LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8005
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 28 April 2016
The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.
8006 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8007
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.
8008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG NGOK-KIU
MEMBERS ABSENT:
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8009
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE
THE HONOURABLE LAI TUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
DR THE HONOURABLE KO WING-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH
PROF SOPHIA CHAN SIU-CHEE, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL
MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
8010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Committee Stage
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Good morning, Members.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (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)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members, as I have already reminded Members several times yesterday, this debate will proceed until 10 am today. I have seriously studied the debate time that was required for the examination of past Appropriation Bills by the Council. Considering the outstanding business in the remainder of the current term of the Council, we must make optimal use of our meeting time to enable the Council to function properly, so I have allocated a reasonable time slot for each debate, and I have clearly informed Members in advance.
However, as regards whether Members will fully make use of the time to engage in debates, it is a choice of the Members themselves and I cannot make any decisions for them. If Members choose to constantly request the ringing of the summoning bell, and most Members choose to return to the Chamber only after the bell has been rung for 10 minutes or more , or even do not return to the Chamber, I cannot require Members to use up all the time allocated for the debate.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8011
I know that a number of Members have requested to speak in this debate, including Members who have proposed amendments in this debate session. However, we spent a total of four hours and 15 minutes yesterday making quorum calls and waiting for Members to return to the Chamber, and the speaking time for at least 17 Members was thus lost. Members, as I have said just now, it is the choice made by Members, and I am unable to make any changes. If Members continue to adopt such means to use the meeting time of the Council, those Members who do not have a chance to speak can only ask their fellow party members or other Members to be more co-operative, so that Members will be able to truly engage in the debate and express their views in the remaining time.
Now that Dr Elizabeth QUAT on the waiting list has not spoken in this debate session, as I said yesterday, I will first allow her to speak before inviting the public officer to speak. In the remaining time, based on the speaking order of the Members who have proposed amendments and requested to speak, I will only allow them to speak until 10 am and then we will proceed to the next debate.
Dr Elizabeth QUAT, please speak.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2016
DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): The Chairman has made a very good point. We are discussing the amendments to the Appropriation Bill 2016, but I really cannot tell what was discussed at our whole-day meeting yesterday. As the Chairman has said earlier on, a total of 20 headcounts were made yesterday, which has wasted four hours and 15 minutes of the Council's time. Chairman, this is not the first time that certain Members have abused the use of quorum calls and filibustering, which has caused a serious wastage of the Council's time. According to the record of the Legislative Council, between 2012 and February 2016, about 1 200 headcounts were made and more than 160 hours were wasted, which is equal to a total of 17 days. Assuming that the average hourly cost of the Legislative Council is around $200,000, they had wasted more than $30 million of taxpayers' money.
In fact, if the amendments proposed by Members are as meaningful as they claimed, the time allotted by the Chairman for the debate of these 163 8012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 amendments would be insufficient. But as pointed out by the Chairman, Members have chosen to waste time purely for venting their anger. What are the contents of these 163 amendments? As many Members have pointed out yesterday, the amendments are meaningless with unknown purpose.
Today, I wish to highlight a few points, for example, in Amendment No 26, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Auxiliary Medical Service (AMS). What is his intent? Is it wrong for the AMS to rescue people? Is the AMS no longer required to rescue people in the future? While Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Correctional Services Department (CSD), Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung seeks, in addition to reducing the annual estimated expenditure of the CSD, to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Earnings scheme for persons in custody. In that case, persons in custody will be deprived of a chance for rehabilitation. Also, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED), and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung seeks to reduce the C&ED's annual estimated expenditure for equipment, plant and vehicles. As such, the C&ED will not be able to perform its duties and combat smuggling activities.
Likewise, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Fire Services Department (FSD), Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung seeks to reduce the FSD's expenditure for vehicles, plant and equipment, and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan seeks to reduce FSD's expenditure for the acquisition of a fireboat. What do they actually want? As pointed out in the statement issued jointly by the five staff associations of the FSD, the FSD will not be able to operate if the amendments are passed, which is tantamount to removing all its duties to extinguish fire and protect life. As pointed out by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen yesterday, these five unions were incited by Members from the pro-establishment camp to issue the joint statement. But is that true? I beg Mr CHAN Chi-chuen not to insult the intelligence of the FSD staff. Looking back at what has happened in the past few years, I think the FSD staff should know clearly that Mr CHAN Chi-chuen is actually exploiting them to achieve his ends. What will happen if the amendments are passed?
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung also seeks to cut a number of expenses of the Civil Service, and one of them being the education allowances to children of civil servants. Even the children of civil servants will not be spared. Besides, he LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8013 seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure relating to relief and welfare, which implies that civil servants will not be provided with relief in the future even when there is an urgent need. The Immigration Department (ImmD) is a target as well. While Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the ImmD, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung specifically seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of repatriation expenses, which means that the ImmD will not be able to stem the influx of illegal immigrants, and all of them will not be repatriated but can stay in Hong Kong.
As pointed out by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, the annual estimated expenditure of the Independent Commission Against Corruption will also be reduced, but we may have to ask Mr CHAN Chi-chuen for the reason. On the other hand, Mr Albert CHAN also vows to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Department of Justice, which will render it unable to lodge any prosecution. As for the Legal Aid Department, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure on legal aid. With regard to pensions, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure for the surviving spouses' and children's pensions as well as the widows' and orphans' pensions. How come assistance should not be provided to widows and orphans?
As for the Hong Kong Police Force, a series of amendments have been put forward. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeks to reduce its annual estimated expenditure. Are these amendments meaningful? Do they target particularly at the disciplined services? I have no idea what these Members are doing and why they have to waste so much of our time to deal with these amendments. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen even seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Action Committee Against Narcotics. Will people be encouraged to take drugs? There is also a proposal to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Government Flying Services, meaning that the rescue duty cannot be performed.
All these 163 amendments are meaningless, and the only purpose is the provision of a platform for the opposition Members to appear in front of the camera and gain more exposure. If not, why will they keep making quorum calls? Whenever they run out of words, they will make quorum calls to waste time. In yesterday's nine-hour meeting, four hours and 15 minutes were wasted, which showed that they have no intention to speak at all. Therefore, Chairman, there is no need for you to reserve so much speaking time for them next time.
8014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Chairman, it would be catastrophic for Hong Kong if the amendments are passed, but why are they so bold to put forward such amendments? Because they are pretty sure that Members from the pro-establishment camp will remain in the Chamber by all means for the sake of Hong Kong, and this is why they have acted so recklessly without worry. They think that in so doing, they will earn praises and applause from their supporters. They think that members of the public do not know what they are doing. There is no way they can convince the people of Hong Kong that those amendments or acts are good for Hong Kong.
If there is anything they want to say or express, there are actually many channels through which they can get the message across as Members of the Legislative Council. It should not be like what Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has said, he speaks for the FSD by proposing amendments and the firemen will be thankful to him. Nor should it be like what Mr LEE Cheuk-yan has said, he will not allow the amendments proposed by him to get through as he will vote against his own amendments. But what kind of attitude or behavior is that? Let me advise these Members: do not disguise their selfishness as selflessness or frivolous acts as noble deeds. This is indeed truly hypocritical.
Chairman, I oppose all the amendments.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): A point of order. Dr Elizabeth QUAT declared just now that yesterday, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen said that the five staff associations of the Fire Services Department issued a statement under the manipulation of the pro-establishment camp. May I ask when I said such words yesterday and what the source of her information is? I did not say anything like this to anyone yesterday.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, this is not a point of order, so please be seated.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, you normally allow Members to seek elucidation on the unreasonable allegations made by the speaking Member.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8015
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, if you stop requesting headcounts and interrupting the proceedings, I trust that you should have time to reply later on. According to the rules of debate of this Council, if other Members raise accusations which you consider factitious, you may make a powerful response and the general public would be able to tell who is right or wrong. This is the right way of debating.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, but you have already set a deadline for the current debate at 10 am, so I may not have enough time to defend.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If you sit down now and listen quietly to the speeches made by the public officers, I trust that you will have a chance to speak.
Does any public officer wish to speak? Secretary for Security.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak to urge Members to veto all of the amendments in the second joint debate. Regarding the amendments in this debate, the response of the Government is as follows:
Mr Albert CHAN, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen have proposed a total of 19 amendments to reduce the annual estimated expenditures on various equipment, vehicles and marine craft for the Hong Kong Police Force (the Police). The Government opposes these amendments. The Police have the responsibilities to maintain law and order in society, protect the lives and properties of the public, combat crimes, and so on. Hong Kong has maintained a low crime rate and is one of the safest cities in the world because we have a professional, well-trained and well-equipped police force.
In order to enable the Police to enforce the law effectively, they must be provided with sufficient equipment, vehicles and marine craft. The various items of equipment, vehicles and marine craft listed in the Appropriation Bill 2016 are indispensible to the Police for patrolling, rescuing, handling emergencies, implementing anti-crime initiatives, managing traffic and undertaking other operations or duties. Passage of the amendments will 8016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 seriously undermine the capability of the Police to undertake routine duties, such as maintain law and order, conduct urgent rescue operations and combat crimes. The Police may not even be able to carry out certain duties. The general public will suffer as a result. Therefore, I urge Members to oppose these amendments.
The amendments of Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung seek to reduce the operational expenditure of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC). The Government opposes these amendments. The current statutory two-tier police complaints system provides effective check and balance. The Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) is specifically tasked with handling and investigating complaints against members of the police force by the public. It operates independently from the other police units and its investigation results are scrutinized and reviewed by the IPCC which is a statutory body. As an independent regulatory body, the IPCC has the statutory power to monitor how the Police handles and investigates complaints.
According to the Independent Police Complaints Council Ordinance (the Ordinance), the Police shall provide necessary assistance to the IPCC and comply with the requirements set by the IPCC under the Ordinance, including the requirement that the CAPO shall submit a detailed investigation report on each reportable complaint to the IPCC for its careful review. This mechanism ensures that public complaints against police officers will be handled fairly and impartially.
The amendments of Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung will only make the IPCC unable to continue to perform its statutory duties of handling and investigating complaints, which will obviously be against public interests. Therefore, I urge Members to oppose these amendments.
The amendment proposed by Mr James TO seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the CAPO of the Hong Kong Police Force by a total of about $79,490,000. The Government opposes this amendment. If this amendment is passed, it will not improve the current police complaints system. Conversely, if the CAPO lacks funding, it cannot continue to handle public complaints against police officers and investigation work which is under way will have to stop.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8017
The current statutory two-tier police complaints system is sound. The CAPO is specifically tasked with handling and investigating public complaints against police officers. It operates independently from the other police units to ensure that complaints are handled fairly, impartially and professionally. The investigation results of the CAPO are also scrutinized and reviewed by the IPCC which is a statutory body. The IPCC is an independent statutory body which has the statutory power to monitor how the Police handles and investigates complaints. The Ordinance clearly provides a statutory basis to the two-tier police complaints system and stipulates that the Police shall provide necessary assistance to the IPCC and comply with the requirements set by the IPCC under the Ordinance, including the requirement that the CAPO shall submit an investigation report on each reportable complaint to the IPCC. If Mr TO's amendment is passed, the CAPO will not have sufficient funding to operate. That is tantamount to abolishing the entire police complaints system which will not bring any benefit to society. Therefore, I urge Members to oppose Mr TO's amendment.
The amendments of Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr James TO seek to reduce the annual estimated expenditure on "Rewards and special services" of the Police. The Government opposes these amendments. The estimated expenditure under the subhead of "Rewards and special services" of the Police is $82 million, the expenditures under this subhead is related to police operations of a confidential nature, including combatting terrorist activities, serious crimes and drug offences. The items of expenditure include police rewards, informer fees, purchase and maintenance of essential equipment of a confidential nature, as well as expenses incurred in confidential operations. These expenses are crucial to the work of the Police in maintaining public security and order in society.
Since the subhead involves police operations of a confidential nature, disclosure of information on the expenses involved may give criminals a chance to detect the operation tactics of the Police by studying the allocation of such expenses and the trends thereof. Hence, the criminals may be able to escape from legal sanctions or even threaten the safety of front-line police officers and informers. In recent years, without compromising their ability to combat crimes, the Police have provided as much information as they can on the expenses under the subhead of "Rewards and special services", such as releasing the number of rewards, the total amount of rewards, as well as the number of times in which payments are made.
8018 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
The expenses on "Rewards and special services" are extremely important to the Police in investigating, detecting and preventing serious crimes. If the amendments of Mr CHAN, Mr LEUNG and Mr TO are passed, the capability of the Police in taking law-enforcement actions and the effect thereof will be seriously undermined. This will seriously affect law and order and public security in Hong Kong.
The Government opposes the amendments of Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung to reduce the estimated expenditure of the Fire Services Department (FSD). The FSD is an important emergency rescue service in Hong Kong which provides emergency service, fire-fighting service, land and sea rescue service, as well as emergency ambulance service for the sick or injured persons. Withdrawing the provisions for operational expenses of the FSD and personal emoluments of its staff, including salaries, allowances and job-related allowances will render the FSD unable to operate, which is tantamount to withdrawing essential services such as fire-fighting, rescue and emergency services. This will produce serious consequences and greatly endanger the lives and properties of the people.
Apart from providing fire-fighting and emergency ambulance services, the FSD is also responsible for monitoring fire-related licensing and enforcement work, advising the public on fire protection measures and enhance public awareness of fire safety through publicity and education. Withdrawing the annual provisions for the operational expenses of the FSD and the personal emoluments of its staff will render the FSD unable to process license applications, undertake work on fire protection and prevention, and so on. This will greatly affect business operation and the lives of people in Hong Kong. As a rescue service providing emergency services, various fire appliances, vessels, equipment and ambulances of the FSD must be maintained in highly efficient conditions.
Furthermore, given the rapid rise in the number of fires/special service incidents and the increasingly hectic traffic in the eastern waters of Hong Kong, the FSD has carefully reviewed its current resources. There is a need to provide a major fireboat and a fast rescue vessel in the waters in Sai Kung to enhance the overall efficiency of fire-fighting, providing ambulance services and conducting emergency search and rescue operations.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8019
Withdrawing the provisions for the FSD to replace and procure new fire appliances, vessels, equipment and ambulances will make the FSD unable to replace old equipment and procure the necessary appliances and vessels in a timely manner. This will greatly affect the efficiency of the FSD in conducting rescue operations, and the lives and property of the public cannot be duly safeguarded.
The Government also opposes the amendments of Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung regarding the Correctional Services Department, the Immigration Department, the Customs and Excise Department and the Government Flying Service. These departments are very important to Hong Kong. They provide the public with various important services related to their daily lives. These departments also shoulder the important responsibility of maintaining law and order and contribute greatly to the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. Reducing the annual estimated expenditures of these departments will make them unable to operate and directly affect their front-line services and social security. Thus, I urge Members to oppose these amendments.
Some Members have proposed amendments to reduce the estimated expenditures of the Civil Service Bureau for providing national studies and induction training on the Basic Law this year. The Government opposes these amendments. Civil servants must be conversant with the macro developments in our country as well as the national, social and economic strategies and plans which may affect Hong Kong, so as to complement the development of our country. In 2016, the Civil Service Bureau must continue to provide systematic training for civil servants at all levels on defence affairs, national affairs and the Basic Law, which includes organizing studies and thematic study tours on the Mainland and conducting a series of themed seminars in Hong Kong.
National studies programmes which last from seven to 17 days are organized jointly with renowned institutions and universities of the Mainland. The programmes comprise tutorials supplemented by site visits. Directorate officers will attend lectures at the Chinese Academy of Governance, and senior staff at MPS Point 45 or above are catered for by Tsinghua University or Peking University. In respect of officers at MPS Point 34 to 44, we have secured Jinan University, Nanjing University and Zhejiang University to run a one-week course for them. Furthermore, China Foreign Affairs University runs a nine-day course on international relations and foreign affairs for officers at MPS Point 45 or 8020 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 above. It is estimated that about 650 civil servants will attend these courses in 2016.
Topics covered in seminars organized in Hong Kong include the National 13th Five-Year Plan, development of the Belt and Road Initiative, international affairs, economic policies, geopolitics, regional culture and legal system, and so on. The speakers consist mainly of scholars, experts and public officials of Hong Kong and the Mainland.
Regarding Basic Law training, we customize the training for civil servants at different stages of their career which includes foundation courses for new recruits on key concepts and provisions of the Basic Law; modules designed to enrich knowledge through recent court cases for officers at MPS Point 34 and above; and tailor-made programmes for individual bureaux and departments. We will organize thematic talks on the Basic Law from time to time to discuss specific issues. It is estimated that in 2016, about 15 200 civil servants at different levels will participate in training on national studies and the Basic Law. This will incur an estimated expenditure of $18.8 million.
Moreover, some Members have proposed amendments to reduce part of the expenses on housing benefits under the head of expenditure for "General expenses of the civil service". Housing benefit is a very important fringe benefit in the emoluments of civil servants. Thus, the Government considers it necessary to approve all estimated expenditures concerning housing allowances for civil servants in 2016-2017 as soon as possible, so that the allowances can be paid on time. If the Government cannot pay housing allowances on time, this will create an immediate and serious impact on the financial arrangements of the civil servants and their families concerned, dealing a direct blow to their morale. To adequately cater for the housing needs of civil servants, the Government considers it necessary to approve the estimated expenditures as soon as possible, so as to maintain the morale of civil servants and the attractiveness of jobs in the civil service.
Finally, in relation to the Judiciary, a Member has proposed amendments to reduce the annual estimated expenditures on expenses of witnesses and jurors and of minor plant, vehicles and equipment (block vote). The Government opposes these amendments. The independence of the Judiciary, which is protected in our constitution under the Basic Law, is the cornerstone of Hong Kong society. Judicial independence refers to the concept that judges can make fair judgments LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8021 without being instructed, manipulated, pressurized or affected by the executive authorities, the legislature or any other party. Judicial independence is an important matter which needs financial protection. In order to uphold judicial independence, the Judiciary must be allocated with sufficient resources so that it can continue to operate. If the Judiciary is underfunded, the normal operation of courts will be adversely affected. Therefore, the Administration and the Judiciary oppose the amendments to reduce the expenditures of the Judiciary.
With these remarks, Chairman, I urge Members to negative all the amendments in the second joint debate.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): In accordance with the order which Members who proposed amendments have requested to speak again, the first three Members are Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please speak.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I really think that I do not have a chance to speak in reply this morning. In this debate, I have proposed a total of 25 amendments but I have only spoken once when I moved one of the amendments. This is a heated debate. In addition to democratic Members, 10 pro-establishment Members have raised questions and spoken. Though Dr Elizabeth QUAT also spoke for less than 15 minutes just now, she distorted many facts. But I agree to a key point she made. Within the debate time allocated by the President, even without headcounts or aborted meetings, Members may not have sufficient time to express their views even they are enthusiastic to speak. Ten pro-establishment Members have spoken, but the Member who has proposed amendments can only speak once. Luckily, I am one of the three Members who top the speaking order and can speak twice. May I ask if Members have sufficient time to debate?
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mrs Regina IP, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, and six Members of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) have presented many arguments and I would like to respond. But as this is the last time I can speak in this debate session, I do not think I can respond to their arguments one by one. Thus, I can only give an integrated response to their arguments. Pro-establishment Members, especially 8022 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
DAB Members including Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, DAB Chairman Ms Starry LEE and Dr Elizabeth QUAT have questioned our proposal to reduce the expenditures of the disciplined services, they consider our amendments unreasonable and even irresponsible.
This is laughable! Is this the first time that amendments are proposed to the Budget and debates are held? In the past few years, Members have proposed amendments to reduce the expenditures of the disciplined services, why do pro-establishment Members make a fuss this time as if they have just waken up from their dreams? This proves that throughout the years, they have not bothered about our amendments …
(Mr CHAN Kam-lam raised his hands in indication)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam, what is your point?
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, this is a fantastic defence but there is a lack of quorum; I hope more members can be summoned back to listen to him.
CHAIRMAN (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)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please continue with your speech.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, people watching the television broadcast and Honourable colleagues, just now it is Mr CHAN Kam-lam who requested a headcount. I am afraid you might have missed this historic moment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8023
First of all, I would like to highly commend Mr CHAN Kam-lam for requesting a headcount. He finally realizes before his retirement that a Council meeting really cannot and should not proceed when a quorum is not present. Some Members may say, "It serves you right. An eye for an eye." I will not speculate on Mr CHAN Kam-lam's motive because a Member shall not impute improper motives to another Member according to Rule 41(5) of the Rules of Procedure (RoP). So, if a Member requests a headcount, the Chairman should not explain whether his motive is to use up Council's meeting time, interrupt another Member who is speaking or challenge the 10 am deadline as set. Will I be asked to shut up once the 10 am is reached?
Most importantly, I hope that in future, pro-establishment Members or democratic Members would make such a request in accordance with Rule 17(3) of the RoP when they realize that a quorum is not present. If the Council meeting is aborted, the Member who requests a headcount should not be blamed. Mr WONG Kwok-hing said just now that Mr CHAN Kam-lam should not be blamed even if meeting is aborted. Indeed, Members who are not present at the meeting should be blamed for the abortion of the Council meeting.
Chairman, Rule 41(5) of the RoP specifies that a Member shall not impute improper motives to another Member. Yet, some Members who spoke yesterday and this morning are suspected of violating the RoP. In each of the past few years, there were Members who proposed to reduce the expenditures of the disciplined services and they provided justifications. However, because of the time constraint and the arrangement made by the President this year, Members cannot fully express themselves or discuss in detail. If fact, Members who seek to reduce the expenditures of the disciplined services do not intend to abolish the disciplined services or suggest that the Police, the Fire Services Department (FSD), the Customs and Excise Department and the Immigration Department are no longer needed in Hong Kong, turning Hong Kong into Detroit.
This is not the first year we debate the Budget and the Budget is nothing new. As we are all aware, we can only propose amendments to reduce but not increase the expenditures. This is a basic knowledge. When a Member seeks to reduce the expenditure of a certain department, he should point out the deficiencies or even the serious blunders of that department. Let me cite an example. In the past, a Member proposed to reduce the expenditure on meals for inmates of prisons under the Correctional Services Department (CSD). If we just consider the amendment itself, his intent may be distorted and misinterpreted 8024 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 as trying to starve the inmates, an inhuman act for which a complaint should be lodged with the United Nations, claiming that he has ruined the reputation of Hong Kong. If we had listened to the speech delivered by that Member, we would have learnt that he purposely proposed the amendment to criticize the CSD for providing insufficient and unsatisfactory food for the inmates, and hoped that improvements would be made. This year, I seek to reduce the expenditure of the FSD, but I cannot explain in detail my justifications. As I stated in the past, my target is the Government and the management of the FSD.
Among the disciplined services, we support firemen the most and they have the highest popularity. Nevertheless, a number of Members proposed similar amendments in the past. I would like to quote the remark I made previously on reducing the expenditure of the FSD. I mentioned that the FSD has repeatedly bought inappropriate equipment and the Audit Commission has mentioned 10 deadly sins of the FSD, including slow progress in building inspections and slow response in handling complaints. Another problem was that the FSD favoured firemen but treated ambulance personnel unfairly, resulting in understaffing of ambulance personnel, unreasonable duty schedules and unsatisfactory meal arrangements. These were the comments I made in relation to reducing the expenditure of the FSD. Some ambulance personnel thanked me afterwards because I pointed out on their behalf areas that had not been properly handled by the FSD over the years. After a Member has proposed an amendment, the other Members should not misinterpret his motive or distort the facts by just referring to the subject only, and then claim that the Police, the FSD, the Customs and Excise Department and the Immigration Department are no longer needed. Similarly, in the following debate session, Members should not say that reducing the expenditure of the Social Welfare Department means that we need not provide relief to the elderly and the disabled or reducing the expenditure of the Education Bureau means that all children in Hong Kong do not need to go to school. I think some Members may make such comments later on.
Members may be really silly or pretending to be silly; if today a Member suddenly wakes up from his dream and he wants to speak to refute the proposals on reducing expenditures, that is desirable. The related debate will enable the public to understand what has happened. We should never distort the facts. For example, I do not know which newspapers Dr Elizabeth QUAT has quoted in claiming that I said the statement issued by several fire services trade unions has been manipulated by the royalists and the pro-establishment camp. I have never made such comments and I have not told reporters anything like that in private.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8025
I received a call from a reporter who wanted to guide me into making these remarks. He asked me if I thought the trade unions made a statement soon after Dr CHIANG Lai-wan had spoken. Was that too expeditious, and was there any inside story? I did not guess the motive of the trade unions. I can now explain. There is nothing new about our comments as we have spoken on the subject in the past few years. There are minutes of meetings and detailed verbatim records of our justifications in requesting for reducing the expenditure of the Police or the FSD. Members of the trade unions can go through the records of our previous speeches and even the audio recordings of our speeches.
I am speaking for the second time and this is also the last time I speak in this debate session. I have proposed 25 amendments, but some Members said that I have not explained why I proposed the amendments and that I propose amendments for the sake of proposing amendments. On which amendment should I give explanations? I would like to explain why I seek to reduce the expenditure of the Registration and Electoral Office (REO); it has nothing to do with whether elections will be held. I just wish to point out that the REO has made mistakes in handling voter registration and it has disqualified voters for no reason; it has also failed to follow up on vote rigging and has conducted political censorship on election mail. Experience told me that we can speak once or twice on each subject but we cannot do so this time because of the arrangements made by the President.
I know it would be meaningless to go on debating with that Chairman today because you will not be the President of the Legislative Council in the next term; however, what you did will become precedents. Dr Priscilla LEUNG said that it is impossible for the Rules of Procedure to be amended but new practices can be established through the President's rulings and the Legislative Council may act according to the new practices in the future. Certainly, pro-establishment Members are the majority in this Council and the President is also a pro-establishment Member. The President's rulings shall not be challenged and a judicial review cannot be filed. Let us wait and see how this Council would become in the future as even the President, Jasper TSANG, acts like CHAN Kam-lam …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, what is your point?
8026 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, as Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has said, a Member shall not impute improper motives to another Member. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has just imputed your motive because you are a DAB member. Please make a ruling, Chairman.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, saying that one is a DAB member is not imputing motive to him, but describing the facts.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please continue with your speech.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I would like to say something in response. As some pro-establishment Members have said, fortunately there were pro-establishment Members and functional constituency Members; otherwise, if all amendments proposed by the democrats were passed, Hong Kong would become Detroit, the City of Evil. I believe we can rest assured; if the democrats luckily become the majority in this Council, the Financial Secretary simply would not dare submit such a "rotten" budget. Precisely because there are royalists and the pro-establishment camp, even if members of the public are not satisfied with the Budget, with the high income and assets tests for the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA), with the lack of legislation on standard working hours and with the implementation of retirement protection coming to a standstill, the Government can still be indifferent. The budget submitted by the Financial Secretary each year is highly unsatisfactory and has much room for improvement. That is because he believes that the budget will eventually be passed, no matter how unsatisfactory it is. Not only the budget will be passed, there is less and less room for us to make criticisms during the Committee stage. The Government will be connived to perform in an even more unsatisfactory manner.
I heard FTU Members strongly criticizing the Budget during the Second Reading and the comments made by Dr CHIANG Lai-wan are impressive. I have specially extracted some of her comments and reproduced them on my page to share with others. She said that the Budget was a redistribution of income to help the poor. Unfortunately, the authorities have not done so. We stage resistance in this Council in relation to the Budget because we want to highlight the unreasonable contents of the Budget and put pressure on the Government. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8027
However, the pressure is getting weaker and weaker, and it is even close to zero because a time limit has been set to our debate and a date is determined on when the deliberation will be concluded.
However, the Financial Secretary is still not satisfied. He wrote a blog post last Sunday, creating a false crisis and exerting greater pressure on the President, saying that since a date is set, the matter should not be handled leniently. If the majority of the Legislative Council is the democrats, the Financial Secretary would not dare to submit such a disappointing budget, instead, he has to respond directly to the demands of the public and various political parties.
Regarding the income and asset tests for the OALA, at that time, the democrats demanded that no means tests should be conducted, while the pro-establishment camp, including the DAB and the Liberal Party, considered that the income and asset tests proposed by the Government were too stringent. The authorities undertook to conduct a review at that time. Yet, three to four years have passed and the authorities are still reluctant to conduct a review. The Government has now proposed to review the retirement protection system, including the options of "regardless of rich or poor" or "those with financial needs". If a retirement protection system is put in place, the OALA may be cancelled or revised, that is why the authorities have been procrastinating and they have not yet conducted a review.
Members have reached a consensus that the income and asset tests are too stringent. In the community, we have come across cases in which elderly people ask for a divorce, deceive their spouse, or hand over their properties to relatives for custody before they are eligible for OALA. While we have a chance to pressurize the Government during the Budget debate, some Members consider us, Members who exert pressure on the Government, as making trouble and creating obstructions. They have simply interpreted the amendments we proposed as demanding the abolition of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, the Social Welfare Department and the Education Bureau.
In the past, Members had heard of our remarks in this connection. If a Member who has, after hearing the speeches made by other Members yesterday or this morning, speculated our motives, I hope he would go through the speeches we gave before.
8028 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I never speculate the motives of Members. As pointed out by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen a moment ago, I was merely stating the fact. The fact is that almost half of the time allocated for the second debate was spent on quorum calls, and most of such calls were requested by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. I merely wanted to point out the fact that should Mr CHAN choose to use the Council's time to speak rather than making quorum calls incessantly, he would surely have enough time to explain in detail each and every one of his proposed amendments within the time limit set for this debate, instead of creating any misunderstanding as he said.
The time is already past 10 am, and the second debate has now come to a close.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Heads 22, 37, 48, 49, 139, 140, 141 and 170.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (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)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee now proceeds to the third debate. The debate themes are "Poverty Alleviation, Welfare and Medical Services, Elderly Care, Public Health and Population Policy".
The policy areas covered in this debate are: Poverty Alleviation; Welfare Services; Support for Ethnic Minorities and the Disadvantaged; Elderly Care; Health Services; Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene; and Population Policy.
Seven Members, namely Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che have respectively given notice to move LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8029 a total of 46 amendments to reduce the various sums for eight heads, namely heads 22, 37, 48, 49, 139, 140, 141 and 170. The contents of their amendments are all relevant to the areas of this debate.
This debate will last until about 5 pm this afternoon. I will call upon public officials to speak at about 3 pm, to be followed by Members who propose the amendments to speak again. Hence will other Members who intend to speak in this debate please press the "Request to speak" button as early as possible.
I will first call upon Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to speak and move Amendment No 17 set out in Appendix 1B to the Script, to be followed by other Members who propose the amendments to speak respectively.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please speak.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move Amendment No 17 set out in Appendix 1B to the Script, which sought to resolve that head 22 ― Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) be reduced by $1,500,000 in respect of subhead 000. The reduced amount is approximately equivalent to the AFCD's annual estimated expenditure on animal euthanasia.
Incidentally, Ms Claudia MO also proposed an amendment, that is, Amendment No 16, with exactly the same contents. I was baffled when I found out the situation, because when we proposed certain amendments in the past, for example, to reduce the estimated expenditure for the emoluments of LEUNG Chun-ying for a whole year, such amendments had been ruled inadmissible by the President, but the amendments of other Members would be admissible. Therefore I was under the impression that our amendments were inadmissible because their contents were the same. But on this occasion, as Ms Claudia MO's and my amendments are both admissible, it means the contents being the same is not the reason of inadmissibility. In theory, even though our amendments have the same contents, it will have no impact on the time for debate and voting because if either Ms Claudia MO's amendment or my amendment is negatived, the other amendment will not be put to vote. Hence, I really cannot figure out the reason, but I will not dwell on it further. Chairman, I will seek your advice after the meeting as to what principles you held when ruling that some amendments were inadmissible in the past.
8030 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Going back to the issue of animal euthanasia. In 2015, a total of 10 752 animals were received by the AFCD, but only 2 313 (or about 20%) had been reclaimed or rehomed, and 6 586 animals (or more than 60%) had been euthanized or had undergone the so-called "humane treatment", which is the Chinese euphemism phrase used by the AFCD. Most of these animals are dogs and cats caught on the streets and then sent to the Animal Management Centres (AMCs) or dog kennels as they are commonly called, under the AFCD. According to the AFCD's guidelines, these animals can stay in the centres temporarily for at least four days, or 20 days at most. Thereafter, animals not reclaimed or received by animal welfare organizations will most likely be euthanized.
We can tell from the above figures that whenever "stray animals" as claimed by the Government, or "community animals" or "cats and dogs in the neighbourhood" as called by us, are taken to the AFCD, their fate will be doomed. This explains why in recent years, whenever animal lovers find any abandoned or newborn kittens and puppies, they will take pictures and post them on their Facebook pages to see if any volunteers in animal welfare can give a helping hand. Even though the volunteers may not be able to adopt the animals, hopefully they can temporarily help with their feeding and caring because taking care of newborn kittens and puppies is also a tiring and demanding task which requires a certain amount of experience.
At present, animals caught or received by the AFCD will be sent to its AMCs and kept there temporarily for four days to undergo health assessment by veterinary officers, whilst waiting for their owners to reclaim them. For animals with a microchip implanted, the AFCD will try to locate their owners based on the information on the microchips. But as we all know, Hong Kong's microchip system is very backward. Microchips are only implanted in dogs, but not cats or other animals. Nonetheless, my two cats have microchips implanted because I adopted them from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), and the procedure was performed mandatorily. Regardless of whether microchips have been implanted or not, if the animals are left unclaimed and they are assessed to be in good health and have a gentle temperament, they will be transferred to affiliated animal welfare organizations for adoption by members of the public. Otherwise, the animals' fate will be doomed and must be euthanized.
Over the years, many animal welfare organizations have been criticizing the lack of transparency in relation to the AFCD's assessment mechanism as to whether the animals are suitable for adoption. For instance, what are the criteria LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8031 for assessing whether an animal is healthy or has a gentle temperament? The judgment can be very subjective. Would I be considered as healthy and have a gentle temperament? Perhaps some people may consider that I should be euthanized. As a matter of fact, there is no way for us to learn about the current state of euthanasia techniques or the entire operation. Secretary Dr KO Wing-man once stated in the reply to a Member's written question that the AFCD had already developed guidelines on euthanasia of animals for observance by the relevant staff and veterinary officers. It turns out that under the relevant guidelines, there is a stringent process with the euthanasia of animals to be performed in the presence of at least one Field Officer and one Veterinary Officer. At present, the AFCD uses injection of general anesthetics to euthanize animals. Injection is normally performed in the muscle (thigh or buttocks) first and then in the heart. Judging from the guidelines alone, it seems that a stringent process has been put in place. But is it what happens actually? There is no way I can tell.
According to volunteers in animal welfare in non-government organizations, there are now three commonly-used methods for animal euthanasia, but some are hardly humane by any means. The first method is intravenous anesthetic, or what they describe as "getting a shot", that is, injecting the animal with a heavy dose of general anesthetics or what they call "juice". This method is most costly. The second method is what they call "getting an air shot", that is, injecting air into the animal's bloodstream so that it will die slowly. While the cost of this method is low, the animal will only die after prolonged suffering of pain and convulsions. The third method involves placing the animals in a sealed chamber with high levels of toxic gas or carbon dioxide. But before the animals die, they may become insane, incontinent or even attack each other. I do not know if the second or third method is used by the AFCD for animal euthanasia. But of course, there are many different kinds of animals. Apart from cats and dogs which are my focus, there are also snakes, bugs, rodents, ants and such like. At the special meeting of the Finance Committee, I asked the Government why the number of euthanized animals shot up in recent years. According to the AFCD's reply, a large number of reptiles had been smuggled into Hong Kong. At times, boxes of lizards or snakes would be intercepted, and some animals had even died before the boxes were opened. As these animals must be handled collectively and euthanized within the shortest possible time, even before the four-day deadline, the number of euthanized animals other than cats and dogs has soared.
8032 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Many people may be under the wrong impression that the number of euthanized animals has dropped from 10 000-odd in 2010 to 5 000-odd in 2012. Judging from the figures alone, we may even want to commend the AFCD. But what has actually happened? Should the credit go towards the AFCD? I have serious doubts about it. The number of euthanized animals has reduced mainly because of the dedication and hard work of many independent animal welfare volunteers. Some even use their own money to adopt stray cats and dogs from the SPCA. They use their own money and efforts to protect the "wild cats and dogs", so-called by people who dislike animals or are unconcerned about animal welfare. These volunteers not only adopt dogs and cats, but also neuter them, so that they will not be killed by the AFCD. Therefore, it is due to the good work of animal welfare volunteers, rather than any policy change of the AFCD, that the number has reduced.
All along, we have been studying ways to reduce the expenditure on animal euthanasia. The best approach is "trap-neuter-vaccinate-return" or TNVR. In 2007, the AFCD started to conduct public consultation on its "trap-neuter-return" (TNR) programme. Almost 10 years have passed, and the programme is still being on trial. In 2016-2017, the AFCD will set aside $1.39 million for work in this area, a mere increase of $200,000 as compared with last year. In our view, such a small provision indicates the lack of commitment on the Government's part to implement the TNR programme. Although the AFCD also agrees that TNR is a better approach to manage cats and dogs in the neighbourhood, and it has been almost a year since the three-year trial commenced, the programme is only implemented in a very limited scale in three locations. Subsequently, due to complaints received in relation to the trial zones in Cheung Chau, only the two trial zones of Cheung Chau South and Cheung Chau North are left.
It is quite natural for the TNR programme to meet with resistance in the community. I have also met some organizations which oppose designating TNR trial zones in their neighbourhood. Although these organizations also support the implementation of the TNR programme and oppose the cold-blooded killing of cats and dogs, they object the idea of returning the animals to their neighbourhood. In other words, while they consider it acceptable to catch the dogs and cats in their neighbourhood, these animals must be returned to another neighbourhood or a deserted island. I have tried explaining to them the advantages of returning the neutered animals in the neighbourhood as the population of these animals will not keep increasing. But why do they still oppose the trial programme? Surely, one reason is the selfish nature of human LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8033 beings. Similar to the provision of the so-called "necessary evils" in the community such as landfills, refuse collection points and incinerators, people have the same "not in my backyard" mentality towards the TNR programme. To a certain extent, the Government is also responsible for failing to take the matter forward effectively, such that the trial programme has yet to make any progress over the years. Nonetheless, the Government has taken forward certain projects in a bold and unequivocal manner, brushing aside objections from the community completely. But for projects met with opposition, the Government would choose to back down.
In fact, much effort has been made by various non-government animal welfare organizations. Take for example the Lion Rock Action Group. Although the Action Group was only set up a few years ago, it managed to save hundreds of dogs in the mountain, have them neutered and then returned to the habitat. Another organization called Animal Friends has also carried out TNVR for more than 1 000 animals in the past few years, achieving very remarkable results. One criticism made by Animal Friends is that instead of conducting any further small-scale and impractical experiments in a few trial zones, the AFCD should implement the TNVR programme across the territory immediately.
Moreover, there are serious shortcomings in the laws and regulations concerning the abandonment of animals. In Hong Kong, the abandonment of animals, though not constituting animal cruelty, is an offence. Under the Rabies Ordinance, a person who abandons an animal without reasonable excuse commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a maximum fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for up to six months. But little deterrent effect has been achieved due to the lack of enforcement and heavy sentences. Discerning members of the public may have noticed that the original legislative intent of the Rabies Ordinance (Cap. 421) is to prevent the spread of rabies by prohibiting the abandonment of animals. But as Hong Kong has been rabies-free for a long time, some people may consider it no longer necessary to enforce the law stringently. In fact, in Hong Kong, if a person can no longer keep an animal and must give it up, he can always hand it over to the AFCD, instead of abandoning it in the street. But of course the animal may still be euthanized eventually. Many stray cats are abandoned by their owners intentionally. But although they are clearly abandoned cats, it is often difficult to track down their owners, let alone institute prosecution.
8034 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
I must take the opportunity to condemn those people who keep dogs in construction sites for guarding purposes. That is because upon completion of the project, these dogs will invariably be abandoned in the street and become targets of dislike. Naturally, someone will call the AFCD and dog-catching teams will be sent to round up the dogs. As the dogs kept in construction sites are neither cute nor pretty, and some may even have skin diseases, they would most likely be euthanized. Even if the AFCD can track down the owner, it will be difficult to enforce the law strictly because the owners can always cite the excuse that the dog gets lost accidentally. In that case, the AFCD can do nothing but hand it back to the owner.
According to the prosecution statistics provided by the AFCD, imprisonment has never been sentenced in Hong Kong, and even if a fine is imposed, the amount will be only around $1,000. On the contrary, the abandonment of animals will attract heavier penalties in overseas countries. For instance, in Singapore, the maximum penalty is a fine of HK$63,000 and imprisonment for up to 12 months. In Germany where the Animal Welfare Act has been enacted and the people have a high regard for protecting animal rights, the abandonment of animal is liable for a fine exceeding HK$200,000. That is why the number of stray dogs and cats in Germany is on the low side. There was once a case in which a German was convicted of animal abuse for abandoning dogs in the mountains and received an imprisonment sentence of 18 months.
As I mentioned earlier, Hong Kong has yet to include cats under the mandatory microchip implantation system, which is diametrically different from overseas practices. For instance, in Ohio in the United States, 35 cats were abandoned by a woman. The police managed to track her down through the microchips, and she received a heavy penalty of imprisonment for 14 days and a fine of US$3,700. Moreover, she was made to spend a night in the woods to experience the plight of being abandoned. In the United Kingdom, even if a pet gets lost accidentally, the owner will be subject to a fine. Whenever this subject is discussed, we would quote these words from Mahatma GANDHI: "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
The problem of stray cats and dogs in the community must be resolved through a multi-pronged approach comprising concerted efforts from all parties, law enforcement, treatment at source and education. It is only through LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8035 promoting the awareness of animal protection, learning to respect life and adhering to the commitment of keeping pets for life that the tragedy of euthanizing stray cats and dogs can hopefully be stopped.
At 3 pm this Saturday, concern groups in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macao will hold rallies in the three places simultaneously to advocate for the protection of animals. The local rally will start from Chater Garden. I hope everyone can give their support to the event.
I propose this amendment not because I want to take away the option of euthanasia for incurable cats and dogs and make them suffer. I do so to oppose the policy of the Government.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 22 be reduced by $1,500,000 in respect of subhead 000."
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, having teammates who are like pigs will certainly lead to disaster, but disaster will come even sooner if one has opponents like pigs. Last week, I said to the media that the pro-establishment Members were too lazy. If all of them attended the meeting and pressed the "Request to speak" button, they could attack us one after another. If all of them took turns to speak, the time allocated by the President for the debate would not be sufficient. If each of them pressed the button quick enough, all of them could speak. I told some pro-establishment Members in private that as they were so lazy, they might as well consider using that strategy. After hearing my suggestion, they found the idea feasible, but the content of their speeches was too poor.
Chairman, I advise the pro-establishment Members not to watch movies or black comedies. Members of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) and the royalists have suddenly discovered a secret, that is, our amendments to the Appropriation Bill are unreasonable. Pardon me, such unreasonable amendments have been proposed for four years. Why did they not deliver impassioned speeches in the past to disclose the unreasonableness of our 8036 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 amendments? That was because the President of the Legislative Council had acted fairly and dared not impose a time limit for debates in this Council in the past. Hence, the secret had not been disclosed, that is, if a Member spoke continuously without digressing or making frivolous or repetitive remarks, a fair President could not stop the Member from speaking. Nonetheless, the decision of the President today has turned a herd of pigs into lions because a ruling has been made in advance and a time limit is set to end the debate. The filibuster will end before the arrival of ZHANG Dejiang to Hong Kong. So, the pigs are wagging their tails now and I have never seen such a scene before.
First of all, let me tell Members, having been a Member of the Legislative Council for so many years, I understand that under Article 74 of the Basic Law, if we want something from the Government and if government policies or public expenditure is related, the consent of the Chief Executive is required. Since the pro-establishment Members have the best relations with the Chief Executive, have they discussed the Budget with LEUNG Chun-ying, so that our request for implementing universal retirement protection can be granted? They have not, and yet they claim that they are serving Hong Kong people. Article 74 of the Basic Law is used to deal with people like me. People like me will ask the Government to spend more to help the elderly and the sick, but the Chief Executive would not approve any proposals put forward by me. But if the proposals are put forward by the pro-establishment Members, the Chief Executive will give his consent. Why then did these Members not put forward such proposals?
Chairman, as you may recall, John TSANG copied his own tactic in 2011 and injected $6,000 into the Mandatory Provident Fund accounts of each individual, but the money could only be withdrawn when they retire. There was a public uproar. It had nothing to do with our hurling bananas; the public was simply too angry with such a useless Financial Secretary, the Financial Secretary whom the Democratic Party now considers to be the representative of Hong Kong people. At that time, I did not need to make any request; all the pro-establishment Members (including the President) told the Financial Secretary that the initiative did not work. The Financial Secretary immediately succumbed. There was no need for us to filibuster, and there was no filibuster back then. If the pro-establishment Members do not make untruthful remarks, they can do anything because they represent the majority of this Council. They can stay in the Chamber to prevent the abortion of meetings; they can tell the Financial Secretary that if he does not introduce universal retirement protection, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8037 they will not accept the Appropriation Bill and will vote it down. If they do so, I will not have to filibuster and I will keep quiet.
Ms Starry LEE is a former Member of the Executive Council, has she taken such actions? Being a member of the nobility, has she spoken a word for the elderly? Only by lifting a finger, the nobility can make the world go round; only by lifting a finger, they can lessen the misery of the groaning elderly. Have they done so? What do they think this Council is? Do they think it is a rubber stamp?
As the saying goes, "Thy mate is like a savage wolf prowling among the hills; His wish once gratified a haughty spirit his heart fills"1. May I ask how they can exploit their powers to the fullest and use every means to vilify us today? If we put forward our demands to the Government, will it accept them? Have they told the Government their demands? They fatten themselves by eating their own words and have not honoured the promises made in their election platforms, but I will surely honour the promises made in my election platform, even if I have to do so in a forbearing manner.
Frankly speaking, considering their level of intelligence and breath of mind, they are not even qualified to be my underlings, but I have to speak "pig language" with them here. I once again ask all royalist Members: What have they done for Hong Kong people over all these years? Have they used their relations (including those with the Central Authorities) to do anything? Since ZHANG Dejiang will be coming to Hong Kong on 18 May, will they ask the Government to do something? If they will, I can stop speaking. Chairman, …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you should speak in relation to the areas covered in the third debate.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): No, Chairman. You have allowed all the pro-establishment Members to attack us, and I am explaining to them things which are beyond their intelligence.
1
Let me once again tell those who are watching this debate, by proposing to reduce all, 50% or 1% of the estimated expenditures of various government departments, we are launching a kind of protest to make life difficult for the Government. If our amendments are passed because the pro-establishment Members have dozed off, the Government will have to negotiate with us and submit a revised version of the Appropriation Bill, do you understand? Since they do not even understand this point, they ask, "What will happen if the amendments are passed?" If the amendments are passed, why can't the Government submit another Appropriation Bill?
We want the Government to be monitored by the Legislative Council; we want the executive authorities to be monitored by the legislature; we want the Government to be aware of the risk of its downfall; and we want to prove to the people that the Government is unwilling to give them petty benefits. I have not asked much. I have been asking the Government to introduce universal retirement protection for many years, but has the Government done so? FTU has been asking the Government to legislate on standard working hours, has the Government done so? What purpose does it serve for pro-establishment Members to sit here? Do they sit here only to vote?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please speak on the themes of the third debate.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): The Chairman has now made a ruling against me, not against those people. All of them have digressed to attack us. They said that if our amendments are passed, Hong Kong will be paralysed. I am telling them that if any of the amendments is passed, the Government will have to negotiate with them. That is their responsibility because they represent the majority of this Council, even if that is a false majority, "Not by the people but of the people". The totalitarian government can remain relatively stable in this way, do they understand? Buying tear gas canisters, water cannon vehicles and increasing expenditure will not do.
Members, let me turn to the subject of public expenditure on medical services. John TSANG has received widespread commendations, including those from Members of the Democratic Party, saying that he represents the values of Hong Kong people. Expenditures on medical services have been slashed by $240 million this year. This is a small amount, but it reflects a very poor LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8039 attitude of the Government. I want to ask the Democratic Party: what kind of attitude is this? I want to ask the royalists: what kind of attitude is this? These Members say that in their districts, some people are miserable and they will fight to improve the medical services for the elderly in Hong Kong. The Financial Secretary has slashed the relevant expenditure by $240 million, will these Members make up the shortfall? Those who will do so please raise their hands.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, this Council is debating on the 46 amendments.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am speaking on public medical expenditures.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Among the amendments, 20-plus are proposed by you.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): You do not have to stop me; just drive me away. I will stop speaking just before you drive me away.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please speak on the amendments and the relevant heads.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Let me tell you, public medical services are the lifeline of the grassroots and 88% of hospitalized patients stay in public hospitals. However, the weighting put on medical expenditure in the Budget dropped from 58% in 2003 to 47.6% in 2013. There was a cut of 10%. There was no filibustering back then. Where have the pro-establishment Members gone now? Have they ever waited to receive medical services in public hospitals before? They are despicable!
The percentage of public medical expenditure in the GDP has also been falling. In 2002, it was 3.2%. In that year, the Government said there was a budget deficit and with the support of the pro-establishment Members, medical expenditure was slashed. The percentage of public medical expenditure in the 8040 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
GDP started to drop since 2004 and for 10 years, the percentage was 2.2% to 2.3%. In 2013, please note, after Members filibustered, the percentage increased to 3.2%. If we take population ageing and worldwide increase in the costs of medical services into consideration, that percentage is still inadequate. What is the evidence? The evidence is that our level of expenditure is lower than the average of 6.5% among members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and yet, Hong Kong is the second richest place in the world. There is a place which is even worse and that is Singapore. Are Members satisfied about this situation? Do they want any improvement? If so, is leaving the Chamber now the way to achieve improvement? Answer me!
One other thing, Chairman, you were also involved. At present, we lack nursing school places because back then, the Chief Executive who was elected by 800 people suddenly went out of his mind. He told us that in view of a budget deficit, the Government had to cut medical expenditure and nurses would not be trained. We fail to recruit nurses even if we have the money now, because the Chief Executive has changed the nursing school system, an excellent NIGHTINGALE tradition. He asked people to study and undertake lengthy programmes in universities which provided little practical training. When students graduated, they did not want to take up relatively low positions. Thus, we have a shortage of nurses now.
The situation of doctors is similar. Since Donald TSANG introduced industrialization of medical services, many doctors once serving in public hospitals have now joined private hospitals. Doctors in public hospitals work like hell and cannot take leave, while doctors in private hospitals treat many Mainland pregnant women in Hong Kong and charge them several hundred thousand dollars. The authorities have even given Henderson Land Development Co. Ltd. a piece of land, half of which will be used for building a hospital and the other half for building luxurious flats upon paying the premium. What have the pro-establishment Members done? They say we filibuster, but what have they done? They know nothing. They should go and look up the information quickly. How dare they reason with me! The figures speak for themselves. I hope they can answer my questions. I will now ask Members of the DAB and FTU who have gone upstairs to drink tea and pick their noses to come down and answer my questions. Why did they say I had nothing to talk about? I will not summon them to return to this Chamber now, but I hope they will do so voluntarily.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8041
Chairman, the Government has allocated $800 billion as civil service pension reserve fund. I do not object to it because the Government is just complying with the terms of its employment contracts. The Government is worried that civil servants will receive no salaries in the future, it has thus allocated $800 billion as civil service pension reserve fund. I have to ask: Why do non-civil servant elderly people who have similarly sweated and toiled for Hong Kong not deserve to receive $3,500 a month? If civil servants are entitled to enjoy the benefits, why are those who pay to retain civil servants not entitled to such benefits? This is the question which I have to ask the pro-establishment Members. Please answer. Why do they support the proposal to allocate $800 billion as civil service pension reserve fund, but do not agree to my proposal to allocate $200 billion for the elderly? They are despicable! They are heartless towards the elderly (The buzzer sounded) …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please sit down.
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung kept speaking loudly)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, sit down immediately.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
8042 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, one of the amendments I propose is related to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department and I seek to reduce the expenditures for the procurement of vessels and vehicles. Perhaps the public do not quite understand, I will explain the purpose of the Labour Party's amendment, so that Members will not inadvertently support our amendments, as Ms Starry LEE has said. I can teach them how to vote. Being "hand-raising machines", they may need to be taught how to vote. However, the problem is that they do not listen to me. They normally listen to the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or to LEUNG Chun-ying.
The amendments proposed by us, the Labour Party, can be classified into two major categories. The first category of amendment can be supported by all; as for the other category, I will vote against them eventually. Let me explain because people may not understand what have happened in the Finance Committee (FC) of the Legislative Council or with the Budget. The first category of our amendments aims at reducing the emoluments of those incompetent and inept officials and the Chief Executive. Such amendments should be well supported because judging from the performance of those officials, they do not deserve to be paid with the public coffers. Their deeds are detrimental to the well-being and interests of the people of Hong Kong. Amendments to reduce their emoluments should be fully supported.
As regards the 20-odd amendments in the second category, what are they about? Many of them are related to the estimated expenditure on the procurement of vehicles and vessels. Some people ask me, is the Labour Party against the procurement of vehicles and vessels by government departments? What are we really against? We are against the approach adopted by the Financial Secretary and the Government of bypassing the FC and bundling up the funding applications with the Budget to evade the scrutiny of the FC. Do you understand?
Ms Starry LEE said that the result would be disastrous if Members inadvertently voted for the wrong amendments. She was quite right as they were indeed quite dull-witted. When they voted on the constitutional reform, they did slip up, with the result of 28 against and eight in favour. However, if they inadvertently support the amendments seeking to totally slash the emoluments of LEUNG Chun-ying, the incompetent officials and principal LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8043 officials, that will be acceptable. It will be great if they inadvertently support those amendments. Sometimes, these "hand-raising machines" can break down. When the FC voted on the Government's application for additional funding for the Express Link project, some Members both raised their hands to vote in favour of and against the application. That was classical. I hope these "hand-raising machines" will break down again later, and hence they will vote in favour of the amendments seeking to slash all the emoluments of LEUNG Chun-ying. However, for the amendments seeking to reduce the expenditures on the procurement of vehicles and vessels, I hope they will not raise their hands to vote in favour of the amendments because I will also vote against them. It will be right for them to raise their hands to oppose them.
Let me explain the amendments to reduce the expenditures on the procurement of vehicles and vessels again. It is a shame that the President of the Legislative Council is not present because I have raised the problem with him in private. The problem is that with the Government bypassing the FC, bundling up the funding applications with the Budget and asking us to pass them as a whole, the extent of the Legislative Council's scrutiny of the entire Budget has regressed to the colonial era.
The FC can examine each funding application in great detail. When the Government submits funding applications to the FC, it has to list out the purpose, justifications, details and the estimated cash flow of each application for the consideration of the FC. However, by bypassing the FC and bundling up the funding applications with the Budget, the Government does not have to provide any of the information mentioned above. Why do I say that the situation has regressed to the colonial era? That is because the last time the Government employed such a tactic, it was in the 80s during the colonial era. Now, more than two decades later, the SAR Government started to use this tactic again last year. We, the Labour Party, insist that the Government should not be allowed to bypass the FC and bundle up such items with the Budget.
How should this Budget be interpreted? We have spent a lot of time trying to interpret it. We have requested the Government to provide us with the information it has bypassed the FC. As the Government refused to do so, we have to dig up the information on our own. We find that the information is coded. It turns out that the items that bypassed the FC are coded. They are classified as "new items", meaning that they have not been examined by the FC. We circled them out and asked the Government if my list was right. The 8044 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Government answered in the affirmative. There are no other ways, we have to follow the leads and try to find out the true picture.
However, what is meant by "new items"? No one knows when the vehicles and vessels will be procured, the amount of cash flow, the amount of commitments, as well as the period over which the procurement will take place after the commitment is made. There is no such information. Yet, the pro-establishment Members will not look into such information, they show no concern. They accept whatever the Government said. In the end, the Government will be let off the hook. The pro-establishment Members support the Government blindly but we will not follow suit. We must make the Government return to the right track, "take the right path" as they put it. As the Government has now taken the crooked path, we want to make it return to the right path, that is, such items should not be bundled up with the Budget and they should be submitted to the FC for scrutiny.
There is one other major problem. I must talk about the Rules of Procedure (RoP). In response to the Government's regressive approach, we demand that the RoP be amended; otherwise, the Legislative Council may never be able to vote on the new items one by one.
Why do I say so? It turns out that there is a discrepancy between the Chinese terms used in the RoP and in the Budget. I raised this question last year, but the President did not tell me how he would handle the issue. I hope the President would address the problem this year, as this is his last year to be the President of the Legislative Council. If the problem is not addressed in this session, we will have to start all over again. What is the problem? The Chinese term used in the Government's Budget for "item" is "項 目" but in the RoP, "子 目" is used for the term "item". While the English terms are the same in the Budget and the RoP, the Chinese terms are different. Worse still, as there are no "子 目" in the Budget, it is impossible for Members to demand a reduction of "子 目" under the subheads and heads in the Budget since only the term "子 目" but not "項 目" is used in the RoP. I raised this discrepancy last year, but the problem has yet to be resolved. Consequently, Members cannot propose to reduce or leave out the sum allotted to certain items, as Rule 69(3) of the Chinese version of the RoP stipulates the form of the motion moved to amend the Appropriation Bill, only "分 目" (subhead) and "子 目" (item)" are mentioned but not "項 目" (item).
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8045
It is also impossible for us to propose to reduce or leave out the sum allotted to certain subheads. For example, subhead 603 (plant, vehicles and equipment) under "Head 122 ― Hong Kong Police Force", since the English version of Rule 69(4) of the RoP stipulates that "An amendment to reduce a head in respect of any subhead or by leaving out a subhead shall only be in order if the subhead is not itemized." The corresponding term for "itemized" is "分列為子 目" and thus there is a discrepancy. As a result, we are unable to leave out those items because they are called "子 目" in that Rule.
Although the President has not enforced Rule 69(4), where the English version prevails, and allowed Members to propose the relevant amendments, the procedure is not quite right. The ideal way is to amend the Chinese version of the RoP and change "子 目" to "項 目", so that Members can rightly and properly propose to reduce or leave out the sum allotted to certain items. I raised the problem last year and I hope it can be resolved as soon as possible this year.
Another technical problem is also involved. Originally, I intended to propose an amendment seeking to reduce the estimated expenditure for the procurement of water cannon vehicles. Everyone knows that the Labour Party opposes the use of water cannon vehicles against peaceful protesters. Because of certain technical problems, we could not propose the amendment. Even though the situation remains the same whether I proposed the amendment or not, I still wish to bring up this point now because that technical problem has weakened Members' monitoring power.
After we proposed the amendment to reduce the estimated expenditure for the procurement of three water cannon vehicles, the Treasury Branch pointed out that the sum we proposed to reduce was different to the cash flow listed in the Appropriation Bill. As a result, the President ruled that our proposal was out of order. I did ask the Commissioner of Police the total cost of three water cannon vehicles and he told me it was $27 million and so I requested to reduce $27 million. But then the Treasury Branch said that the amount was wrong. What has gone wrong. The Commissioner of Police told me it was $27 million but the Treasury Branch said I was wrong. That was outrageous. The Commissioner of Police gave me the wrong answer. If he said it was $20 million, I would have proposed to reduce $20 million. Then it would have been right. But he did not give me the right answer. The President did not care 8046 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 that the Commissioner of Police gave me the wrong answer and ruled that we were wrong as the Treasury Branch said the sum was wrong. He thus ruled that we could not propose the amendment.
I do not intend to discuss the President's ruling here. When the Treasury Branch told us that the amount of $27 million was wrong, I hope that the President will openly reprimand the Commissioner of Police for deliberately misleading the Legislative Council. More importantly, the President should discuss with the Financial Secretary and ask him to list out in the Appropriation Bill the estimated expenditure for each item in the relevant year. In this way, Members can discharge their constitutional function by monitoring the Budget without being restricted by whether the authorities have given them the right information. If the authorities do not provide the information, Members cannot propose to reduce any of the expenditures. This is a technical problem.
Another major topic is about poverty alleviation, the Labour and Welfare Bureau and healthcare. I mainly wish to talk about the Labour and Welfare Bureau. In respect of labour issues, the Secretary for Labour and Welfare has achieved nothing. For instance, the issue about standard working hours has dragged on for three years. The authorities have neither the heart nor the intention to legislate for standard working hours. All they want is to stall. I think Mathew CHEUNG can enrol in a doctoral programme, but he needs not enrol in a lousy school such as the Lifelong College. Why? He began studying about this issue when Donald TSANG was the Chief Executive and continued when LEUNG Chun-ying became the Chief Executive. He has studied and studied and published one report after another but in the end, nothing has been done. I wish to tell Mathew CHEUNG that we do not need a PhD; all we need is a Secretary for Labour and Welfare who does practical work and implements practical policies. However, standard working hours has not yet been legislated, neither has the system that offsets the Mandatory Provident Fund contributions against severance payment been abolished. His excuse is this is a very complicated problem but there is nothing complicated about it. It is only that the employers are overbearing and they ride roughshod over everything, barring us from improving labour protection.
Recently there have been reports about many employees being forced to claim to be self-employed. For example, when nursing homes for the elderly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8047 need to hire substitute staff, they normally commission intermediaries to make the arrangement. Intermediaries also hire care staff to provide home-based care services for the elderly or patients. But such intermediaries require the care staff to sign papers claiming to be self-employed. Self-employed workers are not covered by any protection schemes, not even labour insurance. What happens if they are injured at work? Any injuries sustained at work may affect them for life. But the Government is indifferent to their lack of labour insurance coverage; neither has it done anything to resolve the problem of forced self-employment. It just waits until someone lodges a complaint. We demand the Labour and Welfare Bureau to take the initiative to seriously resolve the problem. For instance, as regards the self-employment problem of care staff, why does the Government not co-ordinate the referral of care staff of the elderly? If the Government co-ordinates this service and requires employers to take out insurance for all care staff, the problem would be resolved. In the past, employers did not take out insurance for domestic helpers, but through the efforts of labour unions like ours, the Government eventually requires all employers to take out insurance for their domestic helpers and the problem is resolved.
However, the Government is just like that. It only takes action after serious incidents have happened. Sometimes, even after a serious incident has happened, it still will not deal with the problem, and it will definitely not deal with the problem if no serious incident has happened. Even if a serious incident did happen, the Government only deals with the problem in a piecemeal manner, just like "squeezing toothpaste from a tube". If every time the Government only acts after some incidents have happened, social grievances will pile up. In the face of so many labour problems today, will the Labour and Welfare Bureau do nothing about the piled-up workers' grievances? It will soon be 1 May, the Labour Day, everyone must step forward and voice their demands on this day. As this Government is unreliable and does nothing, I now call upon everyone to fight for their own interests. I invite all of you to go to the Victoria Park at 2 pm on 1 May to join in the procession to strive for our entitled rights and interests, including enacting legislation on standard working hours, abolition of the offsetting mechanism under the Mandatory Provident Fund Scheme as well as labour protection for everyone. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
8048 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, the amendment I propose is included in Appendix 1B, which is Amendment No 282 in respect of subhead 000 under head 141. I move that an amount of HK$3.58 million, equivalent to the estimated annual expenditure on the emoluments of the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, be deducted. The Secretary, appointed in 2007, is one of those who hold the longest term of office among the 13 Directors of Bureaux. He is rich in experience and well-qualified both as a government official and as a Director of Bureau. Considering that he has served two Chief Executives and two different government teams, it is believed that he possesses some excellent qualities. To secure his position, at least he has to perform his duties properly. However, it is precisely due to this paradoxical appropriateness that I have to propose an amendment to reduce the annual expenditure of the Secretary's emoluments.
Obviously, the Secretary only does his works properly when he is working for LEUNG Chun-ying, but we cannot say that he has worked to seek long term benefits for the people of Hong Kong, who are the ones he should truly serve. His abilities to serve the public fall short of the level of competence expected of an experienced Secretary. There are criticisms in the community that the Secretary likes to "hole up" when major incidents occur. The most typical example is the strike that took place at Kwai Chung Container Terminal in 2013, in which the Secretary only showed up for the first time to express his concern 10 days after the strike. Another example is that Asia Television Limited (ATV) has repeatedly defaulted on payments of employees' wages since 2014, but the Labour Department only responded by issuing warning letters. The authorities had not taken proactive actions against such widely publicized offences or instituted prosecution against the parties concerned, instead, they only resorted to hypocritical rhetoric, saying that "actions to prosecute ATV in respect of its offences under the Employment Ordinance have not ceased." Such fancy words could not cover his style of "holing up" when acting as a government official.
As a matter of fact, what I just said may not be justified for reducing the annual emoluments of the Secretary. The first issue I have to bring up is certainly the enactment of legislation on standard working hours. The Standard Working Hours Committee has been established for three years but it only proposes to regulate working hours with employment contracts. The Government shirks its responsibility and refuses to take a further step to legislate on standard working hours. Despite a boycott from the labour representatives, the Committee still pushed forward the second round of fake consultation. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8049
Apart from this, there is the problem concerning the offsetting arrangement of the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) Schemes that affects the interests of all wage earners in Hong Kong. In the past four years, no progress was seen. Another day of delay means another day of victory of the employers. In the end, the issue might become part of the manifesto of the next Chief Executive. The Secretary does not take proactive actions in resolving conflicts and issues, but only parrots the words of employers and shamelessly receives $3.5 million from taxpayers each year. He neglects the interests of workers and the well-being of the public. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare, who gets paid without doing a stroke of work, should be renamed as the "Secretary for Employers and Exploitation"! A reduction of his annual emoluments, instead of holding him accountable and asking him to step down, is already a mild punishment to him.
Deputy Chairman, it is now in the eighth year since I joined the Council. For each year's policy address and the budget, I have kept on urging the Government to implement expeditiously universal retirement protection. The issue of retirement protection, either regarded as a welfare measure from the perspective of the Government, or as an entitlement that we insisted on, or a labour policy, should be under the portfolio of the Labour and Welfare Bureau. Years of delay have brought unrest and anxiety to the people of Hong Kong, but the Secretary has shifted the responsibility onto the Commission of Poverty (CoP).
After the fake consultation carried out by the CoP, the Secretary continued to "dance with employers" and followed closely the baton of the capitalists. In the face of the public demand for universal retirement protection, the Secretary only responded by asking, "Where does the money come from?" Regarding the proposal put forward by scholars, he asked them to "get back to conceptual discussion" and work on its sustainability, and then making all sorts of "universal excuses", such as the need for reaching consensus and approval of the CoP. Last November, I signed a petition with some members of the CoP, asking the CoP to consider the proposal formulated by 180 scholars, but the Government refused to incorporate it into the consultation papers. Today the Secretary moved the goalposts and hid under the shield of the CoP. He actually shifts the goalposts as he likes. What has he achieved so far?
Some may argue that the Secretary's performance on the enactment of legislation on standard working hours and the abolition of the offsetting arrangement of MPF does not constitute a sufficient ground to reduce his annual 8050 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 emoluments, and that retirement protection is the responsibility of Chief Secretary Carrie LAM and beyond the control of the Secretary. Even if that is true, how about the Elderly Services Programme Plan, the Pilot Scheme on Community Care Service Voucher for the Elderly, and the Pilot Scheme on Residential Care Service Voucher for the Elderly, the Secretary cannot possibly shirk his responsibility. As our population is ageing, the Labour and Welfare Bureau really has to undertake various tasks, including earmarking sites for setting up social welfare facilities, making plans on manpower, and reserving sufficient capital. What is more, the Bureau has to ensure both the elderly and the caretakers enjoy peace of mind.
Though the elderly abuse case of Tai Po Cambridge Nursing Home uncovered last year has been followed up by the Social Welfare Department, we opine that the Government should go further and respond to the public demand to review the Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Ordinance. Unfortunately, the Secretary has yet to look into the provisions to be amended or put forth any proposal to improve the supervision mechanism. Moreover, despite the objections raised by the elderly, caretakers, social service organizations, and the general public, he still insisted on launching the Pilot Scheme on Residential Care Service Voucher for the Elderly, thereby enabling private nursing homes to make a profit in respect of elderly care without any quality assurance of their services. The Government has placed a bet of $800 million on "marketization", betting that the elderly would not be harmed, that the private nursing homes would not maximize their profits, and that the fittest would survive market competition. The Government is putting the elderly at risk.
As for the community care service, the Government has likewise ignored objections and insisted on introducing private entities to provide elderly care services. If the market really allows consumers to make the best choices, and if the elderly and their family members can really use the best service as selected by them, incidents at Kwun Tong Cambridge Nursing Home where mentally handicapped elderly residents are being abused and objects like pieces of gauze, cotton wool and stickers for diapers are found in an elderly resident's rectum would not have happened. After all, as the Government does not want to undertake the responsibility of providing more subsidized care service for the elderly, it provides vouchers to further promote the privatization of elderly care service. If abuse cases like pieces of gauze or cotton wool being found in a victim's rectum happen again in the future, I believe the Secretary would only LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8051 respond by saying it is just an "isolated incident" and it would be "handled seriously", or "actions to prosecute have not ceased."
(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
The negative impacts and harm brought to the elderly and their family members by the marketization of elderly care service cannot be reverted. Only non-governmental organizations that are not profit-oriented and under the gatekeeping of experienced and professional personnel can people-oriented elderly care service be provided, making the public and the elderly feel relieved. Being the one to push forward marketization of elderly care service behind the scene, the Secretary not only fails to understand the concerns of the elderly and the caretakers with empathy, but also ignores the opinion of the social service sector. All he cares is to boost up the figures to earn merits for the Government. After marketization of elderly care service, if a livelihood disaster like that of the case of Link REIT breaks out, the Secretary will no doubt be the one condemned by thousands of generations. If the Government does not want to monitor and undertake responsibility, the role of the Secretary is redundant and it is reasonable to deduct his emoluments at $3.5 million.
Chairman, the proposal to reduce the annual emoluments of the Secretary is not a joke. The general public and the Council have certain expectations and demands of government officials. Without universal suffrage, we are not able to dismiss accountability officials who fail to perform their duties. All we can do is to propose an amendment to reduce their emoluments, hoping that the officials will improve their performance and that wage earners and the public can live under a proper social system.
Secretary Matthew CHEUNG may consider himself being wrongly accused. As he has not abused his privilege, has not distributed name cards, has not built any unauthorized building works, has not jumped the queue to buy property and has not been caught drink driving, why do we still want to reduce his emoluments? Certainly, when the entire government team is thoroughly rotten, no news is indeed the best news. It is true that Secretary Matthew CHEUNG very often meets with representatives of civic organizations and listens to the aspiration of members of the public; yet, I do not want to lower my expectation of principal accountability officials of the Government and their 8052 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 standards of performance. Though he performs better than other Directors of Bureaux, it does not mean his performance is up to standard. Regarding the major labour and welfare issues that I mentioned earlier, which includes enactment of legislation on standard working hours, abolition of the offsetting arrangement of MPF, provision of universal retirement protection, and improvement in elderly care service, Secretary Matthew CHEUNG has performed badly, as no progress has been made in the past four years. In respect of elderly care service, the situation had retrogressed as the work that should be taken up by the Government is further outsourced and marketization is further promoted. Furthermore, other labour and welfare issues, such as Residential and Community Care Services for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), the quota system for employing PwDs, subsidized child care service, and so on, have not made any progress either. Moreover, he has not given a positive response to the proposal of the regularization of the Short-term Food Assistance Service Projects put forth in the debate of the budget last year.
I guess the Secretary might mention once again the redevelopment of ex-Siu Lam Hospital into an Integrated Rehabilitation Services Complex, arguing that the Government has done a lot of work. He might also state that the recent Budget has proposed many initiatives, such as offering disability allowance to PwDs, and that the Government has put in more resources to improve social services. I do not deny the efforts made by the Bureau to get more resources, but the Secretary should understand that such efforts are only a drop in the bucket in view of the extremely long waiting list. Secretary Matthew CHEUNG has unshirkable responsibility for the severe shortage of these social services in the past seven years. The redevelopment project of ex-Siu Lam Hospital also shows that the Government is retrogressing. While the global trend is to provide friendly rehabilitation environment through small family-like centres, the Government chooses to adopt the post-war rehabilitation standards of Hong Kong, providing rehabilitation service in a large and integrated complex. This will further alienate the PwDs from the community, making it difficult for them to live in the community in future. According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, parties to this Convention shall take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate the full inclusion and participation of PwDs in the community, including providing them with necessary personal assistance to facilitate their living and inclusion in the community, and to prevent isolation or segregation from the community. I hope the Secretary will understand our goodwill and continue to move forward as there are ample room for improvement. He should not be complacent.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8053
Chairman, as a Secretary, Matthew CHEUNG should not adopt an attitude of "doing a job and getting paid". Since he has the authority to formulate policies, deploy resources and manpower, and enforce the rights conferred by the law, he also has the obligation to move one step ahead for the well-being of members of the public. He should not chase after the capitalists and fulfil all their requests. As I stated at the outset, the Secretary performs his duties properly, but this precisely reflects how he avoids controversies and only chooses to deal with the easy tasks. As for those important yet challenging policies, he just stays put. That is the attitude of civil servants. As a person with power and a politician still serving in office, such attitude and practice are undesirable and do not deserve to be highly paid. When acting as a "good guy" and only follows the lead of the Chief Executive, he has sacrificed the well-being of the labourers and the general public. Consequently, when some citizens discussed the high suicide rate of the elderly with Secretary Matthew CHEUNG, he simply responded by mentioning the concessionary fare of $2; when people talked out the poor living standard after retirement, he just said … (The buzzer sounded)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, your speaking time is up.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now call upon other Members to speak. Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please speak.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak on Amendment Nos 271 and 272, seeking to reduce the remuneration of the Secretary for Food and Health and the expenditure for his office. Some people may wonder, isn't Secretary Dr KO Wing-man, who has a high popularity rating, doing a good job? Why would someone seek to reduce his remuneration? The fact is that Secretary Dr KO and the Government are good at playing tricks and deception. The Budget mentions that this year's healthcare and welfare expenditures amount to a sum of $198 billion, which accounts for 60% of the total expenditure, an increase of more than 80% when compared with that of 10 years ago. It seems the Government has done a lot of work. But we must look at the figures carefully. In 2011-2012, the Government's healthcare expenditure accounted for 16.5% of the total public expenditure, and the last-term Government promised that healthcare expenditure would account for 17% of the total public expenditure. These words are still ringing in one's ears. In 2012-2013, the proportion went up 8054 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 to 16.9%, in 2014-2015 it reached 17%, but in 2015-2016 it went down to 16.8%, and this year it went further down to 16.5%. The Government has resorted to deception, and all these expenditures seemed to have increased but had actually decreased.
As far as facts are concerned, let us look at the funding for the Hospital Authority (HA). The Government has drastically slashed the funding by $245 million this year, on the pretense that the HA should first exhaust its reserve, but in reality the so-called "0-1-1" austerity programme has been put in place. As we all know, there is a lot of "inflated stuff" in some departments, but some Secretaries have failed to live up to expectations, so much so that our civil servants lack a good leader. Therefore, in each year's audit report, the Audit Commission criticizes various departments for squandering money.
May I ask the Director of Bureau or the Secretary of Department to present us with information, telling us which medical services of the HA are squandering money and how money has been wasted. During the influenza peak season that has just past, the highest bed occupancy rate recorded at Yan Chai Hospital was 144%. Beds were placed outside the toilets and in the corridors. A nurse told me that beds were even placed outside the room where stool and urine samples are kept. This was just the situation in the medical wards, patients who were transferred from medical wards to orthopedics wards, obstetrics and gynecology wards, or other wards had not been counted.
Despite the fact that even elderly people have to sleep in beds placed in the corridors or outside the toilets, the Government was clever in saying that it would allocate $200 billion for providing additional hospital beds, but a 10-year wait is required. After 10 years, these elderly people will no longer be around. How can the Government go so far as to ask them to put up with the situation for 10 years, during which they have to sleep on canvas beds placed in the corridors or outside the toilets. And additional provisions will only be provided 10 years later. However, the relevant figures have been "inflated". For example, the Government has included the 2 000-odd beds to be provided at Kai Tak Hospital 10 years from now; that is, the 2 400 beds to be increased in two phases. However, the authorities have not indicated whether Queen Elizabeth Hospital will become a luxury residence in the future, as the authorities have all along refused to commit how the vacant site of Queen Elizabeth Hospital will be used in the years to come.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8055
The new hospitals are mainly situated in Kowloon Central, with some in Hong Kong West, whereas United Christian Hospital is located in Kowloon East. How about New Territories West? New Territories West will have zero increase in hospital beds, not even one extra bed will be provided. This is probably because the residents in New Territories West are the poorest and they pay the smallest amount of tax, so the Government continues to discriminate against them. But the bed occupancy rate in New Territories West is indeed amazing. In 2012, while the occupancy rate for each bed in the New Territories West Cluster was 90.1%, it was 63% in Hong Kong West and 66% in Kowloon Central. No other clusters had a situation worse than that in New Territories West. In 2014-2015, the situation had slightly improved as the rate went down to 88.1%, however, the rate was still high when compared with 67.6% in Hong Kong West and 67.4% in Kowloon Central. This precisely reflects how mean the Government is. The poorer the people, the more miserable they are. How true it is. As people in New Territories West generally have lower incomes, they cannot afford to go to other hospitals.
On Hong Kong Island, patients who are not admitted to by Queen Mary Hospital can go to Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, St Paul's Hospital, or Adventist Hospital; they have a lot of choices, and many of them can afford the cost. Many patients in Queen Mary Hospital are very rich; they go to Queen Mary Hospital specifically to seek the consultation of professors. In the case of New Territories West, patients will wait for one year or even 10 years as required. Indeed, some patients have waited five years for a surgery. The Government is so apathetic. The authorities tell us that additional beds will be provided 10 years later. Ten years later, let them be emperors!
As we all know, during the influenza peak season last year, some 490 people died, and a large number of patients in serious conditions needed to be hospitalized. This year, we have asked the Government to increase the channels for influenza vaccination, including providing influenza vaccination in the communities, in schools and in kindergartens. Has the Government listened to our view? No, it has not. Chairman, I feel ashamed, for Hong Kong has the lowest influenza vaccination rate among the developed countries. The vaccination rate for Hong Kong children aged five to six is 28.4%, for people over the age of 65 it is 39.1%, and the overall vaccination rate is 14%. However, in the United Kingdom, the vaccination rate for people over the age of 65 is 72.7%; whereas in Australia, the overall vaccination rate is 39%, and for 8056 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 people over the age of 65 the vaccination rate is 73%. With a reserve of trillions of dollars, Hong Kong is not poor, but the Government is such a scrooge.
Moreover, how do we treat our elderly people? The longest waiting time for an Elderly Health Centre is close to four years, and the Government turns a blind eye to dental service for the elderly. In 2011, an oral health survey conducted by the Government's Dental Service found that 6% of our elderly people at that time did not have even one tooth, whereas 40% of our elderly people had less than 20 teeth. Having 20 teeth is a standard of the World Health Organization. These are all facts. But the Government continues to have zero response, and it even says it will not change or improve public dental service. If one is lucky enough to receive Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA), one can make use of the CSSA scheme. More outrageous still, under the Elderly Dental Assistance Programme of the Community Care Fund, elderly people over 80 are eligible for dental service. Chairman, the average life expectancy for Hong Kong men is less than 82 years; in other words, if men reaching the age of 80 still have not kicked the bucket, then they have a chance to enjoy the service for two years. But if the time for application and vetting is included, then they will, by the time they can enjoy the service, come close to their final days.
This Government is so apathetic. When we ask for enhancing the Drug Formulary, the Government asks us to be patient and wait. First of all, people must pay out of their own pockets for some new drugs with significant benefits; and then, after several years, these drugs will be included in the non-standard drugs formulary. If people are lucky to pass the means tests conducted by the Samaritan Fund, they can obtain subsidies. Chairman, the assets tests of the Samaritan Fund are extremely stringent. Many patients have told us that they are not only unemployed, but also need to pay for their home mortgage. We all know that cancer patients cannot work, and some patients are the sole breadwinner in their families. The healthcare sector knows that some drugs can help these patients, but the Government pays no attention to these new types of drugs. Some patients who are more fortunate will obtain subsidies from the Samaritan Fund. Yet, the means tests are stringent, as a family can only have several hundred thousand dollars in savings.
Some cancer patients told me, knowing that their days are numbered, they want to leave behind some money for their wife and children, but the Government requires them to spend all their money first before they can receive subsidies. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8057
Now, the Government is saying that the funding for the HA will be reduced by $250 million. It is futile to have high popularity rating, or trying to act kindly. The Secretary should instead go to Pok Oi Hospital, Tuen Mun Hospital, or Yan Chai Hospital to look at the conditions of the patients there. They need to wait for a long time in the accident and emergency departments in these hospitals; even 10 years later, this situation will not be improved.
The Government says that 10 years later, a new hospital will be built in Tung Chung, and then the situation will improve. I cannot help becoming outraged. After the hospital in Tung Chung is built, services will begin in phases; nowadays, the whole hospital has 40 beds only, which are fully occupied every day, and there are also some rehabilitation beds, which are also fully occupied every day. The authorities suggest that, after seeing a doctor in the hospital in Tung Chung, patients can go to Princess Margaret Hospital. What then is the purpose of building the hospital in Tung Chung? In the future, Tin Shui Wai Hospital will also provide additional day places and hospital beds. However, patients in acute and emergency conditions should not go there because there is no intensive care unit in that hospital, and no emergency surgery can be performed. Only hospital beds will be provided, and services will begin in several phases. The Government is skilled in putting on political make-up, saying one thing and doing another. I hope the Government will stop doing all these superficial acts, stop talking about things that will happen only a decade later. Everyone is talking about what will happen 10 years later, probably we may have to rebel 10 years later in order to fight for more hospital beds.
Chairman, what is the livelihood of the elderly and the underprivileged? The Government is clever in earmarking an additional amount of $170 million in 2015-2016 to provide an extra 160 day care places for elderly people. I thought the number was 1.6 million places, but it turned out to be 160 places. Please note that there are nearly 1 million elderly people in Hong Kong. The Government will also allocate another $140 million to improve the quality of 1 200 residential places under the Bought Place Scheme, and to implement a new elderly service model of "money follows patient". But many restrictions are set under the new model and checks are extremely stringent. How the Government treats the elderly people and handles medical services is definitely saying one thing but doing quite another. Words said are taken as actions taken.
8058 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
According to the planning of the Planning Department, there will be 5.5 hospital beds per 1 000 persons. However, the actual figures in 2014 were that we had a population of 7.25 million people, and there were 27 631 beds in public hospitals, meaning that there were 3.8 beds per 1 000 persons. No wonder people often miss the days in 1997. In 1997, the ratio was 4.2 beds per 1 000 persons. As for patients over 65 … the rate they use emergency beds is eight times that of patients under 65. Therefore, with population growth, the number of beds is not in linear growth. Chairman, you are good at mathematics, you know that the number will increase geometrically, an eight-fold increase. In 1997, there were 4.2 beds per 1 000 elderly people, now it has been reduced to 2.6 beds per 1 000 elderly people, which is a one-third decrease. That is why in the next few years, more elderly people will be sleeping on canvas bed placed in the corridors of hospitals, or sleeping on the floor, or even being placed in various corners of the hospital. They, however, will still have to wait for 10 years.
In certain districts, such as New Territories West, people still cannot see any hope 10 years later. The Government asks us to wait, saying that a district hospital will be built in Tin Shui Wai. But please do not have high expectations that a district hospital can be as good as Tuen Mun Hospital. After some time, when the number of residents in Hung Shui Kiu reaches 200 000, the authorities will have to build another hospital. The Government always arranges to relocate a large number of people to a certain area, without providing them with medical services. Only when the situation becomes urgent and procrastination is no longer possible will the authorities begin planning. Tin Shui Wai and Tung Chung are cases in point. It takes 20 years from planning to implementation, and that is, it takes two decades.
Chairman, when the Government speaks profusely on humanity and justice, when it keeps emphasizing that it spares no effort to help the people, please look at the relevant figures carefully, for nothing can be more honest than figures. Please also look at their bodies, for nothing can be more honest than their bodies. Just look at how the Financial Secretary or the Secretary has allocated funding and we would know the fates of our patients and elderly people. At present, patients and elderly people are ill-fated, they have no prospects at all.
I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8059
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, there are a total of 46 amendments in this debate session. Many people will say that pro-establishment Members will surely oppose the amendments proposed by pan-democratic Members. It sounds like we do not have much ground and we just blindly oppose; in short, whatever they propose, we oppose. However, I wish to tell you all, we have reasons to oppose. Basically, none of these 46 amendments is acceptable. Why? Many people do not know the contents of these 46 amendments. The first amendment is proposed by Mr WONG Yuk-man and Ms Claudia MO. They seek to reduce the annual estimated expenditures of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department on capturing stray animals and on animal euthanasia. Not much money is involved, only a total sum of $30 million or so. If we slash all these expenditures, there is no need to capture stray dogs and other animals like boars. What will happen then? I believe the people in Hong Kong will understand whether these amendments are reasonable or not. We must handle them in a just manner.
In addition, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen or Mr Albert CHAN has proposed amendments to reduce the annual recurrent expenditure on civil servants posts in the Tobacco Control Office (TCO) of the Department of Health by $50 million in 2016-2017. If the funding is slashed, it is tantamount to not providing any resources to TCO, that is to say, work on tobacco control needs not be carried out. By then, it is very likely that people will be smoking everywhere in violation of the law. While these Members have once supported tobacco control, they now seek to reduce the TCO's expenditure. For example, Mr WONG Yuk-man seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of $46 million for enforcement work of the TCO under the Department of Health. Is that reasonable? Should we render support?
More importantly, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen proposes an amendment to reduce the annual operational expenses of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) by $6.128 billion. As we all know, the FEHD is a very important government department closely related to our livelihood, and its services touch on every aspect of Hong Kong. If the FEHD's expenditure of $6.1 billion is slashed, its staff need not go to work. In that case, does it mean that work related to street and market management, or even burial services and exhumation registration need not be carried out? Are these amendments reasonable after all?
8060 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
In addition, Mr WONG Yuk-man proposes an amendment to reduce the annual estimate expenditure of the FEHD for hawker control, the amount involved is $1.073 billion. To everyone's knowledge, the Hawker Control Teams have a heavy workload, involving a large number of staff members. Can we reduce the relevant expenditure? This is unreasonable, right? Moreover, there are also proposals that the estimated annual expenditure on the emoluments of the Hawker Control Teams, involving an amount of $677 million, be reduced. The colleagues working in the Hawker Control Teams under the FEHD are so scared that they cannot sleep, for if this amendment is passed, they will not get paid for the new financial year. I believe none of them want to work as volunteer. How should be done? Apart from giving free rein to hawker affairs, what else can we do?
I do not know whether Mr WONG Yuk-man, Mr Albert CHAN and the like propose these amendments just for fun. The President knows too well that if Members' proposed amendments are related to the motion, approval must be given regardless of whether these amendments are reasonable or not. However, it is well evident that the Members have not used their brains when proposing these amendments.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung seeks to reduce head 141 by $97.831 million. That is the estimated annual expenditure for Shine Skills Centre under a subvention project of the Labour and Welfare Bureau. Chairman, persons with disabilities aged over 15 have to receive some vocational training from the Vocational Training Council, in the hope that through such training they can integrate into society, get employed and become self-reliant. But Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure for such centres, with the intent to shut them down. In the coming year … just now Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung was very angry when he spoke, saying how unfair, unjust the Government is and how it does not care for the grassroots. But now he seeks to reduce these expenditures, making it impossible for people using the services of Shine Skills Centre to become self-reliant. Is Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung saying one thing and doing another? Let us make a judgment.
There are a lot of examples, but I do not want to explain them one by one as time is running out. Besides, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung seeks to reduce the funding of $14.7 million, allocated to the Women's Commission by the Labour and Welfare Bureau. Each year, the Women's Commission organizes many activities to help women become self-reliant, and to provide them with assistance LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8061 in making a living. But now, he even wants to slash this meagre amount of $14.7 million. It is well evident whether Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung truly cares for the grassroots and the underprivileged. In addition, he wants to reduce the annual estimated expenditure under the recurrent expenses of the Social Welfare Department (SWD) on the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme by $21.361 billion; as well as to reduce the annual estimated expenditure under the recurrent expenses of the SWD on the Social Security Allowance Scheme by $20.653 billion. These two items of expenditure amount to a total of some $42 billion, from which living allowances are given to CSSA recipients, disabled persons in society and the elderly.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung really cares for the grassroots and the elderly as he loudly proclaims, he has no reason to reduce their allowances, CSSA payments, and so on. If his amendments are passed, CSSA recipients will not be able to get any subsidies in the coming year, not to mention the "double pay" or "triple pay" receivable from the Financial Secretary, even the basic monthly allowance will not be available. The real face of Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung or pan-democratic Members have been unveiled. They are actually treating people like enemies. They claim that they care for the community and the grassroots; yet, the comments made by Dr KWOK Ka-ki that the SAR Government say one thing and do another is a mirror in which they see themselves.
Chairman, it is reported in the Oriental Daily today that "20% of small and medium enterprises will close down within this year, and 260 000 people will be fired." At present, the economic environment is really bad, but there are Members who seek to slash all expenditures on CSSA payments, Old Age Living Allowance, and even unemployment benefits. In other words, under the manipulation of the pan-democratic Members, people, be they CSSA recipients, working poor or other persons, cannot be safeguarded in the face of difficulties.
In addition, it is also reported in the press that "Hong Kong creates its own demise". Incidents of "kicking suitcases" have led a drop of visitors under the Individual Visit Scheme, thereby affecting the economic environment and creating great difficulties for the tourism industry, catering industry, food and beverage industry, hotel industry, and so on. Where do all these problems come from? They are attributed to the fact that pan-democratic Members simply have no regard for Hong Kong's economic development and livelihood needs, and they thus stir up troubles everywhere. The adverse effects have now begun to emerge. Many people may not feel dearly, but looking back at the situation in 8062 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 the past several years, particularly the period of Occupy Central in the year before last which lasted 79 days, our emotions are aroused whenever we walked past the footbridge, thinking of the big troubles ahead if Hong Kong continued to be like that. Just look around, the adverse effects are gradually emerging.
The riot in Mong Kok on this year's Lunar New Year's Day can further verify that if Hong Kong fails to maintain social harmony and stability, then its prospects are gloomy. If this situation continues, and coupled with the various amendments proposed by pan-democratic Members in the Council to reduce spending on all fronts, tons of problems will arise.
Chairman, it is likely that the opposition camp has proposed these so-called amendments for the sake of filibustering, and owing to the presence of the pro-establishment camp to safeguard social stability and progression, they therefore have proposed some unreasonable amendments. However, this clearly indicates that in the heart of hearts of these pan-democratic Members, they do not really care about the functioning of Hong Kong society, or the needs of the grassroots, thus they even seek to reduce the most basic social security of the poor and the grassroots. Frankly speaking, no matter how they explain, it will not make sense. For this reason, I hope Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung will explain to us why he wants to slash these two items of expenditure. This is totally unjustifiable. If we merely raise hands to show objection in times of voting, we may probably be criticized for opposing everything.
Chairman, I believe that the people in Hong Kong, after listening to what I have said just now, will understand more clearly why we must oppose these amendments. They will also come to realize that the pan-democratic Members propose these amendments for the purpose of creating chaos in Hong Kong and disrupting the lives of the grassroots, so that nobody can live in peace. I hope members of the public will understand this situation. Thank you, Chairman.
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I thank Mr CHAN Kam-lam for telling us some of the contents of the 46 amendments in this session. He has saved us a lot of time.
Instead of asking Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung to explain why he has proposed these amendments, I would rather ask him to explain why he has yet to surrender his public rental housing (PRH) unit. By continuing to occupy the subsidized LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8063
PRH unit, he is in fact depriving the rights of people who have a greater need. As a person, one should make contributions to society within his capability, and he should not use social resources inappropriately. I think this point is very important. If one's behaviour is not up to standard, there is no point to talk about striving for social justice on behalf of members of the public. This is my standard of behavior.
As mentioned by Mr CHAN Kam-lam just now, are we opposing for the sake of opposing? Of course, we oppose all amendments to the Budget this time around. However, if one reviews our attitude on amendments to Members' motion, he can find that we are practical and realistic. If a Member's argument is reasonable, we will render support and vote for it. If members of the public take a look at our voting records in the past, they will find that we had supported other Members.
Chairman, I now speak in support of the Budget presented by the SAR Government, and I oppose all the amendments. I have elaborated on the reasons why I support the Budget; as for my dissatisfaction with the Government, in particular the policy on fisheries and agriculture and the land policy, I have also raised my comments. Therefore, I will not now dwell on the issues that are related to the amendments.
Now, I wish to elaborate on the reasons for opposing these amendments. As Mr CHAN Kam-lam has just said, the consequences of reducing the expenditures are very serious. However, my view is slightly different from his. I think all the amendments are meaningless. Why do I say so? Members in the opposition camp have proposed these amendments exactly because these amendments will not be passed, for the pro-establishment Members and the Members belonging to the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) will vote against them. Based on this reality, they can willfully and indiscriminately propose amendments to slash the salaries of this person and that, as well as to reduce the expenditures on equipment, vehicles, vessels, or certain sorts of things, because they know that the amendments will definitely not be passed. To put it in extreme terms, if these amendments were passed, they would be afraid.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) on plant, vehicles and equipment under plant, equipment and works. At the end of last year, an 8064 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 incident of massive death of fish occurred. We held a meeting with the AFCD to discuss ways to clean up the dead fish. The AFCD said that work could not be completed within a short time because it was difficult to find suitable vessels and equipment to take up the work. This incident revealed that the existing resources of the AFCD were inadequate. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung now seeks to reduce the expenditure of the AFCD, which is very unreasonable in my view. If this amendment is passed, the situation will become even worse. This proves that our objection has substantive grounds.
When it comes to political reasons, why do the opposition Members propose amendments wilfully? In my eyes, they are just a big white shark which, after smelling and licking blood, will bite on and then never let go. While the pro-establishment Members remain in the Chamber for such many days to discharge their duty of attending meetings, Members in the opposition camp can leave the Chamber whenever the summoning bell rings. They shift the responsibility of maintaining a quorum onto the pro-establishment camp, and consider that they need not bear responsibility in case the meeting is aborted. When the summoning bell rings, we need to return to the Chamber, but they can make use of the time to go to the community to present their views to the public, meet with their constituencies, supporters, and so on. We simply cannot do so. In this connection, they have already obtained the greatest political benefit. Since they can get political benefit, why should they stop? From another perspective, if I were one of them, I would have done the same thing.
Sometimes, Hong Kong people do not fully understand the work of Members in the Council. They do not understand why pro-establishment Members must remain in the Chamber but not the other Members. When members of the public cannot meet face to face with a Member, they would think that the Member may not be able to help them. They will think in this way. In my constituency, many fishermen are of the view that I should not always stay in the Chamber of the Legislative Council; I should instead spend more time to visit districts and meet with my constituency. But I really do not have the time. I must stay in the Chamber on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays and on top of that, I have to attend meetings of the House Committee and Finance Committee; on Mondays and Tuesdays I have to attend the meetings of other panels; and on Saturdays I have to attend the meetings of the Public Works Subcommittee. Thus, in reality, I only have one day per week to meet with my constituencies, or I meet them at night during weekdays. Naturally, the more time one spends with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8065 his constituency, the more conducive it is to his election. Since this mode of operation is beneficial to opposition Members, they will certainly continue. But they have gone too far.
I fully agree that some Members propose amendments to express their political aspirations on certain issues or express their dissatisfaction with the Government. For example, there are Members who seek to reduce the emoluments of Secretary Dr KO Wing-man. Why? Because he has not done a good job in the area of healthcare. I agree that we may propose such kind of amendments. However, just consider. Several years ago, pan-democratic Members proposed more than 2 000 amendments. Although only 400-odd amendments are proposed this year, after the pan-democratic Members have presented their political theories, expositions and grievances, we, the pro-establishment Members have to clean up the mess. We have to sit here for several days to vote against these amendments, because we cannot allow these amendments to pass. I consider this situation most unreasonable. Similarly, when they request headcounts, they are depriving other Members of the time to speak. Yet, we adhere to the principle of putting the interest of the whole above everything else.
I remember the situation of last year was most grueling. We were aware that if the Budget was not passed, a fiscal cliff would appear; but if we took part in the heated debate and spoke incessantly, the passage of the budget would be delayed, resulting in a bigger impact on Hong Kong society. For this reason, we had to allocate the speaking time and even had to exercise self-restraint, trying to make our speech as short and condensed as possible. However, is this really an effective debate? I hold that our society should ponder about it. Members in the opposition camp must not exploit their powers to the fullest extent. I agree that they can express their political aspirations, but they should not go too far.
Finally, as I have just mentioned, since these 400-odd amendments are meaningless, the DAB will surely oppose them. Lastly, I ask the people of Hong Kong to consider carefully and pay close attention. If the Council continues to operate in this way, what would Hong Kong society become in the future? I hope people will make a wise choice in future elections. Thank you, Chairman.
8066 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, after listening to the speeches delivered by Members who proposed the amendments, I have a feeling that they suffer from mental disorder, logical inconsistency and schizophrenia. They said that the Government did not listen to the views of the grassroots on social welfare spending; they also said that the Government did not respond proactively on labour rights; they even accused the Government of reneging on its promises on issues such as retirement protection, offsetting arrangement for the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF), standard working hours, and so on. In fact, a very important opportunity arose last year when the proposal to elect the Chief Executive by universal suffrage was put forward, which could have made the Government be more accountable and listen more to the views of the public. However, they missed such a good opportunity by rejecting the proposal. It is utterly impossible to exert pressure on the Government even if their proposal to reduce the annual remuneration of Secretary Matthew CHEUNG or the expenditure of some projects is adopted now. Even Members who spoke just now admitted that these expenditures can definitely benefit people's livelihood, and reducing these expenditures would affect public service and harm the interests of the grassroots. Hence I think they are schizophrenic and self-contradictory.
Among the speeches delivered by Members on their amendments, I like a remark made by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che the most. He inadvertently spoke his mind: "No universal suffrage, no power". I think Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che is an honest person after all, and he unintentionally spoke the truth. I concur with "no universal suffrage, no power". The Chief Executives who have been elected under the current system for Chief Executive election, be it LEUNG Chun-ying, Donald TSANG or Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, were all selected by 1 200 people, or 800 people previously. If nominations are to be made by the Election Committee, all Hong Kong people will be able to elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote". As I pointed out yesterday, while the candidates have to be accountable to all Hong Kong people, the successful candidate will even have to be accountable to the people in respect of his election manifesto. This after all represents a breakthrough and a step forward for Hong Kong's constitutional system, based on which further improvements can be made. Only in this way can the implementation of government policies follow public sentiments and opinions more closely.
Members of the Labour Party strongly condemned the Government. They pointed out that the Government currently tilts towards the interests of capitalists and the opinions of employers in respect of retirement protection, offsetting LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8067 arrangement of MPF and the legislation on standard working hours. If so, why didn't they support the proposal for the selection of the Chief Executive last year? Things would be better if the proposal was adopted last year. In fact, both the Labour Party and the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions are seeking to safeguard the current system and the interests of employers indirectly from another perspective. The new mechanism, which would have helped alleviate the disparity between the rich and the poor so as to improve the life of the grassroots, had nevertheless been rejected by them.
In this way, do they actually align themselves with the workers or the capitalists? I hope that all Hong Kong people would ask Members of the Labour Party and the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions this question. The continued suffering of the grassroots is precisely caused by their rejection of the proposal on the selection of the Chief Executive last year and their continued support of coterie election. They are undeniably to blame for the current situation of, as Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che put it, "no universal suffrage, no authority". By proposing to reduce the emoluments of Directors of Bureaux and various estimated expenditures, they ostensibly claimed that they serve the grassroots. They are actually playing tricks here. As the cartoon I showed yesterday indicates, the pan-democrats and opposition Members advocate bogus democracy rather than real democracy.
Among the Members who have proposed amendments, one often (today as well) wears a T-shirt printed with a portrait of Che GUEVARA, a South American revolutionary hero. He claims to embrace the ideals of Che GUEVARA: "Fight for revolution; fight for the grassroots; and even make sacrifices". However, he is just superficial. When he spoke today, his veins even popped out and his voice became hoarse when he talked about the plight of the grassroots. He claimed that he would spur the Government. In fact, he is also schizophrenic. Che GUEVARA had never held an official post nor joined the government. He truly devoted his life to the people of the lowest stratum of society. In contrast, the Honourable Member who wears a Che GUEVARA T-shirt receives an attractive monthly salary of over $100,000. As he sits comfortably at the Legislative Council being served with tea and water, he filibusters in a relaxed manner. As such, he wasted public funds and showed no regard for the sufferings of the grassroots.
While the Budget might not be perfect, it has in fact proposed quite a few measures which benefit members of the public. In contrast, the Honourable 8068 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Member who wears the Che GUEVARA T-shirt engages in filibustering every year. I really want to ask if he is really concerned about the grassroots.
In addition, with a monthly salary of over $100,000, he has even occupied a public rental housing (PRH) unit for years. He is still reluctant to move out on his own initiative, enjoying double benefits. Has he treated the grassroots fairly this way? I call on all PRH tenants in Hong Kong and those on the PRH Waiting List for more than three years to take a look at this Member to see if he is saying one thing but doing another and if he is schizophrenic? Is this Member really sincere in fighting for the interests of the people? I hope all Hong Kong people can see clearly. The Member I referred to is Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, nicknamed "Long Hair".
Among Members who have proposed amendments, one argued that the debate time set by the President is unreasonable, making it impossible for Members to express their views as they wish and respond to the views or accusations of other Members. They wilfully exercise Members' rights to request headcounts, and then eloquently quoted the provisions of the Basic Law and the Rules of Procedure. They seem to be reasonable, sensible and legitimate. However, in fact, we all know that every time the summoning bell rings, more than 10 minutes will be wasted. They claimed that Members have the responsibility to attend meetings in the Chamber. However, all Hong Kong people should know for a fact that Members have to handle a lot of official business in addition to attending meetings. Those Members who abuse their powers in requesting headcounts have not only wasted the time of the Council meeting, but also left other Members with no time to speak, as well as wasted taxpayers' valuable money. If those Members really want to make a speech or debate, why would they continuously request a headcount? Yesterday about 20 requests for headcounts were made. As the Chairman stated at the beginning of the meeting today, incessant requests for headcount have wasted a total of over four hours. Those Members are not worth refuting. They canvass votes from radical voters by means of filibustering. They are only campaigning for the election in September.
I would like to engage in secondary creation. Recently a very nice song "Side Angle Side" went viral online. Some students of a secondary school created the song and the video has so far recorded 80 000 or 100 000 "likes" or "shares". I would like to engage in secondary creation now and I hope the students concerned would not mind. "Filibuster Waste Filibuster; Waste Waste LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8069
Waste; Waste Filibuster Waste; Filibuster Filibuster Waste"2. I am tone-deaf and I cannot arrange the music according to the score, but I borrowed the "Side Angle Side" creation from the students in that school. With their festive singing and dancing, I would like to satirize the unbearable state of the Legislative Council now, which is being "filibustered", "hijacked" and "wasted".
Due to their filibustering, many people of the disadvantaged groups who are badly in need of assistance are not provided with timely support. In addition to Legislative Council meetings, the Public Works Subcommittee, the Establishment Subcommittee and the Finance Committee have all been affected by filibustering and many funding proposals are still pending approval. Hence, "filibuster filibuster waste" is an apt description of those filibustering Members.
Chairman, the 1 May Labour Day is a few days away. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions will gather at 9.30 am on 1 May at the Southorn Playground in Wan Chai for a march to fight for labour rights. Members of hundreds of trade unions across various industries will take part. I take this opportunity to call on all wage earners in Hong Kong, friends from all walks of life to join the "1 May march" organized by The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions at the Southorn Playground in Wan Chai at 9.30 am on 1 May to unite our strength, as well as to protect and fight for labour rights under the current situation.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Chairman, there are always some "beast in human form" amongst the human race that try to talk like human beings. Yet they are, in fact, even inferior to animals and beasts.
Chairman, real animals are unable to voice out for themselves. In fact, human beings have to speak on their behalf. At 3 pm this Saturday, we will hold a march on animal rights at Chater Garden. This is the first time that the same march will be held in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan on the same day. In Hong Kong, our main objective is to oppose the amendments to Cap. 139B proposed by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) to be gazetted soon. It is said that the amendments aim to better regulate pet (dogs only) trading in order to safeguard animal health and welfare.
2 "waste" is pronounced as "saai1" in Cantonese, which is similar to the pronunciation of "side". 8070 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
The march on Saturday primarily aims to ban animal breeding in Hong Kong. As Hong Kong is a civilized city, we must work towards zero trading in animals. The amendment to Cap. 139B is to legalize the act what was once illegal through a licensing system, under which various licences A, B, C and D will be granted. Chairman, you keep a poodle, while I go for a Corgi. As long as both of us get a licence for our own dog every year, we can trade them. So in two years, there will be four licences; in three years, there will be six. On top of this, there are business licences for pet shops and another kind of licence for large kennels. All sorts of such licences would turn Hong Kong into a city of animal breeding. However, as we all know, breeding of so-called pedigree dog is mainly done through in-breeding, which is totally unethical.
First of all, I would like to express my apology to the Chairman. I should have spoken this morning, but I went to meet with the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation instead. I asked if he would propose better amendments to Cap. 139B after hearing the views of non-governmental organizations and animal groups. Even if only petty favours are offered, we would like to learn about them. The Government should not take the same action as in the case of the constitutional reform, asking us to "pocket it first", then we ignored the request and both sides refused to give in. The authorities have, in reality, made no revision so far. From our meeting with the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation, we can tell that he is a government official who gives less bureaucratic response. He said he would first gazette the proposed amendments, and then submit the document to the House Committee before tabling it at the Legislative Council. He insisted that he has done the best for the welfare of animals. He did not agree with us, saying that this would indirectly encourage more animal breeding by private parties in Hong Kong.
This morning, we made a final request to the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation through the animal groups. We asked if he would consider prohibiting the operation of dog breeding business in private residential premises by refusing to grant licence or abolishing such licence. Having thought for a while, he answered in the negative. As there were legal restrictions, the proposed measures could not be accepted. Earlier at the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene, I asked the Government to make amendment and simply issue one single licence. This proposal does not come from me but many animal groups which truly concern about animal welfare. They request granting one single licence to regulate all commercial breeding activities.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8071
We want to achieve zero animal trading in Hong Kong. However, in the present day Hong Kong, I well understand that this cannot be done for the time being. One single licence for regulation purpose is a better option. That is to say, if there are large kennels in Sai Kung, everyone, including buyers, can go there for a visit. Monitoring can be made easier in this way. If dog bleeding is conducted inside a private residential flat, how can AFCD staff enter into the flat for inspection? Does the AFCD have such manpower? The AFCD may say it is possible to do so, as the prevailing threshold for entering a private residential flat is lower than before and investigation has become easier. In the past, they could not break into private flats. In reality, we still cannot break into private flats any time. Hong Kong practices the rule of law, one cannot break into other people's flats just because of suspected dog bleeding activity. Even the Police have to take four days before they can break into a flat to save a dog. There was such a case. Of course, by the time the Police entered the flat, the dog was dead already.
According to the AFCD, we should pass the amendments first and then study what to do next. In other words, we should "pocket it first". More appalling still, the amendment is made under negative vetting procedure. I am quite surprised. Why the rush to push through the amendment? We understand there was an urgent need to pass the "powdered formula restriction order"; we also understand there was an urgent need to timely introduce the "curb measures" to stabilize the property market. For administrative exemptions, the exemptions can come into operation first and then examined by the Legislative Council later. Yet for matters relating to the breeding of dogs, why the rush to legislate? It turns out that the law provides that should the Chief Executive in Council has granted approval, the legislation can be amended first.
Chairman, of course, what makes me feel a little relieved is the 45-minute speech made by the Director just now. Chairman, regarding the point of order, you certainly know better than me. The proposed amendments to Cap. 139B will, after gazettal, be submitted to the House Committee and the Legislative Council, and the amendments will automatically come into effect 28 days under the negative vetting procedure. However, according to the Director, that is not the case. He said the effective date would be separately specified when the amendments are published in the gazette. That means the amendments will still undergo the negative vetting procedure, but the commencement date will be delayed. Till when? Until the next term of the Legislative Council? What would happen if I still oppose by then? He said the amendments could be 8072 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 repealed. When I asked about the effective date of commencement, he said it should be early next year.
Chairman, I have reason to believe that owing to the powerful force of the civic animal protection groups and their overwhelming opposition voices, the AFCD, the Food and Health Bureau and the like now resort to this tactic to pacify the public. In this way, people who will participate in the march this Saturday will not be too emotional and agitated. Scenes of crying can be avoided as far as possible. Yet, when I directly asked the Director if gazettal of the amendments could be postponed to allow further discussion, he refused flatly because Hong Kong is an executive-led society. As we all know, law enactment is to allow some "beast in human form" to talk like human beings. Its effectiveness is very low.
Human beings will fight for their own rights and interests, including welfare, healthcare, housing and education, or they will criticize the Government's governance. The Government's governance is riddled with problems, from the Equal Opportunities Commission to LEUNG Chun-ying, to name just a few. How many people do care about animal issues? Many hold that these are just cats and dogs. They would say, "Even welfare for human beings is not well in place, why should you care about the welfare for cats and dogs. You must be out of your mind." In fact, many people do think like that. However, GANDHI once said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Specifically, I think it depends on how the nation treats cats and dogs because cats and dogs, unlike other animals, are friends of human beings. For thousands of years, human beings always have dogs and cats close by, keeping them at home. Dogs and cats cannot survive if they return to the Mother Nature. In the natural environment, such as the African grasslands, we will not be able spot a cat or a dog by chance. They cannot survive in that kind of environment. They need to be taken care of. Taking care of them is our most basic responsibility.
If the expenditure of the AFCD is to be reduced, the first goes to the expenditure on animal euthanasia. The AFCD can be very pretentious at times. When I talk to them about euthanasia, they say it is humane treatment. What is this "treatment"? It is killing all the same. When a person is wronged, there is the legal system, the judicial system with courts, judges and an appeal can be filed. But such option is not available to dogs. I guess you will not see this picture. It is written on the picture "Do they have a choice?" Probably not. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8073
"We have a choice! But they do not." This picture comes from Taiwan. How humane is euthanasia? Four days after an animal is caught, the AFCD will have it killed.
This morning, I received a new complaint. In Cheung Chau, some DAB District Council members asked AFCD staff to capture wild cats and dogs as perceived by them. AFCD staff told me that the TNVR (that is, trap, neuter, vaccinate and return) programme was actually implemented in the area. I seek to reduce the funding by a very small amount, about $1.5 million. Today in Hong Kong, the construction costs of the third Runway and the Express Rail Link amount to tens or thousands of billion dollars, and I am just seeking to reduce the expenditure on animal euthanasia by $1.5 million. Please reallocate the funding for putting down cats and dogs to the TNVR programme.
Although the AFCD has talked to me about animal health and welfare, their practice is different from that of genuine animal lovers. They always refer them as "pets", that is poodle and corgi that I have just mentioned. Since pets are already pampered, what other welfare do they need? The welfare of pets is even better than human beings. Their cushion bed is even thicker than the mattress of street sleepers. Are dolphins our pets? Are boars our pets? Of course not, but we still have to fight for their animal rights.
I seek to reduce the expenditure of the AFCD on trapping and hunting wild boars. I am only talking about $160,000. This amount is peanuts to the Treasury. Yet it is unnecessary for the AFCD to take such actions. It is really unnecessary. For many people, especially inhabitants of the New Territories, wild boar is part of their lives, a real neighbourhood animal and a creature of their living environment. They can coexist with human beings. The AFCD should build more fences to prevent wild boars from devastating the Mother Nature. All parties should live happily together. We have all heard the saying "live and let live" before.
Chairman, in Hong Kong, we human beings have countless problems. We talk about "saving our own Hong Kong". Yet few people do care about other animals, especially the lives of cats and dogs in our community. I hope you would understand and refrain from saying, "Our problems have yet to be solved, why talk about the issue of cats and dogs?" We should not treat cats and dogs as inferior, mainly because they cannot speak for themselves. Many veterinarians under the AFCD also do not have the same attitude towards animals 8074 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 as we do. To begin with, they would say it is irresponsible for animal lover volunteers to leave the cats and dogs on the street after feeding them. They should bring these animals home. Let me refute them. First, how can volunteers bring all these dogs and cats home? Animals are not allowed in most residential premises. Secondly, feeding cats and dogs on the street is meant to take care of their most basic right of survival.
On another occasion, we asked whether the restriction on dog keeping in public housing units could be relaxed. Veterinarians of the AFCD said we should not "make life difficult for dogs" because public housing unit was not big enough. Why don't they simply say, "Opposition comes from the Housing Department, not the AFCD." Thank you.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): I usually leave the Chamber when Mr WONG Kwok-hing is speaking. However, since it is my turn to speak after him just now, I have no choice but to stay in the Chamber to listen to him. Fortunately, I have finally heard some very positive remarks, that is, Mr WONG Kwok-hing also understands that small circle election does not work. When he spoke yesterday and today, he reiterated that the election of the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote" is to respond to public opinion. His statement is actually indirectly denouncing the presence of a small circle election, indicating that the Government's policy fails to respond to public opinion. I beg him to maintain this position, because what he has said is the argument that we have been putting forward all along, that is, small circle election does not work and cannot respond to public opinion. And today, Mr WONG Kwok-hing finally agrees with us. I want to tell him, the proposal of having three candidates nominated by the 1 200-member Election Committee to stand for the Chief Executive election also fails to respond to public opinion because these three candidates are very homogenous. They fail to respond to the aspirations of Hong Kong people in terms of economic, social and livelihood issues. Since we attach importance to labour rights and the status of workers, I hope that a genuine democratic election will be supported by all members of the public.
Next, I would like to respond to Mr Steven HO's speech. In fact, his remarks were quite modest and he classified the amendments into two categories. He also understood that the annual budget debate is, in fact, a yearly performance appraisal of the senior officials. Sometimes, it is even more than that. For example, as I mentioned yesterday, Prof Alfred CHAN, the newly appointed LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8075 chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission, was not qualified for the post. I really want to fire him. The issue at point is not just a reduction of salaries, but the choice of candidate. However, since we are bound by the system, we can only propose an amendment on salary reduction to bring out related discussions.
However, in addition to bringing out the debate on personnel issue or policies handled by senior officials and Directors of Bureaux, there are two other types of amendments. One of which is the kind of amendments raised by us, the Labour Party, concerning items bypassing the vetting of the Finance Committee (FC). The Labour Party is not a political party that chants empty slogans. The staff members and Legislative Council Members of the Party work practically with concerted efforts. Do you think it is really easy to identify 40-plus "new items" in the two Estimates that are thick as telephone directory with over 1 000 pages? With limited resources and manpower, it is actually rather difficult for us to identify those 40-plus "new items" amongst the 1 000-page Estimates. Furthermore, we need to double check with the Government afterwards to see whether any items should be added or deleted and whether we have wronged the Government. The replies from the Government are all in the affirmative, that is, the items we identified items are all correct.
These so-called "new items" have all bypassed the scrutiny of the FC and bundled up with the some $300 billion Budget. Although the sums involved may not be large, some items even amount only to $1,000 (that is, the cash flow is just $1,000 in the coming year), it is still necessary to bring them up for discussion. One example is an amendment under this debate section, that is, Amendment No 23, head 22 relating to reducing the expenditure on procurement of a patrol vessel by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD).
I have looked up all the papers of the current Legislative Session, starting from the first meeting in October 2015 till now. I have not found any document showing that AFCD had proposed the procurement of this patrol vessel. Chairman, why do I do so? The reason is that even though some items have not been submitted to the FC for approval, they are sometimes discussed at the Panel meeting. For example, in the last debate session, information concerning the proposed acquisition of a fireboat and a fast rescue boat by the Fire Services Department (FSD) was found in a document, but there was no information on the procurement of diving support speedboat. If we can find the relevant 8076 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 documents, at least we can ask questions here. Moreover, we can, based on the information make known to the public, ask the Government about the speed of the proposed patrol vessel to be procured, what fuel will be used, is it environmental friendly, and in which waters will it be sailing.
If the Government has submitted any open information, we would be able to ask questions here. However, the Government has never submitted any document on those items to the Legislative Council, and the two officials have never explained to us the functions of this patrol vessel during the current Legislative Session. Regarding the two vessels that FSD intends to acquire, the FSD has clearly indicated that they would serve in the eastern waters. How about the patrol vessel of the AFCD? Is it going to patrol in the waters east of Sai Kung to protect coral growth or slow down its decline? Or, is it going to patrol in the western waters to monitor how the existing artificial islands and Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge have impacted the ecological environment of Chinese white dolphins? Or is it going to petrol in the southern waters to prepare for the development of Marine Park and delineate the boundary? The Government has not mentioned a single word.
For Members of the pro-establishment camp, their only duty might just be sitting in the Chamber to form a quorum, and then vote expeditiously without having to ask any questions. But it is our duty to raise questions and monitor the Government. What is the Government's purpose in spending a particular sum of money? What is the purpose of the AFCD in procuring a petrol vessel? What information do they want to collect and what purpose do they want to achieve during their patrol? What is the sailing speed of the patrol vessel? If the patrol vessel is used for monitoring the ecological environment of Chinese white dolphins, will its frequent sailing undermine the environment and affect the Chinese white dolphins? We have no knowledge about that. Moreover, what fuel is used by the patrol vessel? How is maintenance done? How about the number of crew required for the operation and the number of staff to be trained? We also have no idea at all.
Although the AFCD only proposed a cash flow of $1,000 for this patrol vessel this year, we still want to propose the amendment to reduce the relevant estimated expenditure. It is because the Government's common justification is "since our hair is already wet, we might as well take a bath." So, if we silently pass this item without raising any question this year, Members will not be able to follow up on the issue in the future.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8077
Since the officials will have the opportunity to answer our questions later, I ask the two officials present to quickly ask their subordinates if they have any detailed information to disclose to us here regarding Amendment No 23 on the proposed procurement of patrol vessel by the AFCD? Besides, I also hope to put on record that we solemnly urge the Government to provide a document to disclose the information, so as to enable the public to know the details and objective of the relevant expenditure. The green groups and political parties in the Council should also be allowed to access the same information. Otherwise, we will not be able to monitor the Government and the Government can do whatever it likes as it did during the colonial era. It can squander money and bundle up some items with the Budget to evade the vetting of the Council. In addition, the format of this document should be exactly the same as the other documents submitted by the Government to the FC, to facilitate our follow-up work at Panel meetings.
Chairman, I now move on to discuss another amendment, Amendment No 19 proposed by Mr Albert CHAN. I definitely support this amendment. Though there are many other similar amendments, including those proposed by the Labour Party, we all aim to put items bypassing the FC on this platform for open debate. If the Government has never published any relevant information on those items, at least we can put them on record and demand follow-up action from the Government. For such amendments, we will not vote in favour of them. However, as the system dictates, we have no alternative but proposed an amendment in this way. So, for these amendments about items bypassing the FC, we will be very careful not to cast a wrong vote. We also ask the pro-establishment Members to pay attention and refrain from casting the wrong vote, thus holding back approval for Government's necessary expenditure. Otherwise, you are at your own risk. Our objective is to monitor rather than to halt. We just want to study whether there is room for improvement regarding the details of the items of expenditure.
But for Amendment No 19 proposed by Mr Albert CHAN, I give my absolute total support. Although Mr Albert CHAN has not explained here this amendment concerning "Head 22 ― Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department", I still give my unconditional support because he has said many times at the Panel meetings that AFCD staff use those big and thick black plastic bags to collect leaves in country parks. The estimated expenditure of $210,000 is used for purchasing those big plastic bags. Yet, the AFCD can actually use other reusable receptables, comparatively light plastic boxes, or even finely 8078 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 weaved bamboo baskets that can slowly degrade in the environment. Why use those big and thick plastic bags? When we discussed the problem of landfills two years ago, many political parties opposed the haphazard extension of landfills. Then why should we tolerate or condone the Government destroying the environment in respect of this minor arrangement? In fact, there are substitutes available. Money is not the real concern because $210,000 is just a drop in the bucket compared to the some $300 billion Budget. Besides, such act not only damages the environment, but also brings out a negative message. How can the Government still encourage the public to minimize the use of plastic bags?
Although Secretary WONG Kam-sing strongly urges the public not to become a "big waster", the AFCD has, over the years, refused to accept our proposal of using other receptacles to collect leaves and twigs, as well as other objects left behind in country parks. I hereby earnestly urge those Council Members who claim to support environmental protection to clearly note Amendment No 19 proposed by Mr Albert CHAN on the meeting on 11 May, the purpose of which is to reduce the estimated expenditure of $210,000 on plastic refuse bags.
Chairman, with regard to the other type of amendments, many pro-establishment Members criticized just now that if the salaries of civil servants are reduced, no one will take up the work, including the work on poverty alleviation, caring for animals, and so which Members are greatly concerned about. They also questioned why the estimated expenditure of the Department of Health and the Hospital Authority should also be reduced. Are Members making enemies with the people? However, the problem lies with the prevailing system. We are also happy to put forward amendments to increase the estimated expenditure because we regard many items of expenditures inadequate and should be increased. Nonetheless, under our constitutional system, the Legislative Council can only examine the Budget in a passive manner. We can only reduce but not increase the expenditures. We also opine that the estimated expenditure of many items should be increased, such as poverty alleviation measures, but do we have an opportunity to raise them for discussion? Even we have raised such proposals, the President would not grant approval because that does not conform to the constitutional design. The Legislative Council is not vested with such power. Therefore, the proposed amendments are all related to the reduction of estimated expenditure.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8079
Let me remind the pro-establishment Members again. You must be very careful when handling these amendments. Do not cast a wrong vote. Do not oppose everything supported by the pan-democrats or vice versa. You can easily make a fool of yourselves! We do not have enough votes to pass the amendments, which is a genuine fact. Under the split voting system, our amendments will never get through. In fact, we will not vote for such amendments. Our objection is to bring out the issues for discussion at this platform in order to spur on the Government. Therefore, we would be very cautious in voting. Pro-establishment Members, please do not support just because we oppose. Do not become a voting machine. Thank you, Chairman.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak to express the general views of the Democratic Party towards issues like food safety, environmental hygiene and animal rights.
There are five amendments seeking to reduce the estimated expenditure on animal welfare. Although it is expected that these amendments will not be passed under the split voting system, the original intent of the amendments is to consider the issue from the perspective of animal welfare.
The two animal issues are often discussed in the Legislative Council, namely catching stray animals and animal euthanasia. These two issues are touched upon in the amendments to this year's Budget. Regarding how to deal with the problem of stray animals in the community, animal rights activists have been advocating the TNR (Trap-Neuter-Return) programme. This programme began brewing in 2007 and has finally entered into the trial period with pilot project implemented in two areas last year. We still have to wait for two more years to know the effectiveness of the programme. However, even the programme is proven to be worthy for promotion, another five to 10 years might be required for its full implementation. The process is quite long. We can foresee that in some areas, particularly those where banners are displayed to declare the success of pro-establishment Members in wiping out stray dogs, the TNR programme will be rejected.
However, many studies have pointed out that TNR is more humane and effective than catch-and-kill or euthanasia. The Cat Colony Care Programme implemented by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong) proved to be very successful. We also know that many civic 8080 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 organizations that are keen on taking care of stray cats and dogs have already started some kind of TNR for dogs in the Lion Rock area. The result is equally satisfactory. I have met with these civic organizations that promote the TNR programme at the Public Complaints Office. The members all expressed to me that resources are much needed. Therefore, I hope the Government can allocate adequate resources to assist these civic organizations. They are not working against the Government. On the contrary, they are very supportive of the TNR programme. Very often, their volunteers even pay out of their pockets to help neutering stray dogs. So, we hope the Government can allocate more resources to assist such non-government organizations and animal lovers, so that they can develop a good partnership programme with the Government to get the job done.
Regarding the position of the Democratic Party on animal policy, we hope that human beings and animals can coexist peacefully in the community. We do not agree to reducing the number of animals in the community by means of euthanasia, the TNR programme should be the right direction of development. Therefore, we hope the Government can give more support to those who are determined to engage in animal protection work and co-operate with them. Here, I wish to appeal to friends of Hong Kong who are concerned about animal protection. This Saturday, an unprecedented march on "animal protection", jointly organized by Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macao, will be held at 3 pm at the Chater Garden. We will start marching to the Central Government Offices at 4 pm. Those who are concerned about animal rights in Hong Kong will certainly express their demands. It is common vision that Hong Kong should move towards zero animal trading in the future. We should advocate animal adoption, rather than trading them like goods and setting up animal breeding establishments. Therefore, we indeed hope that after the legislative amendment to Cap. 139B is submitted to the Legislative Council, the Government will listen more to the voices of the animal protection community and the public.
The Democratic Party has been pretty concerned about the issue of food safety. During this term of the Legislative Council, I have also spent a lot of time in this regard. We all hope that the Government can do well in food safety. I notice that some Members seek to reduce the annual estimated expenditure on the emoluments of Dr KO Wing-man, Secretary for Food and Health and even on the office expenses of the Bureau to reflect their dissatisfaction with the performance of the Secretary. I am also not fully satisfied with the Secretary's performance in food safety. The Secretary, being a famous doctor, may spend more time on medical and healthcare. Regarding our questions on food safety, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8081 the Secretary often seems to be uncertain. For example, how come carrots from radiation-contaminated areas of Japan could enter Hong Kong, not just once, but more than three times? In addition, radiation test and food safety inspection on food products imported by sea is rather loose and there are loopholes. Though the Democratic Party will not go so far as to negate all the work done by the Food and Health Bureau, we opine that there is much room for improvement, at least in the areas of food safety and environmental hygiene.
I have tried many times to arrange a meeting with the Controller, Centre for Food Safety (CFS) and officials of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), with a view to exchange views on how to improve the work on food safety. The Democratic Party has also bought vegetables and food generally consumed by the public from the markets and arranged them to be tested in laboratories. We want to meet with CFS personnel to exchange views, to learn more about the regulation of pesticides, to explore the possibility of amending the Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs), to inquire whether there is regulation banning the use of pesticide on carrots, and whether there are definition and standards for organic vegetables, and so on. A few months have lapsed but the meeting has yet to be arranged.
In fact, I have just discussed with the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation about the Sustainable Agricultural Development Fund upstairs. After the discussion, I rushed down to deliver my speech. The Under Secretary for Food and Health Bureau, Sophia, said just now that she wanted to meet with us to discuss about the Private Columbaria Bill. We have never turned down any invitation from government officials or refused to meet with them. We have never done so. We will only turn on our phone expeditiously to check our schedule, so as to arrange a meeting date. How come when Legislative Council Members want to arrange a meeting with relevant government departments, it takes months and after much discussion, a meeting has yet to be arranged? Such being the case, the executive-legislature relationship can never be improved. When Bureau officials want to meet with Members, we are happy to show up and discuss with them, how come when Members ask for a meeting, it becomes so difficult? Chairman, how come we always accept the invitation for meeting with government officials, but government officials always refuse to attend meetings initiated by us? I really do not understand. Sophia knows very well about this because I have made repeated requests, and she has also related the same to CFS. Nonetheless, no meeting can be arranged despite all the talking.
8082 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
We have also expressed our interest to visit the Kwai Chung Container Terminal to understand the inspection of food products imported by sea done and the operation workflow. We just want to know more because it was only after lengthy discussion at the Panel meetings that the Government has finally set up a Food Control Checkpoint at Kwai Chung Customhouse. Even after the Panel has decided to pay a visit there, the Government still fails to confirm after a long time. I really do not understand how the Government operates. Is it that government officials do not want to waste their time or do not want to waste my time? Or do they find these meetings insignificant, and thus are unwilling to entertain Members' request, thinking that we are wasting their time? I do not understand why officials are unwilling to meet with Members.
In terms of food safety, we must have a comprehensive set of legislation as well as effective law enforcement in order to safeguard public health. Unfortunately, our first gatekeeping job is not well done. During the last term of the Legislative Council, the Food Safety Ordinance was enacted. We originally thought that the legislation was complete, but then after McDonald's "Husi" incident, the public discovered that cooked meat is not covered under the legislation. Then we had to spend over two more years to conduct study on the feasibility of such regulation. If regulation of cooked meat has to be incorporated into the law, it may take another two to three years. Still, since we pointed out this problem last year, the Food and Health Bureau has made no progress on the control of cooked meat, neither have they briefed us on the issue.
As for some of the subsidiary legislation, they have set standards on different aspects. Hence, there are standards for compliance in respect of amount of harmful substances, preservatives, antibiotics, pesticides and heavy metals in food products. However, some standards are outdated, having lagged behind or deviated from international standards; some are even more lenient than the standards adopted by Mainland China. In fact, I also have repeatedly raised the issue, but the legislation relating to food adulterated with metal contaminants is still in the consultation stage. It has been stalled for several years. Soon after I took office as a Member of the Legislative Council, there were test results indicating that some MRLs in vegetables were above limits, not the limits under the Hong Kong standards, but the lead content in food has exceeded the standards set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), while the level of heavy metals has exceeded the Mainland standards. Although I have immediately met with government officials to urge for prompt action, the issue is still at consultation stage now. So I believe the legislation would not be ready for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8083 submission to the Council within this term. The standard for lead content in food set by us is 60 times higher than other places. That means for certain food already banned for consumption in other countries, we can still eat them, thinking that they are within limits, without realizing that they are actually 60 times over the limit. This situation is very alarming.
In addition, we also see that there are no clear regulatory standards for certain vegetables, including Indian lettuce. Another example is antibiotics. It turns out that human-use antibiotics are still allowed to be mixed with animal feed for consumption by animals. Such antibiotics will then re-enter into the human body through the food chain, which may affect human resistance to antibiotics and further undermine the health of the general public in the future. However, do we have adequate legislation prohibiting the use of such antibiotics? Have we requested restaurants to stop using meat containing antibiotics as ingredients?
The Democratic Party has kept in contact with McDonald's because McDonald's in the United States has announced that it will stop using chickens raised with human-use antibiotics for food manufacturing at a specific date. So McDonald's Hong Kong should also follow the United States Company's approach. Then how about other fast food outlets and restaurants? What measures have the Government put in place to promote food safety? I hope the Government can do more regarding animal feed being adulterated with antibiotics, leading to contamination of food ingredients.
All along, Hong Kong has been following primarily the standards set by Codex. Yet it often adopts the most lenient standards. Worse still, there are some regulatory standards in Hong Kong that even do not meet the minimum standards or are already outdated. Such protection cannot make Hong Kong people feel at ease.
On environmental health issues, in line with the election campaign of the pro-establishment camp, the Government kicked off the Clean Hong Kong Campaign last summer before the District Council elections. The campaign was a waste of money and manpower. The Secretary showed up and helped in cleaning the back alleys. With a broom in hand, he was just putting on a show. This year, when a Member asked about the total expenditure of that campaign, the authorities replied that the campaign was conducted by reallocating the existing resources and so no specific expenditures was incurred.
8084 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Although the expenditure incurred was unknown, but has the result been assessed? Last November, a newspaper checked on the effects of this campaign by inspecting various hygiene black spots over the territory. It was found that the hygienic conditions have not been improved. The places were just as dirty after the show. Amongst the hygiene black spots, the hygienic conditions of back alleys in Sham Shui Po and Tsuen Wan, as well as the roadside at the industrial zone near Kwai Tsing are still extremely appalling. For decades, the mode of the clean Hong Kong campaign has basically remained unchanged. All officials behave in the same way. Every time before an official visits, the places will first be cleaned. When officials, Legislative Council Members and reporters arrive at the scene, they will act in accordance with the script, picking up a broom to clean the places. After the photo shooting and press coverage, their work is done.
Chairman, the campaign launched by Government to assist the pro-establishment camp to put on a show before the election cannot improve environmental hygiene. I also believe that this campaign could not, in reality, canvass many votes for the pro-establishment camp. Since the Secretary only cares to co-operate with certain political parties but fails to improve Hong Kong's cityscape, I consider it reasonable to reduce his emoluments.
With these remarks, I hope the Food and Health Bureau would arrange, as soon as possible, a meeting between me and the Controller, Centre for Food Safety and officials of FEHD to discuss how to improve the work on food safety. Do not think they will certainly be censured when they meet with Members. We may just sit down and discuss how to get things done. I feel offended as officials of the Food and Health Bureau refused to meet with Members and I raise my strongest protest.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, the few discussion items today are relatively less political but relatively important in terms of their impacts on people's livelihood and the environment. These issues are platitudes which we have been discussing over the years
I propose Amendment No 19 to reduce head 22 by $210,000, which is approximately equivalent to the expenditure of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) on plastic refuse bags. Chairman, why do I take this so serious? The AFCD should take the lead in caring for the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8085 environment and play an exemplary role. However, the AFCD has been using huge amount of large black plastic bags for transporting the refuse collected within the country parks.
In 2016-2017, the AFCD will use 180 000 plastic bags while the contractors will also use 350 000 plastic bags. The AFCD used 230 000 plastic bags in 2014, which was less than 2016-2017, but the expenditure is roughly the same, representing an increase of $10,000 over last year.
Regarding the use of plastic bags, in other overseas places, degradable plastic bags will be used basically. They will not use these large black plastic bags which may not be degradable in 1 000 years. Is it really necessary to use these plastic bags? This question is very important. As we all know, the plastic bags used in areas under the management of the AFCD are meant for carrying some degradable articles or food. For example, in the barbecue pits, many people will discard food in the litter bins. Though in some areas, waste separation will be conducted, many of the wastes have not been separated. Hence, the reduction of expenditure in this respect can make the AFCD use less or stop the use of plastic bags. A clear message will also be sent, that is, all government departments should no longer use plastic bags.
Chairman, we have made a simple analysis of some figures. If 180 000 plastic bags are used in a year, that is, 493 bags are used per day, and in addition to the number of plastic bags used by contractors, the AFCD will be using 1 452 plastic bags per day. You can imagine the pressure imposed on the landfills.
Chairman, talking about plastic bags, not only the AFCD, the Highways Department and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department also use a lot of plastic bags to carry "green wastes". Very often, the wastes generated from trimming of roadside bushes or trees and cleaning the beaches are contained in large plastic refuse bags. If calculated by the population ratio, I believe except for those less developed countries, the Hong Kong Government will surely rank first in the number of black plastic bags used among the developed cities in the world. Other places basically will not do so. They will transport the "green wastes" by vehicles to certain places and then crushed them for use as plant nutrients or other purposes. The practice in Hong Kong can be regarded as unique. As disposing the plastic bags in landfills will incur additional expenditures, therefore I hope that those who support environmental conservation, including the royalists Members will support my amendment. They should understand that this issue does not involve political argument, and it 8086 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 only relates to a very simple principle, that is, to care for Hong Kong and to care for the environment. Environmental protection is a local issue, but the localism in question does not involve political argument. Those who do not love the environment, the local areas and the nature can be said to be scum of the scum. To date, the AFCD is still unable to improve on this issue, and it should be reprimanded.
Chairman, the Secretary for the Environment also has the responsibility. He should issue policy directives requiring all departments to stop using plastic bags. Having discussed for so many years, I find that the proposals of the authorities seem to be quite environmental conscious but it lacks the will to administer and always claims that there are difficulties and problems. Several decades ago, other major cities had already restricted the use of plastic bags. Hence, the current situation in Hong Kong is absolutely unacceptable.
Moreover, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has proposed an amendment to reduce the $1 million subsidy to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong) (SPCA). Last year. I criticized the SPCA for lacking transparency in its financial information, making it impossible for the public to monitor its use of public fund. Since the SPCA receives public funding, it should enhance its financial transparency. Nevertheless, the Government has actually supported and encouraged these organizations to continue their operation with a lack of transparency.
One of the reasons why I support the reduction of $1 million subsidy to the SPCA is that the number of cats and dogs killed by the SPCA is stunning. In 2014, the SPCA killed 1 609 cats and 701 dogs through euthanasia. It should no longer be called the SPCA, instead it should be called the "Society for the Killing of Animals". Some 2 000 cats and dogs are killed every year, that is, almost 10 every day. Such stunning figure is worrying; this is absolutely not the proper act of animal lovers.
Chairman, the other amendment I propose is to reduce the recurrent expenditure of $50.1 million on civil servant posts in 2016-2017 for the Tobacco Control Office (TCO) under head 37. Chairman, I do not smoke, and to a certain extent, I also support the tobacco control management and policy of the Government. However, the TCO also has to respect the interests and rights of the minority. I had argued with the Under Secretary on many occasions in respect of this issue and I also censured the TCO that sooner or later, smokers would be forced or encouraged to rebel and revolt. If all the 700 000 smokers in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8087
Hong Kong start an uprising, it will make the Government more panic when compared with the Mong Kok incident. If 700 000 smokers light up their cigarettes together in Central, I believe the situation will be quite significant.
Why do I feel so angry about the TCO? If it wants to prohibit smoking in certain places, it also has to formulate policy for the minority smokers, so that they can smoke in suitable places. This is also their right. For instance, the Government can provide smoking cabin or designate some places which are far away from pedestrian access or bus stops for smokers. The Government collects over $4 billion of tax revenue from smokers each year but the amount invested on smokers is almost zero.
The slogan for the American Revolution was "No taxation without representation". The cause for revolution is related to tax revenue. Smokers also pay taxes, the Administration should set aside a small sum from the tax revenue … Last time, we argued about the total ban of smoking in the Shing Mun Tunnels Bus Interchange, why couldn't the Government do something? Initially, the Government indicated that it was not feasible. Subsequent to our discussions with the departments concerned, they said that only additional railings and slope maintenance would be required. Why did they not make an effort then? It was because they could not figure out a solution at that time. The Government intended to drive smokers to the dead end.
I think the policy of the Government is to encourage the rich to drink wine at a low price but force the poor to smoke at a high price. Furthermore, the Government wants to drive them to extinction step by step. I totally disagree with such an attitude. Of course, I encourage smokers to quit smoking but so long as smoking is still a legitimate act, the government policy should not be too biased.
In particular, the different and biased policies towards tobacco and alcohol are apparently related to the preferences of certain high ranking government officials. Most of the high ranking government officials, as well as the rich and powerful Members from the pro-establishment camp like drinking wine. In particular, when they have more and more communications with the Mainlanders, they have been corrupted and like drinking either Maotai or fine quality red wine. Owing to the preference of this class and the inclination towards the big wigs, smokers have been discriminated against continuously. I consider such practice unacceptable, so I once again propose the related amendment.
8088 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Concerning Amendment No 271 on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, a reduction of $11.8 million which is equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure of the Secretary for Food and Health's Office is proposed. Before criticizing this Office for the faults in the agricultural conservation policy, I want to commend the Secretary for his work in respect of the development of the Tuen Mun Hospital. Consequently, importance is attached to the future development of the Hospital and additional facilities will be provided. After years of endeavour, we also find that some achievements have been made. However, residents in Tuen Mun still have to endure for a few more years before they can enjoy enhanced medical services. Nevertheless, the Government has already planned and decided to provide provisions for the implementation of some improvement works.
Regarding the agricultural and fisheries policies, the Food and Health Bureau lacks sensible agricultural and fisheries policies. I have indicated time and again that Hong Kong should have strategic plans and the Government should draw up policies for local farmers and fishermen. For instance, in terms of local produce, including pigs, cattle, sheep and local vegetables, the Administration can control the prices so that it will not be affected by special external factors, such as surging prices. If there is local produce, they can be supplied to the local market for the time being to relieve the related pressure. Moreover, local production can also create employment opportunities for the local labour force.
In 1980s, 1990s and even 2000s, Hong Kong faced many difficulties in this area. In recent years, the prices of local agricultural produce have become competitive. The current price of vegetables produced locally is $20 per catty, indicating that the local produce still has certain competitive edges. Chairman, the pig rearing industry is quite competitive now. It is entirely different from the situation when the Government killed the pigs then. Pig farmers told me that with rising costs of imported pigs, local breeding of pigs has become profitable. The Government should make an effort to revive the agricultural and fisheries industries in Hong Kong, which includes encouraging the rearing of chickens, pigs, cattle, and so on, so as to boost the development of agriculture and fisheries.
Regarding the fisheries industry, Hong Kong was originally a fishing port but as the Government continues to stifle the fisheries industry, there is a lack of development space for the industry. The provision of $500 million to a related fund is inadequate. The People Power had proposed in respect of the Policy LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8089
Address and Budget the setting up of a $20 billion-fund by the Government to assist the fisheries industry. Actually, the Government can allocate the sum from tax rebate and rate exemption to assist the agricultural and fisheries industries but the Government lacks the vision, the policy and the commitment in this area. I think the Secretary has failed to perform in this area of work. That is why I seek to reduce the relevant expenditures, in the hope that he would reflect on his misdeeds. Subsequently, he would decide to develop a modernized centre of husbandry, and provide full assistance to the fisheries industry, so as to provide an opportunity for the industry to re-establish its foothold in Hong Kong, lay the foundation for its long-term development and create more employment opportunities.
Thank you, Chairman.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
(Some Members returned to the Chamber but had not yet returned to their seats)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members will please return to your seats.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please speak.
(Mr CHAN Kam-lam raised his hand)
8090 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam, what is your point?
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, a point of order. I notice that there is a huge object placed on the table next to the seat of Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung. It seems that the object will create a problem to the meeting venue. Will the object form an eyesore or create safety problem? I do not know whether that object has gone through security check and what it contains. I hope the Deputy Chairman would handle the object.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I also note that there is a relatively large object on the table next to the seat of Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung. For safety reason, will the Secretariat staff please remove it.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, first of all, I would like to respond to the issue concerning the expenditure of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, which has drawn much concern from Ms Claudia MO and Dr Helena WONG today. I want to say that we the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) strongly support the TNVR (that is, trap, neuter, vaccinate and release) programme. In fact, many of the DAB Members present care very much about dogs and cats. Let me quote the case of Mr IP Kwok-him who is sitting next to me as an example. Some time ago, he spent several ten thousand dollars to cure his puppy. Owing to problems in the vocal cord, the puppy's voice became hoarse. Mr IP thus spent several ten thousand dollars to arrange his puppy to undergo a minor surgery. Yet, he is not willing to spend money on himself to cure his problem of having a hoarse voice. (Laughter) Hence, Deputy Chairman, this is a typical example to prove that many people in the DAB really love cats and dogs. As for me, I will not talk about myself.
I want to respond to Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. Yesterday he was criticized by us, and of course he was very unhappy. He just told me not to ask him to die, for he did not want to die. I will not do so today, he can feel relieved. Mr CHAN said that he raised similar amendments last year, why did we not criticize him last year, but do so this year. Mr CHAN should know, if we want others to accept certain things, we have to accept them as well. Sometimes, he LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8091 is too self-centered, only thinking about himself but not the others. That is where the problem lies.
Mr CHAN, actually I have put up with you for more than three years, why? The President of the Council had been very tolerant with you in the past, allowing you to speak for unlimited times. I think we would recall that in one year, just Mr CHAN alone had spoken for several hours in a debate. If we take part in the discussion and everyone speaks for one hour, it will take 70 hours for 70 members to speak. We have six debate sessions, if 70 hours are spend on each session, 420 hours are needed. If we calculate on the basis of 10 hours of meeting per day, it will almost take 40 days. How many Council meetings do we hold in a year? This 40-day meeting may not be completed in six months.
Therefore, many a times we do not want to join in the filibustering for the sake of the general interest. If Mr CHAN Chi-chuen does so, and other Members follow suit, the situation will be in a chaos. Nevertheless, at times when we can tolerant no more, we have to act like Mr CHAN Kam-lam ― the CHAN's clansman ― by applying the tactic on the person who devised it. As we can see, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen was sad and angry. He was upset because a request for headcount was made while he was speaking. Hence, he should be more considerate and show more understanding for other Members. He should also know that among the 70 Members in the Council, and the 7 million people in Hong Kong, everyone has his own stance, views and feelings. We cannot just think about ourselves without taking into consideration the overall situation.
I want to continue. I will not name names today. Why? I can see that "Long Hair" has been furious since yesterday. I know his board or plaque was prepared in a rush overnight. The Financial Secretary said that his craftsmanship seemed so-so. It seems that he made the board in a hurry. He used to say that his Chinese writing was quite good but let us see what were written on the board. "True Universal Suffrage for Hong Kong People". There is no problem with this catch phrase, we all know that. "Workers want Standard", what does it mean? It turns out that "Workers Want Standard Working Hours". For the third point, I really do not understand. So I asked Mr CHAN Kin-por about the meaning of the phrase. The third point is "Elderly Want Universal" "Retirement Protection". I asked Mr CHAN Kin-por from the insurance sector about the meaning of "Elderly want Universal", Mr CHAN Kin-por said he did not know.
8092 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Actually, under normal circumstances, "Long Hair" will not have such problems. I therefore think that he seems to be provoked. Today, when pan-democratic Members spoke for the first and second times in this debate session, the one who turned crimson was Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, while the one whose hair was in disarray and who made threatening gestures was "Long Hair". He screamed and yelled as well. Hence, I calmed him down and asked him not to get upset. He said he would not. Actually, when we put forth our comments, we do not have malicious intention towards them. It is good that we put forth our comments telling them that sometimes certain items of expenditure cannot be reduced or certain comments cannot be made. However, the issue in question is not about which item of expenditure should be reduced. I will not bother about reducing the salaries of government officials, but there is no reason to slash the money spent on helping the underprivileged and people with urgent needs. This gives people the feeling that it is inhumane to do so. I just want to ask them to be cautious and tell their staff not to be so reckless while doing their work.
Next, I have a lot of things to say but I do not want to say too much. I just talk about head 170. I do not want to name names to avoid provoking Members from the opposition party, saying that we curse them or blame them. I want to say that head 170 is related to expenditure for the Social Welfare Department. Some Members seek to reduce the related expenditures under heads 157, 184 and 179. They have not seen clearly the purposes of such expenditures. I now remind them out of good will and advise them not to commit these mistakes again.
Members from the opposition party seek to reduce the subsidies provided to patients and their families under heads 170 and 157. When will such subsidies be granted? Why are they granted? Such subsidies are granted immediately by the Government as a kind of allowance for family members who have no money for food as they need to accompany patients all the time and cannot go to work or have to take leave. These are timely assistance, do they understand?
For head 184 Traffic Accident Victims Assistance Scheme, the victims of traffic accidents cannot work and their entitlement to compensation are uncertain. The related sum is for emergency assistance, so why slash the money. I have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8093 been listening attentively to the speeches of Members from the opposition party but still fail to find out the reason.
Moreover, Members from the opposition party seek to reduce the annual estimated expenditures under head 179 Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme. They said that as social security assistance (SSA) was inadequate, they requested for an increase in the amount of SSA payment. As Mr WONG Kwok-hing has said, they suffer from personality split. Two days ago, they said that the sum had to be increased, but two days later, they seek to slash the sum. This is not the way things work. Many businesses in Hong Kong need to progress steadily. If they have long-term comment and plan, they can put forth to the Government. If the Government accepts and make changes, that will be fine. If it does not accept, tell me and we can join hands to urge the Government, will that be acceptable? However, we cannot ask for an increase two days ago and then request a reduction two days later. And now they seek to slash all the expenditures for the whole year. If so, CSSA recipients cannot get any help and they will be miserable.
Hence, two days ago, I asked those Members whether their hearts had been eaten by dogs. It seems that not only their hearts, their livers, lungs and kidneys had all been eaten by dogs. They lose their hearts, livers, spleens, lungs and kidneys altogether. Deputy Chairman, I just heard Ms Claudia MO mentioned that some people in Hong Kong are "beast in human form" and they are even worse than beast. I share the same feeling. Deputy Chairman, I do not know whether Members from the opposition camp are genuine and sincere or they want to exploit the public to gain advantage. No matter what, I hope they will not make the same mistakes again. Even if they want to, they should not request openly at Council meeting for a reduction of these expenditures.
Finally, Ms Cyd HO said that the pro-establishment camp should not oppose whatever she supports. I hereby tell Ms HO, she should have heard my speech just now, how can we possibly support these amendments? I do not know whether Ms HO will support these amendments or not but we definitely will not support them. We will surely oppose them.
I so submit. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
8094 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, this year, the President of the Council has set the schedule to conduct the Budget debate. Hence I can make better use of the time to speak for the second debate. Such arrangements are very satisfactory and I hope the same arrangement will be made in the future.
As we can see, a total of seven members have proposed amendments in respect of the Budget in this session. Just now Mr CHAN Kam-lam had read out the contents of many amendments. I believe I will also do so later as many members of the public may not know the contents of these amendments. Hence they do not know how absurd, nonsense, trivial or even unreasonable such amendments are. However, before reading them out, I wish to point out a very important point, that is, these amendments are packed with superfluous reasons. For instance, Dr KWOK Ka-ki criticized Secretary Dr KO for not doing well in many of his jobs during the time when hospital beds were fully occupied in the peak influenza season, thus causing the public to suffer. He will therefore support the amendments. However, as Mr Albert CHAN has said, Secretary Dr KO had done a lot of work for the Tuen Mun Hospital so that it can have better development. However, Dr KWOK did not mention this point and just talked about those areas which he considered to be problematic.
Frankly speaking, under such a huge government structure, when problems occur in the important medical system, it will be hard for the current-term Government to solve all the problems in one go. The peak influenza season was a prime concern for the public. Many people got sick and were hospitalized, so all hospital beds were occupied. However, a serious outbreak had not occurred. That was attributed to the hard work of the departments concerned in getting their job done properly, so that the situation was brought under control. Under the leadership of Secretary Dr KO, the work carried out by the Food and Health Bureau in handling the massive epidemics and the development of existing hospitals is by far the most commendable during the different terms of the Government. Measures such as earmarking $10 billion for carrying out minor improvement works and earmarking $100 billion to prepare for service development of future hospitals are important foundations which enable better medical services in the future.
Those Members who made the criticisms can criticize easily. They cite the outbreak of disease, which is most difficult to control, as an example to criticize the Secretary for Food and Health, and propose amendments to reduce LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8095 the full year salary of the Secretary. In fact, their purpose is to criticize the Government for its incompetence. More importantly, they want to impede the timely passage of the Budget. These practices … take Mr Albert CHAN as an example. He criticizes the Government for its failure to perform in all aspects, and makes lengthy speeches on how the Tobacco Control Office made wrong arrests, how bad the agricultural and fisheries policies of the Food and Health Bureau are, and so on. Fortunately, the President of the Council had made a plan this time, so that the debates and voting would be held within the scheduled time. As a result, they now start to make unreasonable speeches and can only ward off blows. In the past, taking into account the general interest, we would try to speak less or shorten the time of speaking to reduce the harm of filibustering. But today, no matter what, we have to voice out our views and point out their wrong criticisms.
Now, I want to talk about the unreasonable amendments proposed by them to reduce the estimated expenditures.
Regarding social welfare, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung proposed an amendment to reduce the $21.361 billion expenditure of the Social Welfare Department (SWD), which is equivalent to the annual recurrent expenditure of the SWD on the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme. In other words, if this amendment is passed, all CSSA recipients will no longer receive CSSA, and thousands or tens of thousands of families and elderly will suffer.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung also proposed another amendment to reduce the $20.653 billion expenditure of the SWD, which is approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on the Social Security Allowance Scheme under the recurrent expenditure of the SWD. Without this sum, the current Old Age Living Allowance and other social welfare expenditures will have to be cancelled and thousands or tens of thousands of families will be affected. What is his purpose of proposing this amendment? Does he really want these public members to suffer and be deprived of financial assistance? I believe we all know his purpose.
Moreover, Mr WONG Yuk-man proposed an amendment to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of $3.58 million for the salary of the Secretary for 8096 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Labour and Welfare. What is his purpose of proposing this amendment? His purpose is to lengthen the discussion time of the Budget.
In addition, just now I mentioned that Mr Albert CHAN proposed an amendment to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Secretary for Food and Health's Office. This is also one of the ways to prolong the discussion process.
I heard the speeches of these few members on the amendments and found that they were just criticizing some trivial issues or policy matters. In fact, they can raise these issues at meetings of respective panels or Finance Committee but they have not done so. Instead, they prefer to propose amendments at the Council meeting. Moreover, each Member has half an hour to voice out his opinion on the Budget earlier, but they did not put forth the related comments during that time. Instead they proposed amendments. Their aim is simply to filibuster for the purpose of filibustering.
Regarding some policies, particularly agricultural policy, I hold different view from Mr Albert CHAN, especially when he advocates for natural agricultural policy. Of course, we all know that agricultural policy is very important to Hong Kong as Hong Kong is a place that lacks local produce or resources. If the primary food and production are cancelled, it will create a significant impact on Hong Kong. It is a vital policy that stabilizes the society.
The Food and Health Bureau has proposed new agricultural policy recently. The $500 million Sustainable Agricultural Development Fund and the $500 million Sustainable Fisheries Development Fund will exactly provide better financial support for the new agricultural policy. I think the emphasis of the agricultural policy is on how to open up more farmland. The existing agricultural land in Hong Kong is not scanty, but in view of economic development, some landlords do not support the continued use of land for agricultural purpose and are reluctant to lease out their land. Even if they lease out the land, the rent is very expensive. If the Government still adopts the use of natural farmland to develop agriculture as before, that is a mistake. Also, it is insufficient to cater for the needs of current social and economic development. Hence, I think that the Government should, under the new agricultural policy, develop some Government land or even resume some farmland for farmers to produce food or vegetables. That should be the proper way.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8097
I consider the comments of Mr Albert CHAN good but the reduction of all expenditures of the Food and Health Bureau inappropriate. I therefore oppose all amendments.
I so submit.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I wish to remind Members, in accordance with the scheduled debate arrangement, this debate will end at around 5 pm today. Members who wish to speak, particular those who have not done so, please press the "Request to speak" button as soon as possible.
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has mentioned many times and I have also said before, this practice of setting a time limit for the debate will create a new practice for the Legislative Council. I wish to reiterate that this new practice is based on the Basic Law and the Rules of Procedure where the President of this Council has the responsibility and authority to order that the proceedings of this Council be conducted in a reasonable and normal manner. In the case of LEUNG Kwok-hung v the President of the Legislative Council in 2014, the Court has made it clear that the President of the Legislative Council has the duty to preside over meetings and may decide on how time is to be allocated and when discussion shall be concluded. It follows that this practice has shed light on how normal order can be restored in this Council.
Of course, I welcome the exercise of this discretion by the President of this Council. The President allows a debate time of 60 hours. When this is divided by 70 Members of this Council, each Member may almost have more than 50 minutes of speaking time. When we know that certain Members may choose not to speak, then each Member may then speak for one hour. So if the 27 Members from the pan-democratic camp will speak for 27 hours in which they leash a tirade of attack on the Government and LEUNG Chun-ying, they will have enough time for it. However, even when this new practice can give us enough time, these Members who are addicted to filibustering still cannot control themselves. Although they know well enough that the ringing of the summoning bell is self-destructive, causing their right to speak or the same right of the pan-democrats to disappear, they still do not treasure this speaking time. They still want to request a headcount today.
8098 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Yesterday we had a debate on the second session. These pan-democrats might realize that they had spent all the time in requesting headcounts. At last the debate concluded within the allotted time. So it seems today that they have changed somewhat. I hope tomorrow or later on they will slowly change for the better. This will enable Members to have more time to speak. If the summoning bell does not sound, we can all have the time to debate. I always believe that truth becomes clearer as we debate. However, the methods used by certain Members fail to make people understand. For me, I think that this new practice is certainly good for the well-being of the people. But this is harmful to Members themselves. It is because this Council is a platform where we express our opinion and we should explain to the people how we view government policies and the Budget.
Deputy Chairman, I speak today to oppose all the amendments. It is ridiculous to propose these amendments on the Budget. Certain Honourable colleagues think that these amendments are trivial and frivolous. For me it is not only a matter of being trivial and frivolous. If the pro-establishment camp does not stay in this Chamber and insist that these amendments shall not be allowed to be passed, it will truly be a disaster for Hong Kong. All those who work in the Government, the public bodies and hospitals will not get their salary and there will be all sorts of problems. As we said yesterday, police officers and firemen will not get their salary. So these amendments are not really trivial and frivolous. The pan-democrats cannot afford to pass these amendments and the society cannot afford to pass these amendments as well. In no way should this Council pass any one of these amendments.
When I put forward these views, it does not mean that the Budget from the Government is perfect and blameless. All I have been saying is that it would be better if a gradual approach is taken in the development of our society. This is also better for the people of Hong Kong. An example is the Social Welfare Department. Now we would hope to fight for more welfare for the group of people between the age of 60 and 69. For those aged 65 and above, they have already been given welfare benefits. Those who are aged 60 and 64 are the most pitiable. And this group may include even some of those who are 55, that is, those people from the Police and other disciplined forces who retire very early. And there are also people from the private sector who cannot enjoy any medical insurance protection when they retire. These people have very little money to spend every day. Some people who are lucky will have a pension and those who do not have a pension will have to continue working. So we should really take LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8099 up an open approach and study whether or not welfare benefits should cover this group of people aged between 60 and 64.
I think I must mention subheads 157, 177, 179 and 180 under head 170. Some Members want to slash the subsidies to patients and their families and also the estimated expenses for emergency relief. In the case of the collapse of a tenement building at No. 45J Ma Tau Wai Road, many people were really in need of emergency relief. This kind of estimated expenses should therefore not be slashed. We can never play with them. As for comprehensive social security, if Members are not happy with it, they should ask for more resources, instead of slashing expenditures in the Budget. Once the amendments are passed, they will be binding and there will be no more comprehensive social security. If Members really care about the elderly people, why should they want to reduce the welfare for the elderly under subhead 180? If we really love the elderly people, we should engage in less filibustering. Another example is the assistance scheme for victims of traffic accidents of subhead 184 under head 170.
If the opposition really has something to say on these, they should raise them when the Budget is debated as a whole. We made our views known during the last term or even two terms ago, and it was two years or three years later that the Government has taken our views on board. An example is that starting from four years ago, the Kowloon West New Dynamic and I proposed every year that a surplus plan to the amount of $30 billion should be carried out. Under this proposal, after the Government has made its normal allocations, it should set aside $10 billion each year from its surplus and give it to the public healthcare bodies for the purpose of hiring doctors, buying expensive drugs or improving public hospitals. For the retirees, they will find public healthcare services very important. I have always said and a few years ago, Dr LEUNG Ka-lau asked me whether I knew many people would spend half of the retirement pension in healthcare. This applies to those without medical insurance and they only have public healthcare services to rely on. So public healthcare service is an important link in our welfare net, especially the welfare net for the elderly in their retirement.
This year the Government seems to have accepted our views and it promises to set aside $200 billion on healthcare over the next 10 years. We used to think that only $100 billion will be set aside over the next 10 years. We were not successful when we put forward our views for the first time. However, after a few years, the Government takes on board our view finally. So we should 8100 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 support the Budget. Based on this breakthrough alone, I will be most willing to support the Budget. This is especially the case when we see Secretary Dr KO Wing-man takes on the view of the people and a breakthrough is made. Therefore, we should praise areas that really should be praised and for places that views should be raised, we should still make our views known.
I have raised many times the issue on dental services for those aged 60 and 65. Those who do not take out insurance are really having a bad time, Now the Community Care Fund subsidizes elderly persons aged 80 and above when they use dental services. But people of any age can have a toothache. The middle-class people are really having a miserable time. Even if they have taken out medical insurance, they cannot afford dental services. So I really hope that the Government can provide mobile dental service vehicles. I have made this suggestion a number of years. But the answer from the Government is that this has to be discussed by the Social Welfare Department, the Labour and Welfare Bureau and also the Food and Health Bureau together, and discussion must not only be made by the Food and Health Bureau or the Labour and Welfare Bureau alone. Recently I know that some civilian organization has provided some mobile dental service vehicle. I saw in Fu Cheong Estate many adults and children line up to use the service. Many children came to have a dental check-up. However, they have to pay $200 to $300.
We hope that two such vehicles will be provided in each of the 18 districts in Hong Kong. This applies especially to remote areas in Tin Shui Wai or Sham Shui Po where residents have to walk up the hills. An example is Chak On Estate or "Siberia of Sham Shui Po". I hope that the Government can arrange to have some mobile dental service vehicles parked at certain locations and at certain timeslots. This will enable elderly singletons get dental services and their relatives or children will not have to apply for leave to accompany them. On this issue of mobile dental service vehicles, I hope that there will be discussion held across the Bureaux. But breakthrough on this is yet to be seen. I hope that there will be mobile dental service vehicles subsidized by the Government so that people of different ages and who suffer from toothache can use the service. After all, who will go to a dentist if he or she does not have a problem? The service targets of these mobile dental service vehicles should be elderly people aged 60 to 64, or people who retire at 55, or people whose medical insurance does not include dental service. I really hope that the Government can give us this present the next time. I am sure many people will hope to get it.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8101
Let me talk about the issue of "two-dollar ride all over Hong Kong" again. Many people who are aged 60 to 64, especially those who are civil servants, will really have no welfare benefits after their retirement. We can just make a comparison. Many people who have retired from either public or private bodies will not want to spend money. We should consider their psychological and physiological health and they should be allowed to go out frequently. On the Mainland, their welfare benefits are much better. Civil servants who have reached a certain age can ride on public transport for free. They can go to scenic spots like Ding Hu hills for free. We should let our retired people really enjoy life. This will enable them to enjoy a bit in the society which they have served and contributed for so long. I therefore think that the age requirement for "two-dollar ride all over Hong Kong" should be lowered.
Although the amount for "fruit grant" is not much, the retirees will find it reluctant to spend even one dollar of the money. The Government should consider lowering the age eligibility for "fruit grant". Of course, we also appeal to those who do not need the money not to apply for it. Rich people like LI Ka-shing should not apply for it. The money is a token of our gratitude and it should be reserved for those who really need it. We agree that the Government should devise some methods so that those who really need the money can apply. People in Hong Kong who were born in the 1950s and 1960s will soon retire. They do not like to get welfare benefits like the CSSA. They would think that they will lose face if other people know that they are getting the CSSA. But since everyone can apply for "fruit grant", they will also apply for it.
Can the age eligibility for elderly living allowance be lowered to the age of 60? If this can be done, it would really be a blessing. In Hong Kong, the proportion of elderly persons is increasing drastically. People who belong to the baby boom generation of the 1950s and 1960s and who are now in their fifties and sixties have been working hard all through their life. They pay the tax and they have never grumbled. For the middle class people, they do not have any welfare benefits. They can never enjoy such benefits. And if it is not for our efforts over many years, they would not even get legal aid. In Hong Kong, the weakest and most vulnerable will get the welfare benefits. For these people, we should show them our sense of gratitude so that they will be pleased to know that the society appreciates the contributions they have made.
In addition, I wish to talk about other amendments briefly. These amendments are about slashing the annual expenditure of the Prince Philip Dental 8102 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Hospital under head 140 and the estimated annual expenditure for women affairs and the elderly under head 141. The subheads involved are 85C, 899, 979 and 000. All these amendments are ridiculous. On the one hand, these Members show their concern while on the other they want to slash all the expenditures. We cannot help but criticize them. It would be wrong for us if we do not criticize them. We visit the districts often and since there is filibustering, we visit the districts very early in the morning. We can see many elderly persons, retirees and women. These are commonly recognized as the disadvantaged groups. They all tell me not to filibuster and not to make any more delays. They want a normal Legislative Council to be restored to Hong Kong.
Deputy Chairman, I so submit.
MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, Dr Priscilla LEUNG has said in her concluding remarks earlier that when she visited the districts, some elderly folks asked her to restore a Hong Kong which was normal to them. I would also like to ask Dr LEUNG whether or not the pro-establishment camp which she represents can restore a normal Hong Kong to us. Had it not been for their frequent attempts at forestalling social changes, coming to the staunch defence of the Government and saying all sorts of nice things for it, Hong Kong should be able to carry out many changes. And what is called a normal Hong Kong will not lapse in the hands of these pro-establishment Members.
Earlier this morning, Mr WONG Kwok-hing criticized Members of the Labour Party, saying that they do not defend the rights of the workers. These remarks make me think about all these things: who suggested that the rental ceiling for public housing units be abolished? Who rejected the idea that local workers should be employed first in the Express Rail Link? And who said in 2012 when running for the election that the paternity leave should be set at seven days, but then backed off when votes were to be cast? The people I am referring to are definitely not those pan-democratic Members who sit at the front left side of the President. The answer is clear enough.
I wish to use the remaining time to speak on two amendments. The first amendment is Amendment No 282 proposed by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, the content of which is about the Secretary Matthew CHEUNG. It can be seen easily that the labour and welfare policies which the Secretary has launched throughout his term of office are not satisfactory. As a matter of fact, I will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8103 elaborate in detail the related policies in his term of office. We can see that the Secretary neglects the law and does not show any tactics. His policies are not recognized by the people and they are often disparaged. We therefore lend our support to the amendment proposed by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che. Please allow me to explain the reasons in detail.
First, with respect to the provision of elderly services, we notice that government policies are always lagging behind. This applies especially to elderly services and the lack of care and attention homes for the elderly. This problem has never been solved. I believe every person in this Chamber, including those Members from the pro-establishment camp, will all agree that elderly persons face the problem of a longstanding insufficiency in residential places. As we observe it, the Government has never shown any sincerity and determination in solving the problems of insufficient residential places and excessively long waiting time. In fact, the Government is pretending not to see these problems. The greatest reason is that the cost for each subsidized residential place is too high. However, the Government still relies on the fact that Hong Kong people can adhere to the so-called spirit of the Lion Rock, that is, they can solve problems by themselves. We have been working hard for our society all through our lives and as we become old, we would hope that assistance can be given to us. But it seems that the Government does not want to increase any subsidy.
On the question of waiting for residential places, in the past the issue seems to have vanished after we have asked a few questions or made some criticisms. In fact, the Government will wait until the number of applicants for residential places increases every year and when elderly persons pass away as they wait for these places, then the Government will propose that a solution can be found in buying places from private institutions. However, I think the Deputy Chairman will know very clearly that there is a divergence in service quality among these private institutions. And what is more, we often hear scandals in these private institutions during the past couple of years or so. It is only when there is public uproar that the Government promises to step up its inspections. The result is of course far from what we would expect. In addition, there are problems when the Government uses public money to buy residential places. These problems include: a low amount of subsidy, and quality that can never catch up with the demand. When there is a lack of regulation, no one is using the places from private institutions, and there are situations where no one is living in places available while some people do not have a place to live.
8104 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Actually, it is not that the Government cannot do anything about the situation. It can help the elderly in other ways. Apart from institutional services which have been mentioned, community care services can be launched. These will include services like meal delivery and household cleaning, or even community care service coupons. This will enable elderly persons to stay in the community and they do not have to live in the institutions while these institutions can remain in their respective communities. Such measures will enable elderly persons to integrate into society and they can sense their reason for living.
It is regrettable that the Government does not seem to move in this direction. It is abiding by the principle of a money-oriented approach. It is using a mean approach to calculate the costs and so services are distorted beyond recognition. Certain elderly persons have pointed out that since their health conditions are passable and they can move about, so under stringent resource conditions, they are often persuaded by civil servants with whom they have an interview to renounce their application for residential places. Of course, the front-line civil servants should not be allowed to bear the blame, the main cause is stringent resources. The result is certain elderly persons will pretend to be frail and vulnerable or they will only be given community services on a priority position when they actually qualify for institutional services. We would estimate that this will become the only method which elderly persons can use as they wait for institutional services.
Earlier on, the Social Welfare Department has given a reply to this Council on the issue of community care which I have mentioned. The reply is to this effect: "As at 2015, there are as many as 1.1 million people aged 65 and above. As at end December 2015, the number of elders waiting for community care services is 3 754 persons. The average waiting time is six months." I have looked at the figures very carefully because I do not want to make the numbers wrong. Among the 1.1 million elders aged above 65, only 3 754 persons are applicants waiting for community care service. I can assume that the number of applicants will increase by 10% as at April 2016, that is, the number will increase to 4 000 persons. But still, the number of 4 000 persons as compared to 1.1 million, is still very small. Just what is the reason why there are only about 4 000 elders in Hong Kong who need to use this kind of service or is it because of the reasons which I have mentioned just now that so many people have given up applying for it? Do we provide suitable and effective services for the elders? I would think that what the Government is doing is just pretending that the problems are not there.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8105
On community services, I wish to reiterate that if we can give good community care services for these above 65, their health will be protected. These elders do not have to experience the trouble and hardship of transportation and the chances of their getting injured at home are also greatly reduced.
As we all know, elders are prone to having accidents and accidents at home are the most common. If the Government can provide suitable care and attention in this respect, this will solve the problem in the long run. And the problem of residential places can hopefully also be eased.
I wish to raise another issue and that is on universal retirement protection. I know that other Honourable colleagues in this Council have said a lot on the subject. However, there is still one point which I think I must talk about. From what I know, the process of launching universal retirement protection has already been fraught with confusion.
Prof Nelson CHOW was commissioned to compile a report but in the end his views were overturned by the Government. We know this very well and it is still fresh in our memory. Prof CHOW is a gentleman and he has to come out and say in detail why he thinks the Government is in the wrong. Then more than 100 scholars came out and made another proposal. They did this in the hope that government policy could be made better. However, it is unfortunate that the Chief Secretary Carrie LAM and the Secretary Matthew CHEUNG did not show an attitude that they were prepared to listen. They even insisted that retirement protection is only a welfare benefit, not a right.
When this consultation exercise is filled with presumptions, how can we expect to pool all views and absorb them? On top of it, under such circumstances of presumption, we have great suspicions about the sincerity of the Government in launching universal retirement protection.
On poverty assistance, about one week ago we came to know a farce concerning poverty line in Hong Kong. I believe the incident is still fresh in the memory of Members. What I am referring to is the suggestion to include the rental for public housing into the poverty line for the purpose of calculating welfare benefits. If the Government really holds a set of arguments that can convince the people of Hong Kong and which they can base to hold public debates, I am sure it is good for Hong Kong. However, what we see is that the Government only lets out a balloon and then retracts from the suggestion. This 8106 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 kind of fickle approach is absolutely not the kind of careful approach that we expect from a policy debate. This is only a game in figures if it is used to reduce the number of poor people in Hong Kong.
I am sure that after the Government has realized the kind of feedback this has caused in society, it can only withdraw the proposal reluctantly. In my opinion, this kind of fickle and inconsiderate approach only shows that Secretary Matthew CHEUNG who heads the Labour and Welfare Bureau is totally incompetent. It is precisely because of this reason that I support the amendment from Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che.
Now I would like to speak on Amendment No 16 from Ms Claudia MO.
Dr CHIANG Lai-wan has said more than once both yesterday and today to the effect that the conscience of the democrats has been devoured by dogs. I wish to stress that dogs will not devour a person's conscience. Dogs are lovely animals. It seems that we are not too friendly to dogs. The reason why Ms Claudia MO wishes to propose this amendment is to slash the annual estimated expenditures of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) on animal euthanasia, which is to the amount of $1.5 million.
I think I have said in this Chamber that we humans owe a lot to animals. It does not matter how we treat the animals, they will accept it because they cannot say no. I would think that we have not tried our best to protect the lives of animals.
According to figures from the AFCD, more than 4 000 dogs were received in 2016, and among them, more than 1 400 were adopted. For the remaining 2 600, 2 400 were put down.
If we just look at the figures, I do not think it would require a top-notch rocket scientist to know that the percentage of dogs being put down is extremely high. Why does this happen? The reason is that the Government acts according to its set of procedures, that is to say, if a dog is not adopted after it is kept for four days, then it will be put down. Actually, in this society and at this time of 2016, anyone who is educated will know that we are not allowed to treat other forms of life in this way. To destroy life this way can never be said to be humane. Why shouldn't more resources be put in the so-called TNVR (that is, trap, neuter, vaccine, and return) programme, when we want to handle stray LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8107 animals? This approach will result in effective neutering and can help animals integrate into nature.
Why should the AFCD have to determine the life and death of animals after keeping them for four days? Just what principles does it base on? According to explanation from the AFCD, they act on the principles of whether or not these animals are tame and healthy. But there is no actual standard as to what is being tame. Just think how can an animal caught from the street stay being tame? We therefore think that this approach of TNVR should be carried out in a full-scale manner. We think that this amendment from Ms Claudia MO should be supported.
Finally, I hope to remind this Council that it is too much to spend even just one dollar of public money to destroy life. I so speak. Thank you.
MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, we have spent much time discussing the amendments proposed by the pan-democratic Members. Filibustering has become a normal state of affairs in this Council. In the debate sessions earlier Members who filibuster are always using certain false propositions to criticize the Government. But I found out this morning that there are some changes in these filibustering Members. They began to offer explanations to the false propositions they raise. They try to find some justifications to convince the public with respect to the amendments they have proposed. Do they want to engage in a debate in order to promote development in society or to improve governance and people's livelihood, or do they really want to increase their political capital? The answer is simple enough.
Just now many Honourable colleagues have talked about the impact of these amendments on people's livelihood. I would just want to make a simple deduction. Actually, the rationale held by those filibustering Members is that if they do not filibuster, the Government will not listen to them. So this filibustering attempt is to make the Budget something like a hostage. However, when they make the Budget a hostage, it is like making the people of Hong Kong hostages. We can see for example, that in this thick pile of amendments, they proposed to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Prince Philip Dental Hospital, reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Elderly-friendly Communities Subsidy Scheme, reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the 8108 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 financial assistance for patients and their families, reduce the annual estimated expenditure for emergency relief, reduce the annual estimated expenditure for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme, reduce the annual estimated expenditure for the Traffic Accident Victims Assistance Scheme, reduce the annual estimated expenditure for the Shine Skills Centre, and so on. The contents …
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, there are only five Members here. I request a headcount.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Hak-kan, please continue.
MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I have just said that those Members who engage in filibustering are taking the citizens as hostages. If the Government does not agree to their demands, they will slash the expenditure of dental service, the CSSA and the Traffic Accident Victims Assistance Scheme. I do not think I need to repeat all of these items here.
I hope that citizens who follow the meeting by watching television or listening to the radio will know clearly that reducing the above items of expenditure really goes against public interest. This applies especially to the interest of the grassroots and the socially disadvantaged. We often hear these Members who filibuster say that they do care about the socially disadvantaged. But when they engage in filibustering, the first thing that comes to their mind is to slash on the grassroots. This is something we do not want to see. But they are taking the grassroots and the disadvantaged as hostages as they bargain with the Government. We know that the grassroots and the disadvantaged are leading a miserable life and so these Members who filibustering should not fool them.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8109
As many Honourable colleagues have said, these pan-democratic Members really hold a lot of fallacies. I wish to cite an example. I can see that Secretary Dr KO Wing-man is sitting here. I wish to respond to some remarks made by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung earlier. He thinks that healthcare expenses are taking up an increasingly lower proportion in our GDP and he uses this as a reason to criticize Secretary Dr KO and our healthcare system, saying that they are worthless. He suggests that expenditures in many areas should be reduced. First of all, I wish to make it clear that I am for increasing healthcare expenditure. This is because as we all know, the waiting time for public hospitals and specialist out-patient clinics is very long. There is a need for the Government to allocate more resources to solve the problem.
I wish to point out that there is a problem when Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung points out that the proportion taken up by healthcare expenditure in the GDP is falling. I wish to cite certain figures. This will make the issue clear. During the year 2016-2017, the total estimated expenditure in health is $77.6 billion and this is an increase of 27.6% as compared to the revised estimate for the year 2015-2016. The increase is $16.8 billion. The recurrent estimate expenses in health are $57.3 billion (which is equivalent to 2.3% of the nominal GDP in 2016). The amount is 16.5% of the total recurrent expenditure of the Government and it is an increase of 1.5% as compared to the revised estimates for the year 2015-2016. About the recurrent funding from the Government to the Hospital Authority, the amount is $51 billion for the year 2015-2016 and this is an increase of 34% ($38 billion) as compared to the year 2011-2012, or five years ago. So does the Government increase its expenditure in healthcare or not, or is it like what Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has said, that the proportion of healthcare expenditure in the local GDP has fallen and that shows that the Government does not care about the grassroots and those people who rely on public healthcare services? It is not correct for him to say that. And figures can tell everything and we can see a lot from figures.
Deputy Chairman, one should not make fun of the interest of the public and the people should not be taken as hostages to threaten the Government. We must hold a serious attitude in this issue. I hope that the people of Hong Kong can see clearly that these Members who filibuster really say one thing and do another.
I love to read the writing of Mo Zi and I would like to share a story with Members. One day, the king of Lu said to Mo Zi, he said, "Mo Zi, I have two sons, one likes to study and the other likes to give articles in the house to those in 8110 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 need. So which one should become the crown prince?" Mo Zi said, "My king, we do not know simply by looking at these things. Your two sons may be doing these things because they want to get rewards from you or they may do this because of reputation. The case is like a fisherman bending his body. That does not mean that he is showing any respect for the fish. When a person wants to catch a rat with some bait, it does not mean that he likes rats. So I hope you as the king will observe them and watch their motive and acts. Then you will know who is true or who is suitable to become the crown prince." There is an ancient saying in Chinese which goes to this effect: Listen to what he says and observe his action. We should apply this saying on these filibustering Members. Just are they really for the grassroots, or for the disadvantaged, or for themselves?
Deputy Chairman, we often hear the pan-democrats and those filibustering Members talk in this Chamber. But they are saying things from their own stand. It does not matter how lofty and noble their theories and ideals are, what they are doing is completely in contravention with what they think. We have to look carefully at what they do, and see whether or not they are really doing all these for the grassroots and the disadvantaged. It could be that Mr LEUNG thinks that he has gone too far in filibustering. My colleagues got a leaflet from him in the MTR station this morning. It is as large as the size of a newspaper. He explains why he is filibustering. He says that he wish to use the budget to start discussions on certain topics. Therefore, he has to make certain symbolic moves to reduce the funding of certain items. This is to trade off the right to speak and raise the demand for increasing funding. Will Members agree with this kind of argument which is not justified at all? Can this excuse of making symbolic reduction of expenditure mean to make fun of the grassroots and the disadvantaged?
Mr Alvin YEUNG has just accused us from the pro-establishment camp that we just want to defend the Government. But in fact we are defending the grassroots, the disadvantaged, SMEs, and we are for the defence of the people's livelihood and the economy of Hong Kong. I wish to say to Mr YEUNG that although it has not been long since he has joined this Council, he should bear in mind that he should avoid bad influences. We want to say to these filibustering Members that to filibuster is not the greatest thing. In Hong Kong, the interest of the citizens should be considered the greatest thing instead. So it is wrong and terribly wrong for them to filibuster. I hope they can know the fault and repent.
Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8111
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, a number of Honourable colleagues from the opposition camp who have proposed amendments have advanced a point today, claiming that they have followed the same pattern in proposing amendments to the budgets over the past four years. According to them, when they like to cut the estimated expenditure of a department or reduce the salary of a public officer, they would propose an amendment accordingly. They also doubt if the pro-establishment camp is not aware of this until now, seemingly blaming us for realizing it only now and rising to speak after years of silence.
Mr CHAN Hak-kan shared a story earlier, and I have just thought of one. A beggar came to the door of the CHAN's family, and Mr CHAN gave him $10; the beggar went there again the next day, and Mr CHAN gave him another $10; and this went on and on for two years. One day, Mr CHAN gave him just $5, and the beggar asked, "You have been giving me $10, why only $5 now?" Mr CHAN said, "I am getting married." Furious, the beggar slapped Mr CHAN on the face and yelled with some expletives, adding, "Are you using my money to feed your wife?"
I believe Members must know that being silent in the past does not mean one's view is perceived to be correct or they are right, because according to such logic, if a lie told a hundred times will turn into a fact, no one can tell what the world will become.
Deputy Chairman, opposition Members always do whatever they like in the Council nowadays without any regard to the consequences or any worries. As I pointed out yesterday, their fantasy can become true because they reckon Honourable colleagues from the pro-establishment camp will definitely torpedo their amendments, then they can take another approach, namely calling a stag a horse, accusing the pro-establishment camp of being blindly pro-Government. That is what has happened over the past four years, and it might also be like this before. Given their irresponsible attitude and approach, I hope that all the people of Hong Kong can look at their true face seriously and clearly.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung proposed slashing the annual estimated expenditure of $954,000 for the Funding Scheme on Age-friendly Community which seeks to encourage the 18 districts to organize elderly-friendly community activities at the district level according to the unique features and needs of the 8112 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 districts. This is a very good initiative, so why should the expenditure be cut? If the amendment were really passed, the outcome would be elderly people being discouraged from going out even if they have the time.
On the other hand, members of the public had better stay strong and healthy, not falling sick, because another amendment of his seeks to slash the annual estimated expenditure for the assistance for patients and their families amounting to $144,000. So, this means that people had better not fall sick. I can see that some opposition Members requested the Government to adopt a "full-package" approach, where the Hospital Authority is required to undertake all the responsibilities to the effect that anyone who is sick must be taken care of by the Government.
Apart from this, in the eyes of opposition Members, the Hong Kong Government needs not only to attend to people's medical needs, but also to ensure zero unemployment. Yet, I have to add that he made the point yesterday that civil servants should not be paid their salaries. In fact, Members can see what is going on. Recently press reports had it that between 11 March and now, the Eating Establishment Employees General Union received the news of closure from 18 eateries, including Chinese and Japanese restaurants, fast-food shops, and so on, which was 3.6 times higher year-on-year, involving 1 075 workers. This shows that unemployment will soon become an issue of concern to the Hong Kong community. It was reported that the current unemployment rate of 3% or so may rise to more than 7% or 8%, an indication of how grave the problem will be. However, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung ― Mr "Long Hair" ― is proposing amendments to slash $21.361 billion off the funding available to the Social Welfare Department's Emergency Relief Fund and Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme. In addition, he also proposed slashing $20.653 billion from the Social Security Allowance Scheme. If these funding items are really slashed, a total of $40 billion or so will be slashed. These Members are trying to cut the safety nets while the prospects of Hong Kong economy remain uncertain. If such amendments were really passed in this Council, opposition Members would be the really apathetic ones.
Some Members may hold that there is nothing to fear, as people may become hawkers following the closure of eateries. Since one of the amendments seeks to dissolve the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) by cutting the relevant expenditure by $6,128,630,000 and another one seeks to slash the annual estimated expenditure of $1.073 billion for the FEHD's Hawker LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8113
Control Teams, they would in effect open up the way for people to become hawkers, which they may regard as a solution to the unemployment problem. However, members of the public have to think about the consequences of the passage of these amendments seeking reductions of expenditure. Will there be anyone to clear up garbage from people's homes? Such Members may like to build up a garbage hill in their homes and let their rubbish stack all the way up. Nevertheless, despite it being a solution to the problem, we still have another problem of the whole street being littered with garbage as a result of no one doing the clean-up. Anyway, if the FEHD were scrapped, who would be the one to clean up the mess?
In discussing the amendments one by one, we will discover how contradictory and unintelligible they are, an indication of utterly irresponsible conduct. I believe I can highlight a lot of other problems if I can go on speaking. Yet, here I would like to remind Ms Cyd HO not to smear the pro-establishment Members. She needs not worry, as Members from the pro-establishment camp or the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong are all responsible Members. We will definitely oppose the ridiculous and frivolous amendments of theirs to stop them from undermining the interests of the people of Hong Kong and jeopardizing the Hong Kong community. I so submit. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I rise to speak in support of all the amendments which seek to reduce the expenditures of the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, especially those relating to the Secretary's emoluments.
Deputy Chairman, I consider that over the past year, the Secretary for Labour and Welfare has committed three sins over the issues of poverty alleviation, poverty and the poverty line. The first one is about universal retirement protection. As we all know, universal retirement protection has remained a subject under dispute in Hong Kong for two to three decades. Even though universal retirement protection cannot be implemented yet, the community still hopes that consultation can be conducted to see if the people of Hong Kong support universal retirement protection. Many options have been proposed in the community, but we find that the Government actually does not have any intention to implement it. After collecting the options, the Government created the anticipation of having not enough time for the 8114 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 implementation of universal retirement protection. Even the option requiring a means test proposed by the Government itself cannot be implemented owing to the time constraint.
Why did I say so? At first, the Government commissioned Prof CHOW of the University of Hong Kong to conduct a study, but after the study was completed, the Government was not satisfied, so it assigned the Civil Service to conduct a study on Prof CHOW's study. Upon completion of this study, a consultation paper was issued, that means this one, in which two options are mentioned. One is regardless of rich or poor, that means universal retirement protection proposed in the community. The other one requiring a means test was proposed by the Government itself. The most important point is, in this consultation paper, the Government has already made it clear that it does not support or approve of the implementation of universal retirement protection, throwing a cold blanket over the whole consultation exercise before asking for people's opinions.
Deputy Chairman, why is this a problem? In theory, the usual practice of conducting consultations on universal retirement protection is to consult members of the public of whether they consent to universal retirement protection. Then the Government should set out in the paper the merits and demerits of universal retirement protection and how much money will be needed, ask whether members of the public can afford this amount or how much they are prepared to commit, and after that, release the results of the consultation on universal retirement protection. Such a discussion is focused on the value, beliefs, enforcement policy and feasibility of universal retirement protection.
I remember that back then, members of the Subcommittee on Poverty Alleviation of the Legislative Council visited Japan and Taiwan where pensions are provided as universal retirement protection. I clearly remember that I once asked the Japanese officials a question. Since their then Prime Minister Shinzo ABE was going to raise the sales tax by 8% to finance universal retirement protection, I asked how such an act would be approved. How would it be accepted by the public? An election was imminent. If the tax was raised by 8%, the situation would become terrible definitely. How would they be able to win the election later? How would the public support them? The Japanese officials told us that basically, the vast majority public in the country recognized the contribution made by the older generation for the next generation. They had worked very hard for Japan, enabling Japan to stand among other countries in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8115 international community. Universal retirement protection was just a small repayment to them. Basically, they accepted supporting the pensions with the sales tax, and they considered an 8% increase viable. Certainly, we know that subsequently, they lowered the rate of increase from 8% to 4%.
Whether universal retirement protection should be implemented ought to be considered from this perspective. The present consultation paper, however, does not talk about value. It does not talk about respect for the elderly. Neither does it talk about beliefs. Right from the start, it says that if universal retirement protection is implemented, it will cost $2.3 billion in 50 years. In the light of the wealth gap, if it is provided only to the poor elderly, there will be a 100-times difference in the amount. "Why must your Majesty use that word 'profit'?"3 When Mencius went to see King Hui of Liang, King Hui of Liang asked what benefits his visit would bring to his state. Mencius replied that they did not have to talk about money. If their discussion could help him govern society and the state properly, the state and the people would be benefited. The value of good governance was far higher than the monetary gain he could bring.
The consultation paper itself has already dealt a blow to universal retirement protection. Being the Chairperson of the Commission on Poverty (CoP), she kept emphasizing that this document does not stand for the Government's position because apart from the officials, there are 20 to 30 non-official members in the CoP. Papers issued by the CoP are civil and non-official. However, every time she spoke in her capacity as Chairperson of the CoP, she was attacking universal retirement protection on behalf of the CoP. How can such a process be described as consultation? The whole process has been no more than attacks on universal retirement protection and reproach of Prof CHOW with the claim that it may be unfair to taxpayers if it is implemented as advocated.
However, some civil groups have proposed other viable options of financing the implementation of universal retirement protection. Even if the Government did not mention any of them in the whole consultation paper, it should not slam them either. I believe the Secretary, being the Vice-chairperson of the CoP, must have made a lot of efforts in the whole process, but did he tell the Government and the Chairperson the views in the community and persuade
3
Regarding the entire schedule for universal retirement protection, it took the Government three years to issue the consultation paper. At first I thought that after the completion of the consultation in June this year, the report should be released in September. This consultation exercise will last for six months. Among all other consultation exercises, only one also lasted for six months. Even the consultation on constitutional reform lasted for only four months. With three months' time, in whatever way it is written, it should be completed and the consultation results released in September. However, the Government has recently told us that the results will not be announced until Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying presents the Policy Address in January next year. Yet the Chief Executive Election for the new term will be held in March next year, and LEUNG Chun-ying will have stepped down by June. Subsequently, the failure to complete the whole administrative procedure will have nothing to do with him either. Hence, the consultation on universal retirement protection is a big show, a play of false pretences.
The second sin relates to the poverty line. As we all know, a recent discussion topic of the CoP is whether the subsidy for public rental housing (PRH) should be included in defining the poverty line. If the PRH subsidy is included, the poverty population will be reduced by 300 000. Certainly, this will make the poverty population figure look good, but we have got to know that the poverty line set by the CoP is calculated according to income, that means each and every penny that can really go to the hands of members of the public. The poverty line is set at 50% of the median monthly household income, below which one is defined as poor. Take a two-person family as an example. Its median monthly household income is $8,500. Suppose a two-person family has a monthly income of $7,000, and they enjoy a PRH subsidy of $2,000. In the past few years, since $7,000 is lower than $8,500, they were defined as poor, but after the $2,000 is included, they are no longer regarded as poor.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8117
Such an accounting trick makes the poor families not poor in name, but actually their way of living has not undergone any change or improvement. It also runs counter to the approach of calculating the poverty line on the basis of income. If the calculation is not based on income, why do we not count in the $60 consultation fee for each visit to a government doctor or the daily hospitalization fee of $100? In this latter fee, 2% is the actual expenditure while 98% is subsidization by the Government. If I receive an operation which costs $100,000, actually I will enjoy a subsidy of $99,900. If this $100,000 is divided by 12 months, the amount is $8,000 each month, which is even greater than the monthly rental subsidy of $2,000.
Should the 12-year free education be included in the calculation, too? The Government did not give the students any money, but it has provided them with subsidies. The Government has already defined the poverty line, but to achieve the effect of reducing the poverty population, it peremptorily wishes to count in the PRH subsidy. This is unfair. If it is included in the calculation, then all kinds of subsidies should be included. To calculate the poverty population in a truly fair manner, another definition should be adopted, that is, to use the amount of disposable money after deduction of the basic expenses as the basis for calculation. Suppose the monthly rent of a PRH unit is $1,500 whereas that of a private housing unit is $4,500, and the monthly income of the tenants is respectively $9,000. In terms of the definition of poverty and their income, they are not poor, but after deducting the housing expenses, the one living in PRH still has $7,500, whereas the one living in private housing has only $4,500 left. In that case, is the amount of disposable money held by the PRH tenant greater than the one in private housing? Yes, it is. In this circumstance, the Government can simply revise the definition and stop using the old definition. However, the Government is unwilling to do so. It peremptorily wishes to include this figure in the old definition so that the poverty population can be reduced by 300 000. This is deception.
Deputy Chairman, after the question of including the PRH subsidy in the calculation of the poverty line was raised, Chief Secretary Carrie LAM suddenly and exceptionally … there are two exceptional incidents. The first one is something I have seen for the very first time. After completing a study, the Government prepared information consisting of dozens of pages in support of including the PRH subsidy in the calculation. After discussion, I certainly felt that more views were against this approach. I was referring to members who had spoken. I believe most of the members who did not speak support the Government. Within a very short time, Chief Secretary Carrie LAM said this 8118 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 policy would not be implemented, but on the following day, she invited reporters to a meeting to hint that since a member had disclosed the government paper, it had caused a great impact on the Government. Certainly, there are two problems with such an act. Firstly, it has diverted the people's attention, making the whole discussion focused merely on the questions of who spilt the beans, what information was leaked, why someone spilt the beans and "hunting down the witch".
Secondly, the original discussion of how to make the calculation of the poverty line reasonable was terminated. Certainly, Chief Secretary Carrie LAM should disclose who spilt the beans with reference to the evidence she has received rather than being ambiguous, because whenever someone asked about the leak of information, I felt that members would cast a look at Frederick FUNG. However, I have repeatedly clarified, and I have especially stated in the CoP at least two or three times, that I have never shown the document to anyone. As pointed out by a senior media executive in the CoP, after the leak of information, the reporter of the television station could, to our surprise, read out the document of the CoP word by word. Since the news was first reported by that television station, he asked the staff who provided them with the information, but the reporter said, "Sorry, the source of information cannot be disclosed." Then he asked, "Was it Frederick FUNG?" The reporter replied, "No." I am not trying to make any clarification here. Nevertheless, being the Vice-chairperson of the CoP, the Secretary is duty-bound to advise the Chairperson how to deal with these issues.
Lastly, the third sin I need to mention is this Budget. The Budget expressly proposes certain relief measures, and whether these measures are appropriate is open to discussion. Some measures are implemented every year. Given the surplus every year, no one will blame the Government if it continues or even expands the measures. For example, this year the Financial Secretary has increased the waiver of rates and tax allowances for the middle and upper classes. I do not think anyone will criticize him because wealth should be kept in the people rather than being stored in the Government's Treasury.
However, this year the amount of extra Comprehensive Social Security Assistance and "fruit grant" payments offered has changed from the original two months' payment to one month's payment. The waiver of PRH rent has also been withdrawn. The past waiver of two months' rent was changed to a waiver of one month's rent last year, and this year the waiver of rent has even been LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8119 withdrawn. As we all know, according to the Government's information, the average income of PRH residents is lower than that of the entire population. Such figures reflect that there are relatively more poor people living in PRH. If the Budget provides poverty alleviation measures, why does it reduce the welfare benefits for the poor PRH residents when a surplus is available for providing more such benefits?
Regarding this decision made by the Financial Secretary, at the Finance Committee meetings in the last few weeks, we asked why that was the case. The official reply was that in formulating this policy, the Financial Secretary had already conducted consultation, and he had looked into the consultation results before making the decision. I asked if he could relay the view of the Legislative Council to the Financial Secretary because the Panel on Housing had proposed a motion to request a waiver of two months' PRH rent. When I raised this question again at the last Finance Committee meeting, the official repeated that the Financial Secretary had already given careful and thorough consideration to it when he wrote the Budget. That means neither my view nor the motion of the Panel on Housing was conveyed to the Financial Secretary for further consideration. My question is, did the Secretary for Labour and Welfare ever fight for such welfare? Did he raise this question with the Financial Secretary? If he did not, it is dereliction of duty on his part. If he did, would he please tell us how he fought for it and lobbied the Financial Secretary? Why did the Financial Secretary insist on such a contradictory decision? (The buzzer sounded) Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr FUNG, speaking time is up.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I request a headcount.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (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)
8120 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Food and Health, please speak.
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in this debate session, Members have proposed 28 Committee stage amendments in total, seeking to reduce the expenditure on agriculture and fisheries, food and environmental hygiene, and healthcare. I will now give a consolidated response.
Concerning the reduction of expenditure for the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), in respect of the management of stray animals, the Government has all along adopted multi-pronged measures to contain the possible nuisances as well as public health and safety problems caused by stray animals. To this end, the AFCD has established a dedicated team to devise, implement and fortify public education and publicity programmes for disseminating messages that help promote care for animals and responsible pet ownership. Meanwhile, the AFCD will step up enforcement and prosecution against owners for keeping animals without a licence and for not keeping their dogs under proper control or abandoning animals. In January 2015, the AFCD launched a three-year Trap-Neuter-Return Trial Programme for Stray Dogs in designated trial zones jointly with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and the Society for Abandoned Animals. These measures have gradually produced results. In the past five years, the number of complaints about nuisances caused by cats and dogs received by the AFCD has dropped nearly 40% and the numbers of cats and dogs received through various channels have also dropped 60%.
Members have proposed amendments to deduct amounts approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditures of the AFCD respectively for catching stray animals and for subvention to the SPCA. I must point out that these amendments will seriously affect the many measures adopted by the AFCD for the management of stray animals. This will lead to an increase in the number of stray animals, causing nuisances to the public as well as public health and safety problems. Apart from the management of stray animals, the work of the AFCD also includes the development of local agriculture, conservation of local fisheries resources and promotion of the sustainable development of the fishing industry, management of country and marine parks, conservation, as well as inspection and quarantine.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8121
Amendments were also proposed to deduct amounts approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the AFCD in respect of plant, equipment, works, vehicles, procurement of a patrol vessel, and so on. This will seriously paralyse the daily work of the AFCD in various areas.
I also wish to explain here that with regard to the procurement of a patrol vessel by the AFCD, Members suggested that the patrol vessel be deployed for enforcing the Fisheries Protection Ordinance by, among other things, implementing a trawl ban and prohibiting non-local fishing vessels from operating in Hong Kong waters. These are very important areas of work, and the procurement of all government vessels is centrally arranged by the Marine Department (MD). In the past few years, there has been a surge in the demand for new government vessels coming from different departments mainly because a significant number of government vessels are approaching the end of their normal service life and require replacement. At the same time, the MD considered that before initiating any new procurement exercises …
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung placed in an aisle of the Chamber the large object which had been removed from the Chamber as ordered by the Deputy Chairman earlier)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, I have ordered the removal of this object from the Chamber earlier. Please respect my ruling.
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung spoke loudly)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): My ruling is not subject to debate.
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung kept on speaking loudly)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If you feel aggrieved by my ruling, you can discuss it with the President on another occasion.
Will staff of the Secretariat please remove the object from the Chamber.
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung still spoke loudly)
8122 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you can display this object at appropriate places outside the Chamber. If you do not sit down but continue to speak loudly, I will rule that your conduct is grossly disorderly.
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung continued to speak loudly)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, this is my last warning.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, can you explain how the display of this object will affect the proceedings of this meeting?
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I already explained it just now when you were not in the Chamber.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Do you have a guilty conscience because you caused the death of workers?
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, this is not a point of order. Please be seated.
(Mr Albert CHAN spoke loudly)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, if you continue to speak, I will rule that your conduct is grossly disorderly.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, point of order. I request a headcount.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8123
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Food and Health, please continue with your speech.
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Chairman, just now I said that the procurement of all government vessels is centrally arranged by the MD. In the past few years, there has been a surge in the demand for new government vessels coming from different departments mainly because a significant number of government vessels are approaching the end of their normal service life and require replacement. At the same time, the MD considered it necessary to review and update the government vessel procurement procedures before initiating any new procurement exercises. Under the circumstance, the procurement of the patrol vessel required by the AFCD had not commenced as originally planned.
The original commitment of $10 million for the procurement of the patrol vessel was approved in 2013-2014. Since then, there has been a significant increase in the cost of labour, materials, insurance, and so on, in the shipbuilding industry. Taking into account the latest market information and tender prices of vessels of similar size and type, there is a need to increase the commitment to $13.95 million for the procurement of the patrol vessel. In this connection, in the Controlling Officer's Report under "Head 22 ― Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department", an increase in the commitment is sought in the context of the Appropriation Bill 2016.
As regards the materials of garbage bags used in country parks, I will refer this issue to the AFCD and the relevant Policy Bureau, namely, the Environmental Protection Bureau, for follow-up.
8124 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Regarding the reduction of expenditure for the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), the work of the FEHD covers important services relating to the people's livelihood, which include cleansing services, management of public markets and hawkers, pest control and preventive measures against mosquitoes, management of public toilets, various licensing services, management of public cemetaries and crematoria, and so on. Besides, the Centre for Food Safety (CFS) under the FEHD, which was set up in 2006, is tasked to ensure that food in Hong Kong is safe and fit for consumption through tripartite collaboration among the Government, food trade and consumers. In 2015, the CFS conducted tests on about 64 300 food samples, which is about nine samples per 1 000 persons of the population of Hong Kong. This is a relatively high testing rate when compared with other overseas countries.
Some amendments proposed to reduce amounts approximately equivalent to the annual estimated operational expenses of the FEHD and the annual estimated expenditure for the general departmental expenses of the Food and Health Bureau (Food Branch) respectively. This would mean cessation of all the services provided by the Government to the public in respect of environmental hygiene and food safety and also the public cemeteries and crematoria services for the deceased. The consequences will be too ghastly to contemplate.
Moreover, regarding the deduction of expenditure for the Department of Health (DH), some Members mentioned our reduction of the expenditure on public healthcare. In this connection, I already gave a clear explanation during the resumed Second Reading debate some time ago and I will not repeat it here. In his speech earlier, Mr CHAN Hak-kan also cited some figures to prove that the expenditure on public healthcare has consistently recorded a significant increase.
In respect of medical and healthcare, the DH is the health adviser and agency of the Government to execute health policies and statutory functions. Its role is to safeguard the health of the community through promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative services as well as fostering community partnership and international collaboration. Some amendments proposed to reduce amounts approximately equivalent to the expenditure for plant, vehicles and equipment under Plant, Equipment and Works of the DH and the subvented institutions. This will greatly affect the DH and the subvented institutions in their operation and discharge of duties.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8125
On the other hand, the Tobacco Control Office (TCO) under the DH is a major law enforcement agency responsible for co-ordinating the smoking cessation service provided by the DH. The reduction of the annual estimated expenditure for the TCO would mean abolishing the enforcement work and publicity of smoking cessation services of the TCO, which is absolutely unacceptable.
Furthermore, the Hospital Authority (HA) is responsible for managing 41 public hospitals and institutions, 47 specialist out-patient clinics and 73 general out-patient clinics in Hong Kong. The amendment seeking to reduce the annual estimated expenditure for the equipment and information systems of the HA, if passed, will impede the normal operation of the public healthcare system in Hong Kong and seriously affect the delivery of public healthcare service to the public.
To conclude, and with these remarks, Chairman, I hope Members will oppose the amendments proposed to reduce the expenditure on agriculture and fisheries, food and environmental hygiene, and healthcare. I hope Members will not support these amendments.
Thank you, Chairman.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, first of all, I would like to respond to Ms Claudia MO's earlier speech. She said that she supports the reduction of funding for the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) because she opposes the Bill that the Government will forcibly introduce in relation to Cap. 139B. I do not intend to elaborate on the content of Cap. 139B. The Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Animal Traders) Regulations regulate mainly pet trading, including the breeding of dogs. In fact, our greatest disagreement with the Government is that it intends to issue two types of licence, namely Category B and Category A, but many community groups believe that the Category A licences are ineffective in regulation. Besides, is there enough manpower to deal with them? They had better issue Category B licences across the board so as to impose regulation with the highest standard and eventually ban the trading in animals.
Of course, this is a relatively distant issue, but the biggest issue now is not about the Category B or Category A licences, but instead about the problem with the legislative process of the entire piece of legislation. Cap. 139B is a piece of subsidiary legislation subject to the procedure commonly known as "negative 8126 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 vetting". The Government said it would be gazetted in May. Afterwards, it will, of course, be submitted to the House Committee, and then a subcommittee will be formed to discuss it. However, as it is subject to negative vetting, it will, once gazetted, be passed by default in 28 days. If the scrutiny period of the subcommittee can be extended by three weeks, there will be 49 days only, but the problem now is that not even a Member's motion for extending the scrutiny period (the extension motion) can be placed on the Agenda of the Council because Government Bills prevail. If no arrangement can be made to consider the extension motion, what will happen? Nothing can be done about it. In other words, the legislation will be passed by default in 28 days.
Why did I say "passed" instead of "brought into force"? The Government said it still has a card up its sleeve. The commencement date is scheduled for early 2017 but, because of negative vetting, if it is impossible to place the Bill on the Agenda of the Council for consideration, the Bill will be passed by default. The Government said, "It does not matter. If the subcommittee's meetings have not been completed after the Bill is passed, we will continue to meet with you for discussions." Then I said that there would be nothing more than talking the talk. Even if the Government takes on board the views raised by the subcommittee, there is no way to amend the legislation because it has already been enacted by default and any amendment will have to go through the relevant procedure once again.
Then, the Government said it would give us a feasible solution and would not resort to high-handed means, nor forcibly bring the legislation into force. By the time of commencement in 2017, an order on the commencement date should be issued. If we are really dissatisfied, we can eventually override the order. No law will be forcibly brought into force. This is exactly the problem I mentioned just now. The Government is not in a hurry to bring the legislation into force in July. It also knows that the Council has no time to debate the Bill, nor even an opportunity to propose amendments. Therefore, filibustering will not take place and the President needs not feel concerned because by no means can the Bill be placed on the Agenda of the Council. That being the case, why does the Government take this advantage to forcibly bring the legislation into force?
I would like to tell Ms Claudia MO that if she really wants to block this Bill from being passed, the only way is to declare war on the Government: if we cannot defeat Cap. 139B, then we defeat all the Bills currently on the Agenda. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8127
Of course, we do not wish to see this happen, because Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM has already arranged meetings with everybody to discuss which Bills are problematic. The easy ones will come first, followed by the difficult ones, and people's livelihood will be given first priority. If the consideration of this Bill is delayed by a few months, the impact will not be great because, as we have seen, the consultation paper was issued in October 2012. As the consultation exercise was conducted in October 2012, why was it not considered right away? It is exactly because there is a big controversy and the Government has not yet sorted out a solution that it now intends to make use of the opportunity of the forthcoming expiry of the term of office ― I do not know who came up with this ingenious idea ― to go through the negative vetting procedure so that the Bill will be passed by default. In this way, even an extension of the scrutiny period is impossible, for it could not be placed on the Agenda of the Council. I do not want Government to do so. I think a high-handed introduction of Cap. 139B will only force Ms Claudia MO to declare war on the Government, thus defeating all the 22 Bills awaiting consideration next.
Chairman, let us come back to Amendment No 18 ― reduction of $1 million, an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure of AFCD on subvention for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). It turns out that this sum of $1 million is just a drop in the bucket for the SPCA because it is financially very strong, thanks to lots of donations. In other words, even if their expenditure is cut, it is futile to ask them to enhance measures and heed advice. However, our criticism has all along been the lack of transparency in the SPCA's administrative system. It happened quite a number of times in the past that no proper account was given of the cases of handling stray animals, and there were no open and stringent standards and guidelines either. However, I would like to first declare that I was once a member of the SPCA and had periodically made donations because membership was the prerequisite for taking one's animal to see a doctor there. The two cats at my home were also adopted from the SPCA five years ago. They are going onto six years of age now. The SPCA has set up quite a number of fundraising booths in MTR stations. I guess they raise funds by means of revenue sharing with the workers. Why do we need to express dissatisfaction by reducing the government subvention to an organization whose name supposedly implies care for animals? Due to the time constraint, I will cite only one example, which is a story about how the SPCA handled a kitten.
8128 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Earlier this year, on 24 January, a woman notified the AFCD that she had lost a kitten. The AFCD informed her on the 28th that the SPCA had taken the kitten away. The woman went to the SPCA on the 29th in a bid to reclaim the kitten but the SPCA deliberately created difficulties for her by asking her to submit a "Loss Memo" as the prerequisite for reclaiming the kitten. Later, the cat owner went to Wan Chai Police Station to report the loss and then returned to the SPCA to submit the "Loss Memo" but, God knows, the manager said, "If you can reclaim a cat by just presenting a 'Loss Memo', would it not be that anybody can come here and reclaim a cat after reporting the loss of one?" They seemed to deliberately make things difficult for the woman by claiming that the "Loss Memo" was not sufficient proof of her identity as the cat owner and asking her for a photo. The woman immediately went home to find a photo and brought it back. Then the manager said the photo was blurred and not showing her with the cat. He said she was trying to claim a cat by just presenting a cat photo of a sort. Seemingly the manager had all along been deliberately obstructing her. Chairman, do you know that taking pictures with cats is not an easy feat? Some cats never like to be held in arms. Fortunately, my cats do not find it a problem. You can hold them if you want. However, this is not the thrust of the issue. The most critical part is that, during the identification process, it was not until the evening that the cat was known to have been euthanized on the night of 28 January because it was alleged to be too nervous. Four days had passed since the cat had gone missing on 24 January. I mentioned in my first speech that, according to the AFCD, it took four days at least and 20 days at most to handle a case, but this is subject to a condition. You know what? It turned out that it could be possible to take less than four days. When the volunteer who helped the cat owner that night negotiated with the SPCA, the SPCA doctor admitted to him that the cat was euthanized on the morning of the 28th.
If Members have paid attention to the chronology of events I mentioned just now, they would really blow a fuse. It turned out that the cat had been euthanized but they still asked for a photo of the cat and the "Loss Memo", and even imposed conditions for reclaiming the cat. After the incident, some people said that the SPCA had actually wanted the cat owner to give up reclaiming the cat. The reason is that as the cat had been euthanized without undergoing a stringent procedure, if the cat owner had given up reclaiming the cat, they would have stayed out of trouble as though nothing had happened. At last, it was not even possible to reclaim the cat's corpse because the SPCA said that the AFCD had collected it on the morning of the 29th. This certainly aroused a public outcry. Some members of the public gathered at the entrance of the SPCA, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8129 allegedly "laying siege of it", in an attempt to reason with it. Subsequently, somebody called in the Police. Therefore, the SPCA still owes the public an explanation of this incident.
Why did I mention earlier that, according to the AFCD, certain cats and dogs can be kept for 20 days until they are dealt with? They are those proven to be docile and healthy. In other words, it is just necessary to conjure up a reason. In the current incident, the cat was euthanized on the 28th because it was alleged to be ferocious in nature, mentally unstable and subject to severe stress. The SPCA further claimed that it had not received any phone call from the woman in question at that time. This claim does not tally with the facts because the woman said that she began trying to contact the SPCA in the morning but nobody answered the phone, and she got the "Loss Memo" only in the afternoon. I am not going into the details of the case. Anyway, from this case one can see the reason for my proposed reduction of the subvention to the SPCA. Why would an organization with "Prevention of Cruelty to Animals" in its name have become one that cruelly kills animals and deliberately create difficulties for the owners of lost animals?
Honestly, Chairman, if I had trapped you, let alone a cat, in a strange place, you might have also exhibited unstable emotions and even reacted in a so-called relatively fierce and ferocious manner, let alone a kitten. Therefore, if you euthanized an animal for this reason, it is a dead cert. You just need to frighten or tease the animal, and it may scratch you and even cause you injuries. Then it can be described as having caused harm to somebody. In fact, these so-called organizations for the prevention of cruelty to animals use professional assessments as a cover-up to distort their … it can literally be regarded as a murder, because a stray animal had been taken in for less than four days before a reason was fabricated to describe it as emotionally unstable and prone to attack people. Honestly, dogs can bite someone to death, but if a cat attacks a person, the worst case is only bleeding caused by scratching.
Therefore, as far as the SPCA is concerned, Chairman, it is really heart-breaking to talk about these things. So far, the SPCA still has a few questions to answer. Cats are presumably described as aggressive. In fact, very often, cats are frightened to the point of triggering its self-defence mechanism. I hope that the SPCA will disclose the assessment report on this cat, which gives an account of the specific procedures and the aggressive behaviour actually exhibited by this cat, in order for the public to understand the 8130 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 incident. Secondly, regarding the Rashomon mentioned just now, why was the cat euthanized on 28 January, less than four days after it was reported missing on 25 January? Exactly who decided on the conditions for priority euthanasia?
Secretary Dr KO Wing-man, I said earlier that in the case of the AFCD's so-called "dog kennels", at least one field officer and one veterinary surgeon must be involved throughout the decision process. The subsequent euthanasia process entails an anesthetic injection at a major muscle, followed by a cardiac injection. Did the SPCA actually follow these procedures in handling the case? For this reason, nowadays even if someone has picked up a stray dog or cat, they dare not hand it over to the Government, or the SPCA either. Unless they hold the belief that life and death are destined by fate, they would upload the information onto the Internet to see if any dog or cat lovers can adopt it, or send it to a community group for the prevention of cruelty to animals where a shelter space is available. In the latter case, at least it would not be killed in less than four days. In addition, I urge Members to take a photo with your cats or dogs in advance, because it is required when you reclaim your lost cats and dogs. After all, is this a procedure or just a way for the manager to deliberately make things difficult? If there is no answer, I call on Members to support this reduction of the $1 million subvention, which is only a minor precautionary punishment to the SPCA because it can raise this sum of money in just two days. I find it justified to cut the subvention. I so submit.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, it is so true that no decency will ever come off a graceless mouth, and the speeches made by Members from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) are always the epitome of it. I heard Mr IP Kwok-him cite an example. He said that a man had gone to the house of a Mr CHAN and taken $5 in the first year. In the second year, the man took $5 and in the third year, he took $10. Then Mr CHAN gave less money to the man and this beggar slapped Mr CHAN on the face. Mr IP Kwok-him went on to say that the beggar said to Mr CHAN, "Why do you feed your wife with my money?" Could he not flush with shame when he said it? His monthly salary of $90,000 is paid by Hongkongers, and is this money his? Is he an idiot? How dare he tells this kind of story! Is he trying to say that the elders in Hong Kong who wish to receive a little more retirement benefits are beggars? What kind of a political party is the DAB? How dare they say those things! They really made me gasp in profound astonishment!
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8131
A Member who made undertakings in his election platform must make an all-out effort to honour them. This is what I do. I have browsed the website of the DAB and could not find their platform. But on their website there are pictures of the Legislative Council Election in 2012. They even produced a video and there is a summary of the election platform of the DAB in the District Council Election in 2015 which mentioned care for the elderly, expeditiously implementing a territory-wide retirement protection pension scheme under which subsidies are provided in tiers, increasing the provision of subsidized residential care homes for the elderly while setting a reasonable and indicative limit for the waiting time, expanding the scope of the elderly healthcare vouchers while lowering the eligible age to 65, increasing the provision of barrier-free facilities for the elderly and providing subsidies for the poor elderly to install emergency alarm service. Some of these are useless, insignificant proposals.
Coming back to universal retirement protection, back in those years when I started to filibuster on the Old Age Living Allowance, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan asked the Government why it did not expand the scope of the subsidy and relax the asset limit, adding that the living of the elderly was miserable and asking the Government to increase the amount to $5 billion or $3 billion. What is the situation now? Four years have passed and what have you done? Are you comparing people who persistently put forward their demands to the Government to beggars? Are you a beggar, or am I one? You are a beggar. You are exactly the beggar in that story. Because you begged LEUNG Chun-ying for money but in vain, right? LEUNG Chun-ying said that the money is his; John TSANG said that the money is his. I am not a beggar. Do I need to beg? I fight against him. Let me know when you need to beg for money. Let me know when you are slapped on the face. This story is about you yourself. As a Chinese saying goes, "First year, a novice; second year, a veteran; third year, a lawless who forgets your origin." You came from the grassroots, and when you are more nicely clad and drive more prestigious cars now, you think that the public money is yours.
And there is also KO Wing-man ― Is he in the Chamber? He has left. With regard to the reduction of the medical expenditure and the expenditure for the Hospital Authority (HA), I do not know what he is up to. If it is because of a shortage of manpower or manpower is lacking in Hong Kong, there are always more solutions than problems. You can hire people with money, and you must have a budget before you can hire people from outside Hong Kong, buddy. You can come to the Legislative Council and if you can secure the support of enough 8132 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 votes, you can achieve it through the negative vetting procedure. You can propose to hire 1 000 people, be they doctors from the Mainland or from commonwealth countries. You can hire whoever you like and you can hire the "grey power" or encourage nurses to come back. Do you not know that you can ask for funding? But you have cut these provisions instead. Is he fed on shit? Had it been me, I would surely come here to ask for money right away. Then I would come to the Legislative Council to exert political pressure on Members, telling them that I have the money now but not the manpower, so please relax the eligibility criteria. Since you are so keen on introducing treatment with integrated Chinese and Western medicine, you can then succeed and you can hire Chinese medical practitioners to provide treatment to patients, but you have to seek funding before all else. What can you do without money? But you are going to cut the expenditure instead.
Chairman, you are really awesome in setting a time limit for discussions, so that those people will not make a fool of themselves. They said things like policy levels. Come on, cut it out! They said that we have to be rational and pragmatic. Cut it out! Do you get it? The most important power of the Legislative Council lies in controlling the purse strings. Nothing can be done without money. This is why I have to reduce the Government's expenditure. I want the Government to know that it is wrong, and I want it to talk to us. Had the DAB proposed 10 amendments, would the Government not have gone down on its knees immediately? Together with the DAB, there are 43 of you altogether and according to the Basic Law, the Government would have to go down on its knees immediately and then it would have to table its proposal to this Council again. Do you have the guts? Or else you would have to sit here for all your life. As I have said this for numerous times, the Government can hardly stop what the pro-establishment camp wishes to do, just that you people do not do it. Everything is up to you, right? You said that you would strive for universal retirement protection and even if it would be a three-tier system, you said that you would still go for it. Do you all turn to LEUNG Chun-ying now? Have you done anything for it? I wish to ask these Members in the Chamber: What are you doing?
Had it not been Jasper TSANG shielding and defending … I found it strange that no sooner had some achievements been made with regard to the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 than the pan-democrat Members put away the "knife", saying that this is enough. They said that they had done enough, and that the netizens were already very happy and so, they would secure their votes, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8133 and they said that they should not step out of line. If this is the way they go about things, no wonder they are set to be eliminated. I have never seen a political faction retreat right after it has won victory. I have never seen it before. It may retreat when it is defeated, but it retreats all the same when a victory is won.
Chairman, as I have said before, two years ago I endured humiliation here in order to discharge an important duty, reading out those so-called amendments. I said that I did not succeed in achieving it and I apologized to the elderly. I hoped that other people could strive for it. Two years down the line, has anyone done it? No. I am not saying that I am brilliant. Today I am suppressed and ridiculed by other people here. There is no problem about it. When it comes to debates, these people are not up to standard at all. But you, Chairman, know it only too well. You set the deadline at 11 May and so, they are using up the time to talk gibberish, dwelling on the same point that our amendments, if passed, would plunge the Government into big troubles. The Government certainly will not give up, and it will definitely seek funding approval from this Council again. Buddy, that would be the best opportunity for negotiation. Had the pro-establishment camp dozed off once and the expenditure for the Chief Executive's Office of LEUNG Chun-ying deducted, would they not have come to us again? They would be the beggars mentioned by Mr IP Kwok-him, and they would beg me for money. These people are shameless. They sit here feasting at the public crib. By holding office as Members of this Council, these people have outrageously become richer and richer; they can become Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and Hong Kong Deputies to the National People's Congress; and they can become "Kings of Public Office".
The lives of Hongkongers are going from bad to worse. Our young people increasingly dislike their Chinese identity. Have they done any rethinking? If there is not even some slight improvement, just as they have not improved at all, and if one who suggests to make some slight improvements will be excluded and rejected, can they stop the advocacy for independence? Why will there be an awareness of independence? Because people feel that the entire ruling machine of the Communist Party of China (CPC) does not treat Hongkongers as human beings. Let me tell you this: LEUNG Chun-ying and the most stubborn, most arrogant people in the pro-establishment camp are the cause of the budding of "independence of Hong Kong". Had there not been 8134 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 one-party dictatorship by Kuomintang, the independence of Taiwan would not have emerged, though it may be one-party dictatorship by the CPC today. I can see that you are laughing. Go on laughing!
Chairman, KO Wing-man is not in the Chamber now. He was a student of the University of Hong Kong (HKU). His greatest strength is his ability to say different things to different people, wearing a smile on his face all the time and enjoying smooth sailing in his career in public service without running into major disasters. The Chinese motto of the HKU is "格物致知" (to investigate things in order to acquire knowledge). What does it mean by investigating things in order to acquire knowledge? It is the first of the eight virtues: "Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their states were rightly governed. Their states being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy."4 Being an official in charge of medical and healthcare issues, he outrageously agreed to cutting the provisions for the HA, without saying anything about the continued decrease in the Government's medical expenditure. The pro-establishment camp said that we have plunged Hongkongers into distress. The fact is that as a result of they doing their utmost to defend the various Chief Executives in getting the various budgets passed ― let me now read out these figures ― from 2007 to 2016, public expenditure has shown an increase of 53% for education, 131% for healthcare, 106% for social welfare, and 278% for infrastructure. In other words, for every $2 that we spent, only $1 was spent on the grassroots. The money was spent to benefit the CPC regime. They have a situation of overcapacity and they even have to take forward the Belt and Road Initiative. The DAB is very well-planned in reacting actively to the 13th National Five-Year Plan. They should champion it in even louder voices and kick-start their electioneering campaign in the coming elections by rallying support for the 13th National Five-Year Plan. Do they have the guts to say this?
Moreover, let us not talk about the education expenditure for the time being, I will talk about it when the next opportunity arises. The percentage of social expenditure as a share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is actually the
4
I will not dwell on this point. I wish to ask the DAB and the pro-government camp a question. They said that it would be disastrous if we come to power. Then I have to ask: The three Chief Executives in Hong Kong were all elected with their support; the listing of The Link REIT and everything else also had their support; the pay cut of the civil servants had their support; and the contracting out of more works projects which deprived workers of their means of living had their support, too. Everything was under their control. Now they accused us of proposing these amendments when many people are out of job and asked what they should do if these amendments are passed. Chairman, back then when you were in the seat of Members and when "Uncle TUNG" was the Chief Executive, what was the slogan that I chanted thrice continuously? It was to call for the provision of unemployment assistance and the prescription of a minimum wage. The minimum wage has been put in place now, but is there unemployment assistance? If they are so concerned about the workers, they should have proposed the provision of unemployment assistance when the economy was on an upward trend, and nobody would have opposed it at the time.
Colleagues from the DAB and the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions have now proposed the provision of unemployment assistance. Other people then argued that there is no money for implementing it given the economic downturn, right? They are locking the stable door after the horse is stolen. They are hypocritical onlookers. Why should I be afraid? More than a decade has passed. I was taken away by colleagues when I staged demonstrations upstairs and now I am still pushed out of the Chamber by colleagues. I may not be prosecuted for demonstrating in the Chamber now but if I lost my seat in the future election, I would have to face prosecution again for demonstrating upstairs. The people of Hong Kong have made a large detour, going round and round in circles. What have they done? I used to stage demonstrations upstairs and today as I am elected to this Council, I must say this and I must do this here. I have to exert my utmost! Let me tell them this: The economy is experiencing a downturn and this, I know. What will they fight for in the interest of the people of Hong Kong? When the economy thrived, they supported the Financial 8136 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Secretary in allocating hundreds of billion dollars to setting up the Future Fund, rather than allocating hundreds of billion dollars to setting up a fund to cope with the economic downturn or a fund to cope with population ageing. What have they done? (The buzzer sounded) … What have you done? What have you done? …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, stop speaking right now.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): … with your superiority over me, you certainly sound authoritative, and you can even drive me away from the Chamber … they are not humans at all …
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung said earlier that he would exert his best. But we can see that the pro-Government camp has simply adopted an attitude of loafing and exhausting every means to defend the Government. By adopting an attitude of loafing, I mean that after my speech in the first session, no Member in the pro-establishment camp gave any response. They probably did not know how to give one. Or they might think that it was right to defend the Government, so no response would be necessary.
Chairman, some 20 of the amendments moved by us in the Labour Party are about the issue of circumventing the Legislative Council. But the pro-government camp does not consider it a problem. We held that the Legislative Council should not be circumvented, but no Member in the pro-government camp indicated that they should also monitor the Government, and that there was no reason for the Government to circumvent the Legislative Council. The reason for the Government to circumvent the Legislative Council so easily is that Members simply do not care about it. If the pro-Government camp does not care about it, it means that two thirds of Members do not care about it. With their support, the Government thus has nothing to fear. It has restored the practice of the colonial era, circumventing the Legislative Council and bundling all the new financial items in the Budget so that they may be passed in one go.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8137
Chairman, when I spoke last time I mentioned the problem about the Rules of Procedure, so I hope you will take note of it. The Government often uses the term "heads" in its budgets. There is no reason for us to use the term "items" in the Rules of Procedure, which has rendered us unable to match the term "heads" used by the Government. For this reason, we are unable to amend and delete the "items" because actually the Government has not used the term "items". I hope the Chairman can deal with this issue raised by me.
However, I have another observation today. We earlier talked about circumventing the Legislative Council. Secretary Dr KO Wing-man has responded to it. But the Security Bureau is nonetheless unfair. We have raised a number of issues about fire vessels. As Members know, on the entire issue, what we consider most ridiculous is that the items have circumvented the Legislative Council without being scrutinized by the Finance Committee. Some of them have even been forcibly bundled without being discussed by panels of the Legislative Council.
On this occasion, we have adopted the approach of "squeezing toothpaste out of a tube". Fortunately, we have demanded that the expenditure under the subhead about vessels of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) be reduced. Secretary Dr KO Wing-man has therefore responded to it, saying that the patrol vessel is used for inspection of illegal trawling and operation during the fishing moratorium. He has at least explained the use of the patrol vessel. But he fell short of explaining another thing. Maybe let me try to explain it for him. In fact, provisions have been made for the expenditure of the patrol vessel in 2013-2014. But why has it not been procured yet? The problem lies with the Marine Department. But Chairman, you know that I will ask another question about the Department, so I will discuss it later. Secretary Dr KO Wing-man has not mentioned another issue, that is, the original price of the patrol vessel was $10 million. But now, it has increased by 40% to $14 million. If we do not submit it to the Finance Committee for scrutiny, it will be impossible for us to discuss it. Secretary Dr KO Wing-man made no mention of this earlier. In fact, he did not tell Members that the price of the patrol vessel had increased by 40%. It was not until we took the initiative to ask questions about it that we came to learn about the situation.
Members can imagine that under normal circumstances, we will ask the Government why the price has increased by 40% at a meeting of the Finance Committee. Certainly, the Government will give all sorts of explanation. But 8138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 we can also take the opportunity to have a dialogue with the Government, thereby monitoring the use of public money. Now a cost overrun of 40% has suddenly been incurred. It is really a "Government of cost overruns". Hence, if we in the Labour Party did not demand that the relevant expenditure be reduced, we would not be able to get any explanation. Nevertheless, even if we have demanded that the expenditure be reduced, it still serves no purpose because no document is provided. Hence, I think Secretary Dr KO Wing-man owes us some documents. There is no document on the acquisition of vessels and vehicles. Moreover, if we can have a discussion at a meeting of the Finance Committee, the documents will not only serve an explanatory purpose, but also contain all the information such as cash flows. In respect of those 20-odd items, I think all the government departments concerned still owe us a detailed explanation and relevant documents. Hence, we request that the Government provide the documents later.
In addition, Secretary Dr KO Wing-man also mentioned earlier that he would discuss with the AFCD, and follow up on the ridiculous practice of using large plastic bags to collect leaves with the Environment Bureau on behalf of the AFCD. If Mr Albert CHAN has not proposed an amendment against the use of large plastic bags, will we come to know about this issue? Probably not. Hence, Members should understand that those amendments do serve a purpose, one which can urge the Government to take action and give explanations, and we at least see that Secretary Dr KO Wing-man has given an account of these two issues. Although I am not satisfied with the incomplete documents and information about the patrol vessel and hope that he can provide the documents later, he has at least given a response. Regrettably, the pro-government camp considers that whether they listen to my speech or not will not make much difference. The issue of plastic bags is the same. Now it is at least being followed up. I hope after it has been followed up, there will no longer be excessive waste of plastic bags. It is indeed a good thing. While the Government advocates environmental protection, the AFCD has actually wasted such a large amount of resources. It we do not demand that the relevant expenditure be reduced, who will know these situations?
For this reason, we should actually review the government expenditure with a magnifying glass. It has wasted a large amount of resources, running counter to its own policy. But it still acts like that. Now all Members of the pro-Government camp have left the Chamber. But I will not summon them back because it is no use for them to come back. They will not heed any advice. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8139
They will not think about what we say because they need only raise their hands without any thinking. This is the first part about circumventing the Legislative Council that I would like to mention in particular.
Second, I would like to respond to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan. She earlier revealed that Mr IP Kwok-him cared about animals. It is a good thing, and we appreciate it greatly. Instead of seeing a doctor for his sore throat, Mr IP Kwok-him has arranged for his puppy having a sore throat to receive medical treatment. If he has problems with his throat, I wish him a speedy recovery. I certainly commend him for arranging for his puppy to receive medical treatment. Nevertheless, instead of caring about his puppy only, can he care about all animals across the territory? Why? It also has something to do with the AFCD. The AFCD has a "Trap-Neuter-Return" policy in place. Regarding this policy, I have made enquiries with the AFCD about the districts in Hong Kong where "Trap-Neuter-Return" is currently carried out, and its reply is Yuen Long and Cheung Chau. I am really puzzled. Why is this policy implemented only in Yuen Long and Cheung Chau? It is basically a good policy. In order to show our care for animals, we have them caught and neutered. Do you know what some members of the public will do now? They will catch animals by themselves, and then neuter them out of their own pocket. Some members of the public asked me why the Government did not do such work. I immediately asked the Government why it did not do such work if money was not a concern. The AFCD explained to me that the reason why the Government, although resources were available, did not do such work and that members of the public had to do it out of their pocket was that the policy could not be passed in the District Councils (DCs) . Let me come back to what Dr CHIANG Lai-wan said. As we all know, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), of which the Chairman is one of the members, has the largest number of DC seats. It so happens that Mr WONG Ting-kwong has just come back, so there will be at least one DAB Member to follow it up. I hope he can follow it up and will not do nothing. He should sleep only at suitable junctures.
What does Mr WONG Ting-kwong have to follow up? Dr CHIANG Lai-wan said earlier that she cared about animals. I hope the DAB will support the "Trap-Neuter-Return" animal policy in the 18 districts across the territory. They should not say here that they care about animals, but then at the DC level, they raise objection to it. The Government has made it clear that now as the policy cannot be passed in the DCs, it can only be implemented in Yuen Long and Cheung Chau. If such a policy can be passed in all the 18 districts and 8140 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 sufficient funds are available, why is it not implemented? The Government has also told me that it has to negotiate with all districts one by one, so I hope the DAB can give a clear account of its policy on this issue. Nevertheless, sometimes a problem will arise, and that is, even if the upper level has proposed a policy, those below will still depart from it, doing as they please against the policy. In fact, we are used to it and it was also like that in the past. They may make all sorts of beautiful promises in the Legislative Council, but when it comes to voting in the DCs, they will nonetheless take another stance. The second point that I would like to raise in particular is about the work of the AFCD.
KO Wing-man also mentioned earlier that he had given a reply during the Second Reading debate, and Mr CHAN Hak-kan also said a few words for him. But I consider his remarks entirely incorrect. KO Wing-man wished to say one thing, trying to point out that the funds allocated to public healthcare by the Government were sufficient. But to our knowledge, as we have enquired about the details and carefully gone through the Budget this year, actually the Government's recurrent subvention for the Hospital Authority (HA) has been reduced by some $12 million this year. I must stress that I am referring to the recurrent subvention. Certainly, the Government will give the HA a one-off grant to do other work. But if the recurrent subvention is reduced, we may think about what is covered by the recurrent subvention. It covers the hospital beds, specialist out-patient services and drugs that we need most, as well as the expenditure on the recruitment of doctors and nurses, which are all recurrent expenditure. If the Government reduces this portion by some $12 million, and then indicates that additional funds will be allocated to them for doing other work, eventually the subvention will certainly seem to have increased in numerical terms. But it is not an actual increase in reality because the recurrent subvention has been reduced.
On the last occasion, the Labour Party also hosted a press conference in protest, pointing out that healthcare is now on the critical verge of a complete breakdown. Let me go through the figures quickly. If we take the general waiting time for specialist out-patient services as an example, what is the situation for those non-critical cases? The waiting time for Gynaecology, Hong Kong West is 158 weeks ― let us think about how long is 158 weeks. There are 52 weeks in a year, so it is about three years ― 169 weeks for Psychiatry and 110 weeks for Surgery; 102 weeks for Medicine, Kowloon Central; 100 weeks for Medicine, 112 weeks for Gynaecology, 109 weeks for Eye and 135 weeks for Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Kowloon East; 122 weeks for Orthopaedics and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8141
Traumatology, Kowloon West; 104 weeks for Ear, Nose and Throat, 100 weeks for Medicine, 100 weeks for Gynaecology, 156 week for Orthopaedics and Traumatology and 120 weeks for Psychiatry, New Territories East, and 129 weeks for Gynaecology, New Territories West. Members may take a look at all this. The bed occupancy rates of a number of hospitals have exceeded 100%. Frankly, these situations are clear to all. We need not quote any figures. All of us can feel it ourselves. I have been asked questions about all this over and over again by members of the public on the street. They indicated that they had to wait for two years before they could receive medical treatment, and asked me what they could do. KO Wing-man should not always hide himself. I believe if he and I visit various districts together, wherever he goes, he will be asked by members of the public why the waiting time is so long.
The current problem is a lack of planning for the HA's public healthcare services by the Government. I wish to ask the Government a question. While it often talks about the ageing population, has it conducted any planning for the medical needs over the next decade? If it has conducted planning for the medical needs over the next decade, then has it conducted any planning for the population and manpower over the next decade? That is, meeting the medical needs of the elderly against the background of an ageing population. Has it conducted any manpower planning? After conducting such manpower planning, has the Government also conducted any financial planning? The answer is "no". Every year, it acts like "squeezing toothpaste out of a tube", and the HA has become the target this year, which is required to meet its own needs after being granted the recurrent subvention of some $1 billion. So what should it do over the next decade after the reserves have been exhausted?
The Government is now putting it nicely, saying that $200 billion will be allocated to healthcare in the future. But it is only for the construction of hospitals. How about the recurrent expenditure and software required? And how about the costs of recruiting doctors, nurses, medical and paramedical staff? Has the Government conducted any manpower planning? May I ask whether KO Wing-man can provide the relevant information? If he cannot, it implies that the Government simply does not care about the long-term development. The Government has demonstrated its far-reaching vision ― a public officer of the Labour and Welfare Bureau is now present ― when it wants to scare the people of Hong Kong, indicating that as pointed out by a study, universal retirement protection will not be able to sustain the coming 50 years. It has deliberately conducted a study for the coming 50 years because as shown by the 8142 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 findings, there will be no problem in the next 30 years. According to the estimates of Nelson CHOW, the scheme is feasible if it only covers a period of 30 years. Hence, the Government said "no" and proceeded with a study for the coming 50 years. After conducting a study for the coming 50 years, it seized the golden opportunity to point out that it could not be viable for 50 years. In fact, it is simply reluctant to do so. Why bother proposing a period of 50 years to cover up its true motive? On these issues, it has a far-reaching vision, insisting on studying the phenomenon of population ageing in the coming 50 years and pointing out that universal retirement protection is not viable. But some of us have found after doing some calculations that actually the scheme is still viable. This very point can leave us stuck in an endless debate.
Judging from all of these, when it intends to make something impossible, it will propose a study for the coming 50 years. And when it comes to things that it is reluctant to work on, such as healthcare, it will not conduct any study for even a single year, let alone 10 years. How will it conduct planning that covers a period of 10 years? If KO Wing-man can provide such information, it will shed some light on Hong Kong's prospects because we can at least get some idea about the planning for the coming 10 years. But now, there is nothing at all. Hence, regrettably, KO Wing-man is, after all, just the Secretary who is most adept at paying lip service. We consider that as he has not done any solid work, his emoluments should also be reduced.
Thank you, Chairman.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to thank Members for speaking in support of my amendment proposing to delete the expenditure of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) on plastic bags. In the past couple of years, I have raised questions in Council meetings on plastic bags. Years ago, I had also criticized repeatedly the use of three mega black plastic bags to hold recyclable waste, including waster paper, collected by the three-coloured waste separation bins placed in many different places. I wonder if these plastic bags will end up dumped at landfills, too.
Members can see that the entire problem concerning policy should ultimately be dealt with by the Environment Bureau. Later on, I will criticize the problems caused by the Environment Bureau again in the fourth session. When Edward YAU was Secretary for the Environment, he once blew his top in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8143 his speech owing to a question about plastic bags. I told him in the Ante-Chamber that I had seen workers use black plastic bags to hold waste when cutting grass at roadsides. As such, I questioned him why he failed to formulate a policy to ban the use of black plastic bags. Since the Government was policy-led, all government departments should follow. Nonetheless, the Environment Bureau was reluctant to do anything. As a result, other government departments could only follow the years-long practice. Actually, many overseas places have now switched to the use of biodegradable plastic bags to hold "green waste". However, Hong Kong remains lagging behind some more advanced places by at least three decades. I already saw the use of these degradable plastic bags in quite a lot of places three decades ago. Recently, some advanced cities in Europe have even banned the use of plastic bags in entire cities, so that plastic bags will disappear from these cities.
Chairman, the situation in Hong Kong is indeed very disheartening. Before the reunification, Hong Kong topped the world on many fronts. Certainly, I was not merely talking about the scope of policy falling under the fifth debate session. Hong Kong's airport and port, which used to be ranked the world's number one, have now dropped to the fifth and sixth places, and this is very sad indeed.
Chairman, one of the numerous amendments proposed to reduce expenditure is related to the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD). Amendment No 104 seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure for the annual emoluments of the Hawker Control Teams (HCTs) of the FEHD in 2016-2017, which stands at $677 million. In fact, it was more than two decades ago that I advanced the relevant justifications in the Regional Council, and it has been 16 years since the scrapping of the two Municipal Councils. The HCTs under the FEHD have now adopted a station and arrest approach. In other words, an entire HCT with its vehicles will station at a road junction all day long to arrest hawkers for subsequent prosecutions.
I have once criticized this practice of being not only backward but also a waste of resources. Actually, I can cite many examples for comparison. Moreover, I have often cited illegal parking or speeding as an example, too. If speeding drivers have to be arrested and taken by vehicle to police stations, police officers will be kept constantly on the run. Moreover, if the persons arrested have to be accompanied by police officers, the hourly salary of police officers 8144 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 must all the more be taken into account. Apart from deploying staff to station on the streets, an entire HCT will also be required to go to the police station concerned to lodge a case and record a statement after an arrest is made. The time spent is thus very costly. I remember that when I raised a relevant question more than a decade ago, I was given to understand that the cost of prosecution in connection with a case was up to $10,000 to $20,000, but the amount of fine ranged from a mere $1,000 to several thousand dollars. Therefore, from the cost-effectiveness perspective, this approach is not only very backward, but will give rise to serious conflicts.
Members should recall that many years ago, a hawker in Tin Shui Wai ran away for fear of being arrested by a HCT and finally died drowning in a river. Earlier on, due to the occurrence of a confrontation during an arrest made by a HCT, a HCT member fell and died after being pushed. We can thus see that these arrests have led to serious conflicts. Actually, hawking is not a serious offence. Its gravity is more or less the same as that of road occupation by shops for peddling, though the latter can get away with only a fine recently (by summonses). I cannot see any reason for the authorities to deal with hawker problems by way of arrests. Currently, many offences, be they littering or spitting, are dealt with by summonses. Therefore, if this policy remains unchanged, it will only lead to more conflicts.
The second issue concerns exorbitant costs. My proposed amendment involves only part of the annual expenditure incurred by the HCTs for hawker control. Coupled with another item of expenditure amounting to $1 billion, the total sum exceeds $1.7 billion. Compared with the era of the two Municipal Councils, the current expenditure is actually smaller. With the expenditure incurred by the Urban Council back then for hawkers exceeding $1 billion, the annual expenditure exceeded $2 billion during the peak period if expenditure incurred by the Regional Council was taken into account. The expenditure on this front has actually been significantly reduced. Furthermore, the "station" approach is no longer used by the Police.
Members should recall that, as early as three decades ago, a Neighbourhood Police Unit (NPU) was set up in every public housing estate. Subsequently, with the advent in technologies, the establishment of a NPU in every such estate was replaced by patrols carried out by a two-person team. As members of the public may report to the Police should anything happen, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8145 expenditure was thus reduced. The Police even considered the new arrangement more effective from the angles of cost-effectiveness, law and order and management.
The historical problem of HCTs should be resolved expeditiously because this approach is not only extremely stupid but also not cost-effective. What is more, social conflicts will arise. The casualties caused by the numerous incidents that occurred in the past have not only involved arrested hawkers, but also led to duty-related deaths. Given that life is priceless, in order to reduce these conflicts and unnecessary accidents, summonses should be issued instead. In doing so, the problem will definitely be ameliorated. Moreover, the public coffers may thus be reasonably protected.
Chairman, just now, I mentioned the reduction in the relevant items of the AFCD with reference to the policy blunders committed by the Secretary I mentioned earlier. Furthermore, Hong Kong absolutely has the conditions to develop the agriculture and fisheries industries, especially the former.
When it comes to the development of the agriculture industry, the AFCD should make complementary efforts in ancillary facilities. Quite many small-scale vegetable farmers have relayed to me that they can hardly find places to sell vegetables because supermarkets and markets will make unreasonable profits from them. Furthermore, they might not have harvests every week or day for sale. The relevant government departments, especially the AFCD, can encourage more farmers to grow vegetables for sale by offering them assistance through the provision of some stalls at certain hot spots for them to sell their agricultural produce on Saturdays and Sundays. Such schemes have been launched in quite many districts now. If distribution outlets requiring little expenditure can be set up in each district for operation by farmers when they have harvests, Hong Kong's agriculture and fisheries industries might achieve better development.
As regards the fisheries industry, over the years, I have been calling on the Government to assist fishermen in developing leisure fishing in a systematic and organized manner. Chairman, vessels which can accommodate dozens of people are provided in many overseas places situated in harbours or near seashores such 8146 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 that each passenger can spend merely HK$100 to HK$200 on a leisure fishing trip lasting a couple of hours. However, Hong Kong has yet to pursue such development. Actually, the Government can consider offering assistance to young fishermen in this manner.
Some time ago, the Government recovered fishing vessel licences from many young fishermen. In Tuen Mun alone, 40 to 50 shrimp trawler operators have already surrendered their licences. Some of these fishermen are in their early 30s only. After the recovery of their licences, they can only rely on fishing in "P" boats. However, unable to make ends meet, many such fishermen are even in semi-unemployment conditions. The development of rock fishing can not only enable young fishermen to make ends meet, but also provide the people of Hong Kong with a good way of adding some spice to their lives. It is because one has to spend at least $1,000 to $2,000 on renting a "P" boat to go fishing in the sea. Moreover, prior arrangements have to be made. If fishing vessels can be provided to carry dozens of people to the sea on each journey, the market absolutely has the potential to develop, thus making the industry even more prosperous. The situation of the people of Hong Kong is indeed miserable, for there is a lack of places of entertainment when they are on holiday. If more services can be provided on this front, their lives can definitely be improved.
Chairman, Amendment No 278 seeks to reduce approximately $95 million, which is equivalent to the general departmental expenses of the Labour and Welfare Bureau. Other items involve my dissatisfaction with its handling of industrial safety, too. When the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge was given the green light, I criticized the pro-Government Members, particularly those from the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, for turning a blind eye to the lives of the workers. Moreover, in order to meet the tight schedules, the life and death of the workers can even be disregarded. The Labour and Welfare Bureau can absolutely be described as in dereliction of duty on this front. Recently, this "Bridge of Death" has again reported a "drifting" incident, as well as a tragedy involving the death of a worker who was working against the clock. All this is absolutely unacceptable. The most direct way to express our strong dissatisfaction within our terms of reference is to reduce the payroll costs of the Labour and Welfare Bureau on this front.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8147
Lastly, Chairman, I would like to say a few words about the AFCD. The problem of animal euthanasia was mentioned by quite many colleagues just now. In its handling of stray animals, the AFCD remains very much outdated. I have once described Hong Kong as "the city of culling cats and dogs". I also believe Hong Kong should be ranked number one in the world in terms of the number of cats and dogs culled. Apart from the AFCD, Hong Kong also has other animal societies, such as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which should be called the Society for the Extermination of Animals. In fact, the AFCD might need to be renamed as the "Department of killing cats and dogs".
Concerning the culling of cats and dogs, Hong Kong is actually such a prosperous city with quite a lot of abandoned farmland … I recall I once visited a retired lady in Fan Ling two years ago and found that she alone was keeping more than 100 dogs. Although she was assisted by some friends of hers, she could still be considered to be raising more than 100 dogs in a tiny place on her own. Coming back to the capacity of the AFCD and the number of plots of land managed by the Lands Department, I believe the authorities are absolutely capable of halting the culling of cats and dogs with just a small provision from the public coffers. Moreover, I would like to call on the authorities to halt the culling of cats of dogs.
Hong Kong will be brought into disrepute should the culling of cats and dogs continue. In fact, over the years, I have been asking the AFCD about the number of cats and dogs culled each year. Moreover, I will continue to raise the same question year after year. If these figures are listed in the Guinness Book of World Records, I believe the world record might be broken. I also believe up to tens of thousands of cats and dogs have been culled by the AFCD in the past decade. This figure will not only turn Hong Kong into a notorious place, but also bring the Government into disrepute. I hope the Government can learn from the bitter lesson and make improvements.
MS CLAUDIA MO: Thank you, Chairman. Allow me to take this opportunity to talk about welfare and ethnic minorities. Can I show you this T-shirt? It says: I can't keep calm because I am an ethnic minority living in Hong Kong. Sir, ethnic minorities' welfare is included in this particular debate. And there is another one. This T-shirt is the product of a Nepalese community group; and this one is from Hong Kong Unison (Unison) which says: Diversity comes from mutual respect. Unison was founded by Fermi WONG, a professional social 8148 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 worker. She did it more than 10 years ago because some of her peers, she discovered at the time, told her that ethnic minority young people had to come second class in any sort of recreation ground applications because they are not one of us, and so she founded Unison in order to focus on ethnic minority issues and policy advocacy.
Another friend of mine, a Nepalese journalist friend, wrote in a paper not too long ago something about racism is alive and well in Hong Kong. And allow me to add on to that: Racism in Hong Kong is alive, well, and kicking. It is so rampant. Of course, officials would say, "No, the number of complaints we got is not exactly that high." True, in Hong Kong, we do not get any particular racial crimes as such. You would not be beaten up because of your skin colour, or you are of darker colour or something. No. But then that sort of racial biases and racial slurs is still all over this city.
When it comes to any welfare assistance to the ethnic minorities groups in Hong Kong, it is all very half-hearted. Look at all of these Committee stage amendments, saying that we should cut down on this and that sort of welfare. Of course, Chairman, you knew that they are supposed to be well-intentioned, because we are not allowed to increase any spending. We are only allowed to cut down things, so we have to cut it down in order to talk about it, to start with, or even to increase it if that is the real intention at the same time. But okay, welfare, vis-à-vis ethnic minorities. Allow me to remind everyone here that the Beijing White Paper is a policy paper on Hong Kong, which just kept stressing that Hong Kong is a Chinese city. It is so homogenized a city; only Chineseness should prevail and if you are not a member of the very great Chinese race, you do not belong here.
At the social level, be it housing, education and medical care, you name the full catalogue, not many people care and so, the Government, the Policy Bureaux could just pay lip service, and the executive departments could just perform their duties half-heartedly. And translation services? Oh yes, we have them. You come to get our service, and you do not speak Chinese or English, or you need a Urdu translator? Okay, we will call our translator now, and you sit there for three and a half hours until we find one.
What sort of service is that? You call that "government service"? It is all because you do not belong to that "blood thicker than water" category when we are all Hongkongers. Can I also mention that indifference is the worst form LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8149 of discrimination? I do not see; I do not care; I do not want to talk about it; I just do not want to know; this is a Chinese city, we speak Chinese, we do not even need to speak English anymore these days apparently in this town, a so "Chinese only" city.
In the meantime, our ethnic minorities still belong to the poorest of the poorest sector. They have no way out. Education? Our Chief Secretary, Mrs Carrie LAM, was so proud to announce to the world about two years ago, and she said to me, "Oh, you will be very happy, as we are finally implementing this learning Chinese as a second language for ethnic minorities students in town." Happy? Two years on. Please, could this Mrs LAM actually go to the schools to see what is really being done? It is practically nil. In a proper question session, I asked for the number of teachers involved in this sort of teaching Chinese as a second language to ethnic minorities. The answer is "No" because they do not know. I also tried to get data for that sort of training. They said, "Sorry, there is no such data available." Education is not particularly welfare. This, I understand, but you need education as the foundation of the growth of a person for this person's future. There is no starting point, let alone a good starting point for an ethnic minority kid in Hong Kong.
The whole thing, the whole programme is just window dressing, and I am not the only one who is saying it. Read all the newspaper columns; go to talk to teachers and school principals. I mentioned that the number of complaints is not particularly striking, right? Indeed, regarding the number of complaints against racial discrimination in 2013, the number of complaints on racial discrimination handled was 46 for the whole year. But then last year in 2015, the number was 54. Not a horrendous sort of figure but it is still a whopping 17% up. Can anyone explain that? "Oh, no, well, they are seasonal, right? It fluctuates. There is no point to read too much into the numbers", they will say. But the fact is if you want to go make a racial bias complaint to the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), you have to be the actual victim, as I was told last year or last April when I tried to file a complaint to the EOC. About what? About Mrs Regina IP's allegation that quite a few foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong are very good at seducing their male employers, and that they are sex tools or something. It is very crude ― I know you are frowning ― it is very crude. But then I was told by the EOC that, "No, if you are not the actual victim, you are not qualified to complain." At first, Regina IP was all adamant, and she refused to apologize. It was not until some Filipino groups decided to liken her to HITLER that she issued an apology. I think the EOC settled it via some 8150 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 conciliation efforts. The thing is racial slurs like that, racial remarks like that ― no, not racial, I beg your pardon ― I repeat, racist slurs like that, racist comments like that hardly caused a stir in this Council. It is almost like a fait accompli. Well, it does happen, does it not, as what she described? So, generalization is not exactly a crime, is it? That is the kind of mentality that is enveloping this city.
It is so sad, Chairman. We are in the year 2016. I think you are retiring, but who knows, never say never, right? You are retiring after all these long years in Hong Kong politics and up till now there is not one ethnic minority member or representative ever ― it all depends on how you count those back in the colonial days, never mind ― but after 1997, there is not one ethnic minority member in this Council. That is a very sad thing for Hong Kong. We have more than a quarter of a million ethnic minority population in this town.
Thank you.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (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)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The third debate has now come to a close.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Heads 25, 33, 39, 42, 44, 60, 62, 82, 91, 118, 137, 138, 158, 159, 186 and 194.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee now proceeds to the fourth debate. The debate themes are "Land, Housing, Transportation, Environment and Conservation".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8151
The policy areas covered in this debate are: Housing; Planning, Land and Works, which belong to the policy area of Development; Building Safety; Transport; Energy, which belongs to the policy area of Economic Development; Environmental Affairs; and Conservation. Committee will spend 11 hours on this debate.
Nine Members, namely Mr Albert CHAN, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Gary FAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan have respectively given notice to move a total of 69 amendments to reduce the various sums for 16 heads read out just now. The contents of their amendments are all relevant to the areas of this debate.
I will first call upon Mr Albert CHAN to speak and move Amendment No 28 set out in Appendix 1C to the Script. I will then call upon other Members proposing amendments to speak accordingly.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move Amendment No 28 as set out in Appendix 1C to the Script.
Chairman, this debate involves a lot of works-related expenditures. I feel obliged to highlight, through the amendments, the problems of various Policy Bureaux and departments so as to set the record straight.
Chairman, in the previous two debate sessions I jumped the gun to criticize the Highways Department (HyD). I believe in the last 30 years, judging from the amount of works handled by a department and its head, the HyD and the Director of Highways have made the highest number of blunders in history, including project delays, errors, cost overruns and deaths of workers, unrivalled by any predecessor. The incumbent Director of Highways definitely tops the chart of blunders made but still safely remains in office, without any pressure being exerted on him. I have repeatedly demanded him to resign to assume responsibility. However, Chairman, it seems like I have been the only one making such a demand, which no one else seconded. How ridiculous is this? Why is there a cost overrun of $33.7 billion for just two projects, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) and the Express Rail Link (XRL)? The HZMB works have caused eight deaths in industrial accidents since its launch. 8152 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
The bridge columns have continued to drift, the reason for which has recently been found to be related to changes in construction methods. After the tender award, the contractor suddenly made changes for faster completion, without making submissions to the Legislative Council for prior approval. We also did not grant any approval.
As a result, this kind of situations abound. Some officials, in possession of executive power and with the protection and support of the "good fighter" Chief Secretary for Administration, do whatever as they please. Can it be like that? The operation of this Government is just so ludicrous. Some Secretaries are most ignorant and the Transport and Housing Bureau is pretty terrible in this aspect. The Secretary and Under Secretary do not have the faintest idea about works, thus giving the Director of Highways a free rein in doing whatever as he pleases like an arrogant spoiled brat. In addition to being sheltered by the "good fighter" Chief Secretary, he has the two ignorant Secretary and Under Secretary at his manipulation, resulting in ridiculous mistakes, cost overruns, delays and deaths of workers. During the five years since his assumption of office, he has single-handedly planned all works projects from works commencement, to cost overruns and applications for additional funding to keep the works going. His five years in office have been fraught with blunders.
The HZMB project has created pollution, such as pollution of the harbour and North Lantau. And problems are found on the artificial island. The XRL project is beset by failures, recent additions of which include rusting and leakage. I believe reports of such problems will not cease. Let us wait and see for how long the Government can keep hiding and covering them up. There is something new every day. Perhaps the success of the Director of Highways lies in his shelter given to construction companies funded by red capital. All in all, anything which involves the Mainland can be covered up. "Strong-country people" will not be arrested after committing crimes. As for issues in the North District, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) chooses to look the other way. Staff of the MTR Corporation Limited can only keep their fury to themselves and even swallow the suffering of being bullied and turn a blind eye to unlawful activities. Those sizable construction companies, such as China Harbour Engineering Company Limited, and other related Mainland construction companies, behave like despots in Hong Kong and make reimbursement claims even for cost overruns. Taxpayers in Hong Kong and the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council are like automatic teller machines made to churn out cash non-stop.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8153
Chairman, my proposed amendment on cutting the salary of the Director of Highways is ruled not admissible by your goodself. Hence, the only thing that I could do is to cut the departmental expenditure for the entire HyD, involving a sum of $1,272 million. I am doing so to do justice to the people of the Hong Kong and satisfy their expectations: how can public coffers and people's hard-earned money be just wilfully squandered? The Department has been so irresponsible for the never-ending problems and considers itself free from any responsibility.
Another head involves the Architectural Services Department (ASD). Amendment No 28 seeks to reduce this head by $1,126 million, equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on the personal emoluments of ASD staff. Chairman, construction works overseen by some departments suffer chronic cost overruns. Unforeseeable circumstances in construction, possibly including difficulty in manpower recruitment, increase in cost or project delays, have contributed to substantial overruns. However, an abnormal phenomenon has emerged in projects under the charge of the Department, which fully demonstrates its questionable professionalism, that is, there is a surplus of close to 60% in the budget for construction works. All departments say actual tender prices are a far cry from the estimated cost and so there is a need to apply for additional funding to cope with cost overruns. Chairman, I stated back then that one of the purposes of filibuster was to contain the pace of government projects. The reason is that I have made criticisms of government projects proceeding too fast in the past, creating a manpower shortage in the construction industry. Also, since a few years ago the construction industry in China has started to grow rapidly, leading to a surge in prices of construction materials. At the time, I already proposed a hiatus of construction projects to arrest the overly speedy development. Once the pressure on the overall demand for construction materials is eased, Hong Kong should take one step at a time and, ideally with reasonable annual planning of expenditures on public and private works, resume the related projects. However, at the later stage of Donald TSANG Administration and at the beginning of the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration, the two Chief Executives acted as if they were indebted to the construction industry and transferred benefits through continued launching of works projects, resulting in perpetual cost overruns, the total of which amount to hundreds of billion dollars.
8154 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
I have to point out another serious blunder made by the ASD, that is, overestimation of project cost of the piling and preparatory works for the East Kowloon Cultural Centre. The Government drew up a budget of $300 million at the time and the tender price finally received was $110 million, around 40% of the government budget. For this reason, the public accused the Department of being voracious in requesting substantial funding for this project.
Moreover, another overbudgeted project is the reprovisioning of the Environmental Hygiene Office-cum-vehicle depot previously located at Sai Yee Street. The original budget was $120 million and the eventual tender price was $700 million, presenting also a difference of around 40%. Seeing this series of blunders, I absolutely understand why the overall unprofessional standard in the Department is worrisome.
The mismanagement of the HyD may be intentional, by looking the other way and playing favouritism, but it is unknown to us what kind of interests is at play. I often feel that the Independent Commission Against Corruption should run full investigations into all decisions and actions related to the Director. In the five years under the incumbent Director of Highways, why has the extent of cost overrun of these projects been particularly serious ― I stress "particularly serious"? Under normal circumstances, projects are subject to supervision. The Government has no grounds to tolerate these organizations and bidding contractors to do whatever they want. Why can the Director permit repeated occurrences of such massive cost overruns?
Chairman, you should remember that during the British Hong Kong era, the construction of the airport experienced a slight cost overrun, which already made Beijing fume and the pro-Beijing Members reprimand the British-Hong Kong Administration. However, it seems like in recent years we have been the only ones levelling criticisms at cost overruns. The pro-Government Members, especially Mr WONG Kwok-hing and Mr CHAN Kam-lam, truly act like a through train ― approving the Government's funding applications of any amount directly "through" their hands, no criticism, explanation and question raised, not even in the wake of fatal industrial accidents. The powers that be have been covering up each other to such a ludicrous point that the people cannot but be raging with anger? To say people were throwing bricks to show their fury is an understatement. Sooner or later bombs will be thrown to blow off the HZMB ― already eights lives were lost in industrial accidents.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8155
The dereliction of duty and recurrent blunders of professional departments never happened in the past 30 years. Now there are both extremes: cost overruns or significant overestimation of construction cost where the tender price received is only half of the budget. Such situations should never have emerged.
Problems at the department level must be related to the Policy Bureaux. If the Policy Bureaux have set up a quality control mechanism to monitor the conduct of the department heads, the latter would not be able to do whatever they want. I have already pointed out just now that the Secretary and Under Secretary of the Transport and Housing Bureau know nothing about construction. The Secretary for Development is a bit smarter. Knowing that he has no knowledge of construction works, he found someone better versed in the subject to be the Under Secretary ― it is always better to have some experience. Right now there is a problem of talent mismatch. Someone from the education sector should not become an official in the Transport and Housing Bureau, buddy! Since this "exploiter" Secretary took office, he has been pretending to do his job but simply cannot manage his subordinates, thus his salary and the total annual estimated expenditure of the whole bureau must be cut.
For all of these reasons, Amendment No 363 ought to be proposed, which involves the total estimated expenditure on staff personal salaries in the Transport and Housing Bureau (Transport Branch). This series of problems, not mentioning those with the XRL and the recent international scandal of LEUNG Chun-ying, just the problems with the Airport Authority, provides justifications to cut its expenditure. The Director of Audit's Report already gives a detailed account of the violations made by the Director-General of Civil Aviation in the construction of its new headquarters. I will not repeat the details now.
Therefore, these problems indicate the Department's failure to discharge their duties, but no one needs to be held responsible. In the past officials resigned to assume responsibility for dereliction of duty, but the current ones are all unscrupulous. The Chief Executive is the most unscrupulous. Who can be more unscrupulous than him? Of course when the one at the top has no sense of shame, his subordinates will all just follow suit. From the Chief Executive to the Secretaries of Departments, and from the Directors of Bureaux to the heads of departments, they all carry on the doctrine. This is the most shameless 8156 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 government ever in history; from actual performance to construction projects and management we can see the crux of the matter. Hence, cutting the relevant expenditure is a necessary and righteous course of action.
The decision to build the third runway in the airport is the gravest mistake ever, which will definitely lead to the extinction of dolphins. The third runway can at best be regarded as a quarter of a runway, but it costs $150 billion to build. It is of no help at all, not to the actual long-term development of air services in Hong Kong.
As a result, the series of amendments proposed by me seeks to cut related expenditures for a number of government departments, for example, the ASD, Transport Department and the Transport and Housing Bureau. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 25 be reduced by $1,126,609,000 in respect of subhead 000."
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, this debate covers the five main themes involving land, housing, transportation, environment and conservation. All these themes are of great import and closely related to people's livelihood, yet you have allowed us only a very short time for debate. It seems like a test for screening the best performer, is it not?
The pro-establishment camp keeps saying that if a certain item of expenditure estimate is not passed, the result will be serious. In fact, as I have pointed out repeatedly, if any expenditure estimate is not passed, the Government will come to us for discussions. If the voting result turns out to be 8:28, as in the voting for the constitutional reform some time ago, I have to give thanks, for LEUNG Chun-ying will approach Members for negotiation by then. He will ask Mr IP Kwok-him and Mr TAM Yiu-chung, and so on, what they want. Mr Christopher CHEUNG often yells at the top of his voice for the small brokers ― I think he is not like the beggar mentioned by Mr IP Kwok-him. It is not the case. Now, they are comparable to imperial concubines living in the forbidden palace sighing endless complaints, yet it is useless to do so. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8157
Therefore, I call on them to lift their heads and do something big this time. If the Bill is not passed, the Government will have to resubmit the Bill and it has to apply to President Jasper TSANG for a time slot for meeting. I do not know if President Jasper TSANG knows in advance that the Bill will not be passed and has thus decided to have the voting held earlier on 11 May to allow more time for the authorities to apply for another time slot to process the Bill. I do not know if this is the case.
First, I would like to talk about the land issue. Now, the Government has introduced a new measure requiring that discussion of in-situ land exchange will be held only with land owners possessing at least 40 000 sq ft of farmland. As for owners holding less than 40 000 sq ft, the authorities will not discuss with them, and the latest measure adopted by the Government is not to acquire any land. However, the land of Paul CHAN locates rightly beside that area and is or close to 40 000 sq ft, so he will get a share of the spoils. Moreover, he has two companies registered in the British Virgin Islands. When we asked him to confess last time, he did not do so, and now his deed was exposed. How should the problem be dealt with? The new approach now proposed by the Development Bureau has brought about new repercussions. Real estate developers have to wait for land exchange permits after their acquisition of land in the past. If this new approach is not collusion between the Government and the business sector, what is it? Besides, he has a share in this and has not made any declaration of it. As for his Deputy Secretary, no declaration of the relevant interest has been made, but he has now quit. Is the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) blind?
As for housing, it seems like John TSANG worries that LEUNG Chun-ying will not have enough money to spend, and has thus set aside $45 billion as the Housing Reserve in the Budget this year. Perhaps it is because John TSANG has made a wrong estimate of the surplus, so setting aside $45 billion will give people the impression that the discrepancy resulted from his incorrect estimate will not be too significant. In 2014, he allocated $275 billion, and then, he allocated an additional $7.4 billion to housing construction, but what has been built so far? The 10-year and five-year housing construction plan proposed by LEUNG Chun-ying are falling far short of the target. The number of subdivided units is increasing now, yet this issue is not mentioned in the party platform of the pro-establishment camp ― I have read the party platform of the DAB and this point is not included. Since they have not mentioned the problem in their party 8158 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 platform, it is natural that they have no commitment to this. For an issue which the people of Hong Kong consider as a great plight, they have not said even a word. What can we say then? I really do not know what this political party is doing. Do they merely focus on offering seasonal delicacies? They should examine their platform. If there are no promises, the public can hardly make their demands. Yet, they do not allow others to take actions to fill this void.
As for transport, I have never seen a government that will only carry out some "white elephant" projects to connect with the railways of other places. Moreover, most of the infrastructure works and facilities are undertaken by Mainland construction companies. Really, I have never seen such a situation. The Government dares to spend the money of taxpayers to hastily implement projects which may not bring about actual effectiveness but have incurred tens of billion dollars in cost overrun. Let me cite an example to illustrate my point. I mentioned earlier that between 2007 and 2016, the expenditure on infrastructure has increased nearly three times, which is 278%. Since education is an area covered in this debate, I will talk about education, too. In 2007, in terms of the proportion of public expenditure, infrastructure was 9% of the total expenditure, whereas education was 22%, which meant expenditure on education was far higher than that on infrastructure. However, in 2016, four years since LEUNG Chun-ying took up the reins of Hong Kong, what is the result of the "white-elephant" projects led by him? In 2016, the proportion of expenditure on infrastructure as a share of the total expenditure has reached 16%, whereas the proportion of expenditure on education has dropped from 22% to 16%.
Chairman, you used to teach mathematics. You know that figures do not lie. What can the DAB say? They always make grandiose statements in their platform. Let me read it out to Members. Their platform is very simple. They demand early implementation of 15-year free education, subsidizing the transfer of associate degree holders to universities and an increase in university places. Yet may I ask Mr TAM Yiu-chung, when they support allocating substantial funds to infrastructure expenditure, at an increase of close to three times, and reducing the expenditure on education by 6%, how can they strive for the realization of their platform? Answer me. Go and check the reference. This is their party platform. I am not framing them.
Back to the transport issue, the DAB says that something should be done appropriately to promote the economy. They are probably referring to transport. Chairman, who supported the annexation of the Kowloon-Canton Railway LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8159
Corporation (KCRC) by the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) back then? At that time, the MTRCL was clearly a listed company, so the annexation of a public corporation by a private company was indeed an act to hand over the KCRC and the Light Rail to a company owned by private investors. After that, the Administration said that it was incapable of intervening in the decision of the MTRCL on the excuse that private investors, who only accounted for 20%, were involved. How can these private investors, who account for only some 20%, sway the decision of the shareholder holding over 70% of the shares, that is, the Government? Back then, the DAB supported this arrangement. They threw their full weight behind this, and filibusters had yet to start at that time. They approved of the arrangement, did they not? Mr TAM Yiu-chung, you and your comrades supported the $69 billion funding for the Express Rail Link and the Liantang control point projects. All the projects incurring cost overruns are supported by you and your comrades. Should you all not slash your throats to commit suicide? If all of you do not commit suicide, should you not demand the one who deceived you all to slash his own throat and commit suicide? If so, should he not be subject to a pay cut? Idiots! Figures do not lie.
Furthermore, why would the Airport Authority (AA) sing praises of LEUNG Chun-ying immediately? It is only natural. They have to spend $800-odd billion on the construction of a half runway, the third runway. A number of state-owned airlines and civil airlines have not yet reached any agreement on the arrangement, but the authorities have already decided to build the runway. The Budget points out that the Government's revenue will be reduced by $5-odd billion per annum because of this. This amount should be paid by the AA to the Government and it is government revenue, yet Members simply pretend to have no knowledge of this and turn a blind eye to the arrangement. The $5-odd billion could have been spent on the elderly. No one will hate this, will anyone? Just now, some Members said that I should not propose reducing the expenditure of $90-odd billion allocated for special purpose for the elderly. I now propose using this $5-odd billion to provide assistance to all the elderly in Hong Kong, will they agree with the proposal? They are idiots. How would they not know $5 billion has been stolen?
Furthermore, Chairman, they will come again in future to "withdraw cash" and demand an increase in departure fee. Will the DAB again support it? Speak up, idiots! It involves over a hundred billion dollars, yet the DAB does not see this point. The AA will definitely issue a statement in support of LEUNG Chun-ying. Am I right? There is also the luggage incident involving 8160 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 his daughter. I have to say this even if the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) does not like it. Why would the CAD spend so many billions of dollars on the obsolete equipment? The Director-General of Civil Aviation came forward today to show support for LEUNG Chun-ying, right? Should not the Director-General warrant a pay cut merely because of his big personal office? Does he dare say that it is appropriate for him to use such a big office? He will not dare say so, will he? Those who have read the report of the Audit Commission will know that he deserves a pay cut, am I right?
Chairman, the Government has simply turned a blind eye to the serious traffic congestion in Hong Kong, the mismatch of the three tunnels and the insufficient capacity of the railways in Hong Kong, yet it spends lavishly on projects used for connecting with the railways of other places. The cruise terminal is another project to which the DAB has rendered full support. Back then, it was said that the cruise terminal would bring good fortunes, but what is the situation now? The several billions of dollars incurred are money too, are they not? Now, the Government comes to us again to apply for funding, and they will surely render it full support. The authorities even mention the construction of a light rail link. They have already wasted several billions of dollars; do they think they should waste more? They have already made one mistake; do they want to repeat the same mistake. Chairman, you may not see the situation in the coming term, yet I have to state in advance that when the Government applies for funding for the construction of the light rail link again, it will again put forth the excuse that "our hair has already got wet" or we are in the middle of the project when the legislature does not approve the funding application. One should have a sense of shame, right? I do not have enough time to list the losses they have caused to the people of Hong Kong due to their silence in the past. As a Chinese saying goes, "I cannot list all the wrongs done even exhausting all the bamboo in Nanshan". Shut up, please. They should stop putting all kinds of things, including leftover Chinese pork dumplings, into their mouth. I have made a casual remark to invite them to enrol for scolding me, yet they think this is true. I am just baiting them, idiots!
The party platform of the DAB embraces all kinds of things, from the lightest item comparable to a piece of dim sum to the richest item comparable to a slice of steak. But none of these items has been achieved, neither has any of these items been reflected on the most important occasion of the Legislative Council ― the Budget. They know that according to Article 74 of the Basic Law, a proposal seeking an increase in government expenditure or affecting LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8161 government policies must have the consent of the Chief Executive. They have a chance to obtain the consent of the Chief Executive but they have not done so. As a result, we are forced to resort to this approach of proposing reductions, for the Chief Executive surely will not agree with such a proposal. Are they trying to deceive the people of Hong Kong? They will have nothing, not even shit …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, as the mover of the amendment, you should focus on explaining your amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): What is the matter? What is the problem? Chairman, will you please stop your comrades … Please stop them from babbling nonsense …
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, point of order. I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please continue.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I will continue. The DAB says we have made the people of Hong Kong miserable, yet we can see that under the administration of LEUNG Chun-ying who is supported by the DAB, that is, the 8162 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Executive Council which Ms Starry LEE has participated ― let me read this out ― the Government has spent a total of $417.7 billion on infrastructure in just four years, and the cost overrun amounts to $120.1 billion. Admit it! Admit that you all had voted for the proposal, but I had voted against it! Admit it!
The party platform of the DAB demands the "comprehensive enhancement of healthcare services to meet the consultation demand of the public". Its political platform has a dozen of words only, and this platform has disappeared now. I have read out earlier that the healthcare expenditure for the Hospital Authority this year has been reduced, yet you all support that arrangement and dare not utter a word. Am I right? As I read out earlier, the social expenditure covering healthcare, education and welfare accounts for 7.5% of the GDP of Hong Kong, yet it is 31.9% in France, 10.4% in Korea, 19% in Australia and 21.7% in the United Kingdom. Can all of you explain this? Are you not in the ruling position? If I were in the ruling position, I would have changed these things. But since I am not in the ruling position, I have to use these negative words that mean positive to press the Government to do something. Do you understand that?
If the election in which LEUNG Chun-ying and other Chief Executives are elected does not include a screening mechanism, I will stand for the election of the Chief Executive and debate with him. Am I right? What a man who "eats shit and passes rice" and do not do something about that? You can approach LEUNG Chun-ying but I cannot. John TSANG has contacted you all, yet have you expressed any opinions to him? Did you prepare the party platform merely for the tummy? In your party platform, you demand increases in expenditure on healthcare, education and welfare, and the provision of universal protection to the elderly by tiers (The buzzer sounded) … yet all of you merely sit here now …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time is up. Please be seated.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): What? Are you trying to cut me off now? You needed not say it in such a loud voice.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8163
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): There is no need to speak so loudly, for that gave me quite a shock. Deputy Chairman, I will speak on "Head 82 ― Buildings Department", which involves Amendments No 175, 176 and 177 respectively proposed by Mr Albert CHAN, me and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung.
The Buildings Department (BD) is one of the most criticized government departments. I say this every year, and I have raised a lot of questions at the special meetings of the Finance Committee, while other Members, from both the pro-democracy and pro-establishment camps, have also repeatedly asked the BD to honour its promises. However, the BD has remained all the same by "not removing what should be removed, and not approving what should be approved". People with unauthorized building works (UBWs) for years can still escape from the long arm of the law. The BD has turned a blind eye to them. It has only opened files for these cases as a matter of routine and then simply let them run their course.
At a special meeting of the Finance Committee, Mr James TO asked about the respective numbers of inspections made, removal operations carried out and prosecutions instigated against UBWs by the BD in the past five years, the expenditure incurred and also what detailed action plans have been made. Do Members know how the BD replied? It said, "The Buildings Department takes enforcement action against unauthorized building works (UBWs) in response to public reports and through its large scale operation. It does not keep separate statistics on the number of inspections made for UBWs." Does it mean that no inspection has been conducted on its own initiative or they have no statistics available? Even if they do not proactively conduct inspections targeting UBWs, they must have carried out inspections on building safety and if UBWs are found after completing these inspections for various other purposes and even if they do not keep these statistics, they can still retrieve the relevant records to answer Members' questions.
This is always how the Government replies to questions. It invariably says that no statistics are available and in this regard, the problem with the Security Bureau is most serious. That said, a number of Policy Bureaux have adopted the same practice in recent years. For example, when I asked questions on the number of overseas visits by Directors of Bureaux or Heads of Departments, their replies last year were still given in a proper manner as they provided a reply to each of the 10 items set out in my question one by one. This year, they nevertheless consolidated the information and expenditures on a 8164 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 number of overseas visits into one total amount, rather than giving replies as per the table provided by us. Has the BD kept statistics on the inspections carried out against UBWs? They cannot provide any reply.
With regard to enforcement actions against UBWs in the past five years, the number of reports attended to by the BD was provided. Does it mean that they just sit and wait, and they carry out more operations when more reports are received but do nothing when there is no report? Even if we look at the number of reports attended to, and let me take the numbers from 2011 to 2015 sought by the Member's question as an example, we will see that the numbers are 44 512 in 2013, 41 146 in 2014, and 39 281 in 2015. The figures have shown a decline. These are the numbers of reports on UBWs attended to by the BD. Do they refer to reports which were lodged but have not been processed or what? As for the numbers of removal orders issued and prosecutions instituted, the latest figures in 2015 show that 12 918 removal orders were issued and 3 030 prosecutions instituted. What is the next step after the issue of a removal order? For how many years the BD will wait before taking the next step? If a person neglects a removal order, how will the BD handle such a case? Why has the number of prosecutions remained on the low side? I really do not believe there are only some 2 000 to 3 000 cases of UBWs a year in Hong Kong that warrant prosecution.
As for the actions taken, the Government's reply was nothing but perfunctory. It said, "Enforcement action against UBWs is carried out by the 630 professional and technical staff of the two Existing Buildings Divisions, the Mandatory Building Inspection Division and the Minor Works and Signboard Control Section of the BD in 2015-2016 as part of their overall duties to implement the BD's building safety and maintenance enforcement programmes." ― it means that no figures are available ― "We are not able to provide a breakdown of the manpower resources and expenditure involved solely for enforcement action against UBWs."
With regard to the reduction of the expenditure for the BD, I conversely have another view on it. At meetings of the panel and special meetings of the Finance Committee, I suggested to the Secretary and the Director that they should recruit more staff in times of a shortage of manpower and they could take bolder steps to seek funding. Now they have to spend within the means each year. This has nothing to do with the caseload, and it is about the capacity of the BD itself. For example, if it has handled 3 000 cases this year, it will have to handle LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8165
3 200 cases next year, and this is not really the solution to the problem. I also asked about their future plan and their reply was: "The BD will continue to adopt a multi-pronged approach to address building safety issues related to UBWs.", adding that the BD will take enforcement action against UBWs in response to public reports and through large-scale operations. It means that the BD is not entirely passive in that apart from taking actions in response to reports by the public, they also launch large-scale operations on their own initiative.
What are these large-scale operations actually? A Member asked a question in this respect: "The authorities stated that they would continue the large scale operation on comprehensive clearance of unauthorized building works on rooftops, flat roofs, yards and lanes of target buildings. In this connection, will the authorities advise this Committee of the number of cases in the backlog of outstanding removal orders, and of the categories into which they fall?" I think it is fair enough to ask this question, and their reply was: "As at end-2015, there were about 64 000 outstanding removal orders issued against unauthorized building works (UBWs) in the whole territory." According to the numbers broken down by years that I mentioned earlier on, 12 918 removal orders were issued in 2015, and the total number of outstanding orders is 64 000, which means that there is a backlog of 64 000 outstanding removal orders. Is this not very shocking? A removal order is issued when there are potential dangers in the flat or building concerned. What they said next in their reply is, I think, disappointing even to the pro-establishment Members: "The Buildings Department does not compile statistics on the number of different types of UBWs involved in the removal orders." It means that they will not give us any answer. They outrageously do not have the statistics on signboards, balconies or glass structures. What exactly is the BD doing?
We now feel concerned that the BD cannot cope with its workload and the shortage of manpower experienced by it. We hope that the BD can be provided with additional resources and manpower but they outrageously do not keep such statistics; nor have they taken steps to seek more manpower and resources, resulting in the BD "not removing what should be removed, and not approving what should be approved" as I said earlier. What does it mean by "not approving what should be approved"? Some friends of mine had originally planned to apply for approval for alteration works to be carried out at their flats in a legitimate manner but they did not hear from the BD for a long time. As they had to move into their flats soon, they could only do the alteration works without approval, hence breaching the law though they intended to abide by the law in the 8166 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 first place. It is because the authorities failed to process in time their applications made fully in accordance with the procedures. Of course, this is still not the right thing to do from the point of law because UBWs may affect the building structure and fire safety. But the point is that the BD cannot meet the impending needs of the public to move into their flats. The BD might as well give them a reply only three months later.
The BD was criticized by the Office of The Ombudsman for failing to take enforcement actions fairly and effectively before. As I said some time ago, the BD's backlog of outstanding removal orders had once hit an all-time high of some 68 000, though the number as at end-2015 provided by the BD at special meetings of the Finance Committee, which was 64 000, has shown improvement compared to the 68 000 outstanding orders at the time when it was taken to task by the Office of The Ombudsman. However, some even more amazing figures were revealed as we were told that 753 of these orders had remained outstanding for 10 to 30 years. We now realize that some removal orders can remain outstanding for three decades, and the owners may have passed away without being urged to comply with the orders. The Audit Commission has also cited many examples of ineffective enforcement by the BD but I will not give an account of these examples one by one.
I also have to question the BD on the handling of "sub-divided units". At a special meeting of the Finance Committee, I asked the Government about the BD's survey on "sub-divided units" in the territory. The BD replied that they do not "compile statistics on the total number of SDFs (sub-divided flats) in the territory". Why do they not keep these statistics? I understand that in its population census conducted once every 10 years, the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD) has to find out about the situation of all buildings, and if their staff can conduct household visits in the buildings, they should have obtained the information on "sub-divided units", and the C&SD has also published a study on "sub-divided units" before. I do not know why the BD does not have the statistics on "sub-divided units" in the territory.
I have asked the BD to provide the number of "sub-divided units" inspected last year, broken down by districts. Even if no statistics are compiled, we can tell by common sense that most "sub-divided units" are found in Sham Shui Po and Yau Tsim Mong. I am not asking about the actual number of such units, but the number of inspections made by the BD. The BD's reply was that 641 units inspected were in Sham Shui Po, 633 in Yau Tsim Mong, followed by 456 in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8167
Kowloon City and 407 in Kwun Tong. Last year, the number of "sub-divided units" inspected by the BD in the 18 districts was 3 466 in total. Of course, I have asked the Government if it has a policy on the handling of "sub-divided units", and Secretary Paul CHAN replied at the time that the policy on "sub-divided units" actually had nothing to do with him and should be the responsibility of Anthony CHEUNG who is in charge of housing issues. He said that the BD is only responsible for safety. In other words, if there is no safety issue, the "sub-divided units" can continue to exist. He added that the Government's policy is not to eradicate all sub-divided flats but to ensure their safety.
However, if the Government does not step up inspections to combat the problem of "sub-divided units" and when there is no stringent punishment … We all know that the smaller the rooms a large flat is partitioned into, the more rental can be generated. The "sub-divided units" are now even more expensive than the luxurious apartments as the rent of a partitioned room in a "sub-divided unit" in Causeway Bay may cost some $8,000 or $9,000. But it beats me, because I would prefer renting a place in an old building to paying $7,000 to $9,000 for a tiny, newly-decorated rented room in a "sub-divided unit". Having said that, I think the BD under the Development Bureau has failed to step up inspections and to give an account of the relevant figures to me.
As I have only little speaking time left, I cannot go on any further. I originally planned to share with Members a most bizarre story about UBWs. If I still have time to speak later, I will tell this story which I think is the most serious case of UBWs in the history of Hong Kong sat on by the BD.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I am going to speak on my proposed amendments in relation to the fourth debate session, including the three amendments proposed in respect of "Head 137 ― Environment Bureau", "Head 138 ― Development Bureau", and "Head 158 ― Transport and Housing Bureau".
Before all else, I would like to say a few words about Amendment No 365 proposed in respect of the Transport and Housing Bureau, which seeks to reduce $3.58 million under head 158, an amount equivalent to the salaries of the Secretary for Transport and Housing. Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG, who used to be a university professor in public administration as well as President of 8168 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
The Hong Kong Institute of Education, can be described as an expert scholar. This explains why we initially had high expectations of him. However, we can all see the lame transport policy of Hong Kong and the relevant posts, though some people attribute it to the harm inflicted by the former administration, saying Anthony CHEUNG should not be held accountable. Since he took office four years ago, we have seen his handling of the so-called problems left behind by the former administration, including the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL), which has made it even more difficult for these problems to be resolved. In fact, the image of Anthony CHEUNG is not much better than that of Eddie NG and Paul CHAN. However, housing and transport play a key role in the lives of the people of Hong Kong. Therefore, compared to Eddie NG and Paul CHAN, he has definitely inflicted greater destruction.
Let me first say a few words about the XRL. The most sensational incidents under the ambit of the Transport and Housing Bureau must be related to the delays and cost overruns of massive infrastructure projects. The amount involved has nearly reached HK$100 billion. How big will be the positive impact on Hong Kong should this amount be allocated to healthcare, welfare and education purposes?
We have all seen the large number of scandals involving the XRL. A newspaper has recently claimed that it has obtained some internal design and planning documents related to the XRL, as well as the operational plan proposed therein, including the operation of a joint venture between the Mass Transit Railway Corporation Limited (MTRCL) and China. If the plan is adopted, Hong Kong's operations control system must integrate with the Guangzhou Railway Bureau. Furthermore, the Operation Control Centre in Guangzhou will also manage the dispatch of high speed railway (HSR) trains in both sections of the XRL. In my opinion, China's HSR accidents will also happen in Hong Kong sooner or later. The contractor of the signalling system of the Hong Kong section of the XRL, Trackside Equipment Beijing HollySys Company Limited, was involved in an accident involving the rear-end collision of high-speed trains in Wenzhou in 2011. On 7 March 2012, the MTRCL awarded two signalling system contracts, including 841A Signalling System ― Trackside Equipment and 841B Signalling System ― Trainborne Equipment, with the considerations standing at $308 million and $182 million respectively. The successful bidder was Trackside Equipment Beijing HollySys Company Limited.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8169
In dealing with the XRL issue, the Transport and Housing Bureau represented by Anthony CHEUNG has not only failed to resolve the problems caused by delayed works, but also caused strong public grievances and public outcries due to his request for the Legislative Council to approve a $1.9 billion additional funding owing to huge cost overruns. What is more, it has now been exposed that there will be collaboration with a problematic company of China in adopting these highly dangerous signalling systems. Obviously, the people of Hong Kong are made to foot the bill and be buried with the dead. Apart from the signalling systems, the high speed trains plying between China and Hong Kong will also be made in China. Obviously, this will pose a certain degree of danger. Not only will disasters involving the derailing of trains occur in Hong Kong at any time, but Anthony CHEUNG and the MTRCL will also become indirect murderers.
The XRL still has another most serious defect, which is related to the arrangements for co-location of clearance facilities. If the co-location arrangements cannot be implemented, the XRL trains will have to slow down halfway through and stop at the boundary control points. Such being the case, the XRL is doomed to fail its claimed express rail link. Some people have proposed, as a study direction, incorporating the related immigration laws of the two places into Annex III to the Basic Law for implementation of the co-location arrangements. Mr Alan HOO, a Hong Kong delegate to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and Chairman of the Basic Law Institute, opposes the assignment of jurisdiction to enable Mainland officials to enforce Mainlands laws. In his opinion, the incorporation of relevant Mainland laws into Annex III to the Basic Law out of expediency will set a dangerous precedent. For this reason, he has urged the Central Authorities and the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government to engage in prudent consideration. Although the co-location arrangements remain pending, Anthony CHEUNG has forced through an extra funding application in the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council.
Furthermore, we are all aware of the LEE Po incident. Regardless of the number of his appearances and the occasions on which he appeared, the incident has rocked the international community and caused a serious impact on Hong Kong society. Global Times, a state-run newspaper of China, ran an editorial saying "powerful agencies across the world generally have their own ways to circumvent the law and make a person under investigation to work with them, so they can proceed with their work without crossing the bottom line of the system." 8170 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
We cannot but ask whether the co-location arrangements can still be permitted for the gate of Hong Kong will thus be opened by the Communist Party of China. While LEE Po is involved in this incident today, CHEUNG Po or CHAN Po might be dragged into an XRL checkpoint in West Kowloon by a powerful agency next time. Can police officers be deployed to the checkpoint to rescue him by that time? Even if a robber from China hides in an XRL checkpoint after stealing some incense trees from a country park, we can do nothing but witness his escape back into China.
As an accountable Bureau Director, he has even turned a blind eye to the problems probably caused by the co-location arrangements or passed the buck to the Secretary for Justice. The XRL is definitely a "loss-incurring project" because we can see that China's passenger transport and cargo traffic to Hong Kong are on the decline and tourists from China have begun to grow weary of Hong Kong. Coupled with the high exchange rate of Hong Kong dollar, we have seen a major trend of tourists turning to such places as Japan and Korea for travel and spending.
The Government has never given any account of the worst-case economic benefits evaluation. Instead, it has merely said that it is a most lopsided and conservative approach to evaluate benefits to be brought about by the XRL on basis of the economic internal rate of return, because the XRL still has other positive impacts which are neither direct nor quantifiable. As regards how to connect the XRL networks of the entire nation, improve transport connections with Mainland cities, create employment, promote the integration and complementarity of the domestic markets in the Pearl River Delta (PRD), assist the tourism and services industries, and so on, the Government has been making nothing but empty promises. It has even indicated that Hong Kong can be enhanced and developed into the country's Nandamen, or "Great South Gate", to occupy a strategic position. It is surprising that such vague and general phrases could have been used to justify the construction of the XRL and supplementary provision, leaving the pockets of Hong Kong taxpayers to be emptied by these government officials who are responsible for implementing such a ridiculous policy.
In April 2008, the SAR Government indicated that the economic internal rate of return forecast for the XRL was as high as 9%; in September 2009, the rate of return was lowered to 6% in the light of changes in the planning and development data; and according to the latest estimation, the XRL has even LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8171 lowered its internal rate of return to 4%. It has been pointed out by an economist that the internal rate of return of the XRL has already fallen to the same level as the social discount rate. In other words, it is anticipated that the XRL Project is not going to bring any benefit to Hong Kong. Moreover, it has become a high-risk, dispensable investment. Unlike other MTRCL railway lines, the XRL is a commercial rather than social investment. Such being the case, no losses should be incurred. Nor is it acceptable for the XRL to incur any losses.
The SAR Government has not only erred in its estimate of the XRL Project, but also given an over-optimistic evaluation of the economic benefits to be brought by China's economic growth to the XRL. Meanwhile, it has underestimated the construction costs, too. If the situation is already like this before the commissioning of the XRL, I am afraid the economic benefits to be brought by the XRL will be even worse than the estimate upon its commissioning in a couple of years. We can almost assert that the XRL will become a piece of waste that will only obstruct the daily lives of the public in the heart of the city.
In its latest forecasts, the Government has relaxed the local population growth rate and corrected the slowdown in the PRD's economic growth by lowering the forecast patronage as well as the growth in short-haul passengers. However, the growth in long-haul passengers in 2021-2031 has been adjusted upward. Judging solely from these so-called estimates and forecasts, we can envisage serious problems to occur.
Although the Government is keen on supporting the construction of a three-runway system (3RS) by the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA), why does it believe that passengers will prefer the XRL to domestic flights? Why does it think that the patronage will be so high that the XRL and the 3RS can be fully utilized? How can the Government accept such a sloppy estimate? The 3RS is produced during the term of Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG. Although his predecessor already started discussing the proposal put forward by the AA to construct the 3RS, it is during his term as Secretary for Transport and Housing that the proposal was put into actual implementation, or specific proposals on financing, and so on, were put forward.
The growth in air freight in recent years is entirely attributed to the export of products manufactured by factories in China and the import of foreign goods into China. The proposed 3RS put forward by the AA seeks mainly to lure 8172 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Chinese passengers. It is estimated that the ratio of the number of these passengers to the overall number of passengers will rise from 21% in 2014 to 31% in 2030. China is the source as well as the destination of the goods, whereas the airport facilities and services in China will be enhanced gradually, but the 3RS cannot be completed until 2023 at the earliest. It will be useless by then. This is the forecast made by us with reference to the Secretary's evaluation. Such a "white elephant" project is a sheer waste of energy and money. Moreover, the financing option proposed by the Secretary is simply to dig into our pockets.
According to the findings of an analysis done by a green group of the passenger estimate conducted by the AA and an international civil aviation organization, IATA, in respect of the 3RS, as well as a survey of the ratio of transit passengers, the number of transit passengers will account for 47% of the overall number of airport passengers by 2030. The green group has thus queried the construction of the 3RS to serve transit passengers at such an exorbitant cost. In other words, the authorities are like being generous at the expense of us by digging into our pockets for the benefit of others.
Upon its commissioning, the 3RS constructed by the AA will serve landing purposes only. As we all know, the third runway, which will be used for landings only, is required to reserve a flight path for emergency go-arounds. Furthermore, an additional flight path has to be provided for flights to turn from eastward to westward after taking off. Nevertheless, the three flight paths, which will overlap with the flight path south of Shenzhen, can simply not meet the safety requirements of international civil aviation organizations. Currently, approximately one out of four flights serving the Hong Kong International Airport uses the PRD airspace. Since the third runway under planning is located in the north of the existing runways, which means that its flight path will overlap with the one located in the south of the Shenzhen Airport, the efficiency of the new runway will thus be greatly reduced.
Having said all this, my speaking time is almost up. Since I still have a large stack of scripts, I hope I will have the opportunity to continue with the discussion when I speak next time.
Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8173
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in this session, I mainly wish to talk about my proposed amendment, Amendment No 263, which seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure on the annual emoluments for the position of Secretary for Development.
Before all else, let me see if the Secretary is present? No, he is not. The main reason for deducting the annual emoluments of Secretary Paul CHAN is neither his notorious problem of land hoarding nor the problem of BVI, still less the fact that his family has established offshore companies in Panama. It will definitely be worth the effort to further question Secretary Paul CHAN about these problems. However, my main reason for proposing this amendment to the Budget to deduct his annual emoluments is the problem of excessive lead content in drinking water. Why do we only seek to deduct the emoluments of Secretary Paul CHAN for the occurrence of the lead in drinking water incidents? Actually, there was dereliction of duty on the part of various Policy Bureaux which, I believe, involved three bureaux, three departments, the Chief Secretary for Administration and even the Government as a whole. Since the Water Supplies Department (WSD) under the Development Bureau falls within the purview of Secretary Paul CHAN, we will deduct his annual emoluments as a start.
Yet, the entire incident of lead in drinking water is similar to putting on the play of Exposure of Officialdom. The following paragraphs are the record of performance given by the officials of the three Policy Bureaux and three departments.
Act One: After discovering the problem of excessive lead content in drinking water, the Democratic Party held a press conference on 5 July last year. The initial response of the officials was denial. On 6 July, the day after the press conference, the Housing Department (HD) immediately issued a press release which stated that tests had been conducted on the drinking water in Kai Ching Estate. The test results indicated that the lead content in all drinking water samples were compliant with the World Health Organization standard, that is, the lead content was less than 10 micrograms per litre of drinking water. These notices were soon posted everywhere in Kai Ching Estate. When I visited Kai Ching Estate in that evening, the residents told me, "Helena WONG, you are spreading fallacies to mislead people. The Government said that the drinking water is really safe." The district's hatchet man of the pro-establishment camp 8174 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 also questioned me and asked why we held the press conference concerning this district without inviting them to speak. Deputy Chairman, in fact, the Government received the test results in a very short time.
Act Two: After a few days, the Government began to shirk the responsibilities. Although the Government eventually admitted that soldering materials with lead content were found at two pipe joints in Kai Ching Estate ― there was, in fact, an interval of four days only ― the Government specifically put the blame for the problems on Mr LAM Tak-sum, a licensed plumber, because he was responsible for the waterworks projects in Kai Ching Estate. The unspoken lines of the Government implied that as soldering materials with lead content were found, Mr LAM Tak-sum, who was responsible for the waterworks projects in Kai Ching Estate, should be held accountable and it had nothing to do with the Government.
Act Three: Officials of the Department of Health (DH) took the stage. They tried to play down the impact of the lead in drinking water incidents from the perspective of health. The Head of the Surveillance and Epidemiology Branch of the Centre for Health Protection of the DH, Dr Regina CHING, said that in terms of lifetime consumption of water, there would not be any significant risk to health as long as the average lead content in drinking water is less than the guideline value of 10 micrograms per litre, suggesting that there is no need to worry. When she made that remark, however, she simply had no idea that there was a significant excess of lead content in the drinking water of some places.
Act Four: Officials of the WSD took the stage. They presented the whole incident in a scientific manner and tried to dilute and reduce the lead content in lead-contaminated water by using different methods to collect water samples. Besides, they demonstrated to the press the proper method of conducting water tests and strove to prove that we should first run the tap for a few minutes to rid the pipes of water that stood overnight and stagnant water, especially the water that had stood overnight in the pipes for more than six hours. Then, they widely publicized this idea to the residents in various districts, that taps should be flushed for two to five minutes before using the drinking water and they also instructed schools to use this method to conduct water tests. More outrageously still, they required one of the schools to, after the replacement of pipes, first run the tap for 15 minutes before conducting water tests. With regard to this method of testing, experts have already pointed out that if water samples are tested after the tap is flushed for several minutes to 15 minutes instead of taking the "first-draw" water LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8175 samples for testing, we simply cannot find out whether there is any contaminant in the pipes nor identify the cause of contamination as they would be flushed away. Therefore, by adopting such an approach, the Government literally attempted to gloss over the crisis and play down the whole incident.
Act Five: The Government tried to prevent the scandal from escalating. When members of the public and the Democratic Party began to take water samples in Shui Chuen O Estate for testing, the Labour Party also collected water samples for testing ― I am not saying that the Labour Party was trying to piggyback on the situation5 ― and various political parties also took samples of the drinking water for testing, the results of which all indicated that heavy metals and even potassium were found in the drinking water but the Government denied it. The Commission of Inquiry into Excess Lead Found in Drinking Water and the Vice-President of The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology had also collected drinking water samples in Shui Chuen O Estate for testing again and there were cases of excessive lead in drinking water. The Government, however, firmly refused to conduct tests again or simply adopted the previous water testing method, which is running a tap for several minutes before collecting drinking water samples for testing. People from the various social sectors already conducted numerous tests on drinking water samples. Although I am not a scientist, I also went to Shui Chuen O Estate to conduct an experiment. First, I collected water samples right after turning on the tap, which were samples of water that stood overnight, and the tap was then flushed for one minute, two minutes and five minutes. When the tap was flushed for different durations, test results of the concentration of pollutants in the pipes changed from completely exceeding the standard and containing carcinogens to, after the tap was flushed for two minutes, containing no pollutant as the pollutants were already flushed away. However, the Government will not consider Shui Chuen O Estate a "housing estate with lead-tainted water" because their testing method did not identify any problem but our method revealed that there were problems with the drinking water. Such a situation is literally a case of one person's word against another's.
Residents of Shui Chuen O Estate are suffering the most and being ignored as the Government does not regard Shui Chuen O Estate as a "housing estate with lead-tainted water". Therefore, no one offers to provide them with bottled water
5 In colloquial Cantonese, "抽 水" (collecting water) means "piggybacking on something". 8176 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 or help them install water purifiers. Some worried residents decided to purchase water purifiers on their own while some residents even went up the hill to collect water for drinking. Deputy Chairman, can you imagine how pathetic it is for Hong Kong to end up in such a situation? Under the leadership of the Development Bureau, we do not even have any confidence in drinking water.
There is another problem. To date, the Food and Health Bureau and the DH still refused to raise the age limit for children living in the 11 "housing estates with lead-tainted water" to undertake blood tests and insisted that blood tests will be arranged only for children under eight years of age. So the Government simply chose to ignore children over eight years of age? An expert has said that children under 12 years of age may also be affected. Although I have relayed this point to the Food and Health Bureau time and again, the authorities still refused to conduct blood tests for those children. What exactly is the attitude adopted by the Government? Is it because once the age range is extended, many people will be getting blood tests and the Hospital Authority will therefore be overburdened as the authorities do not have sufficient manpower, phlebotomists and laboratories to provide support? I have no idea why Hong Kong has suddenly changed from an affluent city with a large surplus to a city where even the demands for arranging blood tests for residents living in "housing estates with lead-tainted water" were rejected. Therefore, several Policy Bureaux and departments have, in fact, also made blunders.
Let us come back to the HD, that is, Act Six: So far the HD is still following the instructions given by the WSD only without taking the "first-draw" water samples for testing. It refused to use X-ray fluorescence (XRF) devices (hand-held metal detectors) in the public rental housing estates completed in the previous decade (that is, after 2005) to examine whether the pipes in exposed locations which are visible to the naked eye contain any heavy metals or soldering materials with lead content. It also refused to examine whether the pipes, water meters, valves and soldering materials used in the public rental housing estates completed in the previous decade, which were reported to the HD and the WSD beforehand, were installed properly according to the reported procedures. According to the report prepared by the WSD, three violations are identified in two sets of water pipes dismantled from Kai Ching Estate and Kwai Luen Estate, including non-compliance with the products' countries of origin as declared, non-compliance with the products of pipes, water meters or valves and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8177 non-compliance with the British standard. Is it true that these three violations were only found in two housing estates? Or is it possible that such a problem also exists in many housing estates?
Currently, the HD is only using the water testing method as instructed by the WSD, which is running a tap for several minutes to determine whether a housing estate is a "housing estate with lead-tainted water". Yet, it even refused to use XRF devices to examine whether the pipes in a housing estate were installed in compliance with the requirements and whether non-compliant soldering materials were used. Therefore, the HD should also be held accountable and if we are going to deduct the expenditure on emoluments, the emoluments of the Director of Housing and the Secretary for Transport and Housing should be deducted as well.
Another problem is that when the water supply components consisting of all the water-related items, such as pipes, meters and valves, were delivered to the sites, to our surprise, no one conducted any inspection. Even when materials like floor tiles, wall tiles for washrooms and tissue paper racks were delivered to the sites, the authorities would take samples to check whether they matched the quality declared beforehand. Yet none of the pipes, meters, valves and soldering materials were checked by anyone. They were readily accepted. Had the Democratic Party not conducted tests on the water samples, this problem would have been kept in secret forever, and the health of the entire population would have been threatened by lead-contaminated water. In Members' view, should the emoluments of the Director of Housing and the Secretary for Transport and Housing not be deducted? Hence, in monitoring the waterworks and the quality of drinking water in public housing, the HD has indeed worked perfunctorily with lots of flaws. The WSD has also made the same mistake.
Act Seven: When various sectors in society held the Government responsible for the incident, the officials began to seek people's sympathy. Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM complained that Members' request for the officials to drink on the spot lead-contaminated water from "housing estates with lead-tainted water" was some sort of humiliation to the officials. Then she ordered the 100 000-odd civil servants never to drink such lead-contaminated water. Even if members of the public requested them to drink it, they should never do so in order to uphold the officials' prestige and dignity. Regarding this remark that it is humiliation for the officials to drink 8178 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 lead-contaminated water, actually very few members of the public have expressed sympathy. That means they do not agree. The final tactic of the officials was "making a scene". It is still vivid in our minds. That day, when Chief Secretary Carrie LAM came to the Legislative Council, she stood here and proclaimed that she was "a bold government official with no expectation". Then she challenged the Members who were present, considering that we had politicized the lead-in-water incident. In her view, no official should be held responsible for this incident, and no official has committed any mistake.
However, Deputy Chairman, many officials have made mistakes. This is rather obvious. They have not done their job properly. We can make a comparison. Last year, a furore relating to excess lead in water also unfortunately took place in Flint, Michigan, in the United States, but it was a bit different from our case. We had problems with the soldering materials and pipes, whereas their problem was caused by the replacement of an official. That place was an area inhabited by black people and the government was relatively poor. For this reason, the government chose to use what was nearer at hand rather than what was farther away. Instead of using the clean river water for water supply, it used the polluted one, eventually causing a number of local residents to have excess lead in their blood. The whole incident was quite serious. However, as we have noted, its way of handling the matter and its sense of accountability were really much better than those of the Hong Kong officials.
When this incident was handled in the United States, there was a law to go by because in 1974, the United States already enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act. Since its enactment in 1974, this law has been amended many times. Now drinking water is under strict control and subject to regulation from source to tap based on water quality standards. Moreover, the roles and regulatory responsibilities of the relevant officials and penalties for non-compliance are specified. Hence, as we can see, when this incident was handled in Flint, although it was unfortunate that some officials had made mistakes, at least they would be held responsible. The relevant officials in charge were prosecuted one after another and had to bear their criminal liability under the local safe drinking water law.
Hong Kong, however, does not have any law on safe drinking water. Has Secretary Paul CHAN ever hoisted the banner and proposed to expeditiously amend the outdated Waterworks Ordinance and speed up legislating for the safety LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8179 of drinking water? However, the Government does it the other way round. When a Member moved a motion on legislating for safe drinking water, I proposed an amendment and set out several recommendations in detail, but surprisingly, the Bureau persuaded Members not to support our amendment. What is this attitude held by the Government? Is there no need to legislate for safe drinking water? Or does it hold that there is no need to monitor drinking water from source to tap (The buzzer sounded)?
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, speaking time is up.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I so submit.
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I have several amendments in this session. As I have said many times, our amendments are directed at a number of items which have bypassed the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, and I am going to speak on one of them.
As I said earlier, we support most of the items. We actually just wish to pick some for discussion and protest that the Government has bypassed the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council. Nevertheless, I wish to make it clear that I hope Members will really support removing this item picked by me. What is this item? It is the estimated expenditure of $35.9 million for the monitoring and verification services consultancy for the detailed design and construction stages of the Three-Runway System (3RS) project. Actually the estimated expenditure for the whole project is not $35.9 million. The $35.9 million is for 2016-2017 only. The expenditure of the whole project is $180 million.
(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
As Members all know, the Government keeps telling us that the Airport Authority (AA) is responsible for the construction of the third runway, and the AA needs to spend $140 billion ― as we have heard, it will cost $140 billion, 8180 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 being more expensive than the Express Rail Link (XRL) ― and regarding this $140 billion, the Government has used every means to bypass the Legislative Council because, according to the Government, all the $140 billion consists of loans raised by the AA. However, that is not true. In this amount, $50-odd billion is allocated to the AA as the Government relinquishes to receive dividends (special dividends). For this reason, $50-odd billion is public funds and taxpayers' money. Yet the Government is rather crafty because it does not need the approval of the Legislative Council for not receiving this $50-odd billion. Another crafty gesture of evading the Legislative Council is imposing a fee per head under the law. As we all know, that means fleecing each customer of a few hundred dollars to finance the project. In seeking the $140 billion financing, why does it have to fleece the passengers? It turns out that their financial adviser has calculated that they will be unable to raise any loan if they do not fleece the passengers. Having got $20-odd billion by fleecing the passengers, they will be able to borrow the outstanding amount. Hence, come to think about this. Of the $140 billion involved in the whole matter, $50-odd billion will actually come from public funds while $20-odd billion will come from fleece off the passengers' backs. Then it will raise loans only for the outstanding amount. The whole matter has thus bypassed the Legislative Council.
The most terrible point in this matter is that all along, we have been told that the AA will pay for this project, but it turns out that the Government also has to pay money. How much does the Government need to pay? It is $180 million. Members may ask why the Government has to pay any money, given that the AA is responsible for the construction in this project. We have already asked about it. This subject should have been discussed in the Finance Committee, but again, it has bypassed the Legislative Council. Frankly, after I have spoken on this subject today, no one will give any reply. I have no idea ― someone must be watching the live broadcast ― if anyone can give us a reply tomorrow? I guess no one will. At least KO Wing-man has give some sort of an answer today. Can Anthony CHEUNG come tomorrow to answer why it is necessary to spend $180 million for the third runway? It does not need the approval of the Finance Committee at all. Then it is arbitrarily put in a bundle. No relevant Director of Bureau is present right now. I wonder if he will give a reply tomorrow.
I have asked the Secretary why it is necessary to spend $180 million. He said it is "to assist in the satisfactory delivery of the 3RS project having regard to cost-effectiveness, fit-for-purpose and value-for-money". How brilliant he is! LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8181
The $180 million will be spent on monitoring the project. Actually, the cost of $140 billion is already not cost-effective. Then he will set up an office to monitor it. How does it have anything to do with him? Did he not say that it has nothing to do with him as the AA will bear the expenses? If the AA is not cost-effective, it is the AA's business. How does it have anything to do with him? Yet the Government commits itself without making any explanation. Neither did it submit the matter to the Legislative Council for discussion. Again, this matter has been handled arbitrarily.
The second point he mentioned is "independent review of the design work by the AA to ensure full compliance with relevant statutory requirements and technical standards". In my view, this objective is quite ridiculous. Does the design done by the AA needs not comply with the statutory requirements? Why is it still necessary to set up an office to monitor its compliance? How preposterous! Please do not forget to whom the AA belongs. The AA also belongs to the Government. The Government wholly owns the AA, and yet it has to set up an office to monitor whether the AA complies with the statutory requirements.
The third point is "provision of expert advice on the tender documentation and contract procurement strategy". Does the AA not have any expert to advise it and thus needs this government office to provide such advice? I think this is preposterous, Chairman. Hence, we think Members must look at this matter carefully. First of all, the Government will spend $180 million to set up an office for no reason, but afterwards, it actually has no idea why it has to do so. I find it unnecessary to set up the office. The AA is so awesome that it can afford $140 billion for the construction of the third runway. Why does the Government need to provide so much assistance?
Another function is "keeping under close review the overall construction process with particular emphasis on cost control, progress monitoring, works quality and contract interfacing arrangements". Why not just let the Government undertake everything? However, the final say in the entire project rests with the AA. In fact, now the whole subcommittee relating to the third runway is just a "toothless tiger". The third runway will be constructed anyway. In mid-2016, this project will start using the $180 million funding. A sum of $3.59 million will be spent in 2016-2017. As a matter of fact, with regard to the entire project for the third runway, the AA has been intent on evading the Legislative Council. The funding of $180 million has bypassed the Finance 8182 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Committee of the Legislative Council for fear that we would raise questions in the Finance Committee to get to the bottom of the matter. Now that it has been put in a bundle, and no one will give us any reply either. Again, the pro-establishment camp will merely sit here. They do not mind about it. If the Government wants $180 million, they will simply grant it.
Nevertheless, please do not forget that the third runway itself has got a problem. Leaving aside the problem of the white dolphins, let me just say that it has a strong smell of the XRL. What is meant by a "burnt smell" of the XRL? Members should still remember that back then, the Government undertook to implement co-location of boundary control facilities for the XRL, but today it is still not implemented, and then there is a cost overrun of some $20 billion. Regarding the third runway, today the Government tells us that the airspace issue has been settled. By 2017, the standards and planning will be unified. It turns out that they are subject to "unification". We did not know that. I will not ask any further questions about it. Some people say that such words like "unification" are Mainland expressions which have a different meaning. In Hong Kong, it means "co-ordination".
If it is said that co-ordination has been done for the airspace, what has been co-ordinated? Eventually, we asked the Secretary, who said it had to be kept confidential. So far he has not provided any information at all. The whole matter has been kept in strict confidence. If, when the confidentiality is relaxed after genuine co-ordination, it is found that the airspace for the third runway covers five airports, will we have to give way to Shenzhen and Guangzhou then?
I do not know what will happen in the future. However, if we have to give way in the future, the third runway may fail to serve its purpose. At present, the number of daily flight movements is 68, and it is said that the capacity will increase to 100-odd per day in the future. What if it cannot be achieved ultimately? Never mind. Failing that, it is something to be addressed in the future, since we have not grasped all the information now. Members said the construction of the third runway is desirable, but it may become a useless runway in future, just like the XRL which has become a useless rail now because the issue of the co-location arrangement has yet to be settled. We do not know how it will end up. Even if it is settled, the result may be even more frightening because it may ruin "one country, two systems". When the problem of the third LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8183 runway is settled in future, we may be even more frightened because it turns out that our airspace is under other people's control. Perhaps similarly, it will also ruin "one country, two systems".
We have no idea what will happen later, but now Members just render it their blind support. This is the situation of the first amendment on which I am speaking. Hence, I hope the Government will give us a reply tomorrow. On the other hand, I hope Members will support the removal of the subhead which involves $35.9 million. But the reduction of this amount is useless either because it is only the funding for 2016-2017. The Government will make another application next year, since the whole project costs $180 million. So this is about the first amendment.
The second amendment on which I would like to talk about particularly is our proposal for deducting the expenditure for the annual emoluments of the Secretary for Transport and Housing. Regarding the Transport and Housing Bureau, I am not going to talk about transport for the time being. I will talk about housing first. Just now Dr Helena WONG already talked a lot about the issue of lead-contaminated water, and I am not going to repeat it. The whole matter obviously shows the Government's belated awakening. The monitoring by the entire Transport and Housing Bureau turns out to be entirely ineffective, thus causing many public housing residents in Hong Kong to consume lead-contaminated water.
Another serious problem is, the Transport and Housing Bureau has conducted a study on the long-term housing strategy for the next 10 years, but after all, when we asked the Bureau actually how many units would be provided every year, we found out that in the first five years, the average number of units to be provided would be the same, which is 15 000 a year, with an increase of several dozens of units only. Members commended LEUNG Chun-ying as being sagacious and slammed Donald TSANG for constructing only 15 000 units a year instead of constructing more. Then LEUNG Chun-ying said he himself had a way of having 25 000 units constructed every year, but now it has been reduced to 15 000. What did Anthony CHEUNG say? He said the Government wished to construct more public housing units in the long run. However, this is useless. Now the residents complain to us every day. All the applicants from families consisting of four persons or five persons or more say that they have waited for five or seven years. What can they do? Some have waited for seven years, but they are still waiting.
8184 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
Then the Secretary told the people of Hong Kong that the average waiting time is only three and a half years, but now no one believes it. They know they have to wait for a long time. Regarding the average waiting time of three and a half years, some may be express cases. For example, if the applicant is willing to move into a unit where someone has passed away, the waiting time may be shorter. The average waiting time of three and a half years may also refer to two-person or three-person families who can be provided with public housing earlier, but applications of four-person families, I guess, have to wait for at least five years now. As such, what can four-person or five-person families do? All of them have to wait for a long period.
However, what has the Secretary for Transport and Housing done? We asked the Bureau to implement rent control, but it did not do so. The Bureau said rent control is not feasible, thus making Hong Kong a disgrace in the world now, in that the per-square-foot rent of "sub-divided units" is even higher than that of luxury flats. With a tiny area, a "sub-divided unit" of 100 sq ft accommodates a family of four. This is a disgrace in the world, but the residents in Hong Kong have to continue to live in such a shameful place without any space. What has the Transport and Housing Bureau delivered? It will only shirk the responsibility by claiming that there is a lack of land without delivering any results. For this reason, I consider that the Secretary's emoluments should be reduced.
In this debate session, another person whose emoluments should be reduced is the Secretary for Development. He is even more ridiculous. I will cite only one example to show how ridiculous he is. One year, the Secretary for Development told us smugly that 17 000 public housing units would be constructed in Wang Chau. However, after a study was conducted, the number of units was reduced to 4 000 in the end. Why was it reduced to 4 000? It turned out that he did not do any planning on the brownfield sites. Instead, he did planning on land lots where there were residents. Those residents asked if the Government could refrain from recovering their houses. The Government has a brownfield site on which 13 000 units can be constructed ― Please bear in mind that 13 000 units can be built on that brownfield site ― but it did not do any planning for that site. Then the Secretary explained to us that it was difficult to do so, and the easier ones would be handled first. The interests of villages and those of landowners and local tyrants can hardly be touched. As we know, brownfield sites refers to car parks or places for disposal of scrap metal. The Government does not dare touch any of them. That has already led to a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016 8185 difference of 13 000 units. We have seen the loss of 13 000 units under our naked eyes, yet the Secretary keeps saying that the search for land is accorded top priority. This is the first sin.
As regards the second sin, let us look at the recent problem of fly-tipping. Very often, it is only after fly-tipping has taken place that the Planning Department (PlanD) will issue letters to the persons in question, becoming their pen pal and merely giving them a warning, adding that it will carry out inspections, but how long it will take the PlanD to take enforcement action is unknown. Worse still, when there is obviously an unauthorized development, the PlanD will request restoration, but it turns out that restoration is negotiable. Restoration can simply be done by turfing, and that is all. Those developers are certainly happy. It is exactly their intention to destroy the land first and develop it later. After site formation works have been carried out and the foundation has been built, it does not matter if the Government then requests turfing, does it? Buildings can be constructed after the turf pitch is cleared later ― this is how the PlanD works.
We have asked time and again why the PlanD did not initiate any prosecution. That day, when we raised the question in the Panel on Development and the Panel on Environmental Affairs, the Department stated that there was an explanation for each case about why no prosecution was initiated. Then I said this reflected an actual problem with the law, but even though there was a problem with the law, the Secretary for Development and the Secretary for the Environment, who were present, did not dare promise to plug the loophole in law. Never mind. The rural area will be subjected to continued destruction. The Green Belt will be damaged. Fly-tipping will take place everywhere. Such cases will happen one after another. Every place will be damaged. Then we will discover that a certain place has seen residential properties erected on it. Such is collusion between the Government and the business sector. Hence, if the Secretary for Development does not wish to be regarded as having colluded with the business sector, would he please do something, since he has not done anything either.
Thank you, Chairman.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount.
8186 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 April 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(The summoning bell stopped after ringing for 15 minutes)
(Some Members talked loudly)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet. A quorum is not present in the Chamber. Council will now resume.
Council then resumed.
ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the meeting.
Adjourned accordingly at 7.30 pm.