Kong people residing in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("Greater Bay Area") to vote, in their residing places, in the Legislative Council General Election to be held next year ("external voting arrangement"). Some members of the public are worried that the arrangement will contravene the well-established and effective election approach and undermine the fairness of the election. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the actual commencement time of the study on the external voting arrangement; as there are comments that the arrangement is obviously in conflict with the requirement that an elector must ordinarily reside in Hong Kong as set out in section 28 of the Legislative Council Ordinance, whether this issue has been considered in the study; if so, of the justifications for implementing the arrangement; of the policy bureau or government department which takes the lead in the study, and whether any Mainland authorities have participated in the study; if so, of the names of such Mainland authorities;

(2) of the respective expected numbers of Hong Kong people who, according to the external voting arrangement under examination, are eligible to vote in the Greater Bay Area, other Mainland places outside the Greater Bay Area, Taiwan Region, and other places outside China; and

(3) of the legislative timetable and roadmap for the external voting arrangement; the mechanism to be put in place by the Government to guard against election-related corrupt conduct outside Hong Kong and to ensure that candidates have equal opportunities to conduct canvassing activities in the Greater Bay Area?

532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, our reply to Mr Alvin YEUNG's question is as follows:

(1) At present, legislation concerning public elections in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") requires electors to vote in person. In other words, registered electors who are outside HKSAR must return to Hong Kong to cast their votes at the stations allocated to them on the polling day, otherwise they cannot exercise their right to vote. For many years, there have been calls in the society that the Government should explore arranging voting outside Hong Kong and implement the initiative as soon as practicable. As a matter of fact, the issue of voting outside Hong Kong was discussed in the Legislative Council on various occasions, and enquiries on whether the Government would explore or implement the arrangement were raised by Members at the meetings of the Panel on Constitutional Affairs in 2014, 2017, 2018 and 2019. There were even views that the Government should consider allowing eligible electors who are Hong Kong permanent residents working or residing in the Mainland to cast their vote at the offices of the Government in the Mainland.

The fact that the seventh term Legislative Council General Election originally scheduled for last September could not be held as planned owing to the severe epidemic situation further reveals that the current electoral system is probably unable to deal with very exceptional circumstances. It was mentioned in the Electoral Affairs Commission's ("EAC") Report on the 2020 Legislative Council General Election released on 12 October that the Government should study the policy perspectives and the legal aspects, and to consider objectively such factors as the overall impact of the epidemic on the election, feasibility in setting up polling stations outside Hong Kong, and the number of eligible electors in the places concerned in order to draw up the necessary proposals to amend the law.

With the integration of Hong Kong into the national development, the Central Government and the HKSAR Government have been introducing policy initiatives which incentivize Hong Kong residents to live and develop in the Mainland. Hence, exploring how to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 533

facilitate Hong Kong residents living in the Mainland to cast their votes is in line with the direction of such development. The HKSAR Government has always adopted an open mind to the idea of voting outside Hong Kong. In response to the attention over the issue of voting outside Hong Kong in the community, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, which is responsible for formulating electoral policies, in conjunction with the Department of Justice and the Registration and Electoral Office, have been studying the views received. We shall proactively study the recommendations in the EAC's Report on the 2020 Legislative Council General Election as well as suggestions from various sectors of the community on how existing electoral arrangements can be enhanced, and consider further improving the electoral arrangements, including the feasibility of voting outside Hong Kong.

(2) The HKSAR Government and EAC all along strive to ensure that all public elections are conducted in an open, fair and honest manner. When considering whether and how to implement voting outside Hong Kong, ensuring that elections are held in an open, fair and honest manner is always the top priority. The Government would need to consider various factors in a holistic approach, including whether and how to make arrangements for advance registration for voting outside Hong Kong, how to ensure that ballot papers and ballot boxes can be delivered to and from polling stations outside Hong Kong effectively and safely, arrangements during the poll and the count, how to apply Hong Kong's electoral laws and regulations to the poll and the count, risks involved during the process, how to deal with emergencies at stations outside Hong Kong, how to maintain order at the stations and enforcement actions in relation to breaches of electoral law.

With regard to the eligibility of electors, sections 27 to 29 of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap. 542) provide clear eligibility criteria of voter registration, i.e. the applicant must be a Hong Kong permanent resident aged 18 years or above who ordinarily resides in Hong Kong, and the residential address notified in the person's application for registration is the person's only or principal residence in Hong Kong. At present, the HKSAR Government has no plan to change this requirement.

534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Regarding the statistics of Hong Kong residents in different places outside Hong Kong as raised in the question, the Census and Statistics Department estimated that, by making use of passenger movement records, as of mid-2019, around 330 000 Hong Kong permanent residents aged 18 or above were ordinarily staying in the Guangdong Province. We are now collecting more statistics on the number of Hong Kong residents outside Hong Kong for our study and reference.

(3) The HKSAR Government, EAC and the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") are all along committed to promoting clean and fair elections, with a view to establishing a good election culture. The Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (Cap. 554) ("ECICO"), enforced by ICAC, aims to uphold the honesty and integrity in public elections and prevent the occurrence of corrupt and illegal conduct. Section 5 of the ECICO states that the Ordinance applies to all conduct concerning an election, whether the conduct is engaged in within Hong Kong or elsewhere. In other words, any person who engages in corrupt conduct or illegal conduct breaches the law no matter whether the conduct takes places in Hong Kong or elsewhere. ICAC will investigate relevant cases in accordance with the law and will carry out law enforcement actions including search and arrest depending on the actual circumstances of the case.

As mentioned above, the Government is proactively studying the recommendations in the EAC's Report on the 2020 Legislative Council General Election as well as suggestions and recommendations from various sectors of the community on how existing electoral arrangements can be enhanced. After we have worked out feasible options, and if such options involve amendments to electoral legislation, we shall submit the proposal to the Legislative Council for scrutiny in line with the procedures.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, it is indeed rare that the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") is so respectful to the voices in society, or public opinions. Since last year there have been a lot of voices in society calling on the SAR Government to take a number of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 535 actions, including the setting up of an independent commission of inquiry, and the stepping down of Carrie LAM, but the Government has completely turned a deaf ear to them. The Secretary said that "there have been calls in the society" and concerning these calls, do they include the result of the opinion poll conducted recently by the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute on this issue, which shows that 68% of Hongkongers are opposed to the idea of voting in the Greater Bay Area? In dealing with this issue, will the SAR Government draw reference to public opinions and this vociferous call of Hongkongers that such an arrangement is unacceptable and ultimately stop taking forward this policy?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, concerning the supplementary question asked by the Member just now, I noticed that there are press reports today about an opinion poll on voting outside Hong Kong, and I noticed that there is something rather special about the target respondents of this opinion poll and to be more precise, there is a prerequisite that the target respondents of this opinion poll must be Hong Kong residents aged over 18 who speaks Cantonese. I do not understand why there should be this prerequisite. Is it that Hong Kong residents who speak Putonghua or English will not be interviewed or their views will not be heeded?

Moreover, I also noticed that nearly half of the interviews in this poll were conducted by way of local fixed telephone networks. In other words, the target respondents are mainly Hong Kong residents in Hong Kong. Such being the case, does it mean that the views of Hong Kong residents outside Hong Kong will not be heeded? Let us not forget that we are talking about voting outside Hong Kong now, which is often of greater concern to Hong Kong residents outside Hong Kong. Anyway, regarding this poll with a prerequisite, I personally have reservations about the adequacy of its coverage as well as its credibility.

As I also said in the main reply, for quite a long time in the past, whether in this Council or society, and even from the views expressed by the public to the Government, there have been suggestions about implementing voting outside Hong Kong and even allowing votes to be cast at the offices of the Government in the Mainland. These are indeed the views of the public, and we must listen to them. Therefore, in any case, our objective is to enable public elections to be conducted in a fair, impartial and honest manner. Over the years, we have continuously worked with EAC and other election-related departments to study how the electoral system can be enhanced, especially in view of this year's 536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Legislative Council General Election because due to the epidemic, it has been revealed all the more clearly that in respect of the electoral arrangement, system and legislation, it may be necessary to allow appropriate flexibility in some areas, so as to cope with these very exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the Government has the responsibility to continuously conduct studies in these respects and draw up various contingency plans, so that the future elections can be conducted smoothly.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, on this issue, is the Secretary telling us that only the views of residents who live outside Hong Kong and who do not speak Cantonese are considered as views, whereas the views of Cantonese-speaking Hongkongers in Hong Kong are not views? The person who raised this issue is a Cantonese-speaking Hongkonger himself, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, this is not the supplementary question that you asked earlier. Please stop speaking.

Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, please ask your supplementary question.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, since the Secretary said that the idea of allowing votes to be cast in the Mainland has such huge public support, he may as well conduct a public consultation exercise on it. Why does he not dare to do so? In a nutshell, this idea of voting in the Mainland is actually blatant vote-rigging under the collusion between the royalists and Carrie LAM because they are afraid that the royalists would suffer a crushing defeat in the election.

President, I would like to ask the Secretary this: He said that ICAC could search and arrest people who engaged in electoral bribes. But the whole process of vote rigging and vote buying would be carried out in the Mainland with the people involved residing in the Mainland. ICAC does not have cross-border enforcement and investigative powers. Does he expect public LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 537 security officers in the Mainland to assist ICAC to probe into vote rigging and vote buying activities carried out by the royalists in the Mainland? Is it that he has turned into Alice and is dreaming in Wonderland now?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I totally take exception to the remarks made by the Member in presuming that vote buying or vote rigging would definitely take place when a poll is conducted in the Mainland. At the present stage, we are still studying external voting and other arrangements. Certainly, as I said in the main reply, we will conduct assessments and studies in a number of areas, including various electoral arrangements on which the relevant Policy Bureaux or departments will be consulted and certainly, ICAC will be included. We will consult ICAC on how to ensure fairness and impartiality in elections. In case there is such a situation, as I pointed out in the main reply, the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance clearly provides that the Ordinance covers illegal conduct that takes place outside Hong Kong. Even if the offences alleged to be in breach of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance are committed outside Hong Kong, we still have investigative and enforcement powers.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): He did not answer my supplementary question. My question was very clear. I asked him whether ICAC had investigative and enforcement powers in the Mainland and whether he expected public security officers in the Mainland to assist ICAC in investigating these cross-border election bribery and vote rigging cases.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, you have already stated the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. Please sit down. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): I wish to add only one point. Currently we are still in the stage of studies. Of course, the various concerns raised by the Member will also be 538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 covered in our studies. I do not wish to speculate too much on the future arrangements. If, by then, it is necessary to amend the relevant legislation, we will submit the proposals to the Legislative Council for consideration.

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong people who live in the Mainland have maintained close ties with Hong Kong. Allowing them to vote outside Hong Kong is actually a measure that brings convenience to the people, and as the SAR Government has all along incentivized Hong Kong residents to integrate into the national development and seize the opportunities in the Greater Bay Area by going northward for employment or living, the Hong Kong Government is duty-bound to ensure that the residents can have the right to vote when pursuing development in the Mainland.

In fact, other countries, such as France and Singapore, have also set up polling stations in Beijing or Shanghai. I do not see why Hong Kong residents who are within the same country cannot cast their votes in the Mainland. In this connection, I would like to ask …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kwok-fan, please state your supplementary question direct.

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): I would like to ask the Secretary this: After the Chief Executive made public this wish, what preparatory work has the SAR Government carried out to implement the arrangement for Hong Kong residents to vote in the Mainland?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, as I said earlier, in response to the calls and aspirations in society, the Government has been conducting studies on a basket of arrangements for voting outside Hong Kong. The very severe epidemic situation this year has indeed revealed the urgency of these studies. Added to this is that more and more Hong Kong residents have moved to live in the Mainland due to the needs of their career development. Under these circumstances, how can they exercise their right to vote or particularly, how can they exercise their right under some very exceptional circumstances? This is what we very much hope to resolve.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 539

After the Chief Executive announced on 31 July that the seventh term Legislative Council General Election would be postponed for one year, we have grasped the time in the hope that the Legislative Council General Election can be conducted smoothly next year on 5 September 2021. The Government has indeed, in the light of different circumstances, made an effort to formulate various contingency plans, including the feasibility of voting outside Hong Kong. In this connection, the Government has proactively conducted studies on, among others, external voting arrangements and even a basket of improvement measures, such as voting arrangements for people in need, distribution of ballots by electronic means, and so on. At the present stage, we are proactively looking into the feasibility of various measures and some specific operational arrangements. If any of the concrete proposals will involve amendments to this Ordinance, we will, in due course, table the amendments to the Legislative Council for consideration according to the schedules.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, please ask your supplementary question.

(Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung was not present)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung is not present. Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please ask your supplementary question.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, yesterday it was announced that Hong Kong people returning to Hong Kong from the Mainland would not be subject to compulsory quarantine, and "one hour living circle" was mentioned over and over again. Actually, Hong Kong people residing in Mainland China can, without difficulty at all, return to Hong Kong to cast their votes. But now, the voting right and procedures are turned over to Mainland China. The rule of law in Mainland China ranks 82th in the World Justice Project, while Hong Kong ranks 16th. In implementing the external voting arrangement in a place where the rule of law can hardly be upheld, what other objective does the Government have if not for vote rigging?

540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I must stress or point out here that the studies on various electoral arrangements are still in progress and we have yet to come up with a concrete proposal. Therefore, regarding the remark made by the Member that we would definitely conduct or arrange for voting in a certain place, I must say that we do not have this arrangement for the time being.

Regarding the studies that we are conducting on voting outside Hong Kong, they are mainly meant to respond to the different calls in society over the years, and it is also due to the need to allow flexibility as highlighted by the epidemic situation that we have conducted these studies and currently, we are still in the stage of studies.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I clearly asked him for the reason. Now, Hong Kong residents in the Mainland can already return to Hong Kong without being subject to quarantine. For what reason must they cast their votes in the Mainland?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, you already stated the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): We all know that the epidemic situation has been so volatile, and even experts have warned of a possible fourth wave outbreak. Therefore, we do not know how the epidemic will develop in future, for how long the closure of the boundary control points will have to continue, and also when the border can be fully reopened. All these have remained unknown. In view of this, we must draw up contingency plans to cope with different situations in the hope that the Legislative Council General Election can be conducted as planned next year.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 541

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second question.

Regulation of online fundraising activities

2. MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): Currently, organizations that plan to conduct fundraising activities in public places must first apply for permits or licences from the relevant government departments. Applications of fundraising activities for charitable purpose are vetted and approved by the Director of Social Welfare, whereas applications of fundraising activities for other purposes are vetted and approved by the Secretary for Home Affairs. Organizations that conduct fundraising activities must, after conclusion of the activities, submit to the relevant government departments a copy of the accounts or reports audited by a professional. However, fundraising activities conducted online are not subject to such regulation. Some members of the public are concerned that lawbreakers may launder money from unknown sources through such activities in order to subsidize unlawful activities such as those which threaten national security. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has considered, by following the current practice to regulate fundraising activities in public places, requiring organizations that plan to conduct fundraising activities online to first apply for permits or licences from the relevant government departments; if it has considered, of the decision; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) whether the net proceeds generated through online fundraising activities are regarded as assessable income or profits; whether it will require that organizations that plan to conduct fundraising activities online must, after conclusion of the activities, submit to the relevant government departments a copy of the accounts or reports audited by a professional; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) of the measures in place to step up the regulation of fundraising activities conducted online, in order to enhance the confidence of members of the public in making donations in such activities and to prevent the funds so raised from being used to subsidize unlawful activities?

542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, our reply to Ms Alice MAK, in consultation with the Labour and Welfare Bureau, the Home Affairs Bureau and the Security Bureau, is as follows:

On parts (1) and (3) of the oral question, as I replied to Ms Alice MAK's question on "Regulation of online crowdfunding activities" at the Council meeting on 17 June this year, online fundraising activities, or crowdfunding, is commonly referred to accepting small amounts of money from individuals or organizations to fund or provide loan for a project, a business or other needs through an online platform. Depending on the purposes and nature of the online fundraising activities, for example where it involves financial services-related activities such as an offer to the public to purchase securities or a lending element, they may already be subject to the provisions of the relevant regulations, such as the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) ("SFO"), the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32), the Money Lenders Ordinance (Cap. 163), etc., which may include applying a Securities and Futures Commission's licence or a money lender's licence. Depending on the purposes of these online fundraising activities, the relevant regulations applicable to crowdfunding activities in Hong Kong may also be applicable to overseas online platforms that raise funds for use in Hong Kong.

As mentioned in Ms MAK's question, currently, the Director of Social Welfare and the Secretary for Home Affairs may issue permits pursuant to section 4(17) of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228) ("SOO") for collection of money or sale of badges, tokens or similar articles in public places for charitable and any other purposes respectively. The legislative intent of the Ordinance is to prevent nuisance and obstruction caused by the relevant fundraising activities in public places. Hence, the relevant regulation is not applicable to online fundraising activities. We have no intention to extend the existing regulatory regime to online fundraising activities at the moment.

We note that while the regulations on fundraising activities and platforms in other places may vary, the relevant regulatory requirements are generally based on the nature of the fundraising activity and the use of funds collected, rather than the means of fundraising (e.g. online or in public places). The Government will continue to monitor and draw reference to the latest development on regulation of online fundraising activities in other places.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 543

We understand the importance of safeguarding the public's interest to avoid members of the public unknowingly participating in fraudulent or unlawful fundraising activities, thereby suffering from unnecessary losses. At present, regardless of whether they are online or held in public places, if the fundraising activities involve money laundering, fraud and other unlawful acts, the relevant law enforcement agencies will conduct investigation in accordance with existing laws. When participating in fundraising activities, particularly those through online platforms, members of the public should pay full attention to the background of the organizing parties/organizations, the purpose of raising funds and how the funds will be used, so as to avoid being abused by lawbreakers for unlawful activities. Relevant departments will continue their public education efforts in this regard.

The aforesaid mainly concerns parts (1) and (3) of the oral question. On part (2) of the question, pursuant to the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112), persons, including corporations and bodies of persons, carrying on any trade or business in Hong Kong are chargeable to tax on all profits (excluding profits arising from the sale of capital assets) arising in or derived from Hong Kong from such trade or business. If organizations conducting fundraising activities do not carry on any trade or business, regardless of whether such fundraising activities are conducted online, the receipt of donations or gifts would not constitute any trading or business profits. Thus, they would not have any profits tax liabilities.

MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, let us take a look over there, all those Members have left already. This is not the first time actually. The same happened when I raised a relevant question in June and only a few Members raised questions. Of course, this is due to conflict of interests. There is a conflict of interests as every one of them has initiated crowdfunding or the crowdfunding is still in progress, through which they have raised a lot of money.

This is a chart published yesterday by the People's Daily on its web page, which is about where the money raised by the "mutual destruction camp" through crowdfunding has gone―we cannot ask them as they have all left already―as they make money and fleece people by making use of their capacity. The Secretary also mentioned in his main reply just now that I had raised a question to him on this issue on 17 June. More than four months have passed since then, what has the Government done with these crowdfunding activities? In addition, the Secretary indicated in his main reply that he would monitor the latest development, so what is the latest development?

544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

I wonder if the Secretary is aware that early this month, some people claimed that they had raised $16 million but then indicated that they had to disband? I do not know where the money has gone. If this goes on and they are allowed to fleece people of their money through crowdfunding without having to pay taxes, apply for a licence and submit a report, actually they would be better off than getting paid for work. Secretary, what exactly have you done? Do you really intend to keep letting them raise funds through crowdfunding? In this way, they would indeed be better off than getting paid for work, as they merely need to set up a website. Can you see how much money they have raised? Everyone has raised over $1 million. That is why they have to avoid suspicion now. They dare not even raise any question for they are afraid of having conflict of interests. Crowdfunding has even become their job.

Secretary, does the Government have no intention to impose any regulation? The Secretary pointed out in his main reply a moment ago that the authorities would keep a watchful eye on the use of funds collected. What exactly have the authorities done? Up to this point since 17 June …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Alice MAK, please raise your supplementary question directly.

MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is, what has the Government done so far since 17 June?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ms MAK for expressing her views. In fact, just now I have already pointed out that I also replied to a similar question in June. Nevertheless, perhaps I can talk more about the issue of regulation here.

In fact, there is definitely not a lack of regulation as suggested by Ms MAK just now. Yet, we intervene and adopt various measures under a multi-pronged approach. We do not necessarily target at the means of fundraising activities, since it is also possible to impose regulation by targeting at the purposes behind such activities. As I have mentioned earlier, actually regulation is already in place if crowdfunding activities involve some unlawful purposes, including money laundering or other crimes―a point which is also mentioned in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 545

Ms MAK's question. It is because, from the regulatory perspective, it might not be necessary to specify the regulatory roles in every aspect. We must take into account the effectiveness, severity and mode of the regulatory work, and then consider the whole matter comprehensively to work out the most appropriate mode of regulation.

Therefore, let me recap in brief my reply just now. Basically, if crowdfunding activities involve some equity investments or transactions, we have already put in place regulatory measures in respect of the financial sector at present. As regards fundraising activities involving other areas, we now impose regulation under the so-called offline or physical approach, since the main concern is the possible impact on society brought about by flag-selling or other activities, such as causing nuisance, so regulation is imposed. On the other hand, if criminal activities such as money laundering or other crimes are involved―this is also mentioned in Ms MAK's main question―they will be handled by the Police. I would also take this opportunity to outline the Police's efforts in combating crimes involved in crowdfunding activities. Basically, they would adopt a multi-pronged approach encompassing law enforcement, publicity and education, cooperation with different organizations, intelligence analysis and cross-border cooperation, etc., to deal with this problem from various aspects. I hence believe that it is not necessary to impose regulation in one single way. This is in fact a holistic concept, we must figure out the core elements, and then suit our methods to the situation.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Alice MAK, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): Why is he so lenient? My supplementary question is actually very simple, I just asked: What has the Secretary done to date since 17 June? President, he could not tell anything after speaking for three minutes. What exactly has the Government done since I raised my question in June?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Alice MAK, you have pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, Ms MAK enquired about our work so far since June. As a matter of fact, the work that I have mentioned just now is ongoing, including publicity and promotion, as well as the way to cooperate with various sectors in various aspects. In fact, we do not have to consider the timing of doing such work as this is what we must pursue in an ongoing manner. It is because we have to enforce the laws upon their enactment.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, we, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, are persistently going after "yellow independence" and "black violence". Ms Alice MAK asked once and again, but unfortunately, it appears that the government departments are relenting in cutting off the capital chain of "yellow independence" and "black violence". This is really disappointing. As we all know, the problems in Hong Kong often stem from money, and fraudsters have countless tricks. Recently, the 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund has again come out to groan about being cash-strapped. They have all along been encouraging unlawful protests and inciting young people to engage in storming acts, and then told them to commission their legal consultants to represent them in lawsuits. Hiring their own team of lawyers after raising funds, this is the through-train mode of the yellow economic circle to "raise funds, spend money and protest". The case of Spark Alliance involving drugs and money laundering …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, please come to your supplementary question direct.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): I just wish to highlight the seriousness of the problem. The so-called online fundraising activities conducted by these people from the "mutual destruction camp" are actually inseparable from those inflicting "black violence". President, my supplementary question is: Quite a number of organizations involved in these fundraising activities, such as Demosisto, whose company―it is not a company, they have not set up a company―has been closed down after raising funds. They absconded with the funds, and no one knows the whereabouts of the money. In addition, there are also some cases in which they revive in a new guise through playing the same old trick. They raise funds time and again, and it loops endlessly. I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 547 would like to ask the Government again whether it will enforce the law or amend the legislation with a view to plugging these loopholes, and prohibiting these people from taking the opportunity to eat "steamed buns dipped in human blood" and bring chaos to Hong Kong?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, just now I have already introduced to Honourable Members from several aspects that under the entire regulatory framework of the Government, the Police would conduct investigation and initiate prosecution in accordance with existing ordinances if fundraising activities involve money laundering, fraud or other unlawful activities as mentioned by Members just now.

Today, I would like to point out to all of you through this public platform that the Police hope to raise public awareness by means of publicity and education. As mentioned by two Honourable Members earlier, many members of the public have fallen victim to scams as they have no idea about the situation. Therefore, we have currently set up a number of hotlines and launched a series of other publicity efforts, in the hope that these could form part of our education work. However, this is not all of our work. We will certainly continue to carry out law enforcement actions as mentioned by Honourable Members just now, undertake ongoing publicity work in the community, and release more information through corresponding channels, so as to enable us to deal with these issues in a more focused manner.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I heard the Secretary point out that currently there are relevant laws to regulate fundraising activities, regardless of whether they are conducted physically or online. I agree with this point, and I also agree with the law enforcement work carried out by the Secretary after he has assumed office. My supplementary question is: While some new start-up enterprises would also raise funds online in order to sell their new products, these fund-raising activities do not involve stock or equity transactions. Does the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau have plans to grant exemption to start-up enterprises, thereby allowing them to raise funds to a limited extent for their new products?

548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, regarding the case mentioned by Mr LEUNG a moment ago, we have drawn reference from the legislative work in many places, where different directions are adopted. In a bid to promote the development of financial technology, some places will enact specific laws to promote crowdfunding activities in this respect. There are also some places, such as the United Kingdom, which will study whether these activities can be incorporated in their legal framework. We have drawn reference from the legislative work in various places. Regarding the examples mentioned by Honourable Members just now which are relevant to SFO, regulation can be imposed in accordance with existing laws. Yet, for some very specific cases brought up by Honourable Members just now, we may have exchanges after the meeting to listen to Members' views.

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, with respect to the current situation, it seems that the Secretary is also aware of some grey areas which are not subject to regulation. Just now Mr Kenneth LEUNG has mentioned some start-up enterprises, which are not regulated at the moment since they are not bonds or financial products. What Ms Alice MAK means is that some people would act in the name of charity, but actually they just aim at fleecing money. Yet, they are not subject to regulation as they raise funds online instead of on the streets. Regarding these "Golden Triangles", the Secretary has concluded that they "have no intention to extend the existing regulatory regime to online fundraising activities at the moment". In my opinion, this might allow some room for people … not to start a business, but to shelter evil practices and wicked deeds, thereby giving rise to money laundering and dishonest trickery. The Secretary has also mentioned earlier that the Police would do more explanation to the public through education, but I find it somewhat incongruous with the direction of thought and resource allocation.

First of all, the Secretary needs to figure out how serious the present situation is, but I do not have the relevant figures on hand. I have these questions for the Secretary: As an official responsible for financial matters, has he monitored the number of people raising funds online presently? How serious is the problem? What is the amount involved? Has anyone lodged a complaint? If so, who is responsible for handling such complaints? At least statistics on this front should be available for us to decide whether follow-up is necessary, but the authorities do not even have these figures. The Secretary has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 549 already stated that they have no plans to extend the application of the relevant ordinances to cover online fundraising activities at the moment. I think the Secretary should be forward-looking and go the extra mile to implement preventive measures. Will the Secretary consider doing so?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): My thanks go to Dr HO for his supplementary question. Before all else, I wish to clarify that this issue is by no means totally unregulated. Instead, we have imposed monitoring from a different perspective. We would make consideration with respect to the purposes of fundraising activities if illegal or unlawful elements might be involved, whereas we would make consideration with respect to the means of fundraising activities if equity investments and other aspects are involved. But then, do we make consideration from the perspective of whether such activities are conducted online or offline? As a matter of fact, relevant regulation is in place for common fundraising activities conducted offline due to concerns that such activities might cause nuisance to the public, etc. This issue is by no means totally unregulated as suggested by Honourable Members just now. This is the first point.

Second, coming back to this question raised today, Honourable Members are in fact very correct in saying earlier that the Police would keep the situation in view from time to time even though they do not have the number of complaints or scams related to these so-called crowdfunding activities. This is to ensure that they would take corresponding actions when the situation warrants law enforcement. In this connection, perhaps Honourable Members would still remember that actually the Police arrested a man in May 2020 for charges of money laundering. The man was suspected of committing money laundering, involving HK$630,000, through online fundraising activities in September last year. This is just one of the many examples reflecting that we have enforced the law and done our job.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): The question on statistics, because the relevant figures are not available.

550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr HO, you have pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): We do not have the relevant figures at present.

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): President, I learn from the main reply that SOO which regulates fundraising activities at present is still applicable only to fundraising activities usually conducted on the streets in the past. Yet, as mentioned in Ms Alice MAK's main question, there are so many new means to conduct fundraising online to support unlawful activities nowadays. Can the Secretary give me a brief reply on whether he will introduce appropriate amendments to SOO for extending its scope of application to cover unlawful online fundraising activities? The problem will then be solved. Will the Secretary consider doing so?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHOW for his supplementary question. In fact, we have also communicated and discussed with the relevant departments in respect of this issue before. However, as I have explained earlier, from a broader perspective, actually it is not a must to extend the individual existing laws directly to achieve regulation. Just as I have explained for several times before, this issue is by no means totally unregulated. Instead, we would impose regulation from a different perspective taking into account the different situations and purposes, so as to adopt corresponding regulatory measures as appropriate.

Therefore, is it sufficient to simply extend the scope of regulation currently applicable to fundraising activities conducted offline? It would depend on the situation. Rightly as Mr CHOW said just now, the legislative intent of SOO is mainly to prevent nuisance or obstruction caused by the relevant fundraising activities in public places, yet this consideration does not exist for online fundraising activities. This being so, is it sufficient to simply extend the scope of regulation? In fact, this requires consideration of many aspects, and cannot LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 551 be done by simply introducing amendments to the relevant legislation. This is also the challenge faced by us―including my colleagues―in our daily work, and that is, how to balance and consolidate the considerations on various fronts in order to work out a proper and suitable regulatory mechanism which can meet our needs.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third question. Mr LUK Chung-hung.

(Mr WU Chi-wai indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, what is your point of order?

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, a quorum is not present in the Chamber.

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

(While the summoning bell was ringing, a phone rang inside the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please switch their mobile phones to silent mode.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, please raise the third question.

552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Employees' rights, benefits and welfare of digital platform workers

3. MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, in recent years, with more and more people taking orders on digital platforms to engage in jobs paid on a per-service basis such as food delivery and transport ("platform workers"), relevant work injury accidents and labour dispute cases have increased concomitantly. It is learnt that as the employment relationship between platform workers and platform companies is ambiguous, concerns have been aroused as to whether the employees' rights, benefits and welfare (e.g. paid leave, minimum wage and compensations for work injury accidents) of such workers are deprived of. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has compiled statistics on the number of platform workers, in each month since January 2018, who took orders on digital platforms to engage in food delivery and transport, together with a breakdown by their average weekly working hours and average monthly incomes;

(2) whether it has surveyed platform workers' entitlement to various employees' rights, benefits and welfare, and whether the relevant levels are lower than those stipulated in the labour legislation; if it has surveyed, of the findings; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether it will review the existing legislation to enhance the protection of the employees' rights, benefits and welfare of platform workers?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, in determining whether a digital platform worker ("platform worker") is an employee or not, it does not hinge solely on the label of the post or contract concerned, but is subject to the actual circumstances of the provision of services. Even if a platform worker is labelled as a self-employed person according to the contract or agreement made between both parties, the platform company is still required to fulfil its obligations as an employer under relevant labour legislation when there actually exists an employment relationship between the parties.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 553

Having consulted the concerned departments, the reply to the Member's question is set out below:

(1) and (2)

The Census and Statistics Department ("C&SD") does not have the related statistics on the platform workers who "took orders on digital platforms to engage in food delivery and transport". C&SD has been conducting a series of continuous sample surveys to collect information to compile a number of social and economic statistics. For example, the General Household Survey ("GHS") aims to collect information on the labour force, employment, unemployment and underemployment. It covers the land-based non-institutional population of Hong Kong (i.e. excluding inmates of institutions and persons living on board vessels) and the coverage of this survey includes all employed persons. Nevertheless, owing to the limitations of sample surveys, only statistics for broader industry groups or occupational groups can be provided from the survey results. Separate statistics for specific types of work, e.g. platform workers who took orders on digital platforms to engage in food delivery and transport, are not available.

(3) As mentioned above, it does not depend only on the label of the post or contract concerned but is subject to the genuine circumstances of the provision of services in order to determine whether or not a platform worker is an employee. If there exists in essence an employer-employee relationship between the contractual parties, the platform company should be responsible for the statutory employment benefits of those platform workers who are so called "self-employed persons", otherwise it may be criminally liable under relevant benefit provisions of the Employment Ordinance ("EO"), the Employees' Compensation Ordinance, the Minimum Wage Ordinance and other labour laws.

The Labour Department ("LD") has been sparing no efforts in safeguarding the statutory rights and benefits of eligible employees through rigorous law enforcement. Labour inspectors actively conduct inspections of workplaces of various industries to check employers' compliance with relevant labour laws. They also 554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

explain to both employers and employees their respective rights and obligations under the employment contract and labour legislation. Suspected breaches of labour laws will be promptly investigated upon detection and prosecution will be instituted against offending employers when there is sufficient evidence. Employees who suspect that they are deprived of statutory rights and benefits can report their cases to LD's complaint hotline (2815 2200). LD will duly conduct investigation upon receipt of complaints.

In addition, any persons who have entered into a contract of self-employment with the employer involuntarily and wish to file claims can approach the branch offices of the Labour Relations Division of LD for enquiries. We will assist them to clarify their status with the other contractual party by taking into account relevant factors and provide conciliation service for those involved in disputes of false self-employment. If no settlement can be reached between both parties after conciliation, the case will be referred to the Labour Tribunal (LT) for adjudication at the request of the claimant.

Although the Government has no plan to expand the scope of EO to cover genuinely self-employed persons at present, labour legislation would be kept under review from time to time with regard to social changes and the pace of economic development.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, this is another "three nos" reply―no figures, no inspection and no strategy. President, in fact, governments around the world have put in place various strategies to deal with labour protection under this new mode of employment, including legislative amendments and proactive labour force survey, and so on. Taking France as an example, its labour legislation was amended in 2016 to allow digital platform workers to establish trade unions, as well as the right to strike and the entitlement to insurance against work-related accidents. Last October, in response to the fatal accidents occurred to food couriers of foodpanda and Uber Eats, the Ministry of Labour ("MOL") of the Taiwan Region initiated labour inspections on nine major food delivery platforms and eventually confirmed the employer-employee relationship between five companies, including foodpanda and Uber Eats, and their food couriers. In May this year, MOL of the Taiwan LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 555

Region identified courier and delivery platforms as the targets of specific labour conditions examination, aiming to combat the relevant conduct. In fact, many places have implemented such measures. May I ask the Government of the practical actions it has taken to combat this kind of exploitation in the name of "false self-employment"? Has the Government conducted studies on this new mode of employment, proposed legislative amendments or improved the policies? Will the authorities conduct the relevant studies?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, the development of freelance workers has aroused concern around the world. The SAR Government is aware of this trend, as well as policies or legal studies implemented by other countries in this connection. We will continue with such work. It is known to all that the continuous contract of employment is one of the more popular subjects, which we have shown deep concern in the past. We are now conducting the relevant studies and collecting the relevant information.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, on the question of continuous contract of employment, I hope the Secretary will bring up the subject for discussion at the Labour Advisory Board as soon as possible, so that actual progress can be made expeditiously …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, you are not stating the part of your supplementary question which has not been answered just now. Please press the "Request-to-speak" button again to wait for your turn to ask another question. Please be seated.

Mr POON Siu-ping, please ask your supplementary question.

MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): It is mentioned in the last paragraph of the Secretary's main reply that, "Although the Government has no plan to expand the scope of EO to cover genuinely self-employed persons at present, labour 556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 legislation would be kept under review from time to time with regard to social changes and the pace of economic development". Yet, I do not know the criteria the Government adopted in reviewing labour legislation with regard to social changes and the pace of economic development. President, we all know that with the development in information technology and society, the provision of intermediary services for the supply and demand sides of the labour market via online platforms has become increasingly popular. In 2018, I requested the Legislative Council Secretariat to conduct a relevant policy review. The Research Office of the Secretariat completed the relevant report in February 2019, setting out certain labour protection options introduced in Britain and Singapore for this new mode of employment. May I ask the Secretary whether the Government will draw reference from these measures, and take the first step to protect the rights of platform workers in a gig economy?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, as mentioned in my reply to the question just now, we will keep watch of the development in other places, including the proportion, trend and legislative tendency in respect of freelancers and self-employed persons. We will also pay attention to the future development in these aspects in Hong Kong and the relevant work will continue.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, in the midst of the pandemic, the economy is doing poorly. We notice that many people are working as couriers and food deliverers, among which a considerable portion seem to be South Asians. A large number of them are driving motor cycles to different places. As for their driving performance, according to my experience on the road, they often run into extremely dangerous scenarios, no wander they have accidents. On the one hand, they may not need to pay tax. On the other hand, they may be working too much. Yet, no data is available. The Secretary's earlier reply suggests that things are really done half-heartedly, for he has merely offered a model answer of conducting frequent inspections. In fact, has the Government made any effort to gauge the total number of workers in the market, assess the risk involved and identify areas requiring rectification?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, as I have mentioned in the main reply, we cannot provide separate statistics for specific types of work at present. Certainly, as Members may have noticed, over LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 557 a period in the past, changes in the number of platform workers are usually learnt from news report. We will closely monitor changes in these aspects, for the development of freelance work around the world, including Hong Kong, is after all prospering.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): What will the authorities do? I want to hear no more about those reasons, principles and criteria but whether or not the Government is really concerned about this issue and the actions it has taken.

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

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, we definitely are doing so. Two of the tasks are something we have been doing all along, including special inspections. Regarding the number of special inspections conducted between 2018 and 2019, in gist, we met with over 1 000 persons each year. As for complaints, there were cases in the past though not in great number. For the period between 2018 and September this year, we have received 25 complaints about false self-employment, which include platform workers.

MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary should know that unemployment is serious and many unemployed persons cannot wait for the assistance from the Government. We have made repeated requests to the Government for the introduction of the unemployment assistance scheme, but the Government refuses to accept our proposal. As for the Employment Support Scheme, it can merely protect employers but not employees. Hence, employees, the unemployed in particular, can only help themselves and sort things out on their own.

At present, it is not easy to join food and goods delivery services of delivery platforms, for too many people are in the trade and it is difficult to snatch a delivery order. I hope the Secretary will study how the authorities may render 558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 assistance to these platform workers under the new normal. Trade unions have come across cases where couriers did not have any protection cover in the event of traffic accidents or other problems in the course of delivery. How can the authorities ensure that platform workers are provided with necessary protection?

Moreover, the Secretary stated in the main reply earlier that the authorities will take proactive law enforcement actions and labour inspectors will actively conduct inspections to provide protection. Given the large number of people joining digital platforms to take up food courier jobs, may I ask the Secretary whether the authorities have inspected their workplace; and if yes, of the number of inspections conducted?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, regarding the surprise inspections conducted each year in the past, as I do not have the breakdown on hand, I cannot provide a reply to this question.

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): President, regarding the so-called self-employment versus the genuine employment relationship, this is not merely a verbal claim. In fact, there are many court cases about ways to differentiate self-employment and employer-employee relationship, and the Government merely needs to list out all the criteria for the information of the persons concerned. This is most important.

As mentioned in the main reply today, there seems to be no official survey in this respect. Since the work of food couriers involves frequent travel, may I ask how the authorities can ensure that they will observe traffic safety rules and take out insurances, and so on? If they are self-employed, how can the authorities exercise regulation? As employer-employee relationship is the prerequisite for effective regulation, have the authorities made such arrangement and ensured that relevant inspections are conducted?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, as the Members said, if they are self-employed persons, there is no regulation under the existing laws. Certainly, in the promotion and education work carried out by LD, the persons concerned will be reminded that they must take out suitable insurance. If they are de facto employees, the Employment Ordinance and other LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 559 labour legislation will be applicable. Yet, as the Member said, the Court will consider a basket of factors. As to the circumstances under which a person will be considered as a de facto employee despite the claim of being self-employed, it depends on the specific arrangement concerned.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, first, I have to declare that that Deliveroo and foodpanda are clients of my company, yet I have not provided any services to these companies directly.

I would like the Secretary to provide some information. According to the statistics of the Transport Department, during the period between January and August 2020, there were 1 913 road accidents which involved motor cycles, an increase of 17% in comparison with that of last year, and the total number of accidents, including accidents involving bicycles, is 3 629 cases, a 30% increase over the same period. Road users, be they drivers or pedestrians, are somehow worried about these couriers doing delivery by motor cycles or bicycles.

I would like to ask the Secretary whether he has the statistics on traffic accidents relating to food couriers. Have the authorities examined whether or not the injured in such accidents have taken out personal accident insurance―I am not referring to the insurance on third person liability which is required under the law. May I ask the Secretary whether the authorities have examined if persons involved in such accidents have taken out medical or accident insurance on their own?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I simply do not have such collated information on hand.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, according to the Secretary's reply, the authorities seem to have taken a rather passive position. C&SD conducts survey at long intervals and the scope of the survey is relatively extensive. Which department or which policy of the Government can provide the estimated number of employees in various trades and industries? At present, these platform workers engaging in goods and food delivery services are operating in the cyber world. Is the Government incapable of identifying the trades or industries in which these people are engaged, are there any applicable labour 560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 policies or labour protection and whether there is abuse of policies or laws? Is regulation totally impossible? Does the Secretary get a rough idea about the problems from LD and LT only after such cases are reported? As a responsible Government, it should not adopt such a "Buddha-like" attitude. Should it conduct the necessary studies in advance and get hold of the policy work instead?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, as I said in the main reply, we can collect 20 000-odd household samples in each quarter through GHS. If the labour information is broken down by trades, the reliability will be extremely low. To cater to the needs of certain subjects, specific surveys have to be conducted. We consider regularly the need to conduct surveys on certain subjects, and C&SD will consult other departments in respect of these tasks.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): I hope the Secretary will provide the information I have requested just now, that is, the number of motor cycle and bicycle accidents which involved food couriers, and whether these people have taken out accident insurance.

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): As I said in my reply to a Member's supplementary question, we do not have the relevant information. We will see where we can obtain the relevant information.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fourth question. Mrs Regina IP.

(Mr Kenneth LEUNG indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

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

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, please do a headcount.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 561

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): Mrs Regina IP, please raise the fourth question.

Traffic problems at Borrett Road, Mid Levels

4. MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, it is learnt that Borrett Road at Mid Levels is a narrow, bendy and steep road with frequent occurrence of accidents. For instance, last month, a head-on collision between a motorcycle and a dump truck resulted in the death of the motorcyclist, and a private car running downhill lost control at a bend and fell off the slope, causing three injuries. During the school starting and finishing time, lunch break and holding of activities of the two nearby schools, a large number of private cars and school buses enter Borrett Road to pick up and drop off school children, causing traffic congestion. Moreover, there are heavy vehicles passing through Borrett Road from time to time which increases the traffic load there and makes traffic accidents prone to occur. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that heavy vehicles may enter Borrett Road within specified hours only if they hold a prohibited zone permit, of the respective numbers of drivers of heavy vehicles who were prosecuted, in each of the past three years, for entering Borrett Road without the permit and outside the permitted hours; the specific measures in place to reduce the use of Borrett Road by heavy vehicles;

(2) whether it will consider carrying out improvement works for Borrett Road, including widening the road and increasing the height of parapets at appropriate locations; and

(3) given that the new residential developments in the vicinity of Borrett Road will have their intake one after another, and the redevelopment of a school there will be completed in three years' time, of the 562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Government's measures to relieve the traffic load of Borrett Road in the long run, so as to prevent the traffic congestion problem there from worsening?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, Borrett Road at Mid-levels is a single two-lane two-way road of about 1 km long, connecting Kennedy Road and Bowen Road.

After consultation with the Transport Department ("TD") and the Hong Kong Police Force ("the Police"), my reply to the various parts of Mrs Regina IP's question is as follows:

(1) To restrict the use of Borrett Road by heavy vehicles, since 2012, TD has designated Borrett Road as a prohibited zone for heavy vehicles exceeding four tonnes in gross vehicle weight (except buses) and erected vehicle weight limit traffic signs thereat. Prior application to TD is required for such vehicles to travel via Borrett Road, and they have to obtain a prohibited zone permit issued by the Commissioner for Transport as well as comply with the conditions of the permit (including the permitted hours). The Police will take stringent enforcement actions against contraventions.

For Borrett Road, the Police issued 59, 82 and 31 fixed penalty tickets in 2018, 2019 and the first three quarters of 2020 respectively to heavy vehicle drivers contravening the vehicle weight limit traffic signs and the permitted hours specified in the permits. TD will continue to review the validity period, the number and the conditions of relevant prohibited zone permits in the light of the traffic conditions of Borrett Road in a timely manner, with a view to further reducing the number of heavy vehicles using Borrett Road.

(2) Similar to other roads in the Peak area, Borrett Road was built a long time ago, and there are considerable limitations on widening the road due to geographical constraints. Some sections of Borrett Road are on flyover structures, and the geographical environment is severe with steep slopes, old trees/stonewall trees or retaining walls on the roadside. In addition, the road is in close proximity to private land, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 563

historic buildings and monuments (e.g. the Annex Block of the Old British Military Hospital at No. 10 Borrett Road). These factors greatly hinder the road widening.

To improve road and driving safety at Borrett Road, apart from designating Borrett Road as a prohibited zone for vehicles exceeding four tonnes in gross vehicle weight (except buses), TD has implemented several traffic management and improvement measures. These include adding a "Keep Clear" road marking and a "No U-turn" traffic sign on the section of Borrett Road at its junction with Borrett Mansions to prohibit vehicles from stopping or making U-turn at the bend; and adding a black-and-white chevron marking at the bend of Borrett Road section between Bowen Road and Kennedy Road to alert motorists to the need to reduce travelling speed due to a sharp bend ahead.

TD also plans to impose a 24-hour "No stopping" zone at the bend of Borrett Road near Borrett Mansions, and add "Reduce Speed Now" traffic signs at appropriate bends to remind motorists to pay attention to driving safety. Separately, TD and the Highways Department ("HyD") have commenced a preliminary assessment on the feasibility of erecting and increasing the height of parapets at appropriate bends of Borrett Road. The preliminary assessment is expected to be completed in mid-2021.

(3) Overall, TD anticipates that the capacity of Borrett Road can cope with the potential increase of traffic flow arising from the completion of new residential developments and redevelopment of a school in the area. Regarding the occasional traffic congestion caused by large vehicles travelling from the opposite directions being unable to pass through the narrow section of Borrett Road near Borrett Mansions at the same time, TD is actively following it up with a view to addressing the issue. With reference to the experience gained from the installation of the Real-time Adaptive Traffic Signal System on Tai Tam Road (Dam Section) in 2018, TD proposed in 2019, when the traffic flow reduced as a result of the redevelopment of Island School, to install a similar traffic signal system at the above mentioned section of Borrett Road. Through 564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

the installation of sensors on traffic light poles and in the light of real-time traffic flow (e.g. the vehicle queue length) at the road junctions, appropriate allocation of green times could be derived. The system will operate round the clock and will make necessary adjustments in response to varying demands at different time periods or during unexpected traffic conditions, thereby facilitating alternate passing of vehicles travelling in both directions on Borrett Road in an orderly and safe manner.

During the works period for installing the above mentioned traffic signal system, it would be necessary to close some sections of Borrett Road temporarily so as to carry out cable laying works. To minimize the impact on nearby residents, the relevant road works will be conducted by phases. After local consultation and coordination with relevant government departments, the first phase of the works commenced in June 2020 and was completed in August 2020. The remaining works will commence progressively within this year, and the entire project is expected to be completed in mid-2021. Afterwards, there should be significant improvement to the road safety and traffic conditions on Borrett Road.

TD will continue to closely monitor the traffic conditions of Borrett Road as well as in the adjacent areas, actively coordinate with relevant departments to take appropriate follow-up work and expedite actions in order to facilitate the early implementation of various traffic and road safety improvement measures.

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, it is true that some sections of Borrett Road, being on flyover structures, can hardly be widened. It cannot possibly be demolished and rebuilt, can it? However, some other sections of the road are situated against hill slopes. Why can these sections not be dug deeper and moved further back? I felt perplexed, particularly when the Secretary said the road could not be widened because there was a monument, i.e. the Annex Block of the Old British Military Hospital. I wonder why it has to be preserved. I will also ask the Antiquities Advisory Board later why such buildings are preserved at the expense of residents' safety.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 565

The Secretary said that a black-and-white chevron marking would be added at the dangerous road junction, but actually, it has already been put in place. Secretary, at the location where a car recently fell off the slope, there is already a black-and-white chevron marking. But the parapets there are very low―The Secretary saw that too, did he not?―On the contrary, on some sections of the road which are not bendy, the parapets are two metres high, whereas those at that location are only one metre. Had there not been trees below, after the car fell off the slope, those three people in the car would have got into great danger and might even have fallen down to Kennedy Road.

Secretary, should TD or HyD not take responsibility for such low parapets at these bends?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mrs Regina IP for her supplementary question. There is indeed difficulty in widening certain sections of Borrett road. Nevertheless, there are many ways to resolve this problem. One of them is to add road markings, and Mrs Regina IP also touched on this point just now. As mentioned by me in the main reply earlier, the study on erecting and increasing the height of parapets and the works of installing the Real-time Adaptive Traffic Signal System are under way. Moreover, a heavy vehicle must be issued with a permit before it can use the road concerned. Work is progressing full steam on various fronts. For example, Tai Tam Road (Dam Section) is a single-lane road for two-way traffic. Since we launched the Real-time Adaptive Traffic Signal System a few years ago, there has been substantial improvement in road safety, vehicular flow as well as waiting time.

I believe we can properly address the current situation faced on Borrett Road through technology and the methods stated by me just now. We have been engaged in the relevant follow-up study and taken forward the work. I believe that after the relevant study and work are completed, there will be tangible improvement in the traffic conditions and road safety on Borrett Road.

MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): President, the road safety problem at Mid-levels on Hong Kong Island has been a long-standing issue, and that on Borrett Road can be considered an important district issue on Hong Kong Island over the years. I remember that in 2016, the Central and Western 566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

District Council exhaustively discussed this problem of Borrett Road. At that time the Government said that the Police would assist in maintaining traffic order during rush hours, and TD would require heavy vehicles to apply for permits, etc. It was hoped that these measures could ensure road safety on Borrett Road.

However, four years down the line, despite the implementation of these measures since 2016, we have seen the occurrence of more than one traffic accident on Borrett Road. One of the traffic accidents was even fatal. I wish to ask the Secretary whether the measures rolled out in the past few years were actually unable to resolve the road safety problem of Borrett Road. In fact, can the Bureau undertake when it can provide a thorough and complete solution to prevent recurrence of fatal traffic accidents on Borrett Road?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, the challenges faced in respect of Borrett Road and various old roads built at Mid-levels are by no means easy. Over the past five years, the Central and Western District Council has discussed the traffic problem of Borrett Road four times. As mentioned by Mr CHEUNG just now, it involves the feasibility study on widening Borrett Road, measures to resolve the problem of the bends and restrictions imposed by the permit. Besides, we have conducted a detailed study on the width of Borrett Road and the length of vehicles it can accommodate. In the light of this study, the Government has implemented a series of measures to tackle the problems mentioned just now. Regarding road widening, so long as it is technically feasible and does not involve any monument or private land, what can be done will be done. As regards resolving the problem of the bends, practicable work is being carried out to erect and increase the height of parapets. The way of handling the permit is also rather stringent. If need be, a highly restrictive permit will be issued. Currently, only six permits have been issued in respect of Borrett Road. Moreover, renewal and review will be conducted every three months. The width of the road and the length of vehicles, as pointed out by me just now, are also closely monitored, while TD and the Police will follow up very strictly.

As I mentioned just now, through the Real-time Adaptive Traffic Signal System and information technology, the traffic flow on Borrett Road can be adjusted in a timely manner. Based on the past experience of overseas countries, we anticipate that the traffic delay in different time periods can be improved by as much as 10% to 50%. Therefore, basically, we are confident LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 567 that after the implementation of the relevant road improvement works, including administrative measures and final installation of the Real-time Adaptive Traffic Signal System, there should be tangible improvement in the overall traffic conditions on Borrett Road.

We maintain a very open attitude. If Members present have any opinions, we are most willing to listen. As a matter of fact, over the past period, colleagues in TD and the Bureau have personally visited Borrett Road to conduct site inspections. TD, the Transport and Housing Bureau as well as other law enforcement agencies attach great importance to road safety. We will seriously follow up any issue relating to road safety.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, Borrett Road, the subject matter of the main reply, is certainly a black spot which warrants grave concern. Just now the Secretary also mentioned similar situations of, for example, Tai Tam Reservoir and further said that there were such cases in a number of places at Mid-levels on Hong Kong Island. Apart from the problems in certain districts raised by individual Members, I would like to find out whether the Government has generally adopted any precautionary measures for traffic black spots or places which need improvement, such as restrictions on large-size or heavy vehicles and traffic light arrangements, so that we do not have to take remedy actions only after an accident has occurred.

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr TSE for his supplementary question. Road safety and traffic conditions are indeed matters which have drawn much attention and concern from the people of Hong Kong. If my memory does not fail me, we initiated the Road Safety Audit in 2018 to conduct a series of thorough review on road safety across the territory, with a view to implementing improvement works in risky locations with regard to road design and interaction between vehicles and people. The relevant audit is in progress. If my memory serves me right, it should be completed at the end of this year or in the middle of next year.

Concerning the Real-time Adaptive Traffic Signal System mentioned just now, it is not because Members had raised questions in the Legislative Council that we took follow-up action. After drawing reference from the effectiveness of 568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 the system installed on Tai Tam Road (Dam Section), we pursued a study on locations where we saw potential risks. Relevant work will be taken forward if it is considered feasible after the study.

Now we have launched a meticulous study on five test points in five districts, including the junction of King Cho Road and Lim Cho Street in Lai King. It is expected that the works concerned will be completed in the fourth quarter of 2020. The other test points include the junction of Victoria Road and Sandy Bay Road in Pok Fu Lam, and the So Kwun Wat section of Castle Peak Road in Tuen Mun. Of course, as I mentioned just now, Borrett Road is among the five test points too. The remaining one is in Sham Shui Po. The relevant preliminary study is expected to be completed in 2021.

Basically, regarding road safety, when we foresee or actually see any risks or danger, TD and the government departments concerned will proactively conduct studies, make planning and take forward the relevant improvement works.

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary mentioned that to travel via Borrett Road, a heavy vehicle which weighs four tonnes or above must obtain a permit in advance, and it may enter only during the specified hours. I have noticed that in the past, during the implementation of a private residential development project there, the contractor of the project had arranged for workers to check at the road junction whether all the vehicles passing the road had obtained a permit, but this practice has stopped recently. I would like to know whether the vehicle, allegedly having knocked down and killed someone had obtained a permit. If it had not done so, what offence did the driver commit and what punishment will be meted out?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mrs Regina IP for her supplementary question. Concerning the question which Mrs IP has just asked, I have inspected that place earlier. The capital works of the new residential project concerned have been completed. The only six permits mentioned by me just now were issued solely for the redevelopment project of Island School. As regards the residential project, since the works have been completed, no more permit has been issued.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 569

Regarding the traffic accident resulting in the death of a motorcyclist mentioned by Mrs Regina IP just now, since it is under investigation, it is not appropriate for me to openly talk about it in the Council. I believe Mrs IP is also well aware of the details of the incident. If need be, I can personally make an explanation to Mrs IP after the meeting. However, since the investigation into the traffic accident is still going on, it is not appropriate for me to talk about this case here.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth question.

(Mr Charles Peter MOK indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, what is your point of order?

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, please do 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 Charles Peter MOK, please raise the fifth question.

Extension of the probation of an RTHK reporter

5. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): It has been reported that recently, an Assistant Programme Officer appointed on civil service probationary terms by Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") has been informed, before expiry of her three-year probationary period, that the RTHK management has 570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 decided to extend her probationary period by 120 days and to reopen the investigation into the complaints from the public against her. Some members of the public consider that the aforesaid decision is unusual and may be related to that staff member's performance in news covering at a government press conference held last year, and that RTHK has, after being pressurized by senior government management, punished by means of personnel arrangements the reporter who seeks the truth. They are of the view that such a move has undermined RTHK's editorial independence and public interest, and has weakened Hong Kong's image as a free and open society. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) among the RTHK staff members appointed under the regular civil service appointment procedure and tasked with programme production, of the respective numbers of those who, on completion of three years' service, (i) were converted to appointment on permanent terms, and (ii) continued to be employed on probationary terms (and the reasons for such an arrangement), in the past three years;

(2) whether the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau has instructed or advised RTHK to extend the probationary period of the aforesaid staff member, and to reopen the investigation into the complaints against that staff member; and

(3) of the completion date of the initial investigation conducted by RTHK into the complaints against that staff member; the justifications for RTHK to reopen the investigation, and the number of commendations received so far from members of the public regarding the work performance of that staff member?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, as regards the Member's main question, I consider that the nature of this question touches upon the appointment of an individual civil servant, which should not be discussed publicly at a Legislative Council meeting. The Government all along does not comment on the appointment of individual civil servants publicly, including performance of individual staff, or details concerning individual cases of appointment or non-appointment, as such practice will not be appropriate to the staff and the department. Meanwhile, I need to state firmly that we do not agree with the allegations against the Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 571 quoted in the main question. In fact, the appointment matters of civil servants have all along been handled in accordance with the established mechanism and procedures of the government departments. Therefore, as for the Member's question, we can only provide a general response without violating the aforementioned principle.

President, being a government department, the operation and human resources management of the Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") must abide by all relevant rules and regulations applicable to government departments and government employees, including the Civil Service Code as well as relevant rules and regulations on personnel management, such as those relating to appointment, termination of service, conduct and discipline, training and development and conditions of service, etc. The personnel management and enforcement of rules on the aforementioned aspects are handled in accordance with the mechanism. RTHK is no exception. Whether the newly recruited employees of RTHK are offered further appointment after the completion of their probationary or agreement period, is solely handled and decided by RTHK as the appointment authority in accordance with the aforementioned requirements. Hence, may I invite Members to respect the aforementioned principle which must be complied with, when raising follow-up questions in a short while. I will address Members' questions based on this principle.

As regards the enquiry about the number of staff appointed by RTHK in the main question, from 2017 till now, 202 staff of the Programme Officer grade of RTHK were offered further appointment on New Permanent Terms after being employed on New Probationary Terms or New Agreement Terms for a period of three years. During the same period, one staff was not offered further appointment after being employed on New Agreement Terms for a period of three years, and another two staff were not offered further appointment on New Permanent Terms after being employed on New Agreement Terms for a period of three years.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, not commenting publicly on individual cases is a useful shield for the Secretary. Since the President of the Legislative Council has approved this main question, I naturally expect the Secretary to give a response instead of finding excuses to evade the question. Hence, President, I am very dissatisfied with the Secretary's main reply.

572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

My main question is whether the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau has interfered in RTHK by, for example, implanting administration officers in RTHK for interference and remediation purposes? The Secretary has not answered these questions at all. This situation is extremely unusual according to RTHK staff. Is it meant to achieve deterrent effects by punishing some outspoken frontline reporters, demanding self-censorship and obedience from them?

President, I have raised my queries in the main question, but the Secretary did not give any response. Why did RTHK management reopen the investigation that have already completed? Moreover, has the Director of Broadcasting been sidelined? President, these are all policy issues that the Secretary cannot evade answering.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I have already replied to Mr Charles Peter MOK's main question. I have pointed out a very important principle in the main reply, and that is, the appointment of civil servants has all along been handled in accordance with established rules. Moreover, it is unfair to the department and the staff to discuss publicly the appointment of an individual civil servant. This is my solemn reply.

As for the other allegations made by Mr Charles Peter MOK, I find them unfounded. Therefore, I must point out that I do not agree with these statements and do not wish Members to raise leading questions and make unnecessary speculations based on the restrictions I was subjected to in the main reply.

(Mr Charles Peter MOK indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, what is your point of order?

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I would like to raise a point of order. But first, I wish to protest. The President has approved this main question, yet the Administration did not give any written or oral response. It even went so far as to restrict and instruct Members how to raise questions in the reply.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 573

President, do the Executive Authorities have the authority to teach Members how to raise questions? Are you not the only person who has this authority?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not a point of order. The Secretary's reply is provided by the Secretary. I will approve questions raised by Members as long as they are in order. It is up to the Secretary as to how the reply is made.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): In other words, I am not out of order.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You are not out of order, but the Secretary is at liberty to decide how to reply.

(Mr Charles Peter MOK spoke while standing in his seat and continued to raise questions)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The point you have raised is not a point of order and I have already answered your question.

Mr SHIU Ka-chun, please raise your supplementary question.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary stated that he would not comment on individual cases and would give a general response only.

I ask the Secretary to also give a general response to this: I noticed that the Civil Service Bureau has issued a circular after the Hong Kong National Security Law had come to effect, requiring civil servants appointed on or after 1 July this year to sign a declaration stating that they will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Although the requirement is applicable to civil servants appointed on or after 1 July this year only, will it be extended to RTHK staff, including this particular staff member 574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 about whom Mr Charles Peter MOK is concerned? Will the requirement be extended to civil servants other than those appointed on or after 1 July this year as well?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you wish to give a response?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, Mr SHIU's question falls in the policy purview of the Civil Service Bureau. I do not have the specific information on hand. However, generally speaking, both current and newly appointed civil servants have their employment terms and arrangements. The Civil Service Bureau will state clearly should it impose any requirement on existing civil servants. I believe that this is crystal clear and do not see any relation between these requirements and the individual case mentioned by Members.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. I asked the Secretary whether the requirement will be extended to civil servants appointed after 1 July?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I let the Secretary reply to your supplementary question even though it has actually deviated from the scope of the main question, and the Secretary has replied to your supplementary question.

Mr KWONG Chun-yu, please raise your supplementary question.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, the biggest mistake made by this Assistant Programme Officer of RTHK was raising the right question because she voiced out the feelings of Hong Kong people by asking Carrie LAM to "speak like a human being". It is the duty of the media to raise piercing questions to the rich and powerful. Yet, she has become the target of petty tricks for this. Her probationary period, which should have expired, has been extended for 120 days for no reason and the investigation against her has been LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 575 reopened. What is it except exerting pressure? Do the authorities think this can "take down" that staff member?

In merely two days, RTHK has received 13 000 letters commending this reporter for her courage and for speaking out righteously. The formidable Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, who is said to be running for Chief Executive in the future, only knows how to bully the media and reporters. This is not the first time that he has done so. Till when does he intend to bully them? Instead of doing serious work, he bullies a female reporter. It has been the case both this time and last time.

Secretary, let me tell you. Hong Kong media cannot be taken down. As the Secretary, you should not interfere in or exert pressure on the media. President, my supplementary question is: till when does the Secretary intend to bully Hong Kong reporters and media? Please ask him to answer.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, the allegations made by Mr KWONG just now are, first, untrue; and second, irrelevant to the main question. Most importantly, the main question touches upon the situation of a civil servant. As I have clearly explained, a response like this seeks to protect the staff member and ensure that the department handles the case fairly under the existing mechanism.

I entirely deny the allegations that Mr KWONG made against me just now in relation to the media and reporters. I found them untrue and unfair.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, I would like to clarify that it is not an allegation. The Secretary's intention to run in the Chief Executive election in the future is obvious to all.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, please point out direct the part of your supplementary question not answered.

576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my question. Till when does he intend to bully reporters and the media? This is not the first time that he has done so.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG, please sit down. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, it is an unfounded allegation.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, although Mr Charles Peter MOK has not mentioned the name of the RTHK staff member who is being suppressed, the identity of this person is already too obvious. This Assistant Programme Officer of RTHK asked the Chief Executive at a press conference after 21 July whether she slept well and whether the "21 July" incident was a collusion among the Government, triads and the Police. Hong Kong media, in particular RTHK, is being suppressed ruthlessly. This reporter has completed the three-year probationary period, yet it has to be extended by 120 days. As everyone thinks that it was political suppression, Eugene FUNG, who has an administration officer background, spoke on behalf of the Civil Service Bureau, claiming that the promotion and appointment on permanent terms of civil servants depend on a number of factors, including individual performance, competency at work and temperament.

I would like to ask the Secretary if the required temperament is actually rather simple. As long as one has the temperament of a lackey who knows how to lick the boots just like Carrie LAM or the Secretary, one can be promoted, complete the probationary period and get the contract. Is that right?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, as I have clearly pointed out in the main reply just now, and I believe Members raising the main question or supplementary question clearly understand, that the appointment or promotion of civil servants is based on requirements such as individual work performance. This rule cannot be any clearer. As for the one-sided, biased and erroneous allegations made by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 577

Member in regard to this case, I can only remind Member again that it is inappropriate. Moreover, the appointment of civil servants is handled according to certain rules which are applicable to all government departments, including RTHK which is a government department. It is clear that we have all along been upholding this principle. President, this is my answer.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, my question is very clear. I asked him what kind of temperament is required. Is it the temperament of a lackey who knows how to lick the boots?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please point out direct the part of your supplementary question not answered.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): If that is not the case, can he answer me what kind of temperament is required for civil servants to sail through?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you have already pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. Please sit down. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I believe I have given a clear answer, although Member may not have heard it.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, has the Secretary known beforehand the decision of Mr Eugene FUNG, Deputy Director of Broadcasting, to reopen the investigation against this staff member beforehand? This is a very simple question. Would the Secretary please give a frank answer?

578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, as I have said in the main reply, the relevant department is responsible for the appointment or contract renewal of its civil servants. It is solely handled by the relevant management personnel. The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, as the Policy Bureau, will not interfere in its personnel affairs. However, we will certainly monitor the department in accordance with the Charter. Simply put, the case is handled by the department.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, my question just now is actually very simple and I just want a simple answer from the Secretary. Was he aware of the decision prior to its announcement?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YEUNG, You have already pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, first, I have given a comprehensive answer to Member's question; second, Mr Alvin YEUNG attempted to seek information on this case from me. However, as I have pointed out clearly in the main reply, it is inappropriate to discuss publicly the appointment or promotion of a civil servant at a Legislative Council meeting. For this reason, I will only give my earlier answer.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, in part (3) of the main question, I enquired about the number of commendations or opinions received regarding that staff member, but the Secretary has not answered me. He did not even say that such statistics were not available. As a matter of fact, there were such statistics. As Mr KWONG Chun-yu has pointed out just now, there were some 13 000 commendation letters according to RTHK and perhaps more now. More than 60 000 people have signed in a signature campaign initiated online as far as I understand it.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 579

President, the Secretary continues to use "individual case" as an excuse to avoid confirming and providing these figures in the main reply, is he ignoring public opinions and the support received by that staff member? Does he intend to use "individual case" as a shield?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, same as the previous questions, if this supplementary question involves discussion on this case, I have already given a clear explanation earlier. Public recognition is certainly part of the performance evaluation of civil servants. Similarly, mistakes or errors made are also part of the performance evaluation. Both aspects are equally important and we will examine them as a whole.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last oral question. Dr Helena WONG.

(Mr WU Chi-wai indicated his wish to request a headcount)

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'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is now present in the Chamber. The meeting now continues.

Dr Helena WONG, please raise the sixth question.

(Some Members spoke in their seats)

580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

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

Discussing the topic of Hong Kong independence in lessons

6. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Last month, the Education Bureau ("EDB") cancelled the registration of a primary school teacher on the ground that he had prepared lesson plans and learning materials that involved a well-planned dissemination of the message of Hong Kong independence, which constituted a serious professional misconduct. On the other hand, the Secretary for Education indicated earlier on that it was unnecessary to discuss in lessons the topic of Hong Kong independence; should such discussion be made, the conclusion that Hong Kong independence is infeasible must be reached. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) why EDB rejected the request of the teacher concerned for making an oral representation; as it has been reported that an internal investigation conducted by the school in which the teacher worked concluded that the teacher had not been found to have disseminated the message of Hong Kong independence in a well-planned manner, why EDB's investigation reached an opposite conclusion;

(2) whether EDB, when handling the case, had considered the teaching situation in the lessons concerned, including the fact that the video clips played covered both views supporting and dissenting on Hong Kong independence (e.g. the Chief Executive's remark that Hong Kong independence violates "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law); if not, whether it has assessed if it is unfair for EDB to conclude, solely on the basis of the lesson plans and an incomplete investigation, that the teacher concerned had disseminated the message of Hong Kong independence in a well-planned manner, and whether EDB will consider withdrawing its decision of cancelling the registration of the teacher concerned; and

(3) whether it has assessed if the aforesaid remark made by the Secretary for Education has created a restricted area for academic exploration, infringed upon the academic freedom enjoyed by educational institutions under the Basic Law, and impeded students' thinking in multiple perspectives?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 581

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): Deputy President, teachers play a vital role in passing on knowledge and nurturing students' character. Their words and deeds have a far-reaching impact on students' growth. Parents and the community at large expect our teachers to possess not only solid professional knowledge but also high moral standards. Their words and deeds must meet the professional conduct and moral standards generally accepted by the community.

The Education Bureau ("EDB") has the responsibility to monitor the quality of school education in accordance with the Education Ordinance. According to section 47 of the Education Ordinance, if the Permanent Secretary for Education ("PS(Ed)") considers that the teacher is incompetent or the person concerned is not fit and proper to serve as a teacher, PS(Ed) may cancel the teacher registration of that person.

EDB is the authority for registration of teachers and handles teacher registration matters in accordance with the law. Being the authority for the formulation, implementation and monitoring of education policies in Hong Kong, EDB also has the responsibility to ensure that teachers teach properly so that students can grow healthily and contribute to the society in the future. The quality of teachers is one of the keys to quality education. Any misconduct of teachers will have a serious and harmful effect on students' development and will be detrimental to the future development of our society in the long run. The community generally considers that it is beyond doubt that EDB should monitor the professional conduct of teachers. If a teacher is suspected of committing professional misconduct, we must deal with it in a prudent and serious manner, and take appropriate actions in accordance with the law to safeguard students' well-being, uphold the dignity of the teaching profession and maintain society's confidence in the teaching profession. It also does justice to the majority of teachers who are professional and responsible.

In September this year, EDB cancelled the registration of a teacher for the serious professional misconduct of dissemination of the message of "Hong Kong independence" in class. It is clearly stated in the Basic Law that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China, and that any proposals advocating "Hong Kong independence" runs against "one country, two systems", the Basic Law as well as the overall and long-term interest of the society of Hong Kong. Any proposals 582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 or activities advocating "Hong Kong independence" must not exist in school campuses. If students have questions on related topics, teachers should help them correctly understand the constitutional and legal status of HKSAR under the Basic Law, and understand that HKSAR is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China and it is a local administrative region which enjoys a high degree of autonomy. Also, teachers should guide students to develop a correct concept about our country and promote students' sense of national identity.

My reply to the question raised by Dr Helena WONG is as follows:

(1) and (2)

All along, EDB has been handling cases of suspected professional misconduct of teachers in a prudent, lawful and reasonable manner.

Regarding this case of cancellation of registration, when we received the complaint in September last year, we immediately requested the school to conduct an investigation and submit a report. We also sent officers to the school to conduct an investigation. Upon receiving the school's report, EDB thoroughly examined the relevant lesson plan, teaching materials and worksheet as well as the report submitted by the school and the explanations given by the teacher to the school. During the process, EDB also invited the teacher concerned twice to submit written explanations, informing the teacher that we intended to cancel his registration, so that he would fully understand the severity of the case before submitting his further representation. The teacher concerned also sought legal advice in this regard.

After carefully considering the nature of the whole event, the explanations and justifications given by the teacher as well as all the relevant information, EDB considered that this was a very serious case. In order to safeguard students' interest, uphold the professionalism of teachers as well as the society's confidence in the teaching profession, PS(Ed) decided to cancel the teacher's registration pursuant to section 47 of the Education Ordinance.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 583

I must point out that the purpose for EDB to require schools to investigate and submit reports is to allow schools to provide relevant information of the cases, the basic analyses and follow-up actions at school level. In tandem, EDB will also consider all other relevant factors and information, including the existing legislations, EDB guidelines, visions, goals and aims of the curriculum, to review whether the education of the students is promoted in a proper manner by the teachers concerned. The school management has the responsibility to supervise the conduct of teachers and the content of the school-based curriculum. If it is found and confirmed that the school management should be held responsible upon analysis, EDB will also take follow-up actions. As a matter of fact, we have received quite a number of complaints which queried individual schools' handling of suspected misconduct of teachers and requested EDB to follow up the cases actively. Therefore, EDB cannot and does not necessarily fully accept the conclusions of investigation report of each school. We trust that members of the community will not accept it if EDB does not conduct any analysis or exercise any professional judgment.

Regarding Dr WONG's question about details of the aforesaid case of cancellation of registration, the teacher concerned has appealed in accordance with section 61 of the Education Ordinance. The teacher can then make an oral defense before the Appeal Board. In view of the ongoing appeal procedures, it is not appropriate for us to make further response or supplement on the case details, lest we should affect the conduct of the appeal.

(3) It has always been the goals and aims of the school curriculum to enable students to learn about the development of our country and strengthen their sense of national identity. Teachers have the responsibility to help students gain a correct understanding of our country and the inseparable relationship between our country and Hong Kong, as well as strengthen their sense of national identity. The concept of "Hong Kong independence" obviously violates the Basic Law and "one country, two systems", and does not align with the goals of the curriculum to help students develop a sense of 584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

national identity. EDB has the duty to ensure that the learning activities arranged for students by schools are in line with the goals of the curriculum so as to safeguard students' well-being.

As educators, teachers should be familiar with the visions, goals and aims of the curriculum. Their teaching must be in line with the principle of the rule of law and the school curriculum so as to impart correct knowledge and concepts to students, guide students to distinguish right from wrong and instil in them a correct sense of values. Teachers should never spread incorrect values or law-breaking concepts to students on the pretext of "academic freedom" or "thinking from multiple perspectives". Furthermore, freedom of expression is not absolute and is subject to certain restrictions, including the necessary restrictions for the purpose of respecting other people's rights, protecting national security and public order or public health or morality.

Academic freedom enjoyed by educational institutions of all kinds is an important social value treasured by Hong Kong and is protected by the Basic Law. However, the case in question has nothing to do with academic freedom.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I think that the Secretary should know very well that only EDB can handle teacher registration. The cancellation of the registration of this teacher equals death penalty since he can no longer work as a teacher in the future. Thus the Bureau shall not deal with this matter in a rash manner. My supplementary question is why the conclusion of the investigation of the Bureau is the total opposite of that of the investigation of the school. The Secretary says that many other relevant factors were considered, but these factors surprisingly did not include the actual teaching in class. The Secretary might probably need to consider many political factors, but could he, put this teacher to death by cancelling his registration simply because he had been threatened or complained against? Deputy President, if the Bureau says that it cancelled the registration of the teacher due to his dissemination of the message of "Hong Kong independence" in a well-planned manner, it is actually treating him unjustly …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 585

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, please state your supplementary question directly.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): … the Bureau should basically withdraw the decision to cancel the registration. Deputy President, I think that the Secretary for Education's reply to part (3) of my question indicates that he does not understand what are academic freedom and thinking from multiple perspectives. The Secretary says that the case in question has nothing to do with academic freedom, but how can it actually be true? He has imposed restrictions on the issues that can be explored in school campuses …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, please state your supplementary question directly.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): … has he designated a restricted area such that people are not allowed to discuss "Hong Kong independence"? The Secretary further says that should such discussion be held, it must be pointed out that there is no place for "Hong Kong independence". It means that students can only be politically indoctrinated and brainwashed …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, have you stated your supplementary question? You have made quite a number of personal arguments.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): … rather than think critically from multiple perspectives? Deputy President, I am putting this supplementary question to him. He does not understand what is meant by academic freedom …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have stated your supplementary question.

586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): … is he telling us that education should regress to political indoctrination and brainwashing that forbid the exploration of the issue of "Hong Kong independence" from multiple perspectives?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, you have stated your supplementary question. Please stop speaking.

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): Deputy President, this is a right-versus-wrong issue, and "Hong Kong independence" is not an issue that can be explored. I do not know whether Dr WONG considers "Hong Kong independence" feasible deep in her heart, and if that is the case, she can make it clear here. I believe people present have all sworn to uphold the Basic Law under the Basic Law, which clearly states that HKSAR is an inalienable part of our country. I do not know why Dr WONG considers that people can discuss at school whether "Hong Kong independence" is feasible.

It is our requirement that if students raise any question, school teachers are duty-bound to provide them with an explanation, but at the time of explaining, they must tell them that "Hong Kong independence" is not in line with the Basic Law and the Constitution. From the perspective of either history or reality, "Hong Kong independence" is not feasible, and this has nothing to do with freedom of speech and academic freedom. Since Dr WONG has sworn to uphold the Basic Law in this Chamber, she would, I believe, also agree that "Hong Kong independence" is not feasible on the existing constitutional basis. She has no reason to query me as the Secretary for Education as to why students are not allowed to discuss this issue at schools. I do not quite understand her line of thinking, and I do not know how to give her a reply.

(Dr Helena WONG stood in her seat while speaking)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, I think you have stated your supplementary question, and the Secretary has given a reply. In this session, you can only point out the part of your supplementary question which has not been answered by the Secretary. As you are further making your arguments LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 587 by way of raising a point of order, I must order you to stop speaking. Dr WONG, please sit down.

Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, please state your supplementary question.

MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it is certainly the goals and aims of the school curriculum to enable students to learn about the development of our country and strengthen their sense of national identity. I believe most schools can do a good job in this connection. That said, upon completion of investigation of the complaint, EDB refuses to make public the information concerned and fails to tell which school has what sort of problems. In my view, EDB basically connives at students' well-being and parents' right to know being overridden in the name of academic autonomy. As such, my supplementary question is as follows. How can EDB ensure, as stated in the main reply, that the learning activities arranged for students by schools are in line with the goals of the curriculum? Will it provide official teaching materials for the reference of teachers and parents?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in our daily work we enable schools to know the curriculum goals and aims of various subjects through clear syllabuses and curriculum guides. As I have stated in the main reply, a professional teacher should understand the goals and aims of the curriculum, and must comply with these goals and aims in compiling teaching materials and in the process of teaching. In its work, EDB monitors teaching and learning at schools through external school reviews, focus inspections or curriculum development visits.

However, we must understand that as far as teaching and learning at schools are concerned, schools themselves should take primary responsibility. The school management and officers of various subjects should prepare the lessons together and join hands to oversee education at the entire school. For this reason, members of the community or parents can raise any problem they detect, and the school is duty-bound to explain to them as to how each subject taught at the classroom is in line with the goals concerned. EDB is also duty-bound to oversee matters in this regard. If we receive any complaint in this connection, we will seriously follow it up, so as to ensure schools or teachers comply with curriculum goals and aims in their daily lessons.

588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): The Secretary has failed to answer my supplementary question. Secretary, I just …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, you should only point out the part of your supplementary question which has not been answered.

MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): The Secretary has failed to give me a reply as to whether official teaching materials will be provided.

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we provide teaching resources from time to time, and we have recently published some teaching materials on Hong Kong's return to China and the Basic Law. We have all along been keeping an eye on our overall teaching needs and social development, and we publish various teaching materials on certain subjects on an ongoing basis. Certainly, following the publication of teaching materials, we will request schools and teachers to consider using such materials as far as possible, having regard to classroom needs. However, as for the selection of which type of teaching materials is actually the best, professional teachers still has their professional consideration.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Dr Helena WONG has clearly queried in her main question the fairness of the investigation of EDB. The investigation report of the school indicates that the teacher had not been found to have disseminated the message of "Hong Kong independence" in a well-planned manner, but EDB has stated otherwise. How has EDB come to such a conclusion? Today I have raised a written question separately, which refers to many procedures and mentions that EDB took the investigation into its own hands. It conducted the investigation and handed down the ruling on its own, rejecting even the teacher's request for making an oral representation. In that case, how can we ensure that the investigation and ruling are fair?

Deputy President, I think that this is a very serious issue. I would like to specifically raise the following supplementary question. As indicated in the main reply, the teacher can make an oral defense on appeal. But the problem is why he was not allowed to make an oral defense before the conclusion of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 589 investigation and the cancellation of his registration. Why is he allowed to make an oral defense in the future only after the cancellation of his registration? Is there any stipulation that forbids the Government from doing so? Why is fairness a secondary issue? Why is there no need to ensure fairness?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, you have stated your supplementary question. Secretary, please give a reply.

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the question raised by the Honourable Member today is very strange. Mr IP has been a senior Member representing the education sector for years. We have implemented this system for years. In all these years, he never raised such a question when we cancelled the registration of certain teachers. This year, he has suddenly raised this question, which I believe is very strange.

Under the system concerned, we give teachers ample opportunity to make a representation. As for whether this is an oral defense, we have adopted the same practice over the years, namely allowing teachers to submit written explanations. In this case, the teacher had the opportunity twice to submit his written explanations. In the investigation conducted by the school, he could certainly express his views, but we also gave him the opportunity twice. Following his first representation, we specifically notified him that we would very likely cancel his registration, so that he might submit his further representation. He sought assistance from lawyers and legal counsel in submitting his representation, in which he raised his arguments in detail for consideration and final decision by the Permanent Secretary for Education.

Pursuant to the law, there is a certain procedure for cancellation of registration, and PS(Ed) shall consider whether the registration should be cancelled. In addition, there is an appeal mechanism, under which there is the Appeal Board, and one may lodge an appeal before the Chief Executive in Council. For this reason, we must examine the overall system rather than a particular part when making our decision. The law empowers the Permanent Secretary to handle matters concerning registration of teachers and cancellation of registration. In dealing with this case, we have followed our established practice over the years and complied with the law.

590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, schools can certainly discuss "Hong Kong independence", but they must focus on the negative or harmful impacts of "Hong Kong independence". As indicated by the Secretary, we must teach students that "Hong Kong independence" violates the Basic Law, and those who champion "Hong Kong independence" will even violate the National Security Law for HKSAR. A parallel example is that drug-taking can be taught at schools, but the contents of teaching must be the harmful impacts of drug-taking, and students must be taught not to engage in drug-taking and drug trafficking. For this reason, Secretary, if a teacher designs a set of teaching materials that illustrate drug-taking and ways to purchase drugs with pictures and words, and says that drug-taking helps one to calm nerves before asking students to indicate whether they support drug-taking by show of hands, parents in Hong Kong will, I believe, certainly consider that this teacher is not fit and proper to be a teacher and should be dismissed. Does the Secretary agree that his saying will infringe upon the academic freedom enjoyed by educational institutions, and impede students' thinking from multiple perspectives?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I absolutely agree with what Mr TSE has said. In terms of teaching and learning at primary and secondary schools, certain conditions and rules must be considered, including refraining from mistakenly teaching students to commit unlawful acts or acts that harm the body or behave in a socially unacceptable way. Mr TSE has just given an obvious example. If a teacher designs teaching materials that boast in a biased way about the so-called positive impacts of drugs while failing to mention the negative impacts―we know that drug-taking basically has no positive impacts―it is simply unacceptable to beautify the negative impacts as positive. If we know that such a thing has happened on the part of the teacher, we will certainly seriously deal with it. We will certainly examine how this has happened, but we will very likely consider cancelling his registration, so that he will have no further opportunity to harm students. I would like to thank the Honourable Member.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Oral questions end here.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 591

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Prevention of cruelty to animals

7. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that in February this year, 30 animals were suspected to have been thrown from height in Sham Tseng, among which 18 died and 12 were injured. Last month, the Department of Justice ("DoJ") decided, after reviewing the findings of the Police's investigation, not to initiate prosecutions against the suspects involved in the case on grounds that the totality of the evidence was insufficient to establish a reasonable prospect of conviction. DoJ's decision has aroused strong dissatisfaction and queries among the public, and some members of the public have criticized the Government for disregarding justice and animal life by condoning perpetrators of cruelty to animals. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether DoJ can give an account of the basis for reaching the conclusion that the totality of the evidence was insufficient to establish a reasonable prospect of conviction in the aforesaid case, so as to allay public concerns;

(2) whether DoJ will review afresh the totality of the evidence in the aforesaid case and consider initiating prosecutions against the suspects concerned, so as to seek justice for the animals that died or were injured in the case;

(3) as DoJ has reportedly said that it would take follow-up actions if the law enforcement agencies uncovered new evidence and sought legal advice from DoJ in relation to the case, whether the law enforcement agencies have conducted afresh investigations into the case, with a view to finding new evidence for DoJ to consider the institution of prosecutions; if so, of the progress and the anticipated time needed; if not, the reasons for that;

(4) given that the offences in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) are only triable summarily but there is no time limit prescribed in the Ordinance for initiating prosecution, and it is stipulated in the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap. 227) that the time limit for prosecution under such circumstances should be six months, whether the Government will expeditiously amend Cap. 169 to 592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

stipulate a longer time limit for prosecution, so as to afford the law enforcement agencies more time to investigate cases relating to cruelty to animals; if so, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and

(5) whether it will consider amending the legislation to extend the requirement that dog owners must arrange to have their dogs microchipped to encompass cats and other types of animals which are commonly kept, so as to facilitate the tracing of the identities of the keepers and ensure that they fulfil the duty of care to take proper care of the animals they keep?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, having consulted the Department of Justice ("DoJ") and the Security Bureau, my response to the question is as follows:

(1) to (3)

Regarding the incident about animals suspected to have been thrown from height in Sham Tseng, the Police had launched a full investigation immediately after receiving the report, and submitted the investigation results to DoJ after completing the investigation. As for DoJ, in making a decision of whether or not to prosecute in each case, prosecutors must make an objective and professional assessment of the available evidence and applicable law, and act in accordance with the Prosecution Code. If there is no reasonable prospect of conviction, the prosecuting department will not commence a prosecution.

Having taken into account all relevant evidence in the case referred to in the question, DoJ considered that there was insufficient evidence to support a reasonable prospect of conviction, and thus decided not to commence a prosecution.

(4) and (5)

The Government proposes to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) to further safeguard animal welfare. Proposed amendments include introducing a positive duty of care on LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 593

persons responsible for animals to provide for their welfare needs, as well as to enhance the provisions for prevention of animal cruelty and enforcement powers to prevent and protect animals from suffering, including the introduction of an indictable offence for severe cases of cruelty. For an indictable offence, there is no time limit for the commencement of a prosecution. The Government conducted a public consultation on the above proposals last year and reported the results of the consultation to the Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene Panel of the Legislative Council in April this year. We understand the public's concerns and expectations towards the legislative amendment. We will draft the legislation expeditiously and introduce the bill to the Legislative Council as soon as possible.

The Rabies Regulation (Cap. 421A) provides that any dog over the age of five months is required to be vaccinated, implanted with a microchip and licensed. The primary purpose of the provisions is to prevent and control the spread of rabies more effectively. The risk of infected cats spreading rabies is relatively lower than that of infected dogs, and the Government currently has no plans to extend the requirement to cats and other commonly kept animals. We understand that for a number of overseas places that have imposed a duty of care onto persons responsible for animals under their legislation, they also do not impose a microchipping requirement for cats or other animals. These places generally do not confine the persons with positive duty of care for an animal to the owner, but also include the persons in charge of, or having custody of the animal, whether permanently or temporarily.

Non-compliant display items on Government land

8. MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Chinese): President, when this year's National Day was drawing near, some members of the public flowed national flags on the streets and at public places in various districts to express patriotic sentiments and create festive atmosphere. However, they were confused and outraged upon the removal of all these national flags by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") on the National Day. They pointed out that while FEHD had swiftly removed such display items, it had not removed, after a prolonged 594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 period of time, those display items on the "Lennon Walls" in various districts which contained words that incited hatred and caused social dissension, arousing the suspicion of favouritism. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of (i) the handling procedure generally followed by FEHD after non-compliant display items were found on government land, and (ii) the average time taken by FEHD to remove the display items concerned, in the past 12 months;

(2) of the procedure followed by FEHD prior to removing the display items on the Lennon Walls, and the average time taken for removing the display items on each of the Lennon Walls since June last year; how such procedure and the time taken compare with the procedure followed and the time taken for removing the aforesaid national flags; if there are significant differences between the two, of the reasons for that; and

(3) whether the Government may, under the existing policy, adopt a lenient approach in handling display items related to the National Day (especially display items such as national flags that manifest the sovereignty of the State), e.g. removing such items only after the National Day; whether the Government will proactively support activities that are held to manifest the sovereignty of the State (e.g. demarcating designated locations in various districts for members of the public to lawfully display related items before and after the National Day); if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the Chief Secretary for Administration's Office, Home Affairs Bureau, Security Bureau and Transport and Housing Bureau, I provide a consolidated reply to the Member's question as follows:

(1) and (2)

The display of bills or posters on Government land without permission is handled under the purview of a number of Government departments. If it involves public places on Government land, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 595

Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") will, in accordance with the established procedures, work with relevant government departments to conduct clean-up exercise, and carry out joint operations with regard to the locations concerned, actual work required and available resources where necessary. As for the sites/facilities managed by individual departments, the departments concerned will take actions on their own as appropriate.

The Government has been closely monitoring the situation of unauthorized display of bills or posters in public places on Government land (including those commonly known as "Lennon Walls"). FEHD will continue to conduct joint operations with relevant government departments to remove these display items. As of 18 October this year, relevant departments have conducted joint clean-up operations at about 340 locations across the territory where unauthorized display of bills or posters is present. FEHD does not maintain statistics on the average time taken for removal of display items.

According to the records of FEHD, the Department had not removed any national flag in any location during the period before or after the National Day this year. Regarding a recent media report on the removal of national flags in Sham Shui Po, the Highways Department ("HyD") advised that they were notified by the Police on 1 October that poles hung with flags were found fastened to the top of some street lights and traffic signs with plastic straps in Sham Shui Po, which might pose danger to road users. HyD subsequently arranged for contractors to remove the flags and poles, and rendered the removed items to the Police for retention.

(3) The Home Affairs Department will work out the appropriate procedures with relevant government departments for local/community organizations to apply for approval for banners in celebration of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") Establishment Day and the National Day.

With regard to the display of the national flag, the "Stipulations for the Display and Use of the National Flag and National Emblem and the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem" ("the Stipulations") was made by the Chief Executive under section 3(2) of the National Flag 596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

and National Emblem Ordinance and section 3(1) of the Regional Flag and Regional Emblem Ordinance. The first two paragraphs of the Stipulations set out the locations where the national and/or regional flags shall be displayed each day or on each working day, National Day, HKSAR Establishment Day and New Year's Day. Since the national flag is a symbol of national sovereignty, the HKSAR Government must be very cautious in the choice of location to ensure that the national flag will be hoisted at a suitable location with dignity and respect. At present, the national and regional flags are displayed every day at the official residences of the Chief Executive, Government House, all boundary control and check points of HKSAR, Hong Kong International Airport and the Golden Bauhinia Square. The flags are also displayed on each working day and on the three specified days at all major government buildings, such as the office of the Chief Executive, the Executive Council, the Legislative Council, the Central Government Offices, the law courts in HKSAR, Government departmental headquarters, Government composite buildings and public sports and cultural venues, as well as various public bodies such as the Airport Authority Hong Kong, Hong Kong Monetary Authority, Hospital Authority and Hong Kong Housing Authority. Individual government departments and public bodies may consider to display the national and regional flags at other suitable locations and on days other than those specified days after considering operational needs, actual circumstances and whether the location at which the flag is displayed is a solemn and appropriate setting, etc. Currently, government departments and public bodies display the national and regional flags at over 350 locations on the specified days.

As for the general public, the display of the national flag must comply with the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance. In gist, it is prohibited to use a damaged national flag and desecrate the national flag by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it. Also, the national flag should be displayed at a suitable location with dignity and respect. Members of the public who wish to display the national flag at public places or within Government buildings should first make requests to the departments concerned and comply with the requirements stipulated under relevant regulations and ordinances.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 597

New Territories North Development

9. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Chinese): President, the Government commenced in 2015 a study on "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030", which put forward the preliminary concepts for the New Territories North ("NTN") Development and formulated the broad land use concepts for three potential development areas ("PDAs") under the NTN Development, namely the San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node, Man Kam To Logistics Corridor, and NTN New Town (totalling some 720 hectares of development area). The report on the Preliminary Feasibility Study on Developing the New Territories North published by the Government in 2017 examined a spectrum of development thresholds with different characteristics, including increasing the development intensity in East NTN with the addition of transport infrastructure to accommodate a higher population closer to 400 000. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has estimated the construction costs of the various infrastructure facilities to be provided for the NTN Development as proposed in the aforesaid study report; if so, of the details;

(2) given that the aforesaid study report proposed the construction of a north-south railway, whether the Government has conducted the relevant study; if so, of the details; if not, whether it will do so expeditiously;

(3) whether the Government has, after publishing the aforesaid study report, studied the feasibility of increasing the maximum sustainable population under the NTN Development; if so, of the latest projections for the population and residential units;

(4) of the details of the Study on Phase One Development of New Territories North―San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node―Feasibility Study commenced last year by the Government; whether the Government has conducted internal studies or commissioned consultants to conduct studies on the remaining two PDAs; if so, of the details;

598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

(5) of the areas of the following lands within the aforesaid three PDAs: (i) government-owned lands, (ii) privately owned lands (with a breakdown by brownfield sites, agricultural lands and other lands), and (iii) lands expected to be resumed for development; whether it has assessed the expenditure to be involved in land resumption; if so, of the details;

(6) a breakdown of the areas of the lands within each of the aforesaid PDAs by planned use;

(7) as the Government indicated in March this year that it had completed a review of 160 hectares of brownfield sites for assessing their suitability for public housing development, whether such brownfield sites include those located within the scope of the NTN Development; if so, of the details and the area (in hectares) of those sites, among these brownfield sites, that are suitable for public housing development; and

(8) of the latest planning and timetable for the NTN Development; whether it will expedite the implementation of the NTN Development so as to replace the large-scale reclamation projects under the "Lantau Tomorrow Vision" which have caused controversies?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030 ("Hong Kong 2030+") proposes to develop two strategic growth areas, which are East Lantau Metropolis (i.e. Kau Yi Chau artificial islands under Lantau Tomorrow Vision) and New Territories North new development area respectively, in order to deal with the unmet long term land demand and establish land reserve. After the Task Force on Land Supply recommended to include these projects as mid- to long-term measures in its report published in December 2018, the Government accepted the whole report in February 2019 and commenced the preparation work for the study for the two strategic growth areas.

The completed Preliminary Feasibility Study on Developing the New Territories North ("NTN Preliminary Study") is a broad-brush planning study, which recommends that NTN comprises three development areas and further study is required before implementing the development proposals. In September LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 599 last year, we firstly commenced the feasibility study of San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node ("STLMC DN"), which is in good progress. In early next year, we would consult stakeholders on the preliminary land use proposals, and then submit funding application to the Legislative Council. If funding is approved, we would commence the remaining study and detailed design for STLMC DN in the latter half of the next year and strive to commence early the planning and engineering study for the other two development areas (i.e. NTN New Town(1) and Man Kam To Logistics Corridor) in the next year.

As land is in severe shortage, we would proceed flexibly by allowing those more mature individual projects in the area to go ahead first. Taking Queen's Hill within the NTN New Town as an example, even the development potential of the new town is still subject to study, we first implement the public housing project in Queen's Hill as the technical conditions permit. The project covers an area of more than 13 ha, and over 12 000 public housing flats would be occupied progressively from next year. In addition, we reserve 56 ha of land near the Lintang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point within the same new town. The Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation is carrying out a visionary study on developing this piece of land into an industrial estate.

With reference to the various parts of the question, after consulting relevant departments, I reply as follows:

(1) and (2)

The two development scenarios proposed by the NTN Preliminary Study both provide 215 000 employment and accommodate 255 000 and 350 000 population respectively. The main difference is that the NTN New Town would have different building intensity under the two scenarios. Irrespective of the development scenarios, substantial provision of drainage, sewerage, water supply and transport infrastructure is required. Taking transportation as an example, the two development scenarios both propose that the development of STLMC DN would be driven by the Northern Link and the proposed San Tin Station. In addition, it also proposes to study a new north-south railway connecting the NTN New Town and

(1) NTN New Town include Heung Yuen Wai, Ping Che, Ta Kwu Ling, Hung Lung Hang and Queen's Hill. 600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

the nearby new town, and further connecting the north-south railway to other new towns or/and urban area under the higher population development scenario as well as to improve the north-south road network.

The proposed development scenarios and associated infrastructure in the NTN Preliminary Study are conceptual proposals. Before implementing the new development area, we need to carry out further study and review those factors that affect development in the past few years and future so as to determine the land uses, development parameters, required infrastructure etc. and to carry out detailed design so as to confirm the project scale, land resumption and clearance extent and implementation timetable. By that time, better estimation of project cost would be available.

If funding approval of the Finance Committee ("FC") is obtained, the Transport and Housing Bureau ("THB") would commence the Strategic Studies on Railways and Major Roads beyond 2030 (RMR2030+ Studies") as soon as possible. The RMR2030+ Studies would, base on the finalized development strategies and other relevant considerations under the Hong Kong 2030+, explore the strategic layout of railway and main road infrastructure, including the north-south railway and road proposed above so as to support the development of the NTN New Town. When carrying out the planning and engineering study on NTN New Town as stated above, we would coordinate with THB to handle well the interface between the two studies regarding the new north-south direction transportation infrastructure.

(3) and (4)

The proposed development scale of STLMC DN remains the same under the two development scenarios, that is 55 000 population, about 20 000 flats and 80 000 employment. The feasibility study commenced in September last year recommends that opportunities arising from the Northern Link and proposed San Tin Station could be fully capitalized to further increase flat supply and accommodate population. In addition, from the perspective of enhancing home-job balance, having regard to the geographic location of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 601

development node and its economic functions, the innovation and technology development within the Lok Ma Chau Loop and the arrangements for people and goods flow between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, the study would review the economic land uses within the development node. When we announce the preliminary land uses of STLMC DN in early next year, we would also state the latest thinking on flat supply and economic land uses.

As stated above, we would strive to commence the planning and engineering study of the remaining development areas (i.e. NTN New Town and Man Kam To Logistics Corridor) in the next year. The NTN Preliminary Study proposed that these two development areas could accommodate 200 000 to 300 000 population and 134 000 employment with the new population mainly in the NTN New Town. The development of this new town requires substantial improvement of transport and other infrastructure (north-south railway and road as stated above), which require further study on their feasibility. If technically feasible and economically effective, we would explore the maximum population capacity of the NTN New Town in the planning and engineering study to be carried out in the next step.

(5) and (6)

The NTN Preliminary Study broadly estimated that the development land of the three development areas is about 720 ha, more than half are private land with the remaining are Government land. In the 720 ha, about 200 ha are of brownfield, and there is also active agricultural land (no concrete figure). More accurate estimation of the cost for land resumption and clearance, rehousing and compensation would be available after confirming the development and project extent.

Recommending the land use distribution and rezoning of the three development areas would be carried out after completion of the study and required technical assessments. The existing outline zoning plans only show the original planned land uses.

602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

(7) The 160 ha brownfield that have already been reviewed do not include the brownfield within the NTN new development area; while the latter will be reviewed in the studies on the NTN new development area.

(8) Regarding Kau Yi Chau artificial islands, we obtained support from the Public Works Subcommittee in May 2019 for the study funding, and are preparing to seek approval from FC so as to commence as early as possible the planning and engineering study, and the feasibility study of the associated strategic transportation system. As pointed out in the Hong Kong 2030+, Hong Kong needs two strategic growth areas to meet the long-term land demand. The functions and challenges of them are different. The development of NTN makes good use of existing land, improve the rural environment, but inevitably affect the existing land users such as squatter inhabitants, brownfield operators and farmers etc. On the other hand, some of the people in the community have concerns on the artificial island project, but reclamation is the only means to create new land. As there is no need for clearance and rehousing, the project timing is more certain. In addition, we propose to study the development of artificial islands around Kau Yi Chau having considered the great public benefits to Hong Kong, including public housing supply, relieving traffic congestion, and increase in employment opportunities etc. In other words, NTN and Kau Yi Chau artificial islands are not options of which only one can be chosen out of the two.

A site originally reserved for the Hong Kong Disneyland

10. MR ANDREW WAN (in Chinese): President, in 1999, the Government and The Walt Disney Company ("TWDC") formed a joint-venture company, namely the Hong Kong International Theme Parks Limited ("HKITP"). In 2000, the Government and HKITP signed an Option Deed under which an Option, with expiration date on 24 September 2020, was granted to HKITP for it to buy, for taking forward the Phase 2 development of the Hong Kong Disneyland ("HKDL"), a site of approximately 60 hectares adjacent to HKDL at Penny's Bay ("Phase 2 site"). After the site had been left idle for two decades, the Government announced on 23 September this year that having taken into account LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 603 the current economic conditions, it would not extend the Option. Moreover, under the Deed of Restrictive Covenant ("DRC") signed between the Government and HKITP, the use of the Phase 2 site has to comply with the permitted uses as listed in DRC, which do not include residential and medical uses. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as the Option Deed provides that HKITP is entitled to a right for an automatic five-year extension of the Option, whether the Government had, before it made the decision of not extending the Option, obtained TWDC's consent to the non-exercise of the right for an automatic extension of the Option by HKITP; if not, of the justifications for the Government's unilateral decision of not to extend the Option, and whether it has studied if the Government may unilaterally amend the clauses of DRC;

(2) whether it has studied or discussed with TWDC applying a loose interpretation to the clauses of DRC to the effect that (i) residential use is deemed as one of the permitted uses of the Phase 2 site, and (ii) the restrictive clauses on the prohibition of residential use are deemed to be inapplicable to transitional housing; if so, of the details (including the dates of the study/discussion, the policy bureaux involved and the outcome);

(3) whether, notwithstanding that transitional housing and general residential uses are not listed in DRC as the permitted uses of the Phase 2 site, the Government may use the Phase 2 site for these purposes with the consent of TWDC or under other circumstances; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons why the site may be used for medical purpose, i.e. temporary quarantine facilities;

(4) of the short-term or long-term uses currently proposed by the Government for the Phase 2 site and the relevant details; and

(5) whether it has studied, given that the Option has expired, if the restrictions imposed on the Phase 2 site under DRC remain valid or applicable, in order to ascertain whether the Government may use the site for building transitional housing; if it has studied, of the outcome?

604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, having consulted Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, Transport and Housing Bureau and other relevant departments, my consolidated reply to various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) When the development of Hong Kong Disneyland Resort ("HKDL") at Penny's Bay was finalized in 1999, the Government agreed to reserve a site of around 60 hectares adjacent to HKDL for its possible expansion ("the Site"), and entered into the Option Deed in 2000 to grant the Hongkong International Theme Parks Limited (i.e. the joint venture company between the Government and The Walt Disney Company ("TWDC") for the development and operation of HKDL) ("HKITP") a right to purchase the Site ("the Option"). Under the Option Deed, the Option expires after 24 September 2020, if it is not extended upon agreement by both the Government and TWDC.

The Government, having taken into account the current economic conditions and worldwide tourism downturn, announced last month that the validity period of the Option was not extended. In other words, HKITP no longer has the Option right for the Site. TWDC was advised in advance of the Government's decision.

(2) and (5)

The Option Deed and the Deed of Restrictive Covenant ("DRC") are two different covenants. The validity of DRC will not be affected owing to the non-extension of the Option for the Site. DRC executed in 1999 imposed certain development restrictions (including height and use restrictions) on the future development of the land in the vicinity of HKDL to maintain compatibility of HKDL and the surrounding uses and atmosphere. According to DRC, the development of the Site must be low-rise and cannot be used for residential purpose. Since DRC is a covenant, the Government cannot make amendments on its own, and has to obtain TWDC's agreement. Since transitional housing is also for residential, any proposal to use the Site as transitional housing has to be agreed by TWDC to amend DRC.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 605

(3) and (4)

At present, the Site is being used as temporary quarantine facilities. As the quarantine facilities do not fall under the permitted use of the Site under DRC, the Government discussed with TWDC earlier this year. The Disney side supported the Government's epidemic prevention and anti-epidemic work and agreed to allow the Government to use the Site as temporary quarantine facilities. As of the end of September, the Government has already completed the construction of 1 500 quarantine units in Penny's Bay (including the Site). Another 2 000 quarantine units are expected to be completed by the end of this year. As the global epidemic situation has not been under control, we still have to get prepared and responsive to the epidemic in a timely manner. We believe the arrangement of using the Site as a temporary quarantine facility will last for some time.

Although the Site is no longer reserved for expansion of HKDL, its future development still has to comply with the relevant outline zoning plan, as well as the land use and development requirements under DRC. According to the North-East Lantau Outline Zoning Plan, the Site is planned for theme park, resort hotel and the related uses. The Government will review the long-term planning of the Site in an open-minded manner. If necessary, the Government will amend the statutory planning as well as discuss with TWDC to amend the land use and building height under DRC so as to make better use of the land.

Coping with the epidemic by residential care homes

11. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Chinese): President, there are comments that the Government's refusal to completely close all boundary control points ended up at least 290 000 persons entering the territory with exemption from the quarantine requirement between February and July this year. This resulted in the outbreak of the third wave of the epidemic, with residential care homes ("RCHs") for persons with disabilities and RCHs for the elderly bearing the severe brunt of the epidemic. Quite a number of such RCH residents were 606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 confirmed to be infected and died, while other residents living in the same RCHs were sent to quarantine facilities for quarantine. On coping with the epidemic by these two types of RCHs, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective to-date numbers of (i) confirmed cases among the residents, (ii) deaths among the residents and (iii) confirmed cases among the staff, in respect of the two types of RCHs; the respective numbers and name lists of the two types of RCHs in which there have been confirmed cases among their residents or staff;

(2) of the respective to-date numbers of (i) residents and (ii) staff members in respect of the two types of RCHs placed under quarantine, together with a breakdown by the quarantine facility concerned; whether guidelines on the relevant quarantine arrangements have been drawn up;

(3) of the respective numbers of workers currently employed by the two types of RCHs who were imported under the Supplementary Labour Scheme; the respective numbers of imported workers working in those RCHs of the two types in which there have been confirmed cases among their residents or staff; whether there are requirements (i) for such imported workers to be subject to compulsory quarantine for 14 days upon arrival in Hong Kong and to pass the virus test, and (ii) for employers to take appropriate anti-epidemic measures at the accommodations provided for such imported workers;

(4) as it has been reported that the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") collaborates with the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department to deploy staff to inspect the ventilation systems of private RCHs with relatively poorer environment and to assist such RCHs in carrying out improvement works (e.g. retrofitting of exhaust fans) in order to reduce the risk of an outbreak of the epidemic in such RCHs, of (i) the number and the name list of such RCHs with relatively poorer environment, and (ii) the number and the name list of those RCHs which need such improvement works, the items to be improved, the public expenditure involved and the progress of the works;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 607

(5) whether guidelines have been issued to RCHs on the arrangements for relatives and friends to visit the residents during the epidemic, in order to promote healthy communication among RCHs' staff, residents and their families;

(6) whether guidelines have been issued to RCHs on the rehabilitation and living skills trainings that should be provided for the residents during the epidemic;

(7) of the number of applications, received by the Government from RCHs for subsidies under the Innovation and Technology Fund for Application in Elderly and Rehabilitation Care, for procuring telephones and video telephony equipment to facilitate the residents' communication with their relatives and friends during the epidemic; the progress for the vetting and approval of such applications, and the numbers of approved applications and the RCHs involved; and

(8) given that the Chief Executive indicated earlier on that quite a number of RCHs for the elderly in Hong Kong had difficulties in controlling infection due to their limited space, and that the Labour and Welfare Bureau received, as early as in May 2019, the report of the Working Group on the Review of Ordinances and Codes of Practice for Residential Care Homes set up by SWD, as well as planned to amend the Residential Care Homes (Persons with Disabilities) Ordinance (Cap. 613) and the Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Ordinance (Cap. 459) and the related regulations, in order to adjust upward the statutory minimum floor space per resident of the two types of RCHs from the existing 6.5 square metres to between 8 and 9.5 square metres, of the progress of the legislative amendment exercise and when the public and this Council will be consulted on the amendment bills?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, having consulted the Food and Health Bureau, my reply to the Member's question is as follows:

608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

(1) As at 19 October 2020, out of the COVID-19 confirmed cases, there were 135 confirmed cases of residents from residential care homes ("RCHs") (102 cases from residential care homes for the elderly ("RCHEs") and 33 cases from residential care homes for persons with disabilities ("RCHDs")), 29 of them passed away. The number of confirmed cases involving RCH staff was 40 (24 cases from RCHEs and 16 cases from RCHDs). A total of 29 RCHs had confirmed cases, including 19 RCHEs and 10 RCHDs. The report of the "latest situation of cases of COVID-19", which is updated daily by the Government, lists out clusters with 10 or more cases in RCHs, the website is .

(2) The Department of Health ("DH"), the Hospital Authority and the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") have jointly formulated guidelines on the quarantine arrangements regarding cases of infectious disease at RCHEs and RCHDs. As at 19 October 2020, the cumulative number of RCH residents subjected to quarantine was 487 (409 persons from RCHEs and 78 persons from RCHDs). The cumulative number of RCH staff subjected to quarantine was 241 (171 persons from RCHEs and 70 persons from RCHDs). Among the RCH residents subjected to quarantine, 464 residents were quarantined at Jockey Club PHAB Camp (97 persons), Cheung Muk Tau Holiday Centre for the Elderly (107 persons) and AsiaWorld-Expo (260 persons) respectively. The remaining 23 residents were quarantined onsite or in other facilities. As for RCH staff, they were arranged to be quarantined at general quarantine centres.

(3) Pursuant to the Compulsory Quarantine of Certain Persons Arriving at Hong Kong Regulation (Cap. 599C) and the Compulsory Quarantine of Persons Arriving at Hong Kong from Foreign Places Regulation (Cap. 599E), all persons, including imported workers, having stayed in areas outside Hong Kong for any period during the 14 days preceding arrival in Hong Kong, regardless of nationality and travel documents used, will be subject to compulsory quarantine for 14 days. Breaching a quarantine order is a criminal offence and offenders are subject to a maximum fine of $25,000 and imprisonment for six months. Besides, those arriving Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 609

via the Hong Kong International Airport ("the Airport") who are asymptomatic are required to proceed immediately upon arrival to the Temporary Specimen Collection Centre set up by DH in the Airport for collecting their deep throat saliva samples for COVID-19 testing.

Based on information from the Immigration Department, as at end of August 2020, RCHEs and RCHDs respectively employed 2 672 and 135 imported care workers under the Supplementary Labour Scheme, 44 and 2 of them respectively were working in RCHs with confirmed cases of COVID-19 among residents or staff.

(4) Improving indoor ventilation of RCHs can help reduce spread of virus. In this regard, SWD has arranged for staff of the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department to visit eight RCHEs and RCHDs to inspect and advise on their ventilation conditions. SWD together with the relevant departments are exploring practicable options for improving indoor ventilation of RCHs.

(5) During the epidemic, SWD has reminded RCHs from time to time to observe the "Guidelines for Residential Care Homes for the Elderly or Persons with Disabilities for the Prevention of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)" ("the Guidelines") issued by the Centre for Health Protection of DH and step up various infection control and personal and environmental hygiene measures, including making suitable arrangements for visits. SWD issued a letter on 8 July this year to remind all RCHEs and RCHDs to refer to the Guidelines that visiting is not allowed unless on compassionate grounds or for official visits. When arranging visits for individual residents under special circumstances on compassionate grounds, RCHs must step up and take prudent and effective measures (including checking body temperature of the incoming visitors, requiring them to perform hand hygiene and wear surgical mask, recording the date of visit and other relevant information, arranging visits at a designated place with proper segregation and frequent sanitization, maintaining a proper social distance, etc.). Moreover, only one visitor is allowed for each resident at a time to minimize the risk of infection. SWD has also advised RCHs to give every possible assistance to family 610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

members/relatives of their residents so that they can maintain contact with the residents through other means (such as telephone and video communication), or send videos of everyday life to the residents.

(6) All RCHEs and RCHDs have continued to provide residential care services during the COVID-19 epidemic, and receive services from the Visiting Medical Practitioner Service. SWD has reminded RCHs from time to time to refer to the Guidelines and maintain social distance during the provision of daily care and training for their residents. Besides, SWD has urged service operators to utilize practicable means such as telephone and video communication equipment, etc., to maintain contact with and provide support to service users and their family members/carers.

(7) Since its launch in December 2018, the Innovation and Technology Fund for Application in Elderly and Rehabilitation Care has received applications in three tranches. In the last tranche of applications which closed on 27 April 2020, the fund secretariat received a total of around 70 applications for technology products related to telephone and video communication equipment. As at end of August 2020, the fund secretariat has vetted and approved over 60 applications.

(8) The Working Group on the Review of Ordinances and Codes of Practice for Residential Care Homes ("Working Group") set up by SWD completed the review in May 2019. Following a comprehensive and in-depth study as well as extensive deliberations, the Working Group has put forward 19 recommendations on various aspects of monitoring of RCHEs and RCHDs. Some of the recommendations have to be implemented by way of legislative amendments. The Government consulted the Legislative Council Panel on Welfare Services and the Legislative Council Panel on Welfare Services and Panel on Health Services Joint Subcommittee on Long-term Care Policy in April 2019 and June 2020 respectively, and the Elderly Commission, the Social Welfare Advisory Committee and the Rehabilitation Advisory Committee in the second half of 2019. Four district stakeholder engagement sessions were also organized in the first half of 2020. The Government is conducting preparatory work for the legislative amendments.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 611

Procedure for handling complaints against teachers

12. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Chinese): President, early this month, the Education Bureau ("EDB") determined that a primary school teacher under complaint was culpable for serious professional misconduct and cancelled his teacher's registration. EDB indicated that during the investigation, a professional team under EDB comprising directorate officers ("the professional team") had reviewed the relevant lesson plans and teaching materials as well as the investigation report submitted by the school concerned, and invited that teacher on two occasions to submit written explanations. However, that teacher claims that he was not given any opportunity for making an oral representation, and not until 6 October did he first learn from EDB's press conference about some of the grounds for the cancellation of his teacher's registration. As a result, he never had the opportunity to fully defend his case. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the following details of the professional team:

(i) the number and ranks of its members, as well as the membership list,

(ii) the terms of reference,

(iii) whether it is of a standing nature,

(iv) the date of and reasons for its formation,

(v) the number of complaints against teachers handled by it since its formation, with a breakdown by the complaint-handling stage (i.e. complaint just received, investigation commenced, and investigation completed (specifying the investigation results)),

(vi) the mechanism for appointing members and their term of office, and

(vii) whether there is any non-official education professional participating in its work; if not, of the reasons for that;

612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

(2) of the complaint handling procedure of the professional team, including:

(i) whether anonymous complaints will be handled,

(ii) the detailed processes,

(iii) whether the complainee will be informed of all the contents of the complaint,

(iv) the time given to the complainee to prepare his/her written representation,

(v) whether the complainee has an opportunity to attend a hearing to making an oral representation, and

(vi) whether the relevant procedure has been made public;

(3) of the criteria adopted by EDB for determining whether a teacher has violated the professional code of conduct, including whether the Code for the Education Profession of Hong Kong is used as the basis;

(4) of the number of complaints about teachers' professional conduct received by EDB since January last year, with a breakdown by the date of receipt and the complaint-handling stage; among such complaints, the number of those lodged by persons whose identities cannot be verified or by anonymous persons, and the number of those in which EDB took the initiative to conduct investigations; among those complaints in respect of which investigations have been completed, the respective numbers of those for which EDB has taken the following actions: (i) cancelling the teachers' registration, (ii) issuing reprimand letters, (iii) issuing advisory letters, (iv) giving verbal reminders, and (v) determining that the complaints being unsubstantiated; the mechanism for lodging appeals against EDB's decisions and the relevant requirements; and

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 613

(5) given that at present, independent statutory bodies are responsible for regulatory matters (including registration and complaints handling) for the members of quite a number of professions (including doctors, nurses, lawyers and accountants) with self-regulation as the basic principle, while the regulatory matters for teachers are currently predominated by EDB, of the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, teachers play a vital role in passing on knowledge and nurturing students' character. Their words and deeds should meet the professional conduct required of them and the expectations of the society. According to the Education Ordinance, the Education Bureau ("EDB") is the authority for registration of teachers and is responsible for ensuring the quality of teachers. EDB may cancel the registration of a teacher in accordance with the Education Ordinance if he/she is not fit and proper person or is incompetent to be a teacher, so as to safeguard the well-being of students, uphold the professionalism of teachers and maintain public's confidence in education in Hong Kong.

Our reply to the question raised by Mr IP Kin-yuen is as follows:

(1) and (2)

In enforcing the provisions regarding refusing or cancelling the registration of teachers under the Education Ordinance, the Permanent Secretary for Education ("PS(Ed)") set up an internal Task Force comprising EDB's directorate officers to review all cases which involve the registration of teachers starting from 2003. As a standing mechanism, the Task Force is tasked to conduct detailed review, in-depth analysis and discussion of each case and make recommendations to PS(Ed), including cancellation of teacher registration or refusal of application for teacher registration.

As the professional conduct of teachers have a direct impact on students' well-being, EDB has the responsibility to seriously follow up on the complaints, even they are anonymous, if the allegations obviously involve words and deeds which fail to meet the moral standards generally acceptable to society, or are prejudicial to the 614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

safety and healthy development of students. EDB has been handling every complaint against teachers prudently and in accordance with the established mechanism and procedures in a fair, just, impartial and objective manner.

Upon receiving a complaint against a teacher, EDB will request the school concerned to conduct an investigation. The school will look into the matter, take appropriate school-based follow-up actions, inform the teacher concerned about the details of the complaint so as to let him/her give explanations on the case. The school will also meet with other people concerned, such as other teachers, students, etc. as necessary, and then submit a report to EDB. Upon receipt of the school's report, we will examine its content carefully, request the school to submit supplementary information as appropriate. EDB will fully consider all the information collected and all the relevant factors, including the school's report, the teacher's representations, the existing legislations, EDB guidelines, visions, goals and aims of the curriculum, and review whether the education of the students is promoted in a proper manner in accordance with the Education Ordinance by the school and teacher concerned. For cases that are likely to be substantiated in EDB's initial view, we will inform the teachers concerned of our views and invite them to submit written representations within reasonable time. For cases that may involve cancellation of registration, we will inform the teacher concerned of the possible cancellation of registration and invite the teacher to submit representations within 14 days with full understanding of the severity of the case.

The Task Force will fully consider all information, including the school's report and the teacher's representations, before making recommendations to PS(Ed). During the process, the teacher concerned have full and fair opportunities for making representations and self-defense. If a teacher is not satisfied with the decision of cancelling his/her teacher registration, he/she may appeal to the Appeal Boards Panel within 21 days. The mechanism on handling the registration of teachers committing offence or misconduct has been concisely set out in Annex 6 of the Report on Review of the Present Framework and Mechanism for Promoting and Upholding Teachers' Professional Conduct under the Education Commission, which is uploaded to the web page.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 615

As regards the Appeal Boards Panel, the members are appointed by the Chief Executive in accordance with section 59 of the Education Ordinance. An Appeal Board is appointed in accordance with section 62(1B) of the Education Ordinance to hear or determine any appeal concerning the registration of a teacher or the cancellation of the registration of a teacher. The Appeal Board shall consist of five members of the Appeal Boards Panel and at least three of its members must be registered teachers.

The Education Commission set up the Working Group on Promoting and Upholding Teachers' Professional Conduct in 2013 to conduct a review on EDB's investigation mechanism of handling cases of misconduct involving educators. In its report issued in 2015, the Working Group affirmed that the aforementioned mechanism has been working effectively. Since members of the internal Task Force are experienced education professionals and EDB has listened to the views of frontline principals and teachers through different channels, the internal Task Force has sufficient understanding of the work of frontline teachers and the teaching environment, and can make proper recommendations to PS(Ed). The Working Group was satisfied with the mechanism. In addition, the Appeal Board which considers the decisions of PS(Ed) also has the participation of experienced registered teachers. The Working Group did not recommend to involve outside teachers in the investigation work of the internal Task Force regarding complaints on misconduct.

In the past 10 years (2010 to 2019), EDB handled a total of 585 cases relating to the suspected professional misconduct of teachers, of which the registration of 72 teachers were cancelled. In addition, there were 26 persons whose applications for teacher registration were refused. Since each case is unique and, for various reasons, the time required to handle each case varies, it is not meaningful to provide a breakdown of the cases by the source of the case and the handling stage. As such, we have not compiled the relevant statistics.

(3) In accordance with the Education Ordinance and from the perspective of the education profession, EDB handles cases of suspected professional misconduct of teachers in a prudent, lawful, reasonable and just manner. In determining whether a teacher has 616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

misconducted, we will consider the matter from the perspective of the education profession. Our focus is on whether the acts in question conform to the professional ethics required of a teacher, whether the teacher concerned has fallen short of social expectations and whether the values so demonstrated will have an adverse impact on the teaching profession or students. In fact, to live up to the public's expectations of teachers' moral standards or values, a professional educator should appreciate the impact of his/her words and deeds on the thinking and character of students, show respect to the law, conform to the behavioural norms acceptable to the society, and do his/her best to uphold the honour, dignity and morality of the teaching profession. These are clearly stipulated in the Code for the Education Profession of Hong Kong. Moreover, the Professional Standards for Teachers of Hong Kong, which was published by the Committee on Professional Development of Teachers and Principals upon in-depth discussion, states that teachers should be committed role models of professionalism; uphold public's trust in the teaching profession; maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour within and outside school to realize the core professional values. The most basic requirement is that teachers should nurture students' character and be a role model themselves, demonstrating good character, positive values and attitude. The words and deeds of teachers should live up to the moral standards generally acceptable to society. For example, we trust that the general public would not accept teachers making hate messages, cursing people, or using extremely indecent language or foul language in insulting people. Teachers should also not bring negative impact on students (such as teaching distorted or wrong contents) or risk safety of students (such as assaulting students, or being involved in unlawful acts). In determining the follow-up actions, such as whether cancellation of registration is warranted, EDB will comprehensively review the cases taking into account the nature, gravity and other related circumstances.

(4) We have provided the number of cases relating to the suspected professional misconduct of teachers handled by EDB in the past 10 years (2010 to 2019) in part (1) and (2), among which the number in 2019 has been included. While we understand that the public are more concerned about the cases related to the social incidents since June 2019, we have consolidated the related figures. During the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 617

period from June 2019 to August 2020, EDB received a total of 247 complaints about the professional conduct of teachers. EDB has largely completed the investigation of 204 cases, of which 73 were found unsubstantiated. Of the substantiated cases, we have cancelled the registration of one teacher and issued reprimand letters to 21 teachers, warning letters to 12 teachers, advisory letters to 19 teachers and verbal reminders to 18 teachers. For the rest of the cases, some of them are initially substantiated, and EDB is handling these cases according to standing procedures. Since each case is unique, the reasons as to whether investigation is initiated by EDB differ, and the time required to handle each case also varies, it is not meaningful to categorize the cases by such conditions. As such, we have not compiled the relevant statistics. In recent years, most of the complaints were made through emails. While the complainants' email addresses were given, we are unable to confirm whether the names provided by the complainants are real. Notwithstanding this, as the words and deeds of teachers have a direct impact on students, EDB has the responsibility to seriously follow up the complaints, even they are anonymous, if the allegations involve words or deeds which obviously fail to meet the moral standards as acceptable to the general public, risk safety of students, or harm the healthy development of students. Hence, we also do not categorize the complaints by whether they are anonymous or not.

(5) According to the Education Ordinance, EDB is the authority for registration of teachers, including approving applications of "registered teachers" or "permitted teachers" and cancelling teachers' registration, to ensure that all teachers allowed to teach in schools are fit and proper persons for safeguarding students' well-being.

EDB has continuously reviewed the related arrangements. The Working Group on Promoting and Upholding Teachers' Professional Conduct set up by the Education Commission in 2013 has made reference to the practices of other professions in its review. In its report issued in 2015, the Working Group was satisfied with the mechanism of EDB in performing the monitoring role. Indeed, different professions have their own uniqueness, and their registration system each has its own background, underpinning philosophies, legal basis and procedures. It is not appropriate to 618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

single out part of an individual profession (such as regulatory matter) and compare it with teaching profession without regard of the context.

Overflowing of reservoirs

13. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, in 2017, 2018 and 2019, the overflow quantities of the various reservoirs in Hong Kong were 48.4 million, 44.4 million and 33.8 million cubic metres respectively, which were equivalent to about 5.5% of the quantities of Dongjiang water purchased in the respective years. In as early as 2004, the Drainage Services Department ("DSD") planned to implement the Inter-reservoirs Transfer Scheme ("IRTS") to divert the rainwater collected in Kowloon Byewash Reservoir to Lower Shing Mun Reservoir, so as to reduce the overflow from the former and increase the yield of the latter, and to reduce flood risk in the Lai Chi Kok area. DSD informed this Council in the following year that the construction works for IRTS would commence in 2010 and was expected to complete in 2012. However, the authorities for several years did not seek funding approval from this Council for the construction works for IRTS. Moreover, despite the recommendation in Report No. 64 of the Director of Audit published in April 2015 that the authorities should expedite the implementation of IRTS, not until 2019 did the relevant works commence. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the reasons for the delay in the commencement of the works for IRTS;

(2) whether the progress of the works has been affected by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic; if so, of the estimated changes in the construction cost and completion date of the works;

(3) of the overflow quantity (in cubic metres), in each of the past five years, of each reservoir which overflowed; and

(4) of the other measures put in place before the completion of the aforesaid works to reduce wastage of fresh water due to reservoir overflow and to enable efficient use of such fresh water?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 619

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the overflow from impounding reservoirs in Hong Kong from 2017 to 2019 as mentioned in the question occurred in small and medium impounding reservoirs built between the 19th century and the mid-20th century. As these impounding reservoirs were designed to meet the water demand at that time, they have relatively small storage capacities. They are prone to overflow when the rainwater collected exceeds their capacities during heavy rainstorms. Therefore, impounding reservoirs are designed with overflow facilities, and overflow is in fact an operational constraint.

The responses to Mr LEUNG's four queries are as follows:

(1) and (2)

With a view to improving the flood protection capability in areas of Sham Shui Po, Cheung Sha Wan and Lai Chi Kok, the Drainage Services Department ("DSD") formulated the Lai Chi Kok Transfer Scheme ("LCKTS") in 2005, recommending implementation of the Inter-reservoirs Transfer Scheme ("IRTS") and Lai Chi Kok Drainage Tunnel ("LCKDT").

The key function of IRTS is to transfer part of the surface runoff collected from the Kowloon group of reservoirs to the Lower Shing Mun Reservoir, thereby creating a designated storage capacity in the Kowloon Byewash Reservoir to receive further surface runoff from the catchment.

DSD has implemented LCKTS in phases. The first phase involved the construction of LCKDT spanning between 2008 and 2012. Surface runoff collected from the upstream catchment would be discharged directly to the Victoria Harbour through the tunnel, thus reducing the burden of the existing stormwater drainage systems in both the midstream and downstream catchments.

Regarding IRTS under the second phase, DSD conducted a review of the respective construction programme in the second half of 2009. As many tunnelling projects were under construction at that time, there was a shortage of skilled labourers and machinery for the tunnelling works. In consideration of the contribution of the first 620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

phase in reducing the burden on the stormwater drainage systems in the areas concerned, DSD deferred the construction programme of IRTS by five years with the support of the Development Bureau ("DEVB"). Subsequently, in response to the Fifth Assessment Report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations in end 2014, DSD in association with relevant departments conducted a review of the Hong Kong's rainfall forecast and stormwater drainage design standards. In parallel, DSD actively re-examined the detailed design and construction methods of IRTS as well as conducting a series of review, including environmental impact assessment, geotechnical assessment, risk assessment for tunnel construction, natural terrain landslide hazards assessment, construction and demolition material management and traffic impact assessment, etc. DSD also consulted relevant stakeholders to solicit their views. In response to the Report No. 64 of the Director of Audit, DEVB and DSD accepted the recommendation of the Audit Commission to expedite the implementation of IRTS.

The funding application for IRTS was approved by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council in June 2018 and the respective construction works commenced in February 2019. DSD has implemented various measures with a view to alleviating the adverse impacts on the project arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. The estimated project cost ($1,222M in money-of-the-day prices) and completion date (i.e. 2022 Q4) remain unchanged.

(3) The annual overflow quantities from impounding reservoirs in the past five years are tabulated below:

Overflow Quantities from Reservoir/Reservoir Group (million cubic metres) Year Tai Tam Kowloon Aberdeen Tai Lam Shek Pik Group of Group of Group of Chung Reservoir Reservoirs Reservoirs Reservoirs Reservoir 2015 0 2.21 1.06 0 0.03 2016 3.66 3.90 3.50 8.90 8.53 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 621

Overflow Quantities from Reservoir/Reservoir Group (million cubic metres) Year Tai Tam Kowloon Aberdeen Tai Lam Shek Pik Group of Group of Group of Chung Reservoir Reservoirs Reservoirs Reservoirs Reservoir 2017 10.35 11.01 4.64 13.99 8.41 2018 5.15 2.91 2.93 13.59 19.80 2019 6.40 2.93 4.00 0.59 19.86

(4) Before the completion of the aforesaid works, the Water Supplies Department is taking measures to use the raw water stored in the Kowloon Group of Reservoirs as far as practicable to allow more storage space for collecting rainwater, hence reducing overflow.

Trading of live animals

14. MS ELIZABETH QUAT: President, will the Government inform this Council of the following information regarding the trading (including import and re-export) of live animals other than livestock, cats, dogs and poultry:

(1) the total number of live animals other than cats and dogs imported in each of the past five years by the pet trade, with a breakdown by the (i) classes (i.e. mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians) and species to which such animals belonged, (ii) country/place of origin of such animals, and (iii) whether or not such animals belonged to species listed in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ("CITES") (set out in a table);

(2) the total number of traders of pets other than cats and dogs holding an Animal Trader Licence ("ATL") issued under the Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Trading and Breeding) Regulations (Cap. 139B) in each year from March 2017 (when Cap. 139B came into effect) to 2019, with a breakdown by the categories of animals traded (i.e. (i) small pet mammals, (ii) pet reptiles, (iii) pet birds, and (iv) other pet animals)(set out in a table);

622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

(3) the respective total numbers of prosecutions instituted, in each year from March 2017 to 2019, in respect of trading of live animals other than cats and dogs allegedly (i) in breach of ATL's conditions, and (ii) without a valid ATL, as well as the respective numbers of convictions among such cases (set out in a table);

(4) the total number of licences for possession of live animals of endangered species issued in each of the past five years under the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586), with a breakdown by the classes to which the animals belonged (i.e. (i) birds, (ii) reptiles, (iii) fishes, (iv) mammals, (v) amphibians, and (vi) other animals)(set out in a table);

(5) as some concern groups for animal rights have pointed out that in 80% of the cases, no details on the purposes of import were given in the statistics on Hong Kong's import of live animals other than livestock, cats, dogs and poultry currently compiled by the Census and Statistics Department, whether the Government will consider setting up a comprehensive database on the trading of such live animals in Hong Kong, and making public such a database, so as to provide the public with details such as the species, countries/places of origin, and the purposes (e.g. for re-export or for sale in Hong Kong) of such imported live animals; if not, of the reasons for that; and

(6) the specific measures taken by the Government (i) to ensure that those CITES-listed and non-CITES-listed animals on sale locally have not been taken illegally from the wild in Hong Kong or overseas, and (ii) to differentiate between those obtained legally from captive breeding and those taken illegally from the wild?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH: President, having consulted the Environment Bureau, my reply to the question is as follows:

(1) The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") implements control on the import of animals and birds in accordance with the Public Health (Animals and Birds) Ordinance (Cap. 139). To import any mammals, reptiles and birds into Hong Kong, a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 623

Special Permit must be obtained in advance from AFCD. The number of imported animals belonging to species not listed in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ("CITES") for pet trade(1) (live mammals other than cats and dogs, birds and reptiles) from 2015 to 2019, with breakdown for the top five species by import quantity, are tabulated in Annex A. AFCD does not maintain statistics on imported non-CITES amphibians.

The import figures for CITES species, with breakdown for the top five species by import quantity from 2015 to 2019 (live mammals other than cats and dogs, birds, reptiles and amphibians) are at Annex B. CITES however does not distinguish whether an imported animal is for pet trade.

(2) The numbers of Animal Trader Licences ("ATL") issued under the Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Trading and Breeding) Regulations (Cap. 139B) between March 2017 and 2019 (other than cats and dogs) are tabulated as follows:

Number of ATLs issued 2017 Type of ATL (March to 2018 2019 December) (i) Small mammals 17 20 21 (excluding dogs and cats) (ii) Reptiles 44 48 50 (iii) Birds 21 30 26 (iv) Mixed(1) 29 34 26 Total 111 132 123

Note:

(1) These licencees are allowed to sell different types of animals at the premises concerned.

(1) Animals and birds imported by traders with Animal Trader Licences under the Cap. 139B Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Trading and Breeding) Regulations not for food purpose. 624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

(3) The number of prosecutions instituted, in each year from March 2017 to 2019, against breaches of ATL conditions, and trading of animals without a valid ATL, in respect of live animals other than cats and dogs, as well as the respective numbers of convictions among such cases are tabulated as follows:

Trading animals without a Breach of ATL conditions valid ATL (other than cats Year and dogs) Prosecutions Convictions Prosecutions Convictions 2017 0 0 1 1 (March to December) 2018 0 0 1 1 2019 2 2 1 1

(4) According to the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586), each premise for keeping live endangered species listed in Appendix I and II of Cap. 586 for commercial purposes requires a licence to possess. A licence to possess can cover more than one species/individual. The numbers of such licences issued from 2015 to 2019 are tabulated below:

Number of Possession Licences Type of Animal 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Birds 4 2 14 6 1 Reptiles 24 26 28 14 6 Fish 15 18 47 17 13 Mammals 0 0 0 0 0 Amphibians 0 0 0 0 0 Other animals 11 8 6 4 7 More than one type of animal 3 1 6 5 3

(5) The information on the import of animals into Hong Kong, such as the relevant quantity, type, and importing country/place, is available from the Census and Statistics Department's website.(2) In case

(2) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 625

further information is requested, AFCD will endeavour to retrieve and provide information on import of animals, including information on species imported, their countries of origin and whether they are imported for pet trade purpose.

(6) Import and trading of live animals are mainly regulated for the prevention of introduction and transmission of zoonotic and animal diseases through enforcing the Public Health (Animals and Birds) Ordinance (Cap. 139) and the Rabies Ordinance (Cap. 421), as well as their regulations. Under the relevant legislation, a special or import permit should be obtained from AFCD prior to the import of the animals. In addition, the import of all CITES species into Hong Kong needs to be accompanied by a certifying document issued by the CITES Management Authority of the exporting place. The document is required to specify the source (e.g. wild origin or captive bred) of the animal and helps to verify the legality and sustainability of the trade. Furthermore, the types of animals permitted to be sold(3) by licensed animal traders are restricted by their licences. AFCD will also conduct inspections from time to time to detect any irregularities.

Annex A

Information on imported non-CITES species for pet trade (Mammals other than cats and dogs, birds and reptiles) (2015 to 2019)

2015 Type of Species Number Country/place of Export Animal (Top 5 by import quantity) (head) Mammals Phodopus sungorus 26 586 New Zealand, The Netherlands, USA Oryctolagus cuniculus 1 713 New Zealand, Spain, The Netherlands

(3) Types of animals or birds allowed to be sold by a licensed animal trader include cats, dogs, chinchillas, domestic rabbits, domestic rats, gerbils, guinea pigs, hamsters, mice, some species of lizards, snakes, turtles and tortoises, and all birds (except chickens, ducks, geese, pigeons and turkeys). 626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

2015 Type of Species Number Country/place of Export Animal (Top 5 by import quantity) (head) Mesocricetus auratus 1 350 The Netherlands Chinchilla lanigera 719 Belgium, Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, USA Cavia porcellus 413 New Zealand, Spain, The Netherlands Total Import 30 862 Birds Crithagra mozambicus 19 770 Mali, Mozambique, Senegal, (=Serinus mozambicus) Tanzania Serinus leucopygius 11 600 Malaysia, Mali, Senegal Crithagra atrogularis 2 660 Mozambique, Tanzania (=Serinus atrogularis) Copsychus saularis 2 070 Malaysia Crithagra citrinipectus 1 275 Mozambique (=Serinus citrinipectus) Total Import 42 036 Reptiles Emys orbicularis 26 990 Germany, North Macedonia, Russia, Slovenia, Ukraine, USA Trachemys scripta venusta 22 795 Mexico, USA Sternotherus carinatus 18 563 USA Pseudemys nelsoni 18 512 Germany, USA Pelusios castaneus 11 775 Ghana, Togo, USA Total Import 266 926

2016 Type of Species Number Country/place of Export Animal (Top 5 by import quantity) (head) Mammals Phodopus sungorus 17 961 The Netherlands Mesocricetus auratus 1 210 The Netherlands Oryctolagus cuniculus 1 202 The Netherlands Chinchilla lanigera 674 Canada, The Netherlands, USA Cavia porcellus 673 Australia, The Netherlands Total Import 21 721 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 627

2016 Type of Species Number Country/place of Export Animal (Top 5 by import quantity) (head) Birds Crithagra mozambicus 13 230 Mali, Mozambique, Senegal (=Serinus mozambicus) Serinus leucopygius 12 460 Mali, Senegal Copsychus saularis 2 063 Malaysia, Mali Crithagra flaviventris 1 650 Mozambique (=Serinus flaviventris) Crithagra citrinipectus 960 Mali, Mozambique (=Serinus citrinipectus) Total Import 33 069 Reptiles Eublepharis macularius 19 612 Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, South Africa, The Netherlands, USA Pelusios castaneus 14 800 Ghana, Togo Pseudemys nelsoni 14 584 USA Elaphe guttata 12 669 Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, South Africa, Taiwan, The Netherlands, USA Rhacodactylus ciliates 12 169 Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, The Netherlands, USA Total Import 203 237

2017 Type of Species Number Country/place of Export Animal (Top 5 by import quantity) (head) Mammals Phodopus sungorus 20 775 The Netherlands Oryctolagus cuniculus 1 316 Italy, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, The Netherlands Mesocricetus auratus 1 210 The Netherlands Cavia porcellus 712 Spain, The Netherlands Chinchilla lanigera 457 Canada, The Netherlands, USA Total Import 24 470 Birds Crithagra mozambicus 9 330 Guinea, Mali, Mozambique (=Serinus mozambicus) 628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

2017 Type of Species Number Country/place of Export Animal (Top 5 by import quantity) (head) Serinus leucopygius 7 580 Guinea, Mali Crithagra citrinipectus 1 000 Mozambique (=Serinus citrinipectus) Copsychus saularis 935 Malaysia Crithagra flaviventris 650 Mozambique (=Serinus flaviventris) Total Import 21 325 Reptiles Elaphe guttata 10 960 Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, South Africa, Spain, The Netherlands, USA Eublepharis macularius 10 858 Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, South Africa, Taiwan, The Netherlands, USA Rhacodactylus ciliatus 10 413 Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, The Netherlands, USA Pogona vitticeps 7 508 El Salvador, Germany, Thailand, The Netherlands, USA Pseudemys nelsoni 7 003 USA Total Import 137 478

2018 Type of Species Number Country/place of Export Animal (Top 5 by import quantity) (head) Mammals Phodopus sungorus 23 711 The Netherlands Oryctolagus cuniculus 1 593 The Netherlands Phodopus roborovskii 1 070 The Netherlands Mesocricetus auratus 695 The Netherlands Cavia porcellus 580 The Netherlands Total Import 28 184 Birds Serinus leucopygius 12 400 Mali Crithagra mozambicus 11 900 Guinea, Mali, Mozambique (=Serinus mozambicus) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 629

2018 Type of Species Number Country/place of Export Animal (Top 5 by import quantity) (head) Crithagra atrogularis 1 700 Mozambique (=Serinus atrogularis) Crithagra flaviventris 1 250 Mozambique (=Serinus flaviventris) Copsychus saularis 1 130 Malaysia Total Import 33 858 Reptiles Rhacodactylus ciliatus 9 895 Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, The Netherlands, USA Rhinoclemmys 9 006 El Salvador, Nicaragua, USA pulcherrima Elaphe guttata 7 567 Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, South Africa, Taiwan, The Netherlands, USA Chelus fimbriata 5 080 Peru Ctenosaura similis 4 901 Nicaragua, Sint Maarten, Taiwan, USA Total Import 122 634

2019 Type of Species Number Country/place of Export Animal (Top 5 by import quantity) (head) Mammals Phodopus sungorus 13 909 The Netherlands Oryctolagus cuniculus 1 351 The Netherlands Phodopus roborovskii 990 The Netherlands Mesocricetus auratus 880 The Netherlands Chinchilla lanigera 636 Canada, The Netherlands, USA Total Import 18 277 Birds Serinus leucopygius 12 550 Mali Crithagra mozambicus 9 250 Guinea, Mali (=Serinus mozambicus) Copsychus saularis 2 240 Malaysia 630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

2019 Type of Species Number Country/place of Export Animal (Top 5 by import quantity) (head) Crithagra atrogularis 800 Mali (=Serinus atrogularis) Estrilda bengala 400 Mali Total Import 27 362 Reptiles Trachemys scripta elegans 41 542 China, Japan, Singapore, USA Pseudemys nelsoni 20 708 China, USA Chrysemys picta 20 002 USA Rhacodactylus ciliatus 19 415 Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, The Netherlands, USA Rhinoclemmys 13 860 El Salvador, Nicaragua pulcherrima Total Import 240 271

Annex B

Information on imported CITES species (Mammals other than cats and dogs, birds, reptiles and amphibians) (2015 to 2019)

2015 Species Type of Number (Top 5 by import Place(s) of Origin Animal (head) quantity) Mammals Nil N/A N/A Birds Psittacus erithacus 1 534 Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Philippines Poicephalus gulielmi 500 Mali Poicephalus senegalu 405 Mali, Philippines Psittacus erithacus 350 Mali timneh Amazona aestiva 247 Saudi Arabia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Philippines Total Import 5 522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 631

2015 Species Type of Number (Top 5 by import Place(s) of Origin Animal (head) quantity) Reptiles Podocnemis unifilis 342 261 Peru Stigmochelys pardalis 39 196 Zambia, El Salvador, Tanzania, Kenya, Italy, Spain, France, South Africa, Canada Iguana iguana 39 092 El Salvador, USA Geochelone sulcata 31 258 USA, Italy, Mali, Sudan, Slovenia, El Salvador, Ghana, Togo, France Testudo hermanni 19 400 Slovenia, North Macedonia, Serbia Total Import 607 721 Amphibians Agalychnis callidryas 300 Nicaragua Total Import 300

2016 Species Type of Number (Top 5 by import Place(s) of Origin Animal (head) quantity) Mammals Nil N/A N/A Birds Poicephalus senegalus 1 370 Senegal, Mali Psittacus erithacus 622 South Africa, Democratic Republic of Congo, Philippines Aratinga wagleri 500 Peru Amazona amazonica 397 Suriname, Guyana Pionites melanocephalus 341 Suriname, South Africa, Czech Republic Total Import 5 640 Reptiles Podocnemis unifilis 548 842 Peru Iguana iguana 46 406 Syria, USA Stigmochelys pardalis 39 827 Zambia, Kenya, El Salvador, Tanzania, Cayman Islands, Italy, France, Uganda, Ethiopia, Taiwan, South Africa 632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

2016 Species Type of Number (Top 5 by import Place(s) of Origin Animal (head) quantity) Geochelone sulcata 35 181 USA, Italy, El Salvador, Mali, Slovenia, Ghana, Sudan, Egypt Testudo hermanni 29 252 Slovenia, North Macedonia, UK Total Import 812 362 Amphibians Agalychnis callidryas 1 740 Nicaragua, Czech Republic Total Import 1 740

2017 Species Type of Number (Top 5 by import Place(s) of Origin Animal (head) quantity) Mammals Nil N/A N/A Birds Amazona aestiva 88 Czech Republic, South Africa, Denmark Amazona ochrocephala 80 Czech Republic, Denmark, Philippines, Portugal, Slovakia Ara ararauna 73 Czech Republic, South Africa, Philippines, Denmark Loriculus galgulus 28 Malaysia Ara chloroptera 22 Czech Republic, South Africa, Denmark Total Import 369 Reptiles Podocnemis unifilis 456 991 Peru Stigmochelys pardalis 36 907 Zambia, Kenya, El Salvador, Taiwan, Italy, Japan, Mozambique, Spain, France, Ethiopia Iguana iguana 31 950 El Salvador, Sint Maarten, USA Geochelone sulcata 27 967 USA, Italy, Mali, El Salvador, Slovenia, Sudan, Togo, Ghana, France, Syria LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 633

2017 Species Type of Number (Top 5 by import Place(s) of Origin Animal (head) quantity) Testudo hermanni 24 400 Slovenia, North Macedonia Total Import 679 414 Amphibians Agalychnis callidryas 1 600 Nicaragua Dyscophus guineti 750 Czech Republic Ambystoma mexicanum 100 Czech Republic Dyscophus insularis 50 Madagascar Total Import 2 500

2018 Species Type of Number (Top 5 by import Place(s) of Origin Animal (head) quantity) Mammals Nil N/A N/A Birds Poicephalus gulielmi 500 Mali Poicephalus senegalus 500 Democratic Republic of Congo Amazona aestiva 140 Czech Republic, South Africa, Belgium Amazona ochrocephala 94 Czech Republic, South Africa, Denmark, Slovakia Pionites leucogaster 64 Belgium, Czech Republic, South Africa, Singapore Total Import 1 623 Reptiles Podocnemis unifilis 220 880 Peru Stigmochelys pardalis 34 260 Kenya, Zambia, El Salvador, South Africa, Italy, France, Germany, Taiwan Testudo hermanni 23 290 Slovenia, North Macedonia Iguana iguana 17 622 El Salvador, Nicaragua, USA, Sint Maarten Chelonoidis carbonaria 16 910 Brazil, Venezuela, El Salvador, Colombia, Suriname, USA Total Import 393 792 634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

2018 Species Type of Number (Top 5 by import Place(s) of Origin Animal (head) quantity) Amphibians Agalychnis callidryas 700 Czech Republic, Madagascar Dyscophus guineti 720 Nicaragua Dyscophus insularis 5 Madagascar Total Import 1 425

2019 Species Type of Number (Top 5 by import Place(s) of Origin Animal (head) quantity) Mammals Nil N/A N/A Birds Poicephalus senegalus 500 Mali Pionites leucogaster 83 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Taiwan, South Africa Myiopsitta monachus 82 Slovakia, Taiwan Amazona aestiva 75 Belgium, Czech Republic, The Netherlands, South Africa Eolophus roseicapilla 74 Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, South Africa Total Import 1 132 Reptiles Podocnemis unifilis 262 430 Peru Chelydra serpentine 72 830 USA Macrochelys temminckii 27 885 USA Stigmochelys pardalis 19 143 Zambia, Kenya, El Salvador, South Africa, Taiwan, France, Germany, Italy Chelonoidis carbonaria 12 868 Brazil, El Salvador, Venezuela, Colombia, Suriname Total Import 458 315 Amphibians Agalychnis callidryas 1 100 Nicaragua Dyscophus guineti 206 Madagascar, Czech Republic Total Import 1 306

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 635

Financial burden on the Government

15. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, last month, the Financial Secretary pointed out that the fiscal deficit for the current financial year would soar to over $300 billion and fiscal reserves would plunge to around $800 billion. Other than the fiscal deficit, the expenditure has continued to increase. It has been reported that as both the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ("HZMB") and the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") have failed to make ends meet as they had been hit by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, the Government needs to provide subsidies of $1 billion and $350 million respectively. As the epidemic still persists, some academics and members of the public are worried that structural fiscal deficits will, coupled with the imminent implementation of the costly large-scale reclamation projects under the "Lantau Tomorrow Vision", deteriorate further and the financial pressure on the Government will surge. They have pointed out that it is incumbent upon the Government to generate revenue and manage costs, and to put the money previously allocated to various funds to effective use. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the operating expenditures and income profiles, since the beginning of this year, of various major infrastructure projects (including HZMB, XRL and the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal); the amounts of subsidies provided by the Government to various infrastructure projects;

(2) of the accumulated balance of the Future Fund, set up by the Government in early years, and those of the eight funds (including the Capital Works Reserve Fund, Capital Investment Fund, Civil Service Pension Reserve Fund, Disaster Relief Fund, Innovation and Technology Fund, Land Fund, Loan Fund and Lotteries Fund) established under the Public Finance Ordinance (Cap. 2); whether it has estimated the amount of money that can be ploughed back from the balances of such funds to the Treasury and used to support those parties that have allegedly been neglected by the Government, namely the middle class, the small and medium enterprises and the unemployed persons; if so, of the details; if not, whether it will immediately conduct such an estimation;

636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

(3) as some members of the public are worried that the implementation of the large-scale reclamation projects under the "Lantau Tomorrow Vision" by the Government amid the economic downturn will expedite the depletion of fiscal reserves in case it fails to exercise effective cost control, whether the Government will consider expanding the terms of reference of the Project Strategy and Governance Office and strengthening the manpower of the Office, so as to review the construction costs of each public works project costing over $100 million and the large-scale reclamation projects under the "Lantau Tomorrow Vision" (including the studies related to artificial islands in the Central Waters with an estimated cost of $550 million);

(4) of (i) the total amounts of default payments owed to, (ii) the expenditures incurred in recovering the default payments by, and (iii) the total amounts of default payments written off, by various government departments and public organizations (including the Hospital Authority, the Water Supplies Department, the Inland Revenue Department and the Judiciary) in each of the past five years; the policies and measures adopted by various government departments for recovering default payments, as well as the effectiveness of the recovery actions (set out in detail); and

(5) given that it may be necessary for the Government to use fiscal reserves to boost the economy and launch relief measures amid the epidemic, whether the Government will step up efforts in recovering default payments, so as to improve its financial position?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President, this reply is prepared in consultation with the Transport and Housing Bureau, Development Bureau and Commerce and Economic Development Bureau as follows:

(1) The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ("HZMB") Main Bridge is situated in the Mainland waters. The HZMB Authority was established pursuant to the Mainland laws as a non-profit-making public institution legal person, operating on a self-financing basis. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 637

It is not appropriate for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government to disclose information relating to the income and expenditure of HZMB unilaterally.

For the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"), to prevent and control the epidemic, the Hong Kong West Kowloon Station of XRL has been temporarily closed since 30 January 2020, and the XRL train service between the Hong Kong West Kowloon Station and the Mainland has also been suspended. There is currently no scheduled date for service resumption. During the suspension of XRL service, the Hong Kong West Kowloon Station only maintains basic operations, such as regular maintenance and cleaning work. The MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"), as the operator, has to bear the operating expenses of the Hong Kong Section of XRL. MTRCL presented the total operating expenditure of its railway services in its annual report and there is no breakdown of the figures of various operating expenditure (including that of the Hong Kong Section of XRL). The Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation and MTRCL shall share the upside gain and downside risk regarding the Hong Kong Section of XRL according to the signed "Supplemental Service Concession Agreement".

The Kai Tak Cruise Terminal ("KTCT") is operated by a terminal operator under commercial principles, and any surplus and deficit are to be borne by the terminal operator. According to the tenancy agreement between the Government and the terminal operator, the terminal operator is required to pay the Government a monthly fixed rent and a variable rent which is set as designated percentages of the terminal operator's gross receipts. As the relevant income and expenditure of the terminal operator involves commercially sensitive information, the Government cannot disclose the details. To combat the pandemic, the immigration service at KTCT and Ocean Terminal has been suspended since 5 February 2020. In this connection, the Government has introduced relief measures to support the cruise industry, including waiving the monthly fixed rent and management fee from June 2020 to March 2021. As at 19 October 2020, the total concessions involved is about $3.28 million.

638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

(2) The balances as at 30 September 2020 for the eight Funds set up by Resolutions of the Legislative Council are tabulated below:

$ million Capital Works Reserve Fund 167,270 Capital Investment Fund 5,260 Civil Service Pension Reserve Fund 41,266 Disaster Relief Fund 43 Innovation and Technology Fund 24,692 Land Fund 219,691 Loan Fund 4,241 Lotteries Fund 21,238 Total 483,701

The total balances of the General Revenue Account ("GRA") and the above eight Funds constitute the Government's fiscal reserves.

GRA is for meeting the day-to-day cash flow requirements of the Government's operation. For Funds set up by Resolutions of the Legislative Council, they have their respective designated use. For instance, the Capital Works Reserve Fund is designated for capital works, major systems and equipment; the Innovation and Technology Fund is committed to projects to promote innovation and technology, etc. The Government reviews the fund balances from time to time and will arrange the transfers from Funds to the GRA or vice versa as appropriate.

The Future Fund was established on 1 January 2016 and was intended to implement a long-term investment strategy for the purpose of enhancing the overall investment returns. The fund balance of the Future Fund is $224.49 billion and will be placed in the Exchange Fund to the end of 2025 according to the original plan.

(3) The Government has all along been implementing a stringent review and monitoring mechanism on project estimate and expenditure of public works. The Development Bureau upgraded the Project Cost Management Office ("PCMO") to the Project Strategy and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 639

Governance Office ("PSGO") in April 2019 and further implemented strategic initiatives to lower the project cost through design optimization based on the "Fitness for Purpose and No Frills" principle. The Development Bureau also established the Centre of Excellence for Major Project Leaders in July 2019 to uplift project governance capabilities of public officers.

PCMO had scrutinized the "Studies related to artificial islands in the Central Waters" project and reviewed the project estimate before consulting the Legislative Council. Similar to other works projects, during project implementation, PSGO will continue to actively collaborate with relevant departments and regularly review and follow up the development and design of the project. With regard to manpower, we will review the resources required by PSGO from time to time for implementing various measures on cost monitoring and project governance more effectively.

(4) and (5)

The total amounts written off by the Government due to default payments in each of the past five years are as follows:

2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million) 290 282 541 793 533

Revenue collection is a day-to-day activity of government departments. A breakdown in this respect is not available.

The Government does not have any information on the expenditures incurred by subvented organizations for the recovery of default payments, nor the total amounts written off by them. Generally speaking, same as government departments, subvented organizations should ensure the proper use of public funds. As such, the bureaux and departments concerned require subvented organizations to submit audited annual financial statements and put in place an appropriate financial control and monitoring system to ensure that public funds are used prudently by subvented organizations in the provision of cost-effectiveness public services.

640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Regarding the handling of receivables, according to the internal guidelines of the Government, Controlling Officers ("COs") are responsible for prompt collection and for taking timely and appropriate actions to recover arrears of revenue within their jurisdiction. COs should satisfy themselves that appropriate arrangements are made and put in place in their bureaux/departments such that if payment is not received within a reasonable time, appropriate and timely follow-up actions are taken to recover the arrears. Such actions include the issue of reminders and taking legal action as necessary. In addition, COs must regularly review the procedures and the activities within their purview which give rise to revenue due to the Government and, where necessary, issue departmental accounting instructions and procedures on the recovery of arrears of revenue as appropriate to meet the particular requirements and applications of their bureaux/departments. COs should consider writing off the receivables only after all exhaustive actions taken to recover the amounts have failed and upon seeking the necessary legal advice.

To safeguard public funds, government bureaux and departments will continue to strictly adhere to the above guidelines and recover through different means the receivables from defaulters.

Restoration works for and security of tertiary institutions' campuses

16. MR TONY TSE (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that during last year's disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments ("the disturbances"), the campus facilities of a number of tertiary institutions were extensively vandalized with a lot of properties stolen. As a result, such institutions have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to carry out restoration works and step up campus security. Although the disturbances have subsided, incidents of facilities being vandalized, unauthorized posting of slogans and persons with different political views clashing with each other still happen from time to time in the campuses of a number of institutions. It has been reported that on the 26th of last month, some outsiders entered the campus of the University of Hong Kong, tearing up publicity materials and clashing with the students of the university. However, the university did not report the incident to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 641 the Police, and some security staff were subsequently disciplined for alleged mishandling of the incident. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows the respective additional expenses on (i) restoration works and (ii) security, incurred by the various public-funded tertiary institutions in relation to the disturbances;

(2) whether it knows, since the removal of the cordons around the campus of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University following the violent clashes at the campus at the end of November last year, the respective numbers of incidents of facilities being vandalized and persons with different political views clashing with each other in the campuses of various tertiary institutions, and the respective resultant numbers of teaching staff, students, security staff and other persons who sustained injuries;

(3) in respect of the incidents mentioned in (2), of the number of those incidents which were handled by police officers who arrived at the scene and, among such cases, the respective numbers of those in which (i) someone had reported to the Police (please specify who did so) and (ii) the Police had taken the initiative to intervene; whether it will issue to the various tertiary institutions security guidelines, including one on the circumstances under which they should report to the Police to seek assistance instead of relying solely on security staff to handle the situation; and

(4) whether the Government will learn a lesson from the disturbances and consider empowering the Education Bureau to monitor and regulate tertiary institutions, as well as to provide these institutions with more support, so as to ensure that such institutions can effectively manage and protect their campus facilities?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, during the social incidents last year, the campuses of a number of post-secondary institutions were damaged, defaced and interfered with, with some incidents of confrontation, which seriously affected the institutions' order and operations. The Education Bureau ("EDB") regrets it and condemns all illegal or violent acts.

642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

After last year's damage to the campuses, the post-secondary institutions promptly commenced restoration works to minimize the disruption to teaching and research activities. On the whole, the campuses of the institutions are currently generally calm. Teaching and research activities have returned to normal, except for the impact of the novel coronavirus epidemic.

My reply to the questions raised by Mr Tony TSE is as follows:

(1) All post-secondary institutions have deployed their existing resources to carry out repair or maintenance work on campus facilities and enhance security measures, having regard to actual needs. EDB does not maintain any information on the relevant expenditure.

(2) and (3)

The post-secondary institutions are responsible for the day-to-day management of their respective campuses. EDB does not maintain any data on the vandalization of facilities or confrontations between individuals with different political views on their campuses. According to their information, there were four incidents of the vandalization of facilities or confrontations between individuals with different political views on their campuses during the period from December 2019 to September 2020. Three of these cases were reported to the Police by the institutions afterwards. There were no injuries in these incidents.

It has all along been the post-secondary institutions' practice to establish dedicated security units, having regard to campus management needs. Appropriate personnel are engaged for security duties to ensure campus safety. The institutions have also put in place internal mechanisms, rules and procedures to deal with ad-hoc incidents on campus. In the event of ad-hoc incidents, security personnel will be deployed to maintain order on campus as and when necessary and ensure the safety of all those at the scene. Consideration will also be given to seeking the assistance of the law enforcement agencies, taking into account the actual circumstances and needs. Generally speaking, the institution will seek the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 643

assistance of the Police when its security staff are unable to control the situation, or the safety/property of all those at the scene are endangered.

The laws of Hong Kong are applicable to all places in the territory and nowhere is above the law. The campuses of the post-secondary institutions should not be used for any illegal activities and offenders on campus will not be absolved from criminal liability. It is the statutory duty of the Police to take actions if anyone contravenes the laws of Hong Kong. Section 50(3) of the Police Force Ordinance further stipulates that if any police officer has reason to believe that any person to be arrested has entered into or is in any place, the person residing in or in charge of such place shall allow the police officer free ingress thereto and afford all reasonable facilities for search therein. The institutions should, as required by the law, cooperate with the Police in carrying out their duties and all those at the scene must also comply with the instructions given by the Police in discharging their duties.

(4) The post-secondary institutions are responsible for properly managing and protecting the safety of their campuses, and preventing illegal activities on campus to ensure that their operations comply with the law.

In the light of the experience of last year's social incidents, the University Grants Committee ("UGC")-funded universities and the Vocational Training Council ("VTC") have enhanced their on-campus security arrangements, taking into account their actual needs, and they have hired additional security staff. Some institutions have also implemented access control measures, such as requiring staff members, students and invited visitors to present their identity documents or to register before entering the campus. Individual institutions have even engaged professional security consultants to review the existing on-campus security facilities, manpower and arrangements, seeking professional recommendations on enhancing the overall on-campus security measures in the long run.

644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

In addition, while respecting academic freedom and institutional autonomy, the Government has all along required the institutions to maintain good governance, and provided appropriate assistance to meet actual needs, thereby ensuring that the institutions effectively operate in accordance with their missions and roles, and serving the best interests of students as well as society. Over the past few years, the UGC-funded universities and VTC have implemented various measures to enhance their governance, such as drawing up an institutional risk register and a code of governance, or reviewing them. Moreover, the UGC-funded universities are required to make an annual report to UGC on their latest developments and performance indicators. Regarding the handling of ad-hoc incidents, all UGC-funded universities have put in place a contingency mechanism, normally consisting of an emergency response team led by the university management (e.g. the President or Vice-President responsible for administrative duties) to coordinate the contingency measures and cooperation among different units.

On the premise of looking after the interests of students and society as well as the development of higher education in Hong Kong, EDB will continue to maintain close communication with the post-secondary institutions.

Statistics on the confirmed cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019

17. DR PIERRE CHAN (in Chinese): President, will the Government inform this Council of the following statistics on the confirmed cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") since January this year:

(1) the number of clusters involving five to nine cases, and set out the relevant details in Table 1;

Table 1 Name of cluster Case numbers Number of cases

(2) the number of cases with unknown sources;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 645

(3) a breakdown of the numbers of (i) confirmed cases and (ii) death cases by the age group to which the patients belonged (set out in Table 2);

Table 2 Age group Type of 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 cases to to to to to to to to to to to 9 19 29 39 49 59 69 79 89 99 109 (i) (ii)

(4) a breakdown of the numbers of (i) confirmed cases, (ii) death cases, (iii) confirmed cases involving persons aged 60 or above and (iv) death cases involving persons aged 60 or above by the date of confirmation (set out in Table 3);

Table 3 Date of confirmation Type of cases 1 January to 1 March to Since 1 July 29 February 30 June (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

(5) a breakdown of the numbers of confirmed cases involving healthcare personnel and allied health professionals (i.e. (i) doctors, (ii) nurses, (iii) physiotherapists, (iv) occupational therapists, (v) clinical psychologists, (vi) dietitians, (vii) audiologists, (viii) optometrists, (ix) orthoptists, (x) speech therapists, (xi) pharmacists, (xii) dispensers, (xiii) radiographers, (xiv) medical laboratory technologists, (xv) medical social workers, (xvi) prosthetist-orthotists and (xvii) podiatrists) as well as (xviii) supporting healthcare workers by the type of healthcare facilities in which they work (set out in Table 4); and

646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Table 4 Staff Public hospitals Private hospitals Private clinics (i) … (xviii)

(6) whether it knows the number of cases of compensation claims lodged, since January this year, by employees under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282) for contracting COVID-19 arising out of and in the course of their employment, together with the following information of such cases:

(i) a breakdown of the number of such cases by the industry in which the employees concerned were engaged,

(ii) the number of cases in which the employers took the initiative to notify the Government of such cases,

(iii) the number and percentage of cases of successful claims,

(iv) the reasons for the claims being unsuccessful, and

(v) the assistance provided by the Government to those employees whose claims for compensations were unsuccessful?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, since the outbreak of COVID-19, the Government has been closely monitoring the development of the epidemic situation. Guided by the three key principles of responding promptly, staying alert to the situation and working in an open and transparent manner, and having regard to experts' advice, we have implemented decisive and appropriate measures to safeguard the public's health.

In consultation with the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the Hospital Authority, my reply to the various parts of the question raised by Dr Pierre CHAN is as follows:

(1) As at 25 October 2020, the Centre for Health Protection ("CHP") of the Department of Health ("DH") recorded a total of 160 clusters of COVID-19 which involved five or more cases. Among them, over LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 647

120 clusters involved five to nine cases, most of which involved families, friends or workplace settings.

(2) As at 25 October 2020, CHP of DH recorded a total 3 849 cases of locally acquired and possibly locally acquired cases of COVID-19, out of which 1 485 were locally acquired and possibly locally acquired cases with unknown sources.

(3) As at 25 October 2020, the 5 296 COVID-19 confirmed cases and 105 death cases in Hong Kong, respectively broken down by the age group to which the patients belonged to are set out in the table below:

Age groups 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Type of cases to to to to to to to to to to to 9 19 29 39 49 59 69 79 89 99 109 Confirmed cases 210 379 863 877 807 844 785 321 153 56 1 Death cases 0 0 0 1 0 2 13 27 42 20 0

(4) As at 25 October 2020, the number of COVID-19 confirmed cases, death cases, confirmed cases involving persons aged 60 or above and death cases involving persons aged 60 or above in Hong Kong, respectively broken down by the date of confirmation are set out in the table below:

Date of confirmation 1 January to 1 March to 1 July to Type of cases 29 February 30 June 25 October 2020 2020 2020 Confirmed cases 95 1 111 4 090 Confirmed cases 51 989 2 940 involving persons aged below 60 Confirmed cases 44 122 1 150 involving persons aged 60 or above Death cases 3 5 97 648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Date of confirmation 1 January to 1 March to 1 July to Type of cases 29 February 30 June 25 October 2020 2020 2020 Death cases 1 1 1 involving persons aged below 60 Death cases 2 4 96 involving persons aged 60 or above

(5) As at 25 October 2020, there were 39 confirmed cases which reported to be working at public hospitals, including two doctors, 11 nurses and 26 staff from the support or executive ranks. Out of these cases, most of them are believed to be linked to infections in the community and not infection at hospitals.

During the same period, CHP recorded 23 confirmed cases which reported to be working at private hospitals/private clinics. CHP does not have a breakdown of the above 23 confirmed cases by types of healthcare personnel and allied health professionals.

(6) As at 30 September 2020, the Labour Department ("LD") had received a total of 217 employees' compensation claims with employees suspected to have contracted COVID-19 in employment. Reports by employers to LD had been made for 215 of the claims. The breakdown of reported claims by industry is as follows:

Industry Number of compensation claims Public Administration, Social and 49 Personal Services Finance and Insurance, Real 58 Estate, Professional and Business Services Food and Beverage Services 21 Import/Export, Wholesale and 10 Retail Trades, Accommodation Services LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 649

Industry Number of compensation claims Transportation, Storage, Postal 63 and Courier Services, Information and Communications Construction 8 Manufacturing 1 Others 7 Total 217

Among the reported cases, one case was settled after the employer had made payment in accordance with the Certificate of Compensation Assessment issued by the Commissioner for Labour. No follow-up action could be taken in 16 cases as the employees withdrew their claims or failed to respond to LD. LD has been following up on the remaining cases.

LD has been proactively following up on employees' compensation claims with employees suspected to have contracted COVID-19 in employment based on information published by CHP. A note on employees' rights and protection under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance, together with the contact means of LD, has also been distributed through hospitals to all confirmed COVID-19 patients. In case of dispute over employees' compensation cases, LD will obtain medical reports and other relevant information (such as contact tracing reports) and provide its views to the employee and employer concerned on the likelihood of the case being a work injury upon the expert advice of its Occupational Health Officers. If the dispute cannot be resolved through LD, the employee may seek adjudication from the Court. LD will assist the employee in seeking assistance from the Legal Aid Department.

Participation of small and medium enterprises and start-ups in government procurements

18. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, there are comments that encouraging small and medium enterprises ("SMEs") and start-ups to participate in government procurements and helping them tap 650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 business opportunities will be conducive to promoting the economic development of Hong Kong in the long run. In recent years, the Government has introduced a new procurement policy which raises the weighting of the technical aspect in the overall score during tender assessment, and provided a platform through the Smart Government Innovation Lab ("Smart Lab") to match the business needs of government departments with the solutions proposed by technology suppliers. Regarding the measures to enhance the participation rate of SMEs and start-ups in government procurements and the effectiveness of these measures, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) regarding the (a) Minor Group and (b) Major Group under the Standing Offer Agreement for Quality Professional Services respectively, of (i) the number of SMEs to which contracts were awarded, and (ii) the respective percentages of the numbers and total values of such contracts in the total numbers and values of all contracts awarded in the relevant groups, in each of the past three years;

(2) since the creation of the Smart Lab's thematic website, of (i) the number of occasions in which the business needs of government departments successfully matched, through the platform, the solutions of the innovation and technology ("IT") suppliers and, (ii) the names and scope of technology of the needs/solutions involved, (iii) the respective names of the solution suppliers and the government departments concerned, and (iv) the amounts and contract periods of the contracts signed;

(3) given that in 2018, only 10 government departments handled tendering matters regarding the procurement of stores and services via the e-Tender Box system, and that the total value of the procurements handled via the online procurement platform under the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer accounted for only 16.6% of the total value of the government procurement contracts of a value not exceeding $1.4 million, whether the Government has examined ways to enhance the features and utilization rates of the online procurement platform, so as to facilitate the use of the platform by the procuring departments and tenderers;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 651

(4) whether it will examine adopting an innovative procurement system to increase SMEs' participation, including (i) making reference to the practice of the South Korean Government and inviting SME representatives to formulate and timely update the list of "Procurement of goods and services from SME-only" and stipulating that only tenders from SMEs will be accepted for specific types of goods or services, so as to provide greater incentives for SMEs to participate in bidding, and (ii) making reference to the practice of the Singapore Government and inviting enterprise tenderers to submit solutions, with a view to helping the government departments to achieve results, rather than just submitting tenders to meet the technical specifications set out by the departments;

(5) whether it will provide staff members of the various government departments with training relating to the application of IT solutions, and organize regularly promotional exhibitions in respect of local IT solutions, so as to enable various policy bureaux and government departments to have a better understanding of the solutions that may resolve issues in their daily operation, thereby enhancing the chance of SMEs and start-ups participating in government procurements; and

(6) whether it will extensively consult SMEs and start-ups on the direction of development of the government procurement policy?

SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, our reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) In the past three financial years, the participation of small and medium enterprises ("SMEs") in the Minor Group and Major Group under Categories 2 and 3 of the Standing Offer Agreement for Quality Professional Services is shown below:

(a) Minor Group

2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 (i) Number of SMEs 12 15 12 awarded with contracts 652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 (ii) Number of 56 40 63 contracts (40%) (25%) (39%) involved and its percentage of the group's total number of contracts

Contract sum (in 49.41 43.36 76.68 $million) and its (38%) (25%) (45%) percentage of the group's total contract sum

(b) Major Group

2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 (i) Number of 7 8 4 SMEs awarded with contracts (ii) Number of 8 8 5 contracts (12%) (21%) (12%) involved and its percentage of the group's total number of contracts

Contract sum 20.73 28.24 13.15 (in $million) (6%) (14%) (4%) and its percentage of the group's total contract sum

(2) Since its establishment, the Smart Government Innovation Lab ("Smart LAB") has matched 34 business needs from different government bureaux/departments ("B/Ds") with technology LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 653

solutions, covering different technology areas such as artificial intelligence, robotics technology, data analytics, etc. The departments concerned will proceed with procurement according to their needs. We do not keep records of the contractual expenditure and contract period of these procurements.

(3) The e-Tender Box ("ETB") system of the Government Logistics Department ("GLD") enables B/Ds to handle matters related to the procurement of stores, services and revenue contracts. Registered suppliers can access the system online to download tender documents free of charge, submit tender proposals, enquire on tendering matters, and access tender notices and notices of contract award.

GLD has been endeavouring to enhance the service quality and functions of ETB. In March 2020, GLD introduced the "Alternative Authentication Method" ("AAM") as a new function, whereby tenderers may authenticate their tender submissions in lieu of digital certificates when making submissions via ETB. AAM, the activation for which is free of charge, could save time and cost required for applying or renewing digital certificates from the relevant recognized certification authorities, thereby facilitating submission of tenders by SMEs and minimizing their administrative cost. In addition, with regard to the "iAM Smart" initiative to be launched by the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer ("OGCIO") soon, GLD will conduct technical studies with a view to enabling users to authenticate their identity and log into ETB via "iAM Smart".

GLD will continue to promote ETB to B/Ds via memo or seminars and encourage their usage. GLD will also work with OGCIO to explore further improvements to and enhancement of the electronic tendering platform's functions.

At present, all B/Ds are using the e-Procurement Programme to handle procurement of IT products and related services not exceeding $1.4 million in contract value, including quotations. Among them, 39 B/Ds have adopted the e-Procurement Programme 654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

to deal with all low-valued procurements items (i.e. covering stores and non-construction services not exceeding $1.4 million in value, and consultancy services not exceeding $3 million).

In 2019, the procurement completed by B/Ds via the e-Procurement Programme amounted to $1.732 billion in total, an increase of about 18% over the sum of $1.465 billion in 2018.

(4) It is Government's procurement policy to encourage more interested bidders to participate in procurement of the stores and services required under fair, open and competitive procedures. Hong Kong is a signatory to the Agreement on Government Procurement of the World Trade Organization ("WTO GPA"). When conducting procurement, the Government abides by the principle under the WTO GPA to treat all tenderers on equal footing, in order to ensure that local and overseas suppliers and contractors, regardless of scale, can participate in biddings in an open and fair manner.

The existing Government procurement policy facilitates SMEs' participation in government procurement. Apart from requiring B/Ds to adopt a higher technical weighting in tender assessment as mentioned in the question, they in general should not set tenderers' experience as an essential requirement for participating in procurement unless absolutely necessary and with prior approval. The procurement policy also encourages departments to adopt output- or performance-based, rather than input-based, tender specifications; and to conduct market research or non-binding Expression of Interest exercises before inviting tenders, so that departments can better understand the goods or services available in the market, technological trends, etc.

Furthermore, procuring departments are required to split large contracts into smaller ones as far as possible to facilitate participation of SMEs and lower the risk of over-concentration of government contracts; simplify tender documents as far as possible and avoid setting over-prescriptive requirements in the tender documents, so as to relieve the burden of the tenderers and avoid unnecessarily disqualifying tenderers from participation in government procurement. Also, B/Ds should adopt a phased LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 655

payment approach where possible in setting the payment arrangement and ensure timely payment in a reasonable time frame, in order to relieve the pressure on the contractors' cashflow.

(5) The Smart LAB regularly organizes seminars, workshops and technology fora to increase B/Ds' awareness in the need for adopting innovative technology solutions in solving daily operational problems. These technology fora provide opportunities for local start-ups and SMEs to introduce their technical solutions to government departments as well as to better understand the needs of departments and submit proposals to the Smart LAB in appropriate areas. The Smart LAB has organized six technology fora since its establishment, and the themes include "Smart City Infrastructure", "Intelligent Transport System and Traffic Management", "Blockchain Technology for Public Services", "Robotics Technologies for Public Services", "Connected City-5G and Wi-Fi", and "Technology Solutions for Remote Work".

The Smart LAB also arranges jointly with relevant B/Ds testing and proof-of-concept for solutions that meet their needs, hence creating more opportunities for relevant companies to participate in the tender exercise. The Smart LAB has also set up an industry liaison office to showcase those technologies that have been successfully or are being tested by B/Ds with a view to inspiring more B/Ds to adopt.

To foster an innovation and technology ("I&T") culture within the Government, OGCIO launched the "Leading Towards Robotics Technologies" Innovation Competition in mid-2020 for government staff to submit proposals for applying robotics technologies effectively to improve public services. The Smart LAB will provide assistance to the 10 short-listed proposals to conduct proof-of-concept and select the winners.

In addition, other departments have also set up various platforms/measures in the past few years to facilitate B/Ds' adoption of I&T solutions including:

- the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department established the E&M InnoPortal in June 2018 under which E&M solutions from local universities and start-ups are 656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

matched with the needs of B/Ds. So far, over 100 field trials have been conducted to assess their effectiveness and performance reports on the tested solutions have been shared to the Portal for reference by the public;

- the Public Sector Trial Scheme under the Innovation and Technology Fund ("ITF") provides funding support for public sector organizations to conduct trials of new technologies/products developed by ITF-funded projects as well as incubates, graduate tenants of the Hong Kong Science Park and Cyberport. Since 2011, over 260 projects involving trials in 150 public sector organizations (including over 30 B/Ds) have been carried out, with a total funding support of about $493 million; and

- the Efficiency Office launched the "Be the Smart Regulator" ("BSR") and "Streamlining of Government Services" ("SGS") programmes in 2007 and mid-2019 respectively to enhance Hong Kong's overall business licensing environment and streamline government services, including adoption of suitable technology solutions. The BSR programme currently covers more than 400 business licences involving 29 B/Ds, while the SGS programme requires all B/Ds to propose streamlining measures and to report progress annually.

(6) The Government has been using various means to gauge the views and suggestions of the industry, including SMEs, on government procurement. GLD and the Support and Consultation Centre for SMEs under the Trade and Industry Department also organize procurement seminars for SMEs to brief them on the procedures and arrangements for government procurement and tendering. Comments from SMEs on government procurement will be referred to relevant B/Ds for consideration as appropriate.

Measures to boost the economy and relieve people's hardship

19. MS ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, regarding the measures to boost the economy and relieve people's hardship amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") epidemic, will the Government inform this Council:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 657

(1) of the latest progress of the implementation of a system for mutual recognition of health codes ("mutual recognition system") by the authorities of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao;

(2) whether it will discuss the following matters with the authorities of Guangdong and Macao:

(i) on the premise that the effectiveness of the efforts to combat the epidemic will not be compromised, increasing the health code quota under the mutual recognition system by phases, with the first phase covering those who need to commute between the three places on grounds of business and trade, work, study, visiting relatives or special needs; and

(ii) allowing residents of the three places, upon entry, to renew their health codes through nucleic acid tests on COVID-19 conducted locally;

if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) of the progress of the discussions between the Government and other countries and places, apart from Singapore, on the establishment of bilateral "Air Travel Bubbles";

(4) given that the non-seasonally adjusted numbers of unemployed and underemployed persons in June to August this year have risen to almost 250 000 and almost 150 000 respectively, whether the Government will consider afresh establishing an unemployment assistance; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(5) whether it will consider amending the legislation to permit employees to withdraw the accrued benefits of employees' contributions in their Mandatory Provident Fund accounts, but such a withdrawal may be made only once with the amount capped at 50% of the accrued benefits concerned or $100,000, whichever is the lower; if so, of the details and the legislative timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and

658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

(6) as some experts have pointed out that COVID-19 may co-exist with mankind for a long time, and Hong Kong cannot rely solely on internal consumption to support its economy in the long run, of the Government's new plans to boost the economy and help various trades and industries to tide over the difficult times?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, in consultation with relevant Policy Bureaux, including the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, Labour and Welfare Bureau, Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, etc., my consolidated reply to the various parts of the question raised by Ms Elizabeth QUAT is as follows:

(1) and (2)

For the early resumption of the cross-boundary flow of people between Guangdong and Hong Kong, and between Hong Kong and Macao, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government has been liaising closely with the Guangdong Provincial and Macao SAR Governments to discuss the relevant implementation proposal. The latest thinking is to mutually exempt the compulsory quarantine requirement upon entry to the other side based on the conditions of mutual conversion of "Health Codes" and mutual recognition of the nucleic acid test results. Details of the arrangement and implementation timeline will be determined upon further deliberations by the three places having regard to the development of the epidemic situation. On the other hand, we have earlier amended the Compulsory Quarantine of Certain Persons Arriving at Hong Kong Regulation (Cap. 599C) and the Compulsory Quarantine of Persons Arriving at Hong Kong from Foreign Places Regulations (Cap. 599E) to empower the Secretary for Food and Health ("SFH") to exclude certain categories of persons specified by SFH arriving from certain Category 2 specified places from compulsory quarantine provided that they meet the conditions specified by SFH. The Hong Kong SAR Government will continue to closely monitor the development of the epidemic and discuss with the Guangdong Provincial and Macao SAR Governments, with a view to implementing the relevant arrangement as soon as possible.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 659

(3) The Hong Kong SAR Government has established an interdepartmental task force led by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development to actively explore with countries that have a relatively stable epidemic situation and close economic and trade relations with Hong Kong on the gradual resumption of cross-border travel. We have approached 11 countries since mid-June 2020 to explore the initiative. Amongst these countries, Hong Kong and Singapore have reached an in-principle agreement to establish a bilateral Air Travel Bubble ("ATB"). Both governments are committed to fleshing out the full details of ATB and look forward to the resumption of travel between both cities as soon as possible, with the necessary safeguards in place to ensure that public health concerns of both sides are addressed. The launch date of ATB and other implementation details will be announced in due course. Apart from Singapore, the Governments of Thailand and Japan have earlier announced the commencement of discussion with Hong Kong on relaxing travel restrictions. The interdepartmental task force is following up with the Governments of Thailand and Japan on the relevant details.

As the relaxation of quarantine arrangement involves a lot of complicated operational details, such discussion would take time. On the other hand, the implementation of the relevant arrangement still need to depend on the development of the epidemic situation both locally and in the countries or regions concerned. We will closely monitor the relevant situation and announce the progress in due course.

(4) Having considered the unprecedented challenges posed by COVID-19 in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong SAR Government announced in April 2020 the introduction of a time-limited "Special Scheme of Assistance to the Unemployed" through the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") system. The asset limits for able-bodied applicants under the CSSA Scheme have been temporarily relaxed for six months by 100% from 1 June 2020. In September 2020, the Government announced the further extension of the special scheme for six months to 31 May 2021. Over the past few months, there has been a significant increase in CSSA unemployment cases, which shows that CSSA is effectively serving 660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

its purpose as the safety net and could help the unemployed who are facing temporary financial hardship. The Employees Retraining Board ("ERB") annually attracted more than 100 000 trainees to enrol in its training courses in the past three years. To support the unemployed or underemployed affected by the economic downturn for skills enhancement, ERB was commissioned by the Government to launch the "Love Upgrading Special Scheme" ("the Special Scheme") in October 2019, offering training courses of around two to three months free of charge for trainees. The Government has assisted ERB in raising the ceiling of the monthly allowance per trainee from $4,000 to $5,800 in May 2020, and tasked it to launch Phase 2 of the Special Scheme and introduce a series of enhancements in July 2020, including increasing the number of training courses to about 300, as well as supporting enterprises and trade associations in arranging their employees or staff of corporate members who are underemployed or taking no-pay leave to attend courses under the Special Scheme, etc.

(5) Any proposals allowing early withdrawal of accrued benefits from the Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") System must take into consideration the corresponding reduction of scheme members' accrued benefits meant for their retirement. Scheme members should not overlook the characteristics of MPF as a long-term investment with compounding effect. Its design is to allow MPF benefits to accumulate steadily and keep in the accounts for value growth during the working life of scheme members. Therefore, accrued benefits should be preserved in the System as far as possible and should only be withdrawn upon retirement of the employed persons. The MPF legislation only allows scheme members to make early withdrawal of accrued benefits before reaching the retirement age under certain exceptional circumstances. If we were to relax the preservation requirement on accrued benefits and allow scheme members to make early withdrawal to meet short-term financial needs or for contingency purposes, the accrued benefits would fail to accumulate for value growth, thereby undermining the integrity of the MPF system and rendering it difficult to achieve the purpose of assisting the working population to save for their retirement.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 661

(6) The Hong Kong SAR Government understands that the persistent epidemic and relevant anti-epidemic measures have added tremendous burden to various sectors. As such, the three rounds of the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF") have introduced around 100 measures to provide relief to sectors and individuals hard-hit by the epidemic and directly affected by the Government's anti-epidemic and social-distancing measures, as well as to enhance our anti-epidemic capability. The total commitment of AEF has exceeded $150 billion, covering various sectors including small and medium enterprises, construction, property management, travel, catering, retail, convention and exhibition, arts and culture, creative, innovation and technology, passenger transport, aviation, agriculture and fisheries, hotel, child care centres and registered private schools offering non-formal curriculum, etc. AEF also provides support to a wide spectrum of employees and needy groups including licenced hawkers, frontline cleansing and security workers, low-income families, secondary, primary and kindergarten students and school-related service providers (such as registered interest class teachers). The relief measures under the three rounds of AEF and the 2020-2021 Budget involve over $300 billion in total, which is about 10% to 11% of Hong Kong's Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") and is expected to have a supporting effect of slightly more than 5% of GDP on our economy. Relevant measures include the Cash Payout Scheme, rates concession and financial assistance to the sectors and individuals affected by the epidemic. The Government has also provided rental concessions for eligible tenants/holders of government premises, short-term tenancies and waivers administered by the Lands Department, as well as a wide range of fee concessions/waivers, with a view to relieving the burden on businesses and individuals. While many of the above measures are still in force and yielding effects, the Government will keep a close watch on the latest situation and respond in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, with a sizeable spending on the said support measures and an anticipated reduction in government revenue due to the economic downturn, we estimate that the consolidated deficit for the current financial year will exceed $300 billion, and our fiscal reserves will be reduced to around $800 billion, equivalent to around 12 to 13 months of government expenditure. In the face of the 662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

current economic downturn and uncertainties arising from COVID-19, it is crucial that the Government exercises fiscal prudence and preserve our fiscal strength, with a view to meeting our known commitments as well as coping with any unforeseen needs. Maintaining a healthy level of fiscal reserves is also fundamental to ensuring the financial stability of Hong Kong.

Way of handling of members of the public and reporters by police officers

20. DR HELENA WONG (in Chinese): President, regarding police officers' way of handling of members of the public and reporters, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as it has been reported that on 31 August this year, a pregnant woman was dragged, sprayed with pepper spray and held in a chokehold by police officers, resulting in her falling onto the ground and being hospitalized as she felt unwell, whether it has assessed if the police officers concerned violated the guidelines on the use of force in the Police General Orders (i.e. irritant agent devices such as pepper spray may be used when the person concerned takes physical action to prevent a police officer's control which might cause injury to oneself or others); if it has assessed and the outcome is in the negative, of the reasons for that; of the number of pregnant women, since June last year, who were injured at the scenes of public events as a result of the actions taken by police officers;

(2) as it has been reported that on 6 September this year, when a 12-year-old girl who was on her way with her elder brother to a nearby shopping mall to buy pastels tried, allegedly out of fright, to flee the scene of a social event, she was knocked down to the ground and pinned down by a police officer who knelt on her, whether it has assessed:

(i) if that police officer, by using force on that girl, breached Article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (i.e. "[n]o child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"); if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, whether the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 663

Police have reprimanded the police officer concerned; if the assessment outcome is in the negative, of the reasons for that; and

(ii) if that police officer's subduing by knocking down to the ground a suspect (especially a child) who has not taken any action that threatens other people's safety amounts to excessive force, and if this kind of force may be used only when a verbal order is unheeded; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the negative, of the reasons for that; and

(3) as it has been reported that police officers recently stopped and searched quite a number of reporters in a number of demonstrations, ticketed online media reporters for contravening the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation (Cap. 599G), and even threatened reporters that they would no longer handle the latter in "such a gentle manner" in future, whether it has assessed if police officers obstructing, from time to time, reporters' news covering has stemmed from their fear of their way of discharging duties being monitored by the media, which are regarded as the "fourth estate"; whether the Police will undertake to facilitate rather than hinder reporters' news covering in future?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, according to section 10 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232), the Police have the statutory duty to adopt lawful measures to maintain public safety and public order, as well as safeguard people's life and property. The Police will, in light of the circumstances at the scene, make assessments and exercise professional judgment to take appropriate actions to ensure public safety and public order.

My reply to various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) Since the afternoon of 31 August 2020, a large group of people assembled outside the Prince Edward MTR Station in response to online appeals. At dusk, a large group of people conducted an unlawful assembly and shouted in the vicinity of Mong Kok and Prince Edward. Some people even walked out to the roads and 664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

blocked them with miscellaneous objects. After issuing numerous warnings in vain, the Police conducted law enforcement operations and, at around 10:00 pm on the same day, arrested a man for suspected disorderly conduct in public places at Argyle Street near Sai Yeung Choi Street South. When the Police were arresting the man, he and the woman with him once fell down. Upon finding out that the woman was pregnant, the Police immediately provided assistance to her and arranged for a female police officer to accompany the pregnant woman to the Kwong Wah Hospital for treatment, with a view to providing all appropriate assistance to ensure that she received proper treatment.

In view of the actual circumstances at the scene, the Police exercised professional judgment and took appropriate actions at the material time to ensure the safety of those at the scene and prevent the situation from further deteriorating. The Police have stringent guidelines on the use of force. Police officers may use minimum force as appropriate only when it is absolutely necessary and there are no other means to accomplish the lawful duty. Police officers will give warnings prior to the use of force as far as circumstances permit, and the person(s) being warned will be given every opportunity, where practicable, to obey police orders before force is used. Once the purpose of using force is achieved, the Police will cease to use force.

The Police do not maintain the figures requested in the question.

(2) (i) and (ii)

On 6 September this year, some netizens called for the participation in an unauthorized procession in Kowloon on social media. On that afternoon, some people conducted an unlawful assembly and shouted in the vicinity of Yau Ma Tei and Mong Kok, and even blocked the roads with miscellaneous objects in defiance of the law. Consequently, the Police took appropriate actions and conducted stop-and-searches. During the process, a young girl suddenly fled on foot. Her suspicious act made the police officers at LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 665

the scene considered it necessary to stop her with the minimum force. Upon knowing that the girl was only 12 years old, police officers at the scene immediately arranged for a female police officer to comfort her and attend to her needs. The Police subsequently issued fixed penalty tickets to those assembled, including the girl, for contravening the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition of Group Gathering) Regulation.

The Complaints Against Police Office have received a related complaint and is conducting investigation. The Police are concerned that some minors were taking part in prohibited group gatherings, and are also worried that being at the scene of chaotic illegal protests would endanger their personal safety. The Police strongly appeal to minors to stay away from high-risk protests.

(3) The freedom of the press in Hong Kong is guaranteed under the Basic Law. While media practitioners need to cover news, the Police have a statutory duty to adopt measures to maintain public order and safeguard public safety. On condition of not affecting police operations, the Police have all along been assisting in media reporting, so that both sides can perform their respective functions on the basis of mutual understanding and respect. The Police have also kept reminding reporters that they should pay attention to police instructions and maintain appropriate distance from the Police so as to ensure the safety of both sides.

To further enhance the mutual understanding and respect between the Police and the media, the Police established the Force Media Liaison Cadre in December 2015. The major responsibilities of the Cadre include assisting the media with their work at the scene of reporting, communicating with the media and handling media-related matters. The Cadre was augmented to a strength of over 300 people in May this year, in an effort to allow the deployment of sufficient officers to facilitate the reporting work of journalists during major public order events.

666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Since the incidents related to the anti-extradition law amendment bill movement last year, there have been many violent public order events at various locations across the territory, with the presence of a large number of people wearing yellow vests or dressing like reporters at the scene. The Police have often encountered instances of people mixing among the crowds disguising as reporters, including fake reporter identification being seized, self-proclaimed reporters being found to be not employed by the media organization as claimed, people wearing outfits similar to those of reporters but admitted that they were not reporters and made excuses to leave when their reporter credentials were questioned. Their passing off as reporters has rendered the Police unable to perform their statutory duties effectively.

In the past, there were even self-proclaimed reporters charged for committing illegal acts at the scene. Among them, two were charged with the offences of "entering or remaining in precincts of Chamber" and "rioting" for suspected violent storming of the Legislative Council Complex on 1 July last year, and the cases would be heard in the District Court on 18 December this year. Also, a person in a reflective jacket was suspected to have snatched a suspect from the Police in New Town Plaza, Sha Tin on 14 July last year. He was eventually charged with the offence of "obstructing police officers" and the case will be heard in the Shatin Magistrates' Courts on 12 November this year.

To facilitate frontline police officers in identifying media practitioners undertaking normal reporting activities and thereby better assist reporters, the Police have revised the definition of "media representatives" and amended the media facilitation guidelines under the Police General Orders. Upon revision, the definition of "media representatives" has become more precise and clearer, enabling frontline police officers to identify "media representatives" more effectively and quickly, which will in turn help the Police make special reporting arrangements to them where feasible and on the condition of not affecting police operations or police work.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 667

Promoting the popularization of electric vehicles

21. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, on promoting the popularization of electric vehicles ("EVs") in Hong Kong, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the brands, models, purchase prices and numbers of service years to date of the official vehicles currently allocated to the Chief Executive and the various Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux (set out in a table by post title);

(2) of the number of newly registered electric private cars ("e-PCs") in Hong Kong from January to September this year (with a breakdown by brand);

(3) of the respective numbers of various types of newly registered electric commercial vehicles in the past three years;

(4) of the respective (i) monthly and (ii) up-to-date numbers of applications for tax concession received and approved by the Transport Department under the "One-for-One Replacement" Scheme, since the launch of the Scheme in 2018;

(5) given that two of the eligibility criteria of the "One-for-One Replacement" Scheme are that: (i) the old private car ("PC") must have been first registered for six years or more, and (ii) the applicant must have been the registered owner of that vehicle for 18 months or more without interruption, of the respective numbers of PCs as at 30 September this year which satisfied the two aforesaid criteria; the relevant projected figures for the coming three years;

(6) whether it knows the numbers of (i) parking spaces and (ii) public EV chargers, together with a breakdown by type (i.e. standard, medium and quick), in each car park under the MTR Corporation Limited, the Link Asset Management Limited and the Hong Kong Housing Authority as at 30 September this year (set out in a table);

668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

(7) given that in her Policy Address delivered last year, the Chief Executive put forward the initiative of preparing a $2 billion pilot subsidy scheme to subsidize the installation of EV charging-enabling infrastructure in the car parks of eligible residential buildings, of the latest progress and details of the scheme;

(8) as the Government has indicated that it will update the Clean Air Plan to, among other things, examine the policy of further promoting the use of EVs, and will formulate Hong Kong's first roadmap on the popularization of EVs, of the relevant details; the expected time for publishing the Plan;

(9) given that the Government injected in 2020 an additional $800 million to the New Energy Transport Fund (previously named the Pilot Green Transport Fund) to further encourage trial and wider use of green innovative transport technologies, of the scope of subsidy, the number of applications received so far, the target number of projects to be subsidized, as well as when the effectiveness of the Fund will be reviewed; and

(10) as it has been reported that the Government of the United Kingdom has, starting from this year, introduced green number plates for e-PCs as eco-labels to facilitate the implementation of new policies on encouraging members of the public to switch to EVs, whether the Government will draw reference from such practice and implement similar policies to enhance public awareness of environmental protection and the community's understanding of the benefits of zero-emission of EVs; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, the Government has all along been adopting a multi-pronged approach to proactively promote the popularization of electric vehicles ("EVs"). My specific responses to the question raised by Mr CHAN Hak-kan are as follows:

(1) According to the information provided by the Government Logistics Department, the models of the government vehicles allocated to the Chief Executive, Secretaries of Departments and Directors of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 669

Bureaux at present include BMW 750LiA, Lexus LS460L, Infiniti Q70L Hybrid and Tesla Model S 85D. As at 30 September 2020, the service year of the vehicles concerned ranges from 2.3 to 4.7 years, while the unit purchasing price of the vehicles ranges from $350,000 to $720,000.

(2) According to the statistics provided by the Transport Department ("TD"), for the period from 1 January to 30 September 2020, the number of first registered electric private cars ("e-PCs") in Hong Kong is 2 909 and its breakdown is tabulated by brand below:

Brand Number of first registered e-PCs AUDI 31 BMW i 22 HYUNDAI 264 JAGUAR 6 KIA 144 MERCEDES BENZ 48 NISSAN 180 PORSCHE 20 RENAULT 34 SMART 26 TESLA 2 116 VOLKSWAGEN 18 Total 2 909

Note:

Government EVs are not included in the numbers as government vehicles are not required to be registered.

(3) Based on TD's statistics, the numbers of various types of electric commercial vehicles ("e-CVs") first registered in Hong Kong in the past three years are tabulated below:

Number of Type of e-CVs first registered vehicles in the year 2017 2018 2019 Goods vehicle 12 16 42 Bus 18 5 3 670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Number of Type of e-CVs first registered vehicles in the year 2017 2018 2019 Light bus ("LB") 1 0 1 Taxi 0 0 0 Special purpose vehicle 11 5 5 Total 42 26 51

Note:

Government EVs are not included in the numbers as government vehicles are not required to be registered.

(4) Since the introduction of the "One-for-One Replacement" Scheme ("the Scheme") on 28 February 2018 until 30 September 2020, a total of 5 249 applications were received by TD, among which 5 182 were approved, 7 were being processed and 60 were rejected for not complying with the eligibility criteria. The numbers of applications received and approved by TD under the Scheme are detailed in Annex 1.

(5) Based on TD's statistics, the number of registered private cars ("PCs") that met the two requirements of the Scheme, i.e. "having been first registered for six years or more" and "its owner having owned the PC for 18 months or more without interruption", as at 30 September 2020 and the estimated numbers for the coming three years are set out in Annex 2.

(6) The number of parking spaces and EV chargers installed at car parks managed by the MTR Corporation Limited, Link Asset Management Limited and the Hong Kong Housing Authority as at 30 September 2020 are tabulated in Annex 3.

(7) The Chief Executive announced in her 2019 Policy Address the preparation of a $2 billion pilot subsidy scheme to promote the installation of EV charging-enabling infrastructure in car parks of existing private residential buildings, enabling EV owners to install chargers at car parks of their residences according to their own needs in the future for charging at home. The pilot subsidy scheme, i.e. the EV-charging at Home Subsidy Scheme ("EHSS"), has been open for application since 21 October 2020. EHSS will run for about three years with a view to covering roughly 60 000 private LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 671

parking spaces. The Government will subsidize the total cost of the installation works, subject to a funding ceiling for each private residential development. The subsidy shall not exceed $15 million, or $30,000 per approved private parking space, whichever is the less. Applications shall be submitted by owners' corporations, managers appointed under the Deed of Mutual Covenant or all owners, and will be processed on a first-come, first-served basis.

(8) The Government is actively preparing to update the Clean Air Plan to examine long-term targets and measures that will further improve air quality and reduce air pollutant emissions from various sources. The related work is expected to be completed by the first half of 2021.

By the first quarter of 2021, we will also formulate the Hong Kong's first road map on the popularization of EVs. The road map will set out the long-term policies and plans for promoting EVs and providing the ancillary facilities, and will also explore the feasibility of setting targets on banning the sale of conventional fuelled PCs, with a view to leading a gradual environmental transformation of various types of vehicles and achieving zero vehicular emission at roadside.

(9) To further promote wider test and use of green innovative transport technologies by the transport sector, the Government has recently extended the scope of the Pilot Green Transport Fund after the review, which was renamed as the New Energy Transport Fund ("NETF") in September 2020. As at October 2020, NETF has approved 193 trial applications with a total subsidy of about $149 million. Trials have been conducted on 141 electric light goods vehicles ("LGVs"), 18 single-deck electric buses, 3 electric LBs, 3 electric taxis, 1 electric medium goods vehicle ("MGV") which is a tractor, 48 hybrid LGVs, 27 hybrid MGVs, 20 hybrid LBs, 2 single-deck hybrid buses, 1 solar air-conditioning system for use on buses, 4 electric inverter air-conditioning systems for use on buses, 3 diesel-electric propulsion systems for use on ferries and 1 seawater scrubber for use on ferries.

The NETF Steering Committee assists the Government in assessing the technology/product categories that are eligible for funding support, as well as deciding the funding rules and caps for each 672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

technology/product category. The Steering Committee also advises the Government on the vetting and approval of applications. The Environmental Protection Department will continue to invite the transport sector to apply for NETF to try out green innovative transport technologies, and will also encourage suppliers to introduce more products into the local market for use by the transport sector. As in the past, funding applications approved under NETF will be announced, and the Legislative Council Panel on Environmental Affairs will be briefed on the progress and achievements made under NETF.

(10) As for the proposal on introducing green number plates for e-PCs as eco-labels, the Government will study and make reference to similar practices in other places and their effectiveness, and examine the feasibility of local application.

Annex 1

Numbers of Applications Received and Approved under "One-for-One Replacement" Scheme as at 30 September 2020

Month Number of Applications Received Number of Applications Approved Year 2018 February 0 0 March 11 11 April 28 27 May 13 14 June 28 24 July 12 13 August 41 33 September 44 47 October 48 49Note November 49 50 December 55 55 Year 2019 January 47 44 February 22 22 March 54 56 April 66 42 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 673

Month Number of Applications Received Number of Applications Approved May 129 147 June 85 78 July 99 109 August 146 126 September 545 524 October 322 314 November 416 369 December 292 355 Year 2020 January 74 75 February 383 251 March 434 537 April 128 134 May 117 123 June 107 111 July 355 184 August 931 982Note September 168 276 Total 5 249 5 182

Note:

A total of four approved applications have been withdrawn by the applicants.

Annex 2

Actual and Estimated Numbers of Registered PCs that met Specific Requirements as at 30 September 2020

(i) Having been first registered for six years or more and (ii) The owner

having owned PCs for 18 months or more without interruption Number of registered PCs as at 308 993 30 September 2020 Estimated maximum number of 404 388 registered PCs as at 30 September 2021 674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

(i) Having been first registered for six years or more and (ii) The owner

having owned PCs for 18 months or more without interruption Estimated maximum number of 484 561 registered PCs as at 30 September 2022 Estimated maximum number of 528 719 registered PCs as at 30 September 2023

Note:

The above estimated numbers of registered PCs are based on the assumptions that there is no increase or decrease in the total number of registered PCs in Hong Kong from 30 September 2020 to 30 September 2023, and that the owners concerned will not transfer the ownership of their registered PCs.

Annex 3

Numbers of Parking Spaces and EV Chargers Installed at Car Parks Managed by MTR Corporation Limited and Link Asset Management Limited and Car Parks of Public Housing Estates and Shopping Centres Managed by Hong Kong Housing Authority as at 30 September 2020

Number of Number of EV Chargers Organization Car Park Location Parking Spaces Standard Medium Quick MTR Tsuen Wan West 120 0 0 2 Corporation Station Limited Paradise Mall 415 1 0 2 Maritime Square 1 220 3 1 2 Maritime Square 2 65 0 2 0 Elements 896 0 5 6 One International 136 0 1 0 Finance Centre Two International 1 172 0 7 0 Finance Centre PopCorn 1 115 1 1 2 PopCorn 2 50 1 1 0 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 675

Number of Number of EV Chargers Organization Car Park Location Parking Spaces Standard Medium Quick Choi Hung Park & Ride 450 1 2 0 Public Car Park Plaza Ascot 67 0 0 2 Sun Tuen Mun 421 0 3 0 Shopping Centre Hanford Plaza 22 0 1 0 Hung Hom Station Car 871 0 2 0 Park Telford Plaza I 268 1 3 0 Telford Plaza II 94 0 3 0 The LOHAS 333 0 3 7 Link Asset Fu Tung 460 3* 3* 0 Management Tai Wo 430 3* 3* 0 Limited Temple Mall North 380 3* 3* 2 Lok Fu 680 3* 3* 0 Tin Shing 1 380 28* 28* 3 Choi Yuen 520 4* 4* 2 Cheung Fat 540 3* 3* 0 TKO Spot 1 050 0 0 2 Cheung On 420 0 0 2 Fu Tai 570 0 0 2 Yat Tung 1 760 0 0 6 Hing Wah 240 0 0 1 Oi Tung 560 0 1 0 Stanley Plaza 370 0 0 1 The Quayside 415 312 100 3 Hong Kong Choi Hing Court 80 73 0 0 Housing Choi Tak Estate 259 5* 5* 0 Authority# Domain 152 7 5 0 Cheung Sha Wan 30 11 0 0 Estate Choi Ying Estate 145 4 0 0 Chun Man Court 395 3 0 0 Easeful Court 86 4 0 0 Hoi Lok Court 125 24 0 0 676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Number of Number of EV Chargers Organization Car Park Location Parking Spaces Standard Medium Quick Hong Wah Court 234 3 0 0 Hung Fuk Estate 139 42 0 0 Kai Ching Estate 141 41 3 0 Kai Long Court 42 4 0 0 King Shan Court 320 1 0 0 Kwai Chung Estate 647 7* 7* 3 (Phase 3 & 4) Kwun Tak Court 80 26 0 0 Lai Tsui Court 103 34 0 0 Lei On Court 423 3 0 0 Lin Tsui Estate 6 3 0 0 Long Ching Estate 11 11 0 0 Long Shin Estate 37 11 0 0 Lower Ngau Tau Kok 158 54 0 0 Estate Mei Tin Estate 297 20 0 0 Mun Tung Estate 140 49 0 0 Ngan Ho Court 40 2 0 0 Ngan Wai Court 14 2 0 0 On Kay Court 224 1 0 0 On Tai Estate 252 65 0 0 On Tat Estate 276 83 3 0 Ping Shek Estate 254 3 0 0 Ping Yan Court 132 44 0 0 Po Heung Estate 117 37 0 0 Po Shek Wu Estate 247 81 0 0 Shek Mun Estate 86 14 0 0 (Phase 2) Sheung Chui Court 57 18 0 0 Shui Chuen O Estate 405 126 0 0 Shui Pin Wai Estate 158 3 0 1 So Uk Estate (Phase 1) 47 15 0 0 So Uk Estate (Phase 2) 126 52 0 0 Tak Long Estate 208 60 4 1 Tung Shing Court 71 1 0 0 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 677

Number of Number of EV Chargers Organization Car Park Location Parking Spaces Standard Medium Quick Tung Tao Court 249 5 0 0 Un Chau Estate 80 4 0 0 Yan Tin Estate 122 25 0 0 Yau Lai Shopping 72 6* 6* 2 Centre Yi Fung Court 214 6 0 0 Ying Tung Estate 93 23 0 0 Yue Wan Estate 206 0 0 1 Fai Ming Estate 23 6 0 0 Kwai Tsui Estate 28 21 0 0 Siu Hong Court 964 2 0 0

Notes:

* Standard and medium chargers are installed in the same parking space

# Including both monthly and hourly parking spaces

Dangerous, abandoned and unauthorized signboards

22. MR VINCENT CHENG (in Chinese): President, under the Large Scale Operations on Target Streets implemented since 2014, the Buildings Department ("BD") each year selects one or more street sections and carries out large scale operations to dispose of the signboards alongside the sections. The relevant work includes investigation, issuing Dangerous Structure Removal Notices to or instituting prosecutions against owners of unauthorized or abandoned signboards, and engaging contractors to carry out removal or rectification works on behalf of the owners. On the other hand, it was pointed out in Report No. 71 of the Director of Audit published in November 2018 that there had been a number of inadequacies in BD's management of signboards. The Chief Executive stated in last year's Policy Address Supplement that BD would use new technologies such as big data, artificial intelligence and three-dimensional images on a pilot basis in black spot areas to enhance the efficiency of law enforcement actions, with a view to protecting public safety. However, it has been reported that the Government has not yet awarded service contracts for the new technologies concerned. In addition, quite a number of shops in various 678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 districts have been affected by the epidemic and closed down in recent months, resulting in a continuous increase in the number of abandoned signboards. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) why the service contracts for the aforesaid new technologies have not yet been awarded; of the expected time when such new technologies will start to be used, and whether it has identified districts in which new technologies will be used on a pilot basis;

(2) of the following statistics on signboard-related work of BD in each of the past three years: (i) the number of reports received, (ii) the number of removal orders issued, (iii) the number of signboards removed or repaired, (iv) the number of outstanding removal orders, and (v) the number of prosecutions instituted (with a tabulated breakdown by District Council ("DC") district);

(3) as quite a number of shops have been affected by the epidemic and closed down, whether BD has compiled statistics on the additional number of abandoned signboards between January and September this year, with a breakdown by DC district;

(4) of the party responsible for removing abandoned or dangerous signboards under the circumstances that the owners of such signboards cannot be ascertained, and whether the owners' corporations, owners' committees or management companies of the buildings concerned are required to assume such a responsibility;

(5) of the number of applications for joining the Signboard Validation Scheme received by BD in each of the past three years; as the Scheme has been implemented for seven years, whether BD has assessed the effectiveness of the Scheme; of BD's new measures to expedite the handling of abandoned or unauthorized signboards; and

(6) given that some conservation groups have requested the Government to preserve some abandoned signboards with distinctive features or historic significance, whether the Government will consider acceding to such a request; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 679

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the Government has all along attached great importance to signboard safety. At present, except for designated exempted works,(1) any signboards erected without obtaining the approval and consent of the Buildings Department ("BD") or following the requirements under the Minor Works Control System ("MWCS") are unauthorized building works ("UBWs"). BD may issue removal orders to the signboard owners or persons concerned in accordance with section 24 of the Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123). On the other hand, for signboards that are abandoned or which may pose a danger, regardless of whether approval was previously obtained for the erection of the signboard, BD may issue Dangerous Structure Removal Notices ("DSRNs") to the signboard owners in accordance with section 105(1) of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) ("PHMSO"), requiring the removal of the signboards concerned. If the required rectification works have not been carried out within the specified period, or in case of emergency in order to remove these signboards to eliminate the danger posed to the public, BD may engage government contractors to remove dangerous signboards and recover the costs from the individuals concerned afterwards.

With the Signboard Control System adhering to a "risk-based" principle, BD has adopted a multi-pronged approach to deal with the unauthorized, dangerous and abandoned signboards. For signboards constituting obvious threat to life or property, the department carries out immediate enforcement action. Priority will also be accorded to enforce against unauthorized signboards under construction or are newly erected. BD also carries out large-scale operations ("LSO") on Target Streets ("LSO on Target Streets"), selecting target street sections each year to remove unauthorized, dangerous and abandoned signboards in a comprehensive manner, as well as conducting LSO against large unauthorized signboards that pose a relatively higher risk to the public.

Nevertheless, considering that most existing signboards are being used by business operators and that their existence facilitates local commercial activities, BD has implemented the Signboard Validation Scheme ("SVS") since 2 September 2013. The scheme allows the continued use of signboards that are relatively small in scale, pose less risk, were erected before the implementation date of SVS and comply with the prescribed technical specifications for minor works, on the condition that they have undergone safety inspection, strengthening

(1) Referring to works specified in Schedule 2 to the Building (Minor Works) Regulation. 680 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

(if required) and certification by prescribed building professionals and/or prescribed registered contractors to BD. Such signboards are required to undergo safety validation every five years thereafter.

In consultation with BD, the Development Bureau provides a consolidated reply as follows:

(1) The Government announced in the 2019 Policy Address that BD would step up the application of technologies to regulate signboards, including utilizing artificial intelligence ("AI") and three-dimensional images to develop a defective signboard diagnostic system, utilizing AI to assist in the setting up of a legal signboards database, and using big data in the public realm to identify new businesses that may require erection of signboards so that BD may actively approach them for publicity. The relevant studies on new technologies involve a number of consultancy contracts. BD carried out a number of relevant technical and marketing researches and prepared the tender documents earlier this year. Tenders were invited in mid-2020. The relevant consultancy contracts are currently being awarded successively and the department anticipates their implementation or trial run within next year. The selection of pilot districts is underway.

(2) Statistics of various enforcement efforts relating to signboards in the past three years broken down by district is at Annex 1. Figures for the same year in the respective tables of Annex 1 may not correspond to the same cases.

(3) From January to September 2020, BD staff conducted target inspections in Wan Chai, North and Yuen Long Districts. The number of abandoned or dangerous signboards identified within the three districts is set out as follows, while a total of 516 abandoned and dangerous signboards were identified within the same period in all the 18 districts in the territory.

Number of abandoned or dangerous signboards District (as at end of September) Wan Chai 168 North 118 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 681

Number of abandoned or dangerous signboards District (as at end of September) Yuen Long 166 Remaining 15 64 districts* Total 516

Note:

* No target inspections were carried out in these districts within the period. The identification of relevant signboards was mainly through public reports.

(4) BD will issue DSRNs to the signboard owners concerned in accordance with section 105(1) of PHMSO, requiring the removal of the abandoned or dangerous signboards.(2) In cases of non-compliance or emergency in removing these dangerous signboards in order to eliminate the danger posed to the public, BD will instruct government contractors to remove the signboards in default and recover the expenses from the signboard owners afterwards. Where signboard owners cannot be identified, the costs of the removal works would be covered by government funding.

(5) Since the introduction of SVS in 2013, while most signboard owners tend to choose to remove and re-erect signboards under MWCS, the continuing receipt of validation submissions by BD reflects that some signboard owners wish to continue to use their existing signboards through SVS due to cost and business considerations. In the past three years, BD received a total of 145 validation submissions. Details are as follows:

Number of signboard validation Year submissions received 2018 53 2019 53

(2) According to section 105 of PHMSO, DSRNs are issued to the signboard owner, or upon his servant or agent. Unless the owners' corporations, owners' committees or management companies of the buildings concerned falls within one of the three aforementioned categories, they do not have to assume responsibility to comply with DSRN. 682 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Number of signboard validation Year submissions received As at end of September 2020 39 Total 145

BD has continuously worked to publicize SVS, including promoting the scheme to signboard owners in person (for example, when carrying out LSO on Target Streets). In addition, the department promoted the scheme through different channels, such as through television, radio, online platform, posters and publicity leaflets. Moreover, since September 2019, BD, in collaboration with the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, combined the SVS certificate for unauthorized signboards and the certificate of Food Business Premises free of UBWs to facilitate restaurant licence applicants to join SVS at the same time.

Regarding abandoned or dangerous signboards, in order to raise the efficiency of regular surveys, BD has adopted a streamlined workflow and adopted a target-oriented approach since 2019 to conduct inspection in districts with a higher density of dangerous or abandoned signboards, including Yau Tsim Mong, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon City, Wan Chai, Causeway Bay, North Point, Quarry Bay, Sheung Shui and Yuen Long. BD will review the list of target districts annually. In this regard, BD issued 778 DSRNs against dangerous or abandoned signboards in 2019, representing an increase of about 26% over 618 DSRNs issued in 2018. BD has also stepped up the removal of signboards by government contractors, clearing the outstanding DSRNs orderly.

(6) Signboard owners may consider joining SVS if they wish to retain their signboards for continued use. The Home Affairs Bureau advised that should signboard owners propose to donate their signboards to museums under the Leisure and Cultural Services Department or West Kowloon Cultural District, the relevant museums will so consider per established procedures.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 683

Annex 1

Statistics relating to signboards in the past three years broken down by district

(i) Number of reports received Year 2020 District 2018 2019 (as at end of September) Central and Western 128 95 99 Wan Chai 314 328 213 Eastern 170 205 161 Southern 68 26 33 Kowloon City 201 438 193 Kwun Tong 141 69 71 Yau Tsim Mong 1 120 1 078 784 Sham Shui Po 312 175 230 Wong Tai Sin 63 55 42 Islands 1 0 5 North 32 21 61 Sai Kung 19 12 60 Sha Tin 37 22 105 Tai Po 95 104 97 Tsuen Wan 91 115 110 Tuen Mun 28 65 50 Yuen Long 123 171 139 Kwai Tsing 22 19 46 Total 2 965 2 998 2 499

(ii) Number of removal orders issued Year 2020 District 2018 2019 (as at end of September) Central and Western 64 71 25 Wan Chai 158 79 26 Eastern 76 68 64 684 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Year 2020 District 2018 2019 (as at end of September) Southern 2 1 2 Kowloon City 50 58 45 Kwun Tong 50 29 3 Yau Tsim Mong 290 301 175 Sham Shui Po 82 142 97 Wong Tai Sin 27 22 3 Islands 0 0 0 North 4 4 5 Sai Kung 0 0 1 Sha Tin 21 8 1 Tai Po 7 17 13 Tsuen Wan 80 79 17 Tuen Mun 15 6 7 Yuen Long 69 19 22 Kwai Tsing 4 17 13 Total 999 921 519

(iii) Number of signboards removed or repaired (including unauthorized, abandoned and dangerous signboards) Year 2020 District 2018 2019 (as at end of September) Central and Western 242 220 42 Wan Chai 343 276 360 Eastern 250 289 112 Southern 97 46 7 Kowloon City 202 244 191 Kwun Tong 111 166 130 Yau Tsim Mong 560 875 487 Sham Shui Po 291 295 229 Wong Tai Sin 34 54 17 Islands 1 0 1 North 85 38 76 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 685

Year 2020 District 2018 2019 (as at end of September) Sai Kung 7 2 1 Sha Tin 55 77 52 Tai Po 108 215 45 Tsuen Wan 170 169 79 Tuen Mun 40 45 20 Yuen Long 109 115 128 Kwai Tsing 40 28 12 Total 2 745 3 154 1 989

(iv) Number of outstanding removal orders 2020 District As at end of 2018 As at end of 2019 (as at end of September) Central and Western 117 101 100 Wan Chai 221 147 133 Eastern 145 89 135 Southern 6 4 5 Kowloon City 101 87 122 Kwun Tong 129 89 37 Yau Tsim Mong 557 533 597 Sham Shui Po 171 164 197 Wong Tai Sin 31 23 24 Islands 0 0 0 North 20 10 12 Sai Kung 0 0 1 Sha Tin 24 22 24 Tai Po 135 51 48 Tsuen Wan 132 133 111 Tuen Mun 33 20 16 Yuen Long 133 95 69 Kwai Tsing 6 13 23 Total 1 961 1 581 1 654

686 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

(v) Number of prosecutions instigated against non-compliance with removal orders Year 2020 District 2018 2019 (as at end of September) Central and Western 6 3 3 Wan Chai 2 7 4 Eastern 4 9 3 Southern 0 1 0 Kowloon City 2 4 1 Kwun Tong 1 1 15 Yau Tsim Mong 14 12 10 Sham Shui Po 1 4 0 Wong Tai Sin 0 1 0 Islands 0 0 0 North 0 1 0 Sai Kung 0 0 0 Sha Tin 0 1 1 Tai Po 0 1 1 Tsuen Wan 0 4 6 Tuen Mun 0 0 0 Yuen Long 1 0 1 Kwai Tsing 0 0 0 Total 31 49 45

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Second Reading of Government Bills

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill. This Council now continues with the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 …

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 687

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, what is your point of order?

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): A point of order. I wish to move a motion for adjournment under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Twelve Hongkongers were arrested by Mainland law enforcement agencies in mid-August this year and have since been detained in the Yantian District Detention Centre for more than two months. They were neither allowed to meet with their families nor appoint a lawyer of their choice. Their personal safety is unclear and they have been deprived of their human and legal rights. Their families are still ignorant of their current situation and the lawyers appointed by them are unable to meet with the defendants. The law firms of six of the lawyers even received an injunction from the Mainland Justice Bureau, prohibiting them from assisting the arrested Hongkongers, forcing them to withdraw from the case, and thus rendering them unable to perform their duties as lawyers. The situations are extremely unusual and non-compliant with the legal procedures.

The life and death of these Hongkongers is unknown, and they have been seriously deprived of their legal and human rights. Yet, the Hong Kong Government remains indifferent, failing to provide any assistance to the families of the arrested Hongkongers and refusing to meet with their families. In addition, there have been reports earlier about the Hong Kong Police and the Government Flying Service …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, at this stage, you only have to point out the urgency of your proposal to move a motion for adjournment under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the President's consideration.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Yes, please let me finish with my last sentence.

In addition, there have been reports that the Hong Kong Police and the Government Flying Service had been tracking these people when they were arrested by the Mainland. It is suspected that "extradition" of Hongkongers to China has been arranged and assistance has been provided to Mainland authorities to arrest Hongkongers. The incident is highly suspicious and the Government is yet to give an account of the details.

688 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Therefore, I request that this Council do now adjourn for the purpose of debating the arrest of the 12 Hongkongers by Mainland law enforcement agencies.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The President has to be satisfied that the adjournment motion moved under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure is of urgent public importance and that it is couched in neutral terms. Dr KWOK Ka-ki has explained the urgency of this motion and read out its wording. As the President needs time to examine the wording and grounds of the motion, I now suspend the meeting.

(Mr Paul TSE indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

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

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, surely there is not enough time to examine this point of order now, but before you suspend the meeting, I would like to ask the President or the Deputy President to take a look at Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure because according to my impression and memory, a similar motion has been proposed at the last meeting and the President has taken a decision on it at the time.

Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure stipulates that where the Council has taken a decision on a specific question, no further motion shall be moved in relation to that question or other similar questions. I would like to ask the Deputy President to take this into consideration while examining whether to approve this motion since a decision has been taken by the Council on a similar motion this year. Thank you, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I respond to the opinion and point of order raised by Mr Paul TSE.

As far as I understand it, the motion for adjournment moved under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure at the last Council meeting concerned the lay-off exercise of Cathay Pacific Airways, instead of the issue raised by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 689

Dr KWOK Ka-ki just now. As I have not received the written wording of the motion proposed by Dr KWOK, I find it more prudent to suspend the meeting for examination.

Dr KWOK has indeed made such a request at the meeting of the House Committee, and some Members have raised oral questions on this issue in the questions session of the last Council meeting. However, as the Deputy President, I have to examine Dr KWOK's request in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Therefore, I decided to suspend the meeting so that the contents of the motion proposed by Dr KWOK can be examined once the written wording is submitted.

The meeting will resume as soon as possible.

2:15 pm

Meeting suspended.

2:35 pm

Council then resumed.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I understand that at the meeting of the House Committee last week, you have proposed that pursuant to Rule 16(4) of the Rules of Procedure …

(A Member indicated his wish to request a headcount)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will now make a ruling on the request made by Dr KWOK Ka-ki first.

690 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

I understand that at the meeting of the House Committee last week, Dr KWOK Ka-ki has proposed to move a motion for adjournment at the Council meeting in respect of this issue pursuant to Rule 16(4) of the Rules of Procedure. The House Committee did not support Dr KWOK's proposal on that occasion.

As a matter of fact, Dr KWOK may follow up the issue through different channels. Therefore, I think the issue is not so urgent that we must conduct a debate in the form of an adjournment motion at this Council meeting.

Given the above considerations, I rule that the motion proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki is not in order under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure. I am therefore unable to grant permission to your request.

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki indicated his wish to request a headcount)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki has requested a headcount.

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): This Council now continues with the Second Reading debate on the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019.

Stand-over item: Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 (standing over from previous meetings since 8 July 2020)

FISHERIES PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2019

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 11 December 2019

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

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please speak.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 691

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): We are now having a debate on the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). I am really in tears when talking about the development of Hong Kong's fisheries industry. Hong Kong has now become an Asian international city, whereas our history inevitably starts from a fishing port. However, many people have forgotten nowadays that there were eight major fishing ports in Hong Kong, including Aberdeen, Shau Kei Wan, Tai O, Cheung Chau, Castle Peak Bay, Tai Po, Sha Tau Kok and Sai Kung city. Unfortunately, the development of the fisheries industry has devolved from the initial golden era in the 1970s and 1980s into an extremely bleak situation at present.

The Bill is very odd indeed. The Government amended the Fisheries Protection Ordinance (Cap. 171) in 2012, i.e. eight years ago, to introduce a new registration regime. Initially, a registration regime should be backed by laws and regulations, but it is very strange that this amendment exercise would significantly alter today―if the Bill is passed by the Legislative Council―the decision made eight years ago, and such a change is rarely seen. According to the arrangements back in 2012, only fishing vessels with a valid operating licence issued by the Marine Department under the Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) Ordinance (Cap. 548) at or before the statutory cut-off date, i.e. 15 June 2012, are eligible for registration. Application for registration has to be made within 12 months after the cut-off date, and applicants must prove that their vessels were actually in operation during that period of time (i.e. on or before 15 June 2012), thereby barring any attempt of registering retired fishing vessels or those vessels ineligible for registration. Yet, why have they not taken remedial actions until today after eight years? It is very strange that whilst a total of 4 474 vessels were registered during the registration period, and among the 494 applications for registration which were rejected, it was said that the vessels concerned in 319 cases did not possess a valid operating licence on or before 15 June 2012. Why are fishing vessels that did not possess a valid operating licence accepted now? This is also a point which makes us extremely puzzled.

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

As at 31 October 2019, the Administrative Appeals Board ("AAB") has heard a total of 182 cases, and handed down rulings on 160 of them. When AAB discussed some of the unsuccessful appeal cases, they expressed at that time 692 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 sympathy towards some appellants for their failure to register their fishing vessels, which had been used for fishing before 15 June 2012. On one hand, I think we should show empathy for everything we do, and we certainly hope that the Government will also have empathy, but it is very strange that the Government has shown no empathy on many issues. For instance, if four or five people walk on the street nowadays, they may bump into a police officer who has no empathy and then issue a fixed penalty ticket to them in accordance with the order to prohibit group gatherings, each of them will then be liable to a fine of $2,000. Looking at this from a present-day perspective, when the standards adopted in law enforcement are strange or vary from person to person, we cannot help think that the Government in fact upholds no principles. If some people are their good friends, the Government may distort the principles to meet the demands of those people. On the contrary, for those who are regarded as a thorn in the side of the Government … Secretary, there are so many examples, such as those merchants who have obtained a restaurant licence or a bar licence from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") not being their good friends, which are commonly known as "yellow shops". FEHD and the Police would target at these "yellow shops", and then conduct inspection frequently. A number of these shops were even shut down some time earlier, even the customers were not allowed to leave and caused them trouble for a whole day. These cases …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, you have strayed from the question. Please return to the subject of the debate.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Okay, I am returning to the subject. I am pointing out why the amendments in this exercise are so strange. It has been eight years since the deadline for registration. Hey, man, one must know that one day is even too long in Hong Kong, but the authorities now seek to amend this ordinance after eight years, in a bid to allow these fishing vessels to be re-registered.

I have pondered over it again, is such an approach helpful to those real fishermen? We must know that the number of fishermen engaged in the fisheries industry in Hong Kong is decreasing nowadays. According to the figures provided by the Government, there were about 4 100 fishing vessels in 2011―although the figure is 4 474 in the document―it was estimated that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 693

10 000 people were engaged in the fisheries industry, but this figure has not yet taken into account the number of 7 200 Mainland deckhands as capped by the Government. This is also a small number back at that time. The population of Hong Kong at the beginning of British rule was some 5 000, among which 2 000 of them were fishermen. It can be said that 40% of the Hong Kong residents back then were fishermen. We now have a population of over 7 million, but only 10 000 or even less than 10 000 people are fishermen. Has the Government ever paid attention to them? Looking at the Government's current practices, actually the Government often ignores the livelihood of the fishermen.

For example, the construction of the third runway at the airport, together with the Lantau Tomorrow Vision which will be implemented in the near future … Although many members of the public will strongly oppose this "white elephant" project which dumps money down the drain, but if the Government really insists on taking it forward, the development of the fisheries industry of Hong Kong will be even more stagnant. We all know that the operating cost of running a fishing vessel is rather high nowadays. The situation might be better this year, but the fuel costs used to be very high in the past. Taking onto account maintenance expenses and wages of deckhands, people who are really engaged in fishing are extremely deplorable. Coupled with the third runway that is still under construction, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge completed previously and the Lantau Tomorrow Vision which may be implemented at any time, Hong Kong indeed offers very few opportunities for the fishermen to engage in profitable fishing activities. Therefore, it seems that the Government is assisting the fishermen on one hand, but it is "killing" them on the other, such that they actually have nowhere to do fishing.

Fishing vessels with proof that they were operated up to the expiry of 14 June 2012 are accepted under the Bill, this is very strange as well. How can the applicants update the evidence of something happened eight years ago? The registration period has already expired eight years ago, is it just and fair to set a new deadline now? How can we ensure that all the evidence submitted by the applicants in respect of their cases is true? This is the first point.

Second, the amendments in the Bill include the addition of new sections 14A and 14B. The new section 14A clearly provides for the registration of the vessels if, among other requirements, the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("DAFC") is satisfied that the vessels were used, or were intended to be used, for fishing up to the expiry of 14 June 694 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

2012. What does "intended to be used for fishing" mean? I believe that Hongkongers would notice many dilapidated vessels if they recently passed by some areas where many fishing vessels were berthed in the past, such as Tai Po and Sai Kung. You may think that those fishing vessels are useless due to their extremely poor condition. It turns out that these fishing vessels are still valuable even though they may not be used for fishing. When the "white elephant" infrastructure projects taken forward by the Government in the future render fishermen unable to earn a living, it will then launch some very generous compensation schemes, under which those who are unable to operate, have operated or those who can prove that their fishing vessels have been in operation, can make their claims in accordance with the criteria concerned. I am now talking about public funds of hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course, it is fine if public funds are well spent, and those who submit applications for registration under the new amendments are all real fishermen. However, if this is not the case, for example, a ship owner claims that he has operated a fishing vessel until 10 days after 15 June 2012 and the vessel has not been in operation since then. Whilst what we can see in 2020 is a dilapidated fishing vessel, it can also be granted a licence according to the new amendments. When the Government plans to revoke the licence or provide compensation in the future, can these people take a share as well? I am somewhat worried about this. If the Government does so, much work of FEHD or the Food and Health Bureau can also be handled in the same way.

Let me cite a recent example, and that is columbaria. The Government has set a specified time frame for many columbaria after the expiry of which the Government will not handle the cases even if the operators surrender their licences. However, will they use the amendments to Cap. 171 introduced by the Bill currently under discussion as an excuse? Even though it has been provided in the new amendments that forgetting to register will not be deemed as a reason, we all know that many columbarium operators are very powerful or on good terms with the Government, is it possible that amendments will then be made again? If such a precedent is set, will it give rise to more similar cases, such that the deadline for registration will exist in name only? They can make such a request to force the Government to alter a decision made eight years ago as long as they are powerful enough or have close ties with the Government. One must know that a Government should have credibility in policy administration, and there should be a set of rules acceptable to members of the public. With a decision made eight years ago and the deadline of registration which has already expired being overturned this time around, will it lead to the situation that people LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 695 can actually ignore the deadlines set by the Government? They can do whatever they wish, and if they fail to do so, perhaps they can sort it out by asking their friends to force the Government to give in.

The Government is currently in a weak position. The Secretary is also aware that she is often snitched―not by our side, but many people of the pro-establishment camp have discredited her. Having heard that they went to Beijing to make her lose her job, I also find her very miserable. Yet, is it possible that those powerful people, powerful political parties can write off something done eight years ago by snitching or forcing the Government to give in? Certainly, the Secretary has not taken up this position eight years ago, she should be the Under Secretary back then, right? No, she has not yet taken up the post eight years ago, she only assumed office of the Under Secretary on 1 November 2012. To be frank, this matter really has nothing to do with her, and I do not know for how many times the post holder of DAFC has changed. Some of the justifications back at that time are no longer applicable (The buzzer sounded) …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, your speaking time is up.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I am running out of speaking time. Deputy President, I will continue to speak during the Third Reading debate held later on.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please speak.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I recall last week Mr Steven HO …

(Dr Fernando CHEUNG indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, please hold on. Dr Fernando CHEUNG, what is your point of order?

696 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Please do a headcount.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG has requested a headcount.

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): A quorum is now present in the Chamber. The meeting now continues. As Mr WU Chi-wai is not present …

(Mr WU Chi-wai returned to the Chamber and indicated his wish to speak)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please speak.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Today, before speaking on the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), I would like to make a brief response. I notice that Mr Steven HO, in his speech last week, criticized Members who had spoken for "pretending to be kind", claiming that despite speaking for the agricultural and fisheries industries, they were actually taking the fishermen hostage. He also said that the delay in the introduction of the Bill should be attributed to the Lamma ferry disaster, the Occupy Central movement and even filibusters in the Legislative Council. I want to point out that it is good rather than bad that colleagues in the legislature can share the same thought on an issue. I do not understand why Mr Steven HO would consider other colleagues speaking for the agricultural and fisheries industries stealing his limelight. It is really baffling. In fact, shifting the blame of the late introduction of the Bill to the Lamma ferry disaster occurred eight years ago is not merely diverting the attention to Lamma Island but to the Pacific Ocean. This is a complete digression. While Mr Steven HO criticized us for "pretending to be kind", what has he done for the Lamma ferry disaster? Eight years have passed, yet the investigation report of the Government still cannot be made public in full. We LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 697 have requested the report to be made public, but Mr Steven HO opposes to it. Is he treating family members of the deceased fairly by doing so? Nonetheless, I do not want to discuss this issue today.

Deputy President, basically, the process of the formulation of the Bill is quite long. The present issue arises from a consultancy study completed by the Government in 1998, which examined ways to protect the limited fisheries resources in Hong Kong waters for the sustainable development of the fisheries industry. Upon the completion of the consultancy study in 1998, the Government established the Committee on Sustainable Fisheries ("CSF") in 2006. Subsequently, CSF published a report, giving rise to issues which have to be handled under the Fisheries Protection Ordinance (Cap. 171). It covers several areas, and one of which is the issue to be addressed under the present amendment Bill, involving plugging the loopholes arising from the enactment of the previous legislative exercise. After the last legislative amendment exercise, some vessels could not make it and lodged appeals. Since the legislation concerned does not provide for any discretionary mechanism, over 400 vessels could not register for continuous operation after appeal. Certainly, if the case is still under appeal, the fishermen concerned may continue with their fishing operations. The remedial measures this time around are, essentially, for plugging the loopholes.

I notice that a very small number of vessels are involved, just a few hundred vessels. As mentioned in the paper for the Legislative Council, the Government intends to provide the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("DAFC") with discretion. DAFC will only have to handle a small number of vessels, and after these vessels have been dealt with properly, this channel or mechanism need not be used again. All along, in making decisions concerning remedial measures, the executive departments will generally hand over the case to the appeal board. Nonetheless, the amendment introduced by the Bill does not seek to confer discretionary power on the appeal board but DAFC. I have to point out that according to what we have seen so far, this is not a proper approach. In general, a so-called check and balance mechanism is put in place. That means the executive department is responsible for examining a case and when its decision is considered improper, the case will be referred to the appeal board for handling. The appeal board is given the power to re-examine the case. After hearing all the evidence, the appeal board will decide whether or not the decision of the executive department should be overridden. However, this is not the case in the amendment under the Bill this time around, for the discretionary power is conferred to DAFC. Certainly, this approach has the 698 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 merit of streamlining the procedures. Yet, the downside is the hastiness. After all, this is an amendment to legislation, meaning that it is not a one-off arrangement which will not be used again. We do not know if such situation will recur in future, yet it has changed the power relations.

Regarding this change in power relations, I hope the Secretary will respond to it later. Do the authorities consider this a special arrangement for a special case, where this kind of power relations will not be applied again after the present case is dealt with properly? This is my query over the content of the amendment.

Second, I would like to point out that the essence of the Bill is about the protection of fisheries resources in Hong Kong waters by the society of Hong Kong. Nonetheless, with regard to this concept, I have to point out that according to my observation, after the issue of the report of CSF, the Government seemingly has not conducted any further overall review, nor has it commenced any detailed study on the sustainable development of the fisheries industry in Hong Kong to examine the situation we are facing. On the one hand, the Government promotes the sustainable development of the fisheries industry in Hong Kong. On the other hand, it launches large-scale construction works in different waters of Hong Kong. Fishing ground is an apparent concern which has not been followed up by many people and the Government has attached less importance to it. According to the paper provided by the Government, during the previous enactment of legislation in 2011, the authorities held a discussion concurrently on fisheries protection areas to explore the designation of prohibited fishing zones mainly in the eastern waters of Hong Kong and their retention for fish breeding.

We may notice that Hong Kong is surrounded by sea on three sides. Against this background, we have two large-scale, rather popular and valued fishing grounds in the southern waters of Hong Kong and southwestern waters off Lantau Island. These waters are important fishing zones and should be included as fisheries protection areas. Yet, it seems that the Government has deliberately excluded those two waters from the protection areas. Certainly, the objective fact is that a lot of infrastructure development projects are going on in the southwestern waters. I wonder if the Administration had anticipated the implementation of the projects on the Third Runway and Lantau Tomorrow back then, and hence restricted the fisheries protection zones within the eastern waters when it formulated the plan as early as in 2011. This is the first point …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 699

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, I remind you and Honourable Members that as 14 Members have indicated their wish to speak in this debate on this technical amendment, I implore Members to be aware not to expand the scope of discussion to the development of the fisheries industry as a whole. Members should be precise and debate the general merits of the specific content of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019.

Mr WU, please continue.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am just stating an important background. The Bill plays a part in protecting fisheries resources, and this part is related to the technical content of the present amendment exercise through which the authorities implement the remedial measures. However, I have to point out that as we are at the Second Reading debate now, we are obliged to explain clearly to the authorities the inadequacies of the SAR Government in implementing policies on the fisheries industry. In the past, during the Second Reading debate, we often specify the content and scope of the amendments, and I hope the Deputy President would understand this. In fact, my view on this is no big deal. Since Chapter 171 originates from an amendment to plug the gap and the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2011 back then contained a lot of protective measures for the fisheries industry which originated from that report, I think both are closely related with each other. On the second important part, I only want to point out the authorities' inadequacy in failing to designate fisheries protection areas properly, which led to the gradual decline of the fisheries industry and made it difficult to promote fishing operations in local waters.

The third point, which has also been pointed out in the relevant amendment, is about one of the problems faced by the fisheries industry in Hong Kong, that is, the protection of waters. This involves cross-boundary fishing which we often come across or is reported in newspapers. The report reiterates that the SAR Government has failed to protect the waters properly, causing fishermen to face unfair competition. Therefore, I want to point out that while highlighting the need to implement licensing measures to protect fishermen, the authorities have failed to offer assistance to fishermen in many other areas. The last point I would like to raise …

700 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU and Honourable Members, I would like to remind Members again that 14 Members have already indicated their wish to speak and a number of Members have spoken. According to the provision of the Rules of Procedure, I implore Members to focus on the content of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019, which is about conferring discretionary power to DAFC for the registration of vessels or former trawlers which failed to obtain a valid operating licence on 15 June 2012, and to debate its general merits. Will Members please stop expanding their speeches to cover the overall agricultural and fisheries industries, the fisheries industry or beyond.

Mr WU, please continue.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as you said, the scope of discussion under the Bill is very small, for its content is clearly about the remedial measures. As far as this single point is concerned, I would like to ask how the authorities should face the mistake they have made, that is, why they have to spend eight years before proposing the amendment today. For vessels which have not been able to obtain a licence to become eligible licensed vessels, in what ways have their living been affected during the operation in the past eight years? The paper has not provided the details. Certainly, we have heard Mr Steven HO say that it does not matter even if they do not have a licence, for they can continue with their operations in the course of appeal. If this is the case, what is the purpose of the amendment this time around? It turns out that they are still in operation, that means the Government has implemented certain discretionary measures to allow them to continue with their fishing operations in the course of appeal and these vessels have not violated the requirements.

If that is the case, should the late introduction of the amendment this time around be attributed to the authorities' view that discretion has been exercised, and hence it is not necessary to address the situation? Has new development emerged prompting the authorities to consider the previous discretionary arrangement obsolete? Yet, I cannot find such content in the paper. As such, I consider it the responsibility of the Secretary to inform Members about this. In considering the legislative amendment this time around, do the authorities merely want to put forth remedial measures for the legislation passed in 2011? If that is the case, how can it explain the situation in the past eight years? Is there dereliction of duties on the part of the authorities? Have the authorities made a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 701 wrong decision on this issue? Has the discretionary power been exercised excessively, prompting the Government to "cover up its mess", and as it can no longer cover up this mess, it plans to resolve the problem? If this is the case, the Government owes the public an explanation.

Finally, I would like to point out that the entire concept of the Bill is to confer on DAFC the discretionary power for handling a confined scope of vessels through an amendment. Yet, according to the paper, the handling of the confined scope of vessels means DAFC will only handle vessels which have been used for fishing by the end of 14 June 2012. I would like to confirm whether the above description is suffice to make it clear that there will not be any newly registered fishing vessels after that, for the original intent of the policy as a whole is to ensure that there will not be any newly registered vessels in Hong Kong. In this connection, I hope the authorities will state clearly in the reply to be given shortly that there will not be any newly registered vessels. In other words, upon the completion of the registration of this batch of vessels, there will not be any new vessels and the fishing operations will not affect the fisheries resources.

Lastly, I hope the authorities will learn a lesson from this issue. If the legislative process is not carefully thought out, the authorities should address the problem upon noticing it. They should not wait until the appeal board makes criticisms and condemnations and finds the authorities' reasons for rejection strange to address the problem. Worse still, it has been dragged on for eight years. I think this is a lesson to learn and I hope the authorities will learn from this experience. In the legislative process, apart from the passage of the Bill, we hope the authorities will also pay attention to the situation after the passage of the Bill that more often than not, the enactment of a new law will give rise to a new problem. The authorities have to take prompt actions by facing the problem squarely to ensure that the legislative amendment is in line with the purpose of upholding public interest.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, please speak.

(Mr WU Chi-wai indicated his wish to request a headcount)

702 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai has requested a headcount.

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): Mr Jeremy TAM, please speak.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, the reason for the Government to introduce the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") is that a date was specified when amendments were made back in 2012 and as a result, it now gives people the feeling that the Government is seeking to remedy a past mistake.

After the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2012 took effect, a new provision was added to stipulate that proof of eligibility shall be submitted within 12 months in order for a fishing vessel to be registered. Back then, a total of 4 474 vessels were registered and 494 applications were rejected, among which 319 were turned down on the grounds that the vessels concerned did not possess a valid operating licence on 15 June 2012. The rejected applicants had lodged appeals and during the period between 2012 when the appeals were lodged and 31 October 2019, the Administrative Appeals Board ("AAB") heard 182 cases and handed down rulings on 160 of them. Why has there been such a long delay? Is it because over the years from 2012 to 2019, people were wondering why there had been such a lot of appeals which seemed to have arisen from a lack of justifiable grounds on the part of the Government, thus resulting in these amendments being introduced now?

Yet, to some extent, the Government did not admit this past mistake in its papers. Anyway, it is now proposed that vessel owners be allowed to submit an application again and be given another chance. But they are required to provide LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 703 justifiable reasons to explain that they could meet the eligibility requirements before the specified date, i.e. 15 June 2012. Now this is where the problem lies, because what it said here is eight years or even a longer time ago. Do they still have the documentary proof? In fact, many owners do not even have a fishing vessel now. Of course, an owner who can provide the proof is allowed to use the certificate on a new fishing vessel under the law. What I am trying to say is that back in 2012, it was possible that some fishing vessels were unable to provide valid documents for the registration of their vessels for reasons such as undergoing repair or renovation at the time, and even though they are now given another chance, does such a possibility exist?

In fact, according to the Administration, this policy is implemented because the Government has imposed a trawling ban in Hong Kong and therefore, the owners concerned are given a right to register a non-trawler. But has the Administration thought about this: While the entire piece of legislation is meant to dovetail with the policy intention that I mentioned above and that is, to deal with the problem of trawling, we often see cases of Mainland fishing vessels crossing the border to engage in fishing activities in Hong Kong. What has been done to deal with those fishing vessels? The relevant figures are actually most astounding, and to me, they are quite unexpected. Had there not been this Bill being tabled to the Legislative Council for consideration, probably I would not have looked up information in this regard. It was after reading the relevant information that I found out what the actual situation is.

In 2018 alone, the Marine Police arrested 100 people who were all repatriated to the Mainland. The Police said that in the nine months from January to September 2018, 100 people were arrested for illegal fishing in Hong Kong waters and were subsequently repatriated to the Mainland. In the corresponding period, 32 vessels were intercepted for illegally …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, please come back to the question under debate.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Alright, President. I only wish to finish this sentence. Thirty-two fishing vessels entered Hong Kong waters illegally, of which 25 were returned because they were not found to have committed other offences, whereas the remaining seven vessels were detained.

704 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

I wish to point out that the purpose of the entire piece of legislation is to enable local fishing vessels to be registered under the law following a trawl ban imposed by the Administration. But actually trawling can hardly be banned in this way. One of the reasons is that a large number of Mainland fishing vessels have crossed the border to engage in illegal fishing activities in Hong Kong but the Administration has only repatriated them.

As we are now in the stage of Second Reading, we can debate or raise issues on the legislation and policies as a whole. Therefore, I would like to know if the authorities have considered whether Hong Kong can build such a large number of fishing vessels. It is because under the current proposal, vessel owners can register a fishing vessel as long as they can provide the information. As I said earlier on, if their registration was not allowed in 2012, their fishing vessels probably do not exist anymore. If they have no fishing vessel but wish to exercise this right, they would need to have a fishing vessel again and of course, one of the ways to get it is probably to have one made in Hong Kong. But in fact, the local shipbuilding industry is at a sunset stage …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, I think you have digressed from the subject. Let me remind you again that you should come back to the question under debate.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): You think that I have digressed from the question? OK, never mind. You probably do not catch how this is related. It is because the general merits of the Bill depend on whether its provisions are detached from society or not. I trust that you, President, should share this view. Therefore, in making a judgment on the merits of the Bill, I have to consider whether it is detached from society or not. What I am saying is that since vessel owners are given another chance to register their fishing vessels, where do their fishing vessels come from? This is the objective reality, and I think I have not in the least digressed from the subject. How do you …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Fisheries Protection Ordinance by conferring on the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("DAFC") discretionary power for the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 705 registration of fishing vessels or former trawlers that did not possess a valid operating licence on 15 June 2012. Please come back to the question under debate.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): I have never digressed from the subject.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think you have digressed from the subject. I have repeatedly reminded you to come back to the question under debate.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Alright. If you do not like the way I put it, I will put it in another way.

What I am saying is: What will be the results produced by this piece of legislation? Now we are talking about giving DAFC discretionary power. What I mean is that even if he is allowed to exercise discretionary power, how many people will be eligible for application? President, now this is related, right? Even if DAFC can exercise discretionary power, there got to be fishing vessels for registration to take place. Then where do the fishing vessels come from? Here comes the problem, and that is, as I said just now, the shipbuilding industry in Hong Kong is a sunset industry. If they are to be built in Hong Kong, there is only one ship builder remaining in Hong Kong now, and in the past, a ship builder may, in a year, only have …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, this is my last warning to you. If you continue to digress from the subject, I will stop you from speaking.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, I have been speaking with reference to the Bill and you said that I have digressed from the subject. I already made adjustments in the hope of observing your limits and so, I will go on with my speech. Should I digress from the subject again, would you, President, please remind me of it. I already tried my best to …

706 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I already gave you the last warning. If you continue to digress from the subject, I will stop you from speaking.

Please continue to speak.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): But you did not clearly explain how my earlier remarks had digressed from the subject.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The subject of this debate is related to fishing vessels but not about the shipbuilding industry. Please come back to the question under debate.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Where do fishing vessels come from if they are not to be built? It really beats me. But never mind. The President's ruling is final, right? It is pointless, and meaningless too, to argue with you.

So, let me come back to fishing vessels. Now the Bill is giving DAFC discretionary power but there is no provision stipulating how he should make an assessment. In other words, the legislation does not provide for the mechanism whereby DAFC will exercise this discretionary power. Is it that DAFC can make a decision on his own as to whether to exercise discretionary power after considering certain documents, or DAFC is also empowered to set up a committee to consider the applications and then make recommendations to him? The Bill does not provide for the factors that DAFC shall take into consideration. For instance―let us not talk about whether the fishing vessel per se has problems or not―is it that payment of some fees in the past or records of government registration will suffice? Or, in order to prove that the vessel is a fishing vessel, are there tax demand notes or accounting books of business to show that business records had been kept for fishing operations conducted over a period of time in the past? Or, if manpower had been recruited to work on board the fishing vessel back then and as the Mandatory Provident Fund was already implemented at the time, can this be proof that they had really worked on board the vessel? Are these records already sufficient? Or, over the years, the vessels should have undergone repair, or can they provide fuel receipts as records of refueling?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 707

The problem is that we are talking about records dating back many years. Even for an ordinary company, and if my memory does not fail me, the law only requires it to retain records for only seven years after tax payment. Now we are talking about 2012 to 2020. If the criteria that I mentioned just now would be adopted as the basis on which DAFC will decide whether to exercise his discretionary power, actually those documents mentioned above may no longer exist now. Could it be that a photograph taken on board years back will count? I think DAFC is also unlikely to approve an application because of a photograph that appeared on this or that day. This is just impossible, right? Therefore, I think one of the blind spots of the Bill is that it does not provide for how DAFC shall exercise his discretionary power.

Moreover, there is no provision stipulating―I may be wrong―for how long DAFC can make consideration as to whether to exercise this discretionary power. As I said earlier, it is outrageous that appeals lodged to AAB in 2012 can … Of course, I think it is not the case that appeals had been filed for a certain case continuously from 2012 to 2019. But I think during this period, appeals were lodged at different times and therefore, as at 31 October 2019, a total of 182 cases have been heard. I have no idea if some of the cases are still being heard, but the Bill does not provide for a time limit. It is because compared with other ordinances, such as cases of appeal lodged under the Buildings Ordinance, a time limit is explicitly specified. For instance, assuming there is an appeal board, the provision will stipulate within how many days some guidelines or letters have to be issued and then what can be done at the most, and after that, a final decision can be made.

Assuming the aforesaid elements are stipulated for other similar appeal mechanisms, when it comes to the discretionary power in this Bill, so far I do not see that the same approach is adopted. So what are the standards? Do they have to produce some specified documents or business registration records? I have no idea if business registration is required for fishing vessels and if so, this could be one of them. Besides, as I said just now, are there receipts or paper records of income, expenditure, mooring fees, or repair and maintenance bills?

Another area lacking in clarity that I mentioned earlier is the mechanism whereby DAFC shall exercise the discretionary power given to him. For how long can he consider an application? Is it 7 days, 14 days, 1 month, or for how long? It is because this is unfair to the appellants. Members may think about if this is unfair to the appellants. When an appellant has provided all the papers, 708 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 information or submitted his application, DAFC is not required to let him know when a decision will be made. We Members of the Legislative Council often come across this situation, and it happens just today. We received a complaint against a government department in which the complainant, after making an application, does not know when a licence will be issued to him. The government department concerned did not tell him when a decision would be made and therefore, the complainant came to the complaints division of the Legislative Council to lodge a complaint. Will this become a cause of complaint in future as members of the public have to lodge complaints with the Legislative Council? Therefore, if a pledge can be made by stipulating that DAFC shall, within three months, decide whether or not to exercise discretionary power, I think it would be more reasonable.

I hope that the relevant authorities can reconsider what I have just said, or the Secretary can provide some supplementary information when he speaks later. If a time limit is already provided for in the Bill, I might have overlooked it and if so, please excuse me for that.

Thank you, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please speak.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Please do 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 Fernando CHEUNG, please speak.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in the Second Reading debate on the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") in order to highlight something about the Bill which I find perplexing.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 709

The Bill itself is a rather technical amendment, but apart from the technical amendment, it carries a profound implication. The Bill seeks to amend the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Ordinance 2012 ("the Amendment Ordinance 2012") because the Amendment Ordinance 2012 has given rise to some problems, thus necessitating a further amendment today.

The legislative intent of the Amendment Ordinance 2012 was to set a deadline to limit the number of registered fishing vessels, thereby restricting fishing efforts to a certain level. The authorities, through setting a deadline to stop the registration of new fishing vessels, sought to limit the number of fishing vessels engaged in fishing activities and restrict fishing efforts in Hong Kong waters. The purpose of this mechanism was quite clear, i.e. to protect Hong Kong waters, fish catch and the ecological habitat, thus protecting the fisheries industry.

The Amendment Ordinance 2012 had good intentions and effects, but there was an omission or a mistake, in that it required fishing vessels to apply for registration within a year upon its commencement. After this period, registration could not be made, but the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("DAFC") was not vested with discretion to deal with late applications for registration. We later found that on some occasions, late applications for registration of fishing vessels were not caused by any mistake or negligence on the part of the vessel owners or registrants. Rather, there were some other reasons.

Later, they appealed to the Administrative Appeals Board ("AAB"). AAB dismissed all their appeals but expressed sympathy. For instance, some fishing vessels which were undergoing repair and could not be inspected by the Marine Department ("MD") would not possibly possess a valid operating licence then. As the Amendment Ordinance 2012 did not provide DAFC with any discretionary power to consider their registration, they could not register.

This can be regarded as a loophole in law. There was an oversight or unthorough consideration at that time. Apart from the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD"), which is the responsible department, MD should also take part of the responsibility for this matter. Mr Steven HO, representing the agriculture and fisheries sector, is young and promising. Shortly after he joined the Legislative Council in 2012, he discovered this problem. The Amendment Ordinance 2012 was enacted before Mr Steven HO 710 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 assumed office as a Legislative Council Member. This loophole therefore had nothing to do with Mr HO. Subsequently, we certainly need to plug the loophole.

From this perspective, I consider the Bill worthy of support. However, last week Mr Steven HO got a bit angry. He criticized that Members who spoke were filibustering, that they were not concerned about this issue at other times but now they spoke for no reason at all. I hope Mr HO would not be so narrow-minded. It is good that more Members show concern about the agriculture and fisheries industries. Apart from considering the economy, interests or livelihood in respect of the agriculture and fisheries industries, ecology is important too. I think it is good that more Members are concerned about this issue.

In my view, it is a bit regrettable that the Bill was not tabled at the Legislative Council for consideration until today, which is too late. The political party to which Mr Steven HO belongs is like the ruling party. It has members who are Executive Council Members. They―not he himself―should have been more deeply concerned about the agriculture and fisheries industries and submitted the Bill to the Legislative Council earlier. They should not have waited so long. Had there not been such a chance on this occasion, the Bill might have come to its end without the opportunity of being submitted to the Legislative Council for consideration. It would have to wait until the next term of the Legislative Council to undergo the legislative process all over again. It can be said that the Second Reading debate on the Bill resumed by a lucky chance.

This relatively technical amendment vests DAFC with a discretionary power to consider such applications. Actually, there is no reason not to support it. Nevertheless, we have noticed some details which need to be handled carefully. For example, how will AFCD notify all the affected vessel owners after the amendment? The number of vessel owners may not be large though. Back then, only 494 applications for registration were rejected. A total of some 4 000 fishing vessels were registered. That means only about 10% of the fishing vessels were refused registration, among which some 300 were turned down because they did not possess a valid operating licence on 15 June 2012. However, after nearly eight years, are there any new vessels having the same need? How to notify the vessel owners concerned is in fact important.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 711

Moreover, how can AFCD ensure that after being granted the certificate of eligibility for registration ("CER"), that means having registered their fishing vessels under the Fisheries Protection Ordinance (Cap. 171) ("FPO"), former trawler owners will switch to non-trawling methods when fishing in Hong Kong waters? Trawling in Hong Kong waters has been banned since 31 December 2012. FPO provides that trawler owners may apply for CER, which will give them the right to register a non-trawler, such that former trawler owners who wish to switch to non-trawling methods after the ban may continue to be engaged in fishing in Hong Kong waters. The question is, after we make the amendment today, how will AFCD monitor these vessel owners to ensure that they will switch to non-trawling fishing methods? We consider these two aspects, i.e. notifying vessel owners and ensuring the switch from trawling to non-trawling methods, unshirkable duties of AFCD.

In fact, it may not be easy to notify the affected vessel owners. For vessel owners who applied for registration but were rejected, AFCD said that it would notify them according to their registration particulars. However, after eight years, are the registration particulars still accurate? Is AFCD able to find those vessel owners who may not be reached, and notify them that there is this amendment and they may re-register? Besides, for those vessel owners whose appeals against DAFC's refusal of registration were dismissed by AAB, will they definitely receive such notice? Some vessel owners have not lodged an appeal with AAB yet. I am not sure if the authorities have the number of this type of persons in hand. There is also the fourth type of vessel owners who did not submit any application in the original registration period. We especially urge the authorities to cooperate with the industries and various interested parties, including Mr Steven HO, to expeditiously find these four types of vessel owners and notify them about the amendment.

What I have discussed so long is mainly about the part worth supporting. Separately, now I would like to talk about the legislative intent, i.e. restricting fishing efforts in Hong Kong waters through the registration scheme, thereby protecting the fish catch. Actually, I am doubtful whether this amendment exercise or the existing FPO is sufficient to achieve the aim of restricting fishing efforts, since we are well aware that not only Hong Kong fishing vessels but also a large number of non-local fishing vessels not registered in Hong Kong operate in Hong Kong waters. I believe Mr Steven HO is quite clear about this situation too. In the past, the media and the industries have already pointed out that such 712 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 illegal operation has caused serious adverse impacts on our fisheries industry and ecology. If we merely amend FPO to provide DAFC with a discretionary power but fail to achieve any actual result in the end, even though the vessel owners concerned can re-register and maintain their livelihood, we fail to protect the fish catch and the natural ecosystem and restrict fishing efforts. (The buzzer sounded) Then it is useless.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please stop speaking.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG, please speak.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 is an extension of the legislative amendment exercise in 2012 …

(Mr HUI Chi-fung indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, what is your point of order?

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

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

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, please continue with your speech.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 713

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Fisheries Protection Ordinance was amended in 2012, and the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") we are discussing this time around is an extension of the legislative amendment exercise in 2012 and serves to fill the gaps. If we want to examine the merits of the Bill at the Second Reading, we must review the process and objectives of the legislative amendment exercise in 2012. Simply put, the legislative amendment exercise in 2012 aimed to introduce a new registration scheme, under which owners of local fishing vessels must register their vessels with the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") on or before 14 June 2013 for conducting fishing operations in Hong Kong waters.

Why was the Bill introduced in 2019? The reason is that in 2012, under section 14(1)(a) of the Fisheries Protection Ordinance introduced by the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Ordinance 2012, only local fishing vessels with a valid operating licence issued by the Marine Department under the Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) Ordinance (Cap. 548) on 15 June 2012, namely the commencement date of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Ordinance 2012, were eligible for registration with AFCD. A valid operating licence could prove that the vessel had actually been in operation up to the commencement date of the Ordinance.

The legislative amendment exercise in 2012 had three major objectives. In assessing the merits of the Bill, not only do we need to see whether a proper job can be done in filling gaps, but we also need to examine whether the Bill has extended the policy objective of the legislative amendment exercise in 2012. The amendment exercise was initiated as experts held that fishing effort in Hong Kong had exceeded the proper level and affected the sustainable development of our marine environment. We then conducted the amendment exercise to restore the marine environment in Hong Kong waters, bolster our fishery resources, and promote the sustainable development of the fisheries industry. Today, when we are examining the Bill, we also need to examine whether we can control fishing effort in Hong Kong, so as to ensure the sustainable development of our marine environment and conserve our fishery resources.

Following the implementation of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Ordinance 2012, a total of 319 registration applications were rejected for failing to produce a valid operating licence of the vessels which was obtained before 15 June 2012. In many of such cases, this was not due to error or neglect on the part of the applicants concerned. For example, fishing vessels which were 714 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 undergoing repair could not be inspected by the Marine Department and be issued a valid operating licence. The other reasons might be that the fishermen were ill or that they were fishing in the high seas and were unable to return to Hong Kong for registration. There were various reasons. That said, as the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Ordinance 2012 did not provide the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("DAFC") with any discretionary power to handle the registration of such fishing vessels, the fishermen involved in those 319 cases had no alternative but to give up fishing in Hong Kong waters.

What are the pros and cons of the Bill, which was proposed nine years later, from the perspective of fishermen or the development of the fisheries industry? In fact, there are some negative impacts. I hope that the President will listen to my speech attentively. If the Bill is passed … Let us take a look at the development of the fisheries industry of Hong Kong. In 2019, we produced an estimated 123 000 tonnes of fisheries produce valued at about $2.8 billion, and about 10 100 local fishermen engaged in fishing operations. Apart from fishermen, ancillary sectors such as fish wholesale marketing, fuel and fishing gear supply and ice manufacturing can also benefit from the sustainable development of the local fisheries industry. As such, if the Bill is passed and eligible vessel owners are allowed to re-register their fishing vessels, the livelihood of local fishermen and the operation of the relevant ancillary sectors can be somewhat improved, and their financial pressure can be alleviated. However, President, this is based on a big assumption, that is, those fishermen who missed out still engage in fishing operations nine years later.

I would like to elaborate on why, while the Bill aims to fill gaps, the Government had waited nearly eight years to present it to the Legislative Council. Fortunately, we have resumed its Second Reading this time around. Both Dr Fernando CHEUNG and I do not believe that this was the fault of Mr Steven HO, who is a hardworking, far-sighted and energetic Member. I have heard a rumour that the Chief Executive was indifferent to the aspirations of fishermen. When Mr Steven HO wanted to meet with the Chief Executive―I wonder who among the three Chief Executives this was―the Chief Executive said that he or she had no time to deal with livelihood problems of fishermen. Had the Bill thus been delayed for several years? I fully support the Bill in principle, as it aims to fill gaps by providing DAFC with discretionary power.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 715

President, I will only elaborate on the details of the Bill at the next phase, namely the Committee stage. However, as far as the general merits and the principles of the Bill are concerned, I have just referred to a time gap of eight years. As many fishermen already switched trades, what is the point of allowing them to re-register? Another assumption is that these 319 fishermen still prefer remaining in their trade, and they want to obtain a Hong Kong licence for fishing in Hong Kong waters. However, as these additional 319 fishermen pop up suddenly, what impacts will they bring about?

The following are my research findings. Experts or Mr HO can correct me if there is any error. Fishery resources or fishery production in Hong Kong waters have been dwindling since 1987 and 1988. Out of 17 species that can be exploited in Hong Kong, 12 have been over-exploited. If these 319 fishermen all apply for a licence, and there is an increase of some 300 fishing vessels in Hong Kong waters, what impacts will this have on the fishery ecosystem of Hong Kong? If some 300 licences are issued within these months, does the Government have other ancillary facilities to ensure a comparable level of fishery resources in Hong Kong waters? For example, will the Government consider introducing a labelling system, so as to maintain the quantity of certain species of fish and prevent them from being over-exploited? If a labelling system is introduced, we will be able to examine whether certain species of fish have been over-exploited.

Second, can Hong Kong follow the policy of the Mainland and introduce a fishing moratorium? Certainly, members of the industry may query, as they never over-exploit in Hong Kong waters, why a fishing moratorium should be introduced for no good reason. Following the introduction of a labelling system, there will be more accurate figures, a one or two-month fishing moratorium may be introduced, and the fishing of certain specified species of fish shall be banned. This is a feasible approach and a fundamental change in policy or law. More time is certainly needed for consultation and examination. I believe that apart from issuing licences to these 310 fishermen or so, the aforesaid initiative is also worthy of our consideration.

However, a bigger challenge is continuous land reclamation and large projects, such as Lantau Tomorrow Vision, being undertaken in Hong Kong. Many of my colleagues have referred to this issue. I certainly should not refer to Lantau Tomorrow Vision again, as it is not directly related to the Bill. But it has an important bearing on the development of the fisheries industry. I wonder whether there is a way to commence Lantau Tomorrow Vision while also 716 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 protecting our abundant fishery resources. This seems impossible. I hope my colleagues will, on other occasions, engage in more discussions over Lantau Tomorrow Vision, the marine environment of Hong Kong and the protection of fisheries.

On the other hand, apart from a change in law or policy to fill gaps, such as the initiative I have just mentioned, the Government, particularly law enforcement agencies, have, I think, failed to exhaust law enforcement tools to combat illegal fishing in terms of law enforcement. In recent years there are media reports that in Hong Kong waters …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, please return to the subject of this debate. I have been very tolerant of you, but you have seriously deviated from the subject in your speech. Please return to the subject of this debate.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): I think that the President's point of view is rather subjective, but I still agree with it. I have two main objectives in making my speech, including explaining the positive impacts of the Bill on the development of the overall fisheries industry. One of the positive impacts I have just mentioned is that there will be an increase of some 300 licences at the very least. But this is based on my assumption. The problem is that following the increase of some 300 fishing vessels, there will be greater demand. Consequently, if no other conservation efforts are made, we will be unable to achieve the intended policy objective of the Bill.

President, I have only tens of seconds left in my speaking time, and I would like to talk about the problem of law enforcement. Regarding a fisherman who holds a licence, has the Government put in place any policy to inspect his licence? What is the punishment for a fisherman who was discovered by the Government to have failed to bring along his licence? In addition, what law enforcement actions had the Government taken against non-local fishing vessels that entered and fished in Hong Kong waters over the years? Were they expelled? Was a fine imposed on them? Did the court sentence the fishermen to imprisonment? The strength of law enforcement efforts is vital to the protection of the development of the fisheries industry of Hong Kong.

President, I so submit. President, please do a headcount. Thank you.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 717

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

(While the summoning bell was ringing, Dr Junius HO indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, what is your point of order?

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): I believe that Hong Kong people are very concerned about the situation in the legislature. Both inside and outside the Chamber, Members spare no effort to perform their tasks. In our offices in the Legislative Council, we monitor the progress of the meeting while performing other tasks, such as meeting with members of the public. Today, I have observed that it is the 12th time that the opposition has requested a headcount. They request a headcount every 15 minutes. In fact, evidence in various aspects indicates that we do have a quorum.

President, under such circumstances, let me refer to Rule 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which stipulates that having noted a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition of his own or other Members' arguments in the debate, the President may direct him to discontinue his speech. I would like to point out that constantly requesting a headcount and tediously repeating arguments are parroting and actually not in line with the Rules of Procedure. Pursuant to the court judgment concerning LEUNG Kwok-hung, a former Member, the President has the right to maintain order at the meeting. Under such circumstances, therefore, can …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, please sit down. I have got your point, but the Basic Law provides for the quorum for the meeting of the Legislative Council. When a quorum is not present in the Chamber, any Member can request a headcount. If there is still not a quorum 15 minutes later, the President shall adjourn the Council. For this reason, I urge Members to stay in the Chamber as far as possible. Unlike Members who had only their mind in the Chamber in the past―there was no use doing so―Members should have their body in the Chamber. Only in that way can this Council have a quorum for the meeting.

(Dr Junius HO stood up again and intended to raise a point of order)

718 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, please sit down first. I will address it when a quorum is present in the Chamber.

(Mr HUI Chi-fung stood up and indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please hold on. I will address it when a quorum is present in the Chamber.

(While the summoning bell was ringing, THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members had not returned to their seats)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is present in the Chamber. Will Members please return to their seats. The meeting now continues.

(Some Members had not yet returned to their seats)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats and keep quiet.

Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, please speak.

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Just now I heard Mr Kenneth LEUNG ask in his speech why there was a delay for nine …

(Mr HUI Chi-fung indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, please hold on. Mr HUI Chi-fung, what is your point of order?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 719

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO has just raised a point of order while the summoning bell was ringing that headcounts had been done tediously and repeatedly, and requested the President to deal with it. I would like you to also consider―as Mr Andrew LEUNG has also made clear just now― the quorum …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, I do not consider this a point of order. Please sit down.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): … This is a point of order. Could you listen to it?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The President has already dealt with this point. Please sit down.

Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, please continue with your speech.

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, just now I heard Mr Kenneth LEUNG mention in his speech that there was no reason for the amendments in the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") to be delayed for eight years. As a matter of fact …

(Mr HUI Chi-fung remained standing while continuing to speak in his seat)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, please hold on.

Mr HUI Chi-fung, when the President resumes the Chair, he will deal with your point. Please sit down.

Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, please continue with your speech.

(Mr HUI Chi-fung remained standing in his seat while speaking)

720 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, I have already dealt with your point. Please sit down.

Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, please continue with your speech.

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, could you let me speak? Do not listen to him anymore. He is talking nonsense.

(Mr HUI Chi-fung made some noise in his seat with an object)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, if you continue to make any disturbing noise in your seat, you will violate the Rules of Procedure. I have just dealt with the point raised by you, saying that the point of order raised by Dr Junius HO would be dealt with by the President later on. I allow you to speak for the last time.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Right, I just want you to listen to me first, and then I will sit down as I do not want to bother Members. I wish to point out that just now when we requested headcounts repeatedly according to the Rules of Procedure, we have not interrupted any Member's speech. Under an undemocratic system, this is how the Council operates. Since Members have received salaries, they ought to sit still and listen to our speeches.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, I think you are abusing the point of order procedure because just now you were not raising a point of order but seizing the opportunity of raising a point of order to express your own views. I warn you that if you do so again, I will regard your conduct as grossly disorderly.

Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, please continue with your speech.

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Alright, Deputy President. Your ruling is most appropriate.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG mentioned just now that the amendments in the Bill had come eight years late, but he did not say a word on how Mr Dennis KWOK delayed the election of the Chairman of the House Committee for seven months, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 721 making it impossible for the Legislative Council to scrutinize the Bill. For that reason, I think that they only know to criticize the Government but never criticize themselves for filibustering.

The views put forth by Mr Steven HO last week were very professional. He criticized the pan-democratic camp for feigning concern but being unprofessional and knew nothing about the Bill. However, it is strange that after listening to the speeches of several Members today, including Mr Kenneth LEUNG, I find Dr Fernando CHEUNG most familiar with this issue. He was able to tell all the figures about fishermen, vessels and rejected applications, so it can be said that his speech was loaded with data. Therefore, the promising young Mr Steven HO should feel comforted after listening to it, for Dr CHEUNG was willing to support him. However, it is not necessary to speak for 15 minutes to show support for the Bill. I reckon that they sometimes talk about other things in their speeches. For example, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting last week spoke about eating mudskippers. I was shocked to hear that because while mudskippers are supposed to be a protected fish species, he dared to eat mudskippers and even claimed that they tasted good. Hence, I think that even if they want to filibuster, they need not digress to those topics, otherwise they will be ridiculed.

Deputy President, I support the Bill. The reason is that further to the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Ordinance 2012 ("the Amendment Ordinance 2012") back then, the Bill seeks to add section 14A(3) to the Fisheries Protection Ordinance to empower the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("DAFC") to exercise discretion. This amendment is very important. Although many Members have explained the reasons, I will briefly present my views on this amendment too. When the Amendment Ordinance 2012 was made back then, a period of one year had been set for fishermen to register their vessels, but quite a lot of things had happened during that one year. Mr Steven HO urged me to state clearly why more than 300 fishing vessels failed to apply for registration and, eventually upon appeal, still over 160 fishing vessels were denied registration. It was because Members did not have a clear idea about the operation of fishermen that the Amendment Ordinance 2012 enacted back then rendered it impossible for fishermen to apply for registration.

Actually, there were several circumstances. The first circumstance was that the application for registration required prior inspection of vessels. However, it turns out that it took time to conduct surveys of vessels in some places. For example, the Government Surveyors went to Sha Tau Kok every 722 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 three months―Mr Frankie YICK should know that―and it took three months only if a vessel successfully passed the inspection, otherwise its owner had to wait for the next visit by the surveyors, in this case, it would take half a year to complete the survey procedures. This had caused delay in some fishermen's applications for registration. However, when the Amendment Ordinance 2012 was enacted back then, this factor had not been considered. In fact, is there sufficient manpower to inspect vessels? Secretary for Food and Health, this is also a problem. The authorities should consider how to improve the situation.

The second circumstance was that some fishermen might be in ill health or with impaired mobility back then and their children might not be able to help them, so how could they apply for vessel inspection? This circumstance had not been taken into account either. Thus, despite the fishermen's requests, DAFC said that there was nothing he could do and refused registration.

The third circumstance was the issue of inheritance. If a genuine fishing vessel had been operating up to immediately before the cut-off date (i.e. the commencement date of the Amendment Ordinance 2012, being 15 June 2012), but unfortunately, the fisherman died all of a sudden, and his son had already missed the registration period when he underwent the registration formalities, that is, he had failed to apply for registration within one year after 15 June 2012. As such, he was not issued with a certificate of eligibility for registration ("CER"). This was most regrettable.

Of course, publicity was another problem. After the passage of the Amendment Ordinance 2012, did all fishermen receive such information? Even if they did, did they learn that once they had missed the registration period, they would not have another opportunity to register their vessels for conducting fishing operations in Hong Kong in the future? No, they did not. As a result, fishermen just missed a crucial opportunity in this way. These are the circumstances which Mr Steven HO urged me to highlight.

Deputy President, if DAFC is to be empowered to exercise discretion, the situation will be different. DAFC may, in the light of special circumstances―certainly his exercise of discretion has to be supported by evidence and justifications―reconsider whether to approve registration of fishing vessels. I hope that this discretion can help some of our fisherman friends with genuine needs to return to their old trade. In fact, this group of affected fishermen is not prohibited from conducting fishing operations at present. Our pan-democratic friends did not know that and so they questioned whether the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 723 fishermen had lost their jobs during this period. Mr Steven HO had already clarified last week that this was not the case. So long as the fishermen have lodged appeals, they may continue with their operations; however, this is no solution because after some time when the rulings are handed down against them, those 160-odd fishing vessels will no longer be allowed to operate. If DAFC does not exercise discretion, the fishermen cannot continue to fish. During this period, the economic losses they have suffered also include the subsidies under the Anti-epidemic Fund recently launched by the Government; without CER, how could they receive the subsidies? This $10,000 is what the Government owes them. If the fishermen are able to obtain CER, the Government should compensate them. Therefore, I believe that conferring discretion on DAFC can definitely set things right and resolve the problems for this group of affected fishermen satisfactorily.

Deputy President, I do not wish to waste too much time. If I have to speak for 15 minutes, that is fine, but I will touch upon other issues. In my opinion, the quicker the Bill gets passed, the better, as it will be of much help to this group of fishermen who failed to register for some reasons.

Lastly, I would like to advise our pan-democratic friends that making incessant requests for headcounts will not obstruct the passage of the Bill. It will merely stall the proceedings of meetings so that the ensuing agenda items cannot be dealt with, in which case the censure motions cannot be moved either. For this reason, I hope that our pan-democratic friends can stop hindering the proceedings of meetings by using unorthodox tactics.

Thank you, Deputy President. I so submit.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Repeatedly asking for ringing the bell to do a headcount surely cannot prevent the passage of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). But, at least, it can make the pro-government camp sit tight and listen to our speeches. I have just said that an undemocratic legislature certainly looks like this. Are they now leaving the Chamber? As they receive remunerations, why do they not sit here and listen to Members speaking? As they support the Government, why do they hide in the air-conditioned rooms upstairs?

Deputy President, I request a headcount.

724 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung requested a headcount.

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, but some Members did not return to their seats)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is now present in the Chamber. Will Members please return to their seats. The meeting now continues.

Mr HUI Chi-fung, please go on.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, many Honourable colleagues have expressed their support for the Bill and voiced many personal concerns in their speeches. I have some different views. In addition to its merits, I will also speak on the effects of the Bill and aspects that I have reservation and doubts about, and even object to. I hope the Secretary can listen carefully and give responses when the Second Reading debate comes to a close.

I heard that Mr Andrew LEUNG and Deputy President repeatedly interrupt Members' speeches and said they had digressed. I hope, Deputy President, you can listen to my speech with a bit more patience. My coming speech will focus largely on some technical amendments contained in the Bill. I will absolutely not digress and hope that you will have more patience and hear me out.

As many Honourable colleagues have pointed out clearly just now, the object of the Bill is to empower the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("DAFC") to exercise discretion to approve the applications for registration of fishing vessels that did not possess valid operating licences before 15 June 2012.

The doubt I want to raise, or the question I want the Secretary to answer, is whether such discretion is too broad or great. Is such discretion the only way to grant valid operating licences to the fishermen concerned? Are there other ways which can achieve the same purpose but had not been considered by the Bureau?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 725

As Mr WU Chi-wai has just briefly mentioned, the objective outcome of the legislative amendments this time will have implications on several aspects in the context of the Fisheries Protection Ordinance. They include how the Bureau grants licences, what powers DAFC has, under what circumstances DAFC will exercise discretion, how the appeal mechanism functions, etc. This is a change in the checks and balances, which also involves changes in policies.

I wish to point out that, as stated in the relevant paper, many vessel owners who ended up failing to obtain licences lodged appeals with the Administrative Appeals Board ("AAB"). What powers does AAB have? Having undergone the procedures of AAB myself, I can say that AAB has enormous powers as well as discretion. AAB certainly lacks the independence of the judiciary, and its members are appointed by the Chief Executive. However, its hearing procedures are largely the same as court hearings, namely summoning of witnesses, testimony under oath and finally, a decision made by the Chairman and two panel members.

Pursuant to the Administrative Appeals Board Ordinance, and as evidenced by thousands of cases handled by AAB in the past, some of which had been referred to the High Court, AAB has the power to make a decision. Under the Bill, AAB can make a decision to confirm some decisions made by DAFC, or vary or reverse his decisions. Many past decisions confirmed that the Executive Authorities had made the wrong decisions and such decisions were then completely reversed. Nevertheless, many cases also showed that, despite the wrong decisions made by the Executive Authorities or the executive head, AAB could make compensation to those affected by discretion. Taking granting licences as an example, the aforementioned cases were common in various trades and industries, as well as requests for assistance regarding hawker licences I had handled. Hence, why should we confer such great discretion on DAFC this time, instead of having AAB exercise its existing discretion to handle those cases?

As stated in the Legislative Council papers relating to the Bill, among the 494 applications for registration that were rejected by DAFC, 319 cases were rejected on the grounds that the vessels concerned did not possess valid operating licences by 15 June 2012. However, some applications for registration were rejected due to submission after the registration deadline. Late submissions might be the result of force majeure, or AAB was satisfied that the applicant had exercised due diligence, or there were concrete reasons to prove that the 726 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 applicants were unable to submit the application within the period. As regards those applications, AAB can exercise discretion to rule the decisions made by DAFC wrong and reverse them, thereby enabling the affected vessels to be granted licences. I wish to point out that in the existing mechanism there are other ways to provide the authorities with discretion so that the licences of the vessels concerned can be "revived".

I think the authorities owe us an explanation: why are the Executive Authorities granted the broadest and greatest power to handle this problem? I wish to highlight the fact―Honourable colleagues should also bear this in mind―that regardless of the final decision of AAB, those aggrieved, namely fishermen who failed to obtain a licence, can file a judicial review. In the judicial review proceedings, the court will examine the respective decisions of the Executive Authorities (i.e. DAFC) and AAB, and conduct an overall review. Of course, we all know that, to ordinary citizens, engaging in lawsuits is a tough and lengthy process which also costs a lot of money. Nevertheless, I want to say that it is also a lengthy process for AAB to handle an appeal, and it takes one or two years for a decision to be made. I hope the Secretary will explain and elaborate on this point later in his reply. Why a policy change has to be achieved by the conferral of the greatest and broadest power which can hardly be monitored by other agencies?

The second point that I want to discuss is relatively technical. According to the existing Fisheries Protection Ordinance, the provision that is crucial to registration of fishing vessels is section 14. There are two conditions which render some owners of fishing vessels unable to obtain licences. Firstly, section 14(1) provides that the owner of a local fishing vessel in respect of which there is a valid operating licence on the commencement date can make an application. Simply put, it means that the vessel owner already possesses a valid operating licence. Secondly, section 14(2) provides that the application must be made within 12 months immediately after the commencement date, i.e. after the passage of the amendment bill. Certainly, provisions that follow provide for exemptions. If the applicant fails to make the application within 12 months, he or she has to prove whether it is due to his or her default, or whether the applicant has exercised due diligence to ensure that the application would be made as soon as practicable. As a matter of fact, both of the two different situations will likewise affect whether the applicant will be granted a licence. However, under the newly added sections 14A, 14B and 21A, the scope would be much wider.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 727

In short, if DAFC is satisfied that the fishing vessel concerned was genuinely used for fishing up to the expiry of 14 June 2012, regardless of whether trawling was practised or the ownership of the fishing vessel, be it any reason, DAFC can exercise discretion to consider its application for registration. However, I want to highlight the difference between the two. Pursuant to the existing section 14(1), fishing vessels in possession of a valid operating licence before the commencement date can make an application. These fishing vessels failed to register possibly because the vessels were truly under maintenance at the time or, out of other force majeure, the vessels were not under the control of their owners. Yet, if we are referring to those applications rejected on the grounds of late submission, and both AAB or DAFC were unable to prove that the applicants concerned had exercised due diligence to ensure that the applications would be made as soon as practicable, then why did the authorities, without reason, add the new sections 14A and 14B to include such cases in the scope within which discretion would be exercised? Rightly as some Members have just mentioned, such a move gives me the impression that it seems a remedy for an oversight.

On the subject of oversights, it might not be an oversight of the Government in its policies. It might be an oversight of the applicant making the application. It might be an oversight of the party making the application for them. It might also be an oversight of the Member of the Legislative Council representing the industry who had failed to help them. Then, why do such oversights have to be remedied and loopholes plugged by making changes in government policies and legislative amendments? Deputy President, to illustrate this argument, I have done my homework and looked through a lot of AAB cases.

I will cite case AAB 14/2015 as an example. It was a case in 2015. Indeed, it was a rather unfortunate case. The appellant (i.e. the fisherman) was quite agitated in the AAB hearing. AAB was satisfied that he was poorly educated and described him as illiterate. The appellant said as he was illiterate, he could only ask a fishermen's association to assist him in submitting the application for an operating licence. Mr Steven HO knows what fishermen's associations are about―they are pro-establishment organizations having inextricable relationships with Mr Steven HO, which had expressed views on many political issues. By the appellant's account―which was accepted by AAB―he sought help from the fishermen's association, but staff of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department said the application for registration concerned had never been received. The appellant then asked the fishermen's association again for help. At the time, the staff explained that the 728 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 application form might be lost in the post, or the staff member in charge made a mistake but he or she had left the job. The reason could not be ascertained and they knew nothing about it. The fishermen's association filled in another application form for the appellant, who then submitted it in person. AAB also advised that the documents prepared by the fishermen's association for the appellant were riddled with errors. The appellant said he was illiterate and had no choice. Under such circumstances, was it his fault for seeking help from the wrong person? I do not know if he had approached Mr Steven HO for help. But if an industry representative failed to offer help and committed oversights, forgetting to remind the few hundred fishermen to register before the deadline and paying no attention to whether those fishermen's associations having inextricable relationships with the pro-establishment camp had fully done their job to actually submit the application forms for the vessel owners, I want to ask: whose responsibility is it?

Just now I have heard Dr Fernando CHEUNG say that it had nothing to do with Mr Steven HO because he was only elected as a Member of Legislative Council in the agriculture and fisheries functional constituency afterwards. Actually, I want to point out that it was not true. I have made special efforts to do my homework. Mr Steven HO already assumed office in September 2012, which was in the midst of the registration period. Did he offer help to take care of fishermen? Was he ever approached for help regarding those few hundred applications? Later on, given the chance, can he account for such an oversight? Is it because of Mr Steven HO's oversight that the Government has now purposely introduced legislative amendments to help the agricultural and fisheries industry? As their representative made an oversight, the Government has to make it up and will not let anything happen to him so that he can continue to support the Government. Is that so? Such a move gives me such an impression. If it is not the case, can he please rise to account for it, and may the Secretary also please give an explanation. It requires no mention as to whose oversight it was.

I do not know the exact number, but we should be talking about applicants of only a few hundred cases. Nonetheless, if the cases truly arose from such an oversight and now they would be granted licences again by way of the Bill, does it comply with the original intent of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2012? The legislative amendments back then were introduced in response to the recommendations made in the Report of the Committee on Sustainable Fisheries in 2010. The Report recommended controlling the fishing effort of capture LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 729 fisheries in Hong Kong waters, protecting important fisheries resources in spawning and nursery grounds and restricting the entry of new fishing vessels so as to maintain the fishing effort at an appropriate level. Coming back to the argument I have just put forward, if the discretion is to be broadened to such a great extent to cover up or make up for the mistakes possibly made by the industry representative or the blunders of the fishermen's association back then, by putting it nicely, it is for filling the gaps in policies, but by putting it bluntly, it seeks to make up for some mistakes. It runs counter to the recommendations made by the Committee on Sustainable Fisheries, namely the original intent and objectives of the legislative amendments, doesn't it?

If such notions stand, later upon the conclusion of the Second Reading debate, can the Secretary point out in his reply whether there are better ways to handle some deferred applications? Why are the two matters mixed up as one in the newly added sections 14A and 14B? It means that applications of fishing vessels without valid operating licences are confused with late submissions by applicants who failed to prove they had exercised due diligence to submit the applications as soon as possible. Is it trying to condone some wrongdoings? I understand it. Who has not made any mistake? Members can make mistakes, can't they? Members of functional constituencies can make mistakes as well. But I want to point out that we, Members returned by direct elections, such as Mr KWONG Chun-yu, represent hundreds of thousands of people. But Mr Steven HO only represents a few thousand fishermen and yet he could not handle this matter satisfactorily. He should give a proper explanation, right? If he has made mistakes, at least he has to bow and apologize here to the fishermen, and then ask for the Secretary's support because the fishermen concerned are in dire straits. At least, he has to say so and do so, right? I think he must give fair back to the fishermen.

Therefore, as regards these few technical considerations, I hope the Secretary can give a response later, or Mr Steven HO should also speak on this. I end my speech here. Thank you.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, please speak.

(Mr James TO indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

730 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

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

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TO has requested a headcount.

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): Mr Dennis KWOK, please speak.

MR DENNIS KWOK: President, the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") concerns one main issue, which is the granting of a discretionary power to the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("the Director"), on the application by the owner of a vessel, to register the vessel under section 14 if the applicant shows to the satisfaction of the Director that … there are several factors listed out in clause 5 of the Bill which has added the new section 14A carrying the list of factors which the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Director if he is to be granted with the new operating licence under the statutory provision which is really summarized in sections 14A and 14B. The key word in that provision is that "The Director may"―I highlight and emphasize the word "may"―"on application by the owner of the vessel".

In today's debate, we have heard Members from all sides talking about the exercise of the discretion by the Director. President, in my view, this is an important opportunity for us to revisit and re-examine the basic, fundamental principles when it comes to an official, such as the Director, in exercising his or LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 731 her statutory discretion. What are the basic common law principles? I emphasize the term "common law" because we are a jurisdiction that operates on common law principles, and all decisions coming from the Director, or indeed any government official in exercising his or her statutory power, need to adhere to and be reminded of the basic principles of the exercise of statutory discretion or discretionary power.

As I said, this is an important occasion to remind us all, and to read into the record the basic principles of the discretionary power because the exercise of such power could, of course, be challenged in a court of law by way of judicial review, or in this case, it could be brought to a relevant administrative tribunal to be reviewed and examined, and that decision itself is also subject to judicial review. So, when a decision maker―and the decision maker in this case is, of course, the Director mentioned in the Bill itself―has been given the power to act, or a duty to act, in certain circumstances, that duty is, first of all, mandatory in requiring a particular function to be exercised in a certain way. In this case, of course, the Director has been given the duty, the mandatory duty, to consider whether a new licence or operating licence should be granted or refused. So, that is the particular function in question. In exercising that power, it is always subject to, of course, the discretion of the decision maker, which is the Director in this case. The power may expressly limit the way in which the discretion ought to be or should be exercised. For example, in other legislation you would see the legislation placing a cap on the amount payable under a particular statutory compensation scheme. In this case, of course, the Director has been given the power to consider the application if the applicant shows to the satisfaction of the Director a list of factors, which I will not read out. So, in this case, a very clear framework of the statutory scheme has been laid out in sections 14A and 14B. So, the express limit and the factors which the Director has to take into account in the exercise of his or her statutory power have been clearly laid out in the statutory scheme contained in this Bill. But it does not stop there because a power, even though clearly circumscribed by a statutory scheme, may further be limited by a range of implied factors which may not have been set out in the legislation itself but nevertheless are still there to govern the exercise of that duty or the exercise of that statutory power. So, one may ask what are those implied factors which may be relevant in this case or in any other statutory scheme? First and foremost, they are, of course, the principles established by the Court which can be found in relevant case laws regarding the exercise of statutory power. Regarding these case laws, of course I am referring to the public law cases, be it in Hong Kong or in other common law jurisdictions.

732 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Number one, the case law will tell you that the exercise of the statutory power must be done in a way that is reasonable. So, here is the need to exercise the power reasonably on the part of the Director in this case.

Number two, the need to exercise the power for the purpose for which it was provided. This may seem obvious as a basic principle of public administrative law, but the need to exercise the power for the purpose for which it was provided is to put the statutory power back into its basic context. So, one must always look into what the purpose of the statutory power given in the first place is. In this case, of course, it is for the granting of the operating licence in certain circumstances when the applicant has satisfied the factors as laid out in the statutory provision itself. So, that is the purpose, and in this case, the purpose is very clear. In fact, a singular purpose could be found.

Number three, the need to take relevant factors into account when reaching a decision, and not to take into account irrelevant factors. Again, it is a basic principle that may seem obvious, but some decision makers often get it wrong. And of course, the Director, in exercising his statutory power, has to take into account relevant factors, and the relevant factors in this case have been set out in the statutory scheme itself. But what are irrelevant factors which may or may not be taken into account? If irrelevant factors are nonetheless reflected or have influenced the decision of the Director, then that decision is amenable to judicial review and could be challenged in the same way which I have mentioned. So, the need or the duty to not take into account irrelevant factors is a very important principle which one must bear in mind and something that I would like to read into the record.

There are other factors which perhaps … in this case, since we are dealing with fishing vessels, the human rights angle is perhaps of lesser concern, but nevertheless, when exercising statutory power, the Director or any public officer must take into account basic human rights, conventions, or in this case, ICCPR or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights concerning the right to work and the right to choose one's profession freely. These are also the rights that may be engaged in this case when exercising the power or making the decision under sections 14A and 14B of the relevant Bill.

And moving on, the decision maker must use the power for a lawful purpose. If a public body acts outside its power for a purpose that the power was not created to achieve, the action will be regarded as ultra vires or beyond its LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 733 power. The purpose of the power may be expressly set out in legislation, which is the case here. The power has been expressly circumscribed and expressly set out in the legislation, or it may be implied from its objectives. Fortunately, we are not dealing with an implication or an implied situation under the current circumstances because the drafter has obviously been very careful in setting out the precise circumstances and requirements which the applicant is required to demonstrate and show to the satisfaction of the decision maker, which is the Director in this case, when making an application under the relevant provision. But there are cases where the legislative scheme itself is not clear and the Court will have to fall back to the implied position or to try to infer from the language of the legislation itself what the implied objectives of the legislative scheme are.

As I said, fortunately, we do not have to go there because the drafter has been very clear, and we are dealing with a relatively simple exercise and application of a kind which should be relatively straightforward. But there are situations which, on the face of the legislation itself, are not clear. Then one would have to search for its implied objectives.

Moving on to another important aspect of the exercise of the discretionary power under the statutory scheme, a decision which may be subject to a discretionary power, of course, must be reasonable, i.e. the decision must be rationally open to a reasonable decision maker in possession of all the facts in the case. I repeat, the decision must be rationally open to a reasonable decision maker in possession of all the facts in the case. So, a consideration of all relevant factors which is rationally open to a reasonable decision is the key when the Director exercises his or her power under the statutory scheme in making a decision.

Now, one may ask, what is "reasonableness"? Reasonableness in the exercise of statutory power includes an implicit recognition that there may be many ways in which the decision maker might exercise a particular discretion, and there may be more than one lawful conclusion that can be reached. That does not mean, however, that a court reviewing it would have reached the same decision. So, reasonableness of course has a range, and it could not be defined in a particular way. Of course, it is subject to different sets of circumstances and facts in a particular decision.

And, as long as a lawful conclusion can be reached, then a requirement on reasonableness could mean a number of different things. So, when the Court reviews what is reasonable in a decision, it does not question the degree in which 734 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 the decision maker applied the principle itself, but it will look at the overall exercise of discretion on whether any reasonable person could have reached the same decision as the decision maker.

Of course, the range of discretion in this case is limited because the factors that can be taken into consideration are set out in those provisions, namely sections 14A and 14B. But would there be a situation where the decision maker would have to take into account other factors? The factors which are relevant but not mentioned in the statutory scheme itself are something that I wish the Secretary could point out for the record so that we are clear on where we stand regarding factors that are not expressly mentioned in the statutory scheme itself.

A further question which I hope the Secretary would answer is whether there could be conditions placed on the decision in granting an operating licence. Would there be circumstances where the answer to the application is: "Yes, we would give you the operating licence, but it is subject to certain conditions though not mentioned in the current statutory scheme"? So, this is something I especially wish the Secretary would answer.

There are other relevant common law principles regarding the exercise of statutory power. I will not set them out because of the limitation of time, but rationality and proportionality are of course other important common law principles when it comes to the exercise of statutory power by the Director in this case, and I wish to read them into the record.

Thank you, President.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, this Council is now scrutinizing the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") today. Simply put, the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("DAFC") will be conferred with the discretionary power to approve applications for registration in respect of fishing vessels that did not possess a valid operating licence before 15 June 2012. We can already spot the problem by simply looking at the date. It has been delayed for eight years, a problem that arose in 2012 has not been dealt with until now in 2020. What has the Carrie LAM Government been doing? The authorities keep saying that they have to protect the fisheries industry, but it still takes them eight years to introduce such a simple amendment on discretionary power. What on earth has gone wrong?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 735

We may not know that a group of diligent fishermen are still engaged in fishing in Hong Kong. After all, Hong Kong has developed from a small fishing port into an international cosmopolitan city nowadays, and the fisheries industry is a very valuable industry in Hong Kong. This is the background of the Bill. Hong Kong was a small fishing port in the past, and the fisheries industry in Hong Kong experienced buoyant development in the 1960s. At that time, more than 7 000 tonnes of golden threads were caught in Hong Kong every year, ranking the first in Southeast Asia. Now, we can see in the markets that locally caught fish have nearly disappeared. Why? This is related to the policy administration of the SAR Government. We can see from the Bill that such a simple amendment has even been delayed for eight years. This involves 319 appeal cases, affecting about 300-odd fishing vessels, and they can continue their fishing operations during the period pending appeal. Being able to continue the fishing operations during the period pending appeal implies that there is no impact. Yet, these fishermen have to bear the guilt and are stuck in an appeal for no reason at all, merely because they have not applied for a licence with the relevant department before 15 June 2012 due to various reasons. They have to go through the appeal process as a result. Some Honourable Members mentioned that these fishermen would not be greatly affected since they could continue their fishing operations during the period pending appeal. Hey, man, the problem is that many of them have to go through this appeal process for no reason at all, merely because they do not understand the registration procedures.

The Carrie LAM Government has pointed out that the Fisheries Protection Ordinance ("FPO") was enacted out of respect for the fishermen. This is really interesting. First, the authorities have established some very cumbersome procedures which make it difficult for the fishermen to apply for various types of licences. Second, the authorities have not made any endeavour to protect the rarely remaining fishermen in Hong Kong―I understand that Mr Steven HO has a deep feeling on this point, we can have a debate here―especially on the issue of illegal fishing.

The authorities have told us that the purpose of introducing the Bill is to clear the backlog of appeal cases. Yet, have the authorities tackled the problem of illegal fishing? The authorities allowed Mainland fishing vessels to enter Hong Kong waters illegally for fishing. According to media reports earlier on, at least 50 to 100 fishing vessels use serpentine traps which are extremely destructive to conduct fishing in Hong Kong every day. We all know that such cages would wreak havoc under the sea, thereby resulting in a drop in fish catch. 736 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

A vast majority of these illegal fishing activities in Hong Kong waters are carried out by Mainland fishing vessels. Has the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") ever taken any actions?

Today, the authorities have proposed that DAFC be conferred with the discretionary power under the Bill. It is very simple, we have to look at what the authorities have done in the past. From 2013 to October 2018, there are 36 cases of successful prosecution under FPO against illegal trawling activities in Hong Kong waters, among which 12 cases involved Mainland fishermen. Do you believe that only 12 cases involved Mainland fishermen?

Do the authorities really want to protect the fisheries industry and the fishermen in Hong Kong? The present case of the Bill being delayed for eight years is a straw in the wind. And then they tell us that those fishermen can continue their fishing operations during the period pending appeal―I will talk about the rulings of the Administrative Appeals Board ("AAB") later on, that is really shocking. We can see from the various grounds and circumstances that the Government actually pays no respect to the fisheries industry.

President, the Bill under discussion today asks us to confer power on DAFC. We must give it careful consideration. It is certainly alright if they have done a good job, but we must ask clearly if they have performed unsatisfactorily. If the Government fails to put forward any specific policies to protect local fishermen and support the sustainable development of the fisheries industry, they should not claim that they care about the fishermen.

So far, the authorities have only established the Sustainable Fisheries Development Fund in 2014, yet they think that they have done a lot to help the fishermen, and everything has been handled properly. They also asked Members to pass the relevant legislation, purporting that it could help more fishermen. In the end, what are the problems with the Fund? The application process is terribly complicated with a very high threshold …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, please return to the subject of the debate.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 737

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, I am still speaking on the subject. I need to explain why I do not agree to confer DAFC with the discretionary power, and I must question him on this occasion.

President, AFCD is one of the departments responsible for administering the Fund that I have mentioned just a moment ago. During the five years from 2014 to 2019, 12 applications have been approved under the Fund, but only two projects can be completed. The authorities still claim that they have to protect the fishermen and help the fishermen to add value. Have they considered other approaches? If it were not for the Second Reading of the Bill, how would we get the chance to speak on this subject? Honestly, I think Honourable Members of all parties and camps should also speak. This is helpful to the fishermen, since we seldom have the chance to speak on this subject. Do you remember when the last amendment exercise was carried out? The Secretary is now present in the Chamber, so we should take this opportunity to tell the Secretary that we need to make it crystal clear during the Second Reading debate of the Bill. Given that the authorities have not put forward a set of specific strategies, we would ask clearly about each and every minor refinement proposed by the authorities.

President, the reason is really simple. The Government has done everything wrong. Public funds amounting to $500 million have been spent on the Sustainable Fisheries Development Fund that I have mentioned a short while ago. Nevertheless, I am not going to talk about it anymore, lest you would …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, I have reminded you that you have digressed from the subject. If you continue to digress from the subject, I will ask you to stop speaking. Please return to the subject of the debate.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, I have not left the Hong Kong waters, nor have I digressed from the subject. I would now go on with my speech.

President, the present situation is, the authorities need to process the applications for registration in respect of fishing vessels that did not possess a valid operating licence before 15 June 2012―so as to make up for their omission―regardless of the reasons for not having registered at that time. 738 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

Perhaps it is due to their oversight or omission, or it is because those old fishermen did not know how to go through the registration procedures. Some 4 000 applications were received back then, among which 400-odd applications for registration were rejected. Among them, AAB has handed down rulings on 300-odd cases towards which AAB has expressed sympathy. Yet, given the deficiencies of the legislation, the authorities can only express sympathy but are unable to provide any assistance. As a result, some fishermen have continued their fishing operations during the period pending appeal. The Bill seeks to fix the problem that fishermen continue their fishing operations without a valid operating licence during the period pending appeal. Such a situation is absolutely undesirable, and it is simply wrong to drag the fishermen into the appeal process for no reason at all. AFCD owes us an explanation.

During the past period of time, the authorities have not dealt with this problem which sounds very simple to the ear. Apart from this, the authorities' entire set of policies to protect the fishermen is false, empty and grandiose. President, as we should learn lessons from history and apply them to events of the present time, we thus must look at their past deeds. Speaking of protecting the fisheries industry, how many policies implemented by the Hong Kong Government have turned out to be faulty? It has nothing to do with the Secretary.

Having said that, just as Honourable colleagues have mentioned earlier, a series of large-scale infrastructure projects in the past have continuously narrowed the fishing area, whilst the Government has not taken any remedial measures but merely let the industry decline. The launch of the Fund has produced no effect, whereas it is said that the amendments to FPO seek to grant licence on a discretionary basis to those fishermen who have not registered timely eight years ago. Have you ever thought of the reasons why it has been delayed for eight years? There is virtually no difficulty in securing the passage of these amendments, why are they procrastinated and submitted to the Legislative Council for scrutiny only in 2019? President, the root of the problem lies in whether the Government really has respect for the fisheries industry. In fact, the authorities should put forward a more concrete plan, be it subsidies, protection or assistance, as assistance is indeed necessary.

I am not as familiar with the figures as Mr Steven HO does, but my memory should serve me correctly that about 4 000 fishing vessels are currently in operation according to the figures in 2011, perhaps some more updated figures may be available. People would question about what Members have done in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 739

Chamber, have Members fought for more rights and interests for the fishermen? Hey, man, this is not the case. We are still dealing with those fishermen who have failed to register for a valid licence. Why those fishermen have not been granted approval directly back at that time? This is very simple. There must be negligence on the part of the Government.

Today, I must take this opportunity to point out the present problem, which is the Carrie LAM Government as a whole. Just now I have mentioned that the reclamation project of the third runway of the airport and the infrastructure project of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, etc. have made a mess in our waters, causing the fishermen great distress. They can hardly make a living since they often face the problem of young people being reluctant to join the industry, as well as difficulties in fishing, etc., coupled with illegal fishing. Therefore, I certainly have to ask during the scrutiny of the Bill: Are the authorities aware that, apart from having delays in granting valid licences, they have missed the golden opportunities time and again in the past, therefore making it difficult for the fishermen to survive? Under such circumstances, the number of fishermen is ever-decreasing, and no one is willing to join the industry. Has the SAR Government ever thought about where the problem lies?

The amendments in the Bill under discussion today seek to confer discretionary power on the authorities, which is virtually tantamount to making remedy for the Government's omission and negligence. The Government has not expected such a situation to arise, whilst 494 cases were rejected among the applications for registration in respect of 4 474 fishing vessels. As I have mentioned earlier, more than 300 of them were rejected for various reasons. In fact, some fishermen can ask their friends to write a letter as a proof, so as to help them get through it. Things can be sorted out as long as there is nothing wrong with the administrative procedures. So many years have passed, and now the Government only proposes amendments to the Legislative Council with a view to plugging the loopholes that have arisen since 2012. I cannot help but ask, what has the Government done while they repeatedly claim that it is necessary to protect the fishermen and to protect such a valuable industry in Hong Kong? Why should the authorities be empowered, and why should DAFC's discretionary power be expanded? Let us ask some fishermen, what kind of assistance has the Government offered to them? AFCD must be the executive department, what has AFCD offered to the fishermen then? The authorities will tell them that the Bill now being processed precisely seeks to make remedy and deal with the cases for which a licence was not granted in 2012 due to various reasons. President, these are no doubt human errors.

740 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

We must bring up the problem during scrutiny of the Bill today, and that is, the Government should have a comprehensive set of policies in place to protect the fisheries industry that I have described some time earlier as the only remaining one. This is really saddening. The fisheries industry in Hong Kong has a glorious past, and now it cannot be said that it is not glorious, but it is very difficult for them to transform due to a lack of resources. Moreover, such work is extremely toilsome, even if they put to sea early in the morning, they would see many Mainland fishing vessels already sailing on the sea. They would feel deeply grieved immediately since they can only catch some small fish, and that is simply not profitable enough for them to make a living. I often describe them as the most disadvantaged among the disadvantaged, how can they face this predicament? The Government must grant them a licence in the first place even if they wish to support the Government's policies. This Bill seeks to deal with the problem that licences which should have been granted in 2012 are yet to be granted. Nevertheless, the Government keeps saying that they can continue their fishing operations during the period pending appeal even if they do not possess a valid licence. I really find it ridiculous for the authorities to make such remarks.

President, the problems are closely intertwined. If the authorities request us to extend DAFC's discretionary power, the authorities must admit their mistakes and concede that they have indeed ill-treated the fisheries industry in the past. The fishermen deserve a better environment, and the Government at least has to provide them with resources. As a matter of fact, all trades and sectors have already been messed up by the Government. The figures of foreign countries that I have quoted are true. Hong Kong once ranked the first in Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s. Mr Steven HO, am I right? However, it has now declined to this state. Should the authorities grasp the opportunity of the Second Reading stage to do some self-reflection, and admit that the Government really owes the fishermen so that it would put forward a comprehensive plan? The Bill will naturally be passed smoothly if the authorities have drawn up a comprehensive plan, and we will not query why DAFC should be conferred with the discretionary power. Since the Government has made a mistake first and they owe the fishermen, why should we still trust the Government?

To be frank, how much money has been invested in the fisheries industry presently? As far as the infrastructure projects mentioned earlier are concerned, the authorities have spent $120 billion to construct the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020 741

Bridge, and some $140 billion to construct the third runway of the airport. All the money has been spent on reclamation, thereby making a mess in our waters. It may take six to seven years for the marine ecology to recover to a state suitable for fishing. Hong Kong will have been surpassed by other places by then. Other fishing vessels can enter Hong Kong waters freely to conduct fishing and leave right after doing so. The authorities have been completely ineffective in its law enforcement. When a typhoon signal is hoisted, a great number of Mainland fishing vessels enter Hong Kong waters since the law enforcement officers have got off work. No figures are available to reflect the real situation because the authorities have never taken any law enforcement actions. They even claim that the fishermen are fully satisfied. This is the crux of the problem. It is not until now that the Government is willing to grant the licences, which has made itself a laughing stock.

The Bill under discussion today precisely indicates that the Government can delay for eight years even for an amendment to plug such a loophole. It is time for them to do some self-reflection seriously. People's livelihood is no trivial matter, but the Government does not even manage to handle trivial matters properly. Honourable Members are hence forced to speak, and we should always stand on the side of people's livelihood when we speak. As I have said at the beginning of my speech, Hong Kong began as a fishing port and has developed into what we are today, therefore we have an affection for the fisheries industry. I would like to introduce to fellow colleagues a play that I am very fond of, which is titled "The Story of Island and Boat―Hong Kong". What it depicts is a very bitter situation. "No life is without bitterness and suffering. Hong Kong is a gifted place blessed with remarkable talents. Sorrow and difficulties are a part of our world. The Goddess Tin Hau shows her mighty power." This is a description of Hongkongers upholding the spirit of perseverance, resilience and striving for self-improvement. People have toiled hard to enable Hong Kong's development from a fishing port into an international metropolitan city nowadays. Yet, we have now forgotten our roots and ignored the fishermen. We are merely having a discussion on fishermen's licences today, and I have never heard about the Government putting forward a comprehensive set of specific policies to protect the fishermen and support the sustainable development of the fisheries industry. It is my hope that the Secretary will follow up what I have said after going back to the office, instead of paying mere lip-service (The buzzer sounded) …

742 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 October 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, please stop speaking.

SUSPENSION OF MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, I notice that some Members still requested a headcount time and again during the meeting today, such that many Members have to stay in the Chamber for a long time, making it difficult for them to spare sufficient time for lunch. This is undesirable.

Following the practice adopted for the last meeting and in accordance with Rule 14(5) of the Rules of Procedure, I decide that the meeting will be suspended from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm tomorrow.

I now suspend the meeting until 9:00 am tomorrow.

Suspended accordingly at 6:36 pm.