LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7825
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 27 April 2016
The Council met at Eleven 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 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.
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.
7826 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
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.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
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
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7827
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 GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
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.
7828 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, 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.
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7829
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE GREGORY SO KAM-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
THE HONOURABLE LAI TUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
THE HONOURABLE CLEMENT CHEUNG WAN-CHING, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE
MR JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, P.D.S.M., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
7830 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber)
TABLING OF PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:
Subsidiary Legislation/Instruments L.N. No.
Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 ...... 47/2016
Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) (Amount of Insurance Cover) (Amendment) Notice 2016 ...... 48/2016
Other Papers
No. 84 ─ Qualifications Framework Fund Financial statements for the period from 31 July 2014 to 31 August 2015
No. 85 ─ Research Endowment Fund Financial statements for the year ended 31 August 2015
No. 86 ─ Employees' Compensation Insurance Levies Management Board Annual Report 2014/2015
No. 87 ─ Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board Annual Report 2014-2015
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7831
No. 88 ─ Occupational Deafness Compensation Board Annual Report 2014/2015
No. 89 ─ Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund Board Annual Report 2014
No. 90 ─ Pneumoconiosis Ex Gratia Fund Annual Report for the year from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015
Report of the Bills Committee on Kai Tak Cruise Terminal Bill
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Measures to Combat Mainland Fishing Vessels Illegally Entering and Fishing in Hong Kong Waters
1. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Chinese): President, in reply to my question raised at the Legislative Council meeting of 13 May 2009 in respect of curbing Mainland fishing vessels illegally entering and fishing in Hong Kong waters, the Government indicated that the existing legislation had been effective in combating the illegal fishing activities concerned, and that the departments concerned would continue to enforce the law stringently as well as enhance their communication and co-operation with the Mainland authorities so as to combat such illegal activities. However, I have recently received complaints from quite a number of members of the public, claiming that the situation of Mainland fishing vessels entering and fishing illegally in Hong Kong waters (particularly the waters south of Lantau) remains serious and has been deteriorating in recent years. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of last year's manning scale of Marine Police officers patrolling the waters south of Lantau (covering the waters near Tai A Chau, Siu A Chau, Peng Chau and Cheung Chau);
(2) of the number of Mainland fishing vessels intercepted for suspected illegal fishing and the number of Mainland fishermen involved, as well as the respective numbers of persons prosecuted and convicted for illegal fishing, in each of the past seven years; and
7832 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
(3) whether the authorities have, since 2009, allocated more resources than before for combating the aforesaid illegal fishing activities; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; whether they will consider allocating additional resources for law enforcement, improving the existing prosecution mechanism, raising the relevant penalties, or taking other measures, so as to further curb such activities, thereby safeguarding the rights and interests of local fishermen, and conserving Hong Kong's marine ecosystem; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, having consulted the relevant bureaux and departments, I set out below my reply to Mr Albert CHAN's question:
(1) Since early 2008, the waters south of Lantau (covering the areas near Tai A Chau, Siu A Chau, Peng Chau and Cheung Chau) have been patrolled daily on a 24-hour basis by two to three launches of the Marine Police, each manned by five to 19 officers. The Police will deploy additional launches to patrol in the area having regard to the circumstances and operational needs.
(2) From 2009 to 2015, the number of Mainland fishing vessels suspected of illegal entry and the number of related prosecutions and convictions under the relevant statutory provisions are set out below:
- In accordance with the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115), the Marine Police refused the entry of 293 Mainland fishing vessels and a total of 871 crew members. The Marine Police also intercepted 768 Mainland fishing vessels for illegal entry into Hong Kong waters and arrested 2 499 Mainland fishermen onboard. These people were all illegal immigrants and were repatriated to the Mainland.
- The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department successfully made prosecution under the Marine Parks and Marine Reserves Regulation (Cap. 476A) in 22 cases involving Mainland fishermen for illegal operations in marine LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7833
parks in Hong Kong. Fifteen Mainland fishermen were sentenced to imprisonment from seven days to one month, suspended for one year, and seven others were fined ranging from $700 to $1,600.
- The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department successfully made prosecution under the Fisheries Protection Ordinance (Cap. 171) in 22 cases involving 36 Mainland fishermen for illegal fishing activities in Hong Kong with the use or aid of vessels. Of the convicted Mainland fishermen, 13 were fined ranging from $200 to $10,000, and another 23 were sentenced to imprisonment from one day to one month (some of whom were given suspended sentences).
- The Marine Department prosecuted three Mainland fishing vessels under the Shipping and Port Control Regulations (Cap. 313A) for unauthorized entry into Hong Kong waters. The three coxswains involved were convicted and fined $800 to $1,000 each. No Mainland fishing vessel was prosecuted during the period under the Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) (General) Regulation (Cap. 548F) for unauthorized entry into Hong Kong waters.
(3) The Government considers that the existing statutory provisions are already effective in combating the illegal entry of Mainland fishing vessels into Hong Kong waters for fishing activities, and that the penalties imposed by the Court provide certain deterrent. The departments concerned have been flexibly deploying resources to step up patrol at sea having regard to the circumstances, and carry out joint enforcement actions where necessary. Such departments will continue to stringently enforce the law, and enhance communication and co-operation with Mainland law-enforcement agencies to curb the illegal entry of Mainland fishermen as well as their fishing activities in Hong Kong waters, so as to safeguard the interests of local fishermen and conserve the marine ecology of Hong Kong waters.
7834 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Easing Land Traffic Congestion and Improving Berthing Facilities for Leisure Boats in Sai Kung
2. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, given that the population of Sai Kung has been increasing incessantly in recent years, traffic congestion occurs frequently at certain sections of Hiram's Highway, which is the major road linking up Sai Kung with East Kowloon and Tseung Kwan O. Moreover, Sai Kung is praised as the Back Garden of Hong Kong and quite a number of members of the public and tourists go to Sai Kung for recreational purpose during holidays. The high traffic volume so generated has overloaded Sai Kung's transport infrastructures. On the other hand, in recent years, many members of the public and tourists take leisure boats from Sai Kung to visit the Hong Kong Global Geopark of China, resulting in a shortfall of berthing spaces for leisure boats in the inland sea of Sai Kung. Regarding the easing of land traffic congestion and improving the berthing facilities for leisure boats in Sai Kung, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the Hiram's Highway Improvement Stage 1 project is underway, whether the authorities have implemented temporary traffic measures to alleviate the impact of the project on the residents of Sai Kung; if they have, of the details and implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) given that some members of the Sai Kung District Council have relayed to me that traffic congestion often occurs on Clear Water Bay Road and New Clear Water Bay Road at present, and they have therefore made the proposals of (i) widening the section of New Clear Water Bay Road near Shun Lee Estate from a three-lane to a four-lane carriageway, (ii) constructing a two-lane-two-way flyover straddling Clear Water Bay Road and spanning from Fung Shing Street at Choi Wan Estate to New Clear Water Bay Road, and (iii) constructing a flyover at the section of New Clear Water Bay Road near St. Joseph's Anglo-Chinese School connecting Lung Cheung Road, Prince Edward Road and Kwun Tong Road, so as to ease the traffic congestion in the relevant areas, whether the authorities will accept those proposals; if they will, of the details and implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that and the improvement measures to be taken by the authorities to ease the traffic congestion in the areas concerned;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7835
(3) whether it will plan afresh and increase the number of berthing spaces for leisure boats in the inland sea of Sai Kung; if it will, of the details and implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and
(4) whether it will consider providing ancillary facilities for leisure boats, e.g. provision of water taps, petrol filling stations and fire-fighting installations along the shore; if it will, of the details and implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, our reply to various parts of Dr Elizabeth QUAT's question is as follows:
(1) The Hiram's Highway Improvement Stage 1 project commenced on 30 March 2016. To avoid affecting traffic on the Hiram's Highway, the Highways Department (HyD) will carry out some of the works during non-peak hours, such that the number of existing traffic lanes would be maintained during peak hours. To this end, new traffic lanes will be completed prior to the closure of existing road sections for modification works.
The HyD is planning for the set-up of a Traffic Management Liaison Group (TMLG) in this year to manage and minimize the traffic impacts arising from the construction works. The TMLG will mainly involve representatives from concerned departments and organizations including the HyD, the Transport Department, the Police and the contractor, and so on. Since utility diversions would be involved, utility companies would also attend the TMLG meetings on a need basis.
The TMLG will examine temporary traffic management schemes proposed by the contractor, taking into account effects of other roadworks in the vicinity. The contractor has to obtain the consent of the TMLG to the proposed temporary traffic management schemes before implementation. During implementation of the proposed temporary traffic management schemes, the Police and the resident site staff engaged by HyD will closely monitor the traffic conditions and the contractor would be required to make refinements 7836 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
where necessary. The HyD will report the status of temporary traffic arrangements and works progress to the Sai Kung District Council (SKDC) from time to time. The HyD will consult the SKDC about major temporary traffic arrangements before implementation if needed.
(2) The Government has been monitoring the traffic conditions in areas around Clear Water Bay Road and New Clear Water Bay Road. Last year, the Government extended the public light bus stop at Clear Water Bay Road westbound near Choi Hung Interchange and removed the roadside railings to facilitate pick-up and set-down of minibus passengers in order to maintain a smooth traffic flow at that section of Clear Water Bay Road.
Regarding the widening of the section of New Clear Water Bay Road near Shun Lee Estate from a three-lane to a four-lane carriageway as proposed in the question, it should be noted that the Government will launch a series of road improvement measures to tie in with the Development of Anderson Road Quarry site. These measures include the widening of the Kowloon bound lane of the section of New Clear Water Bay Road near Shun Lee Estate from a single-lane to a two-lane carriageway (that is, a total of four lanes for both directions); improving the road junction of Clear Water Bay Road and On Sau Road; the provision of U-turn facilities at the section of Clear Water Road near Fei Ngo Shan Road. Moreover, the gradual commissioning of Route 6 (including Tseung Kwan O-Lam Tin Tunnel, the Trunk Road T2, and the Central Kowloon Route) will alleviate the necessary relief to the existing heavily utilized road networks in central and east Kowloon while meeting the anticipated traffic demands to be generated from planned development projects in these areas. Under the circumstances, the Government will not consider the two proposals mentioned in the question for the time being, viz. constructing a two-lane two-way flyover straddling Clear Water Bay Road and spanning from Fung Shing Street at Choi Wan Estate to New Clear Water Bay Road, and constructing a flyover at the section of New Clear Water Bay Road near St. Joseph's Anglo-Chinese School connecting Lung Cheung Road, Prince Edward Road and Kwun Tong Road. The Government will continue to closely keep in view the traffic LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7837
conditions in areas around Clear Water Bay Road and New Clear Water Bay Road and will consider and explore suitable traffic management measures at appropriate time.
(3) and (4)
The Marine Department (MD) assesses the demand and supply of typhoon shelter space in Hong Kong periodically to ensure that there is sufficient sheltered space in Hong Kong waters for local vessels (including pleasure vessels) to seek refuge during typhoons. In view of increasing size of newly licensed local vessels and rapid growth in the number of pleasure vessels in recent years, the MD is conducting a review to assess the demand and supply of typhoon shelter space, and to look into the provision of berthing space on a territorial and regional basis (including inland sea of Sai Kung) as well as their management, including provision of ancillary facilities such as firefighting facilities, drinking water and fuel replenishing facilities, and so on. The review is expected to be completed by the end of this year.
Eligibility of Electors of Information Technology Functional Constituency of Legislative Council
3. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, the eligibility for registration as electors in the Information Technology Functional Constituency (ITFC) of the Legislative Council (LegCo) is based on memberships in bodies specified in the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap. 542) (specified bodies). Under section 3(2A) and (2B) of Cap. 542, an amendment to or substitution of the constitution of a specified body which relates to the following is subject to approval by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs (SCMA) in writing: (a) the objects of the body, (b) the criteria and conditions of membership of the body, or (c) the eligibility of members of the body to vote at a general meeting of the body, but such power of SCMA to give such an approval may be exercised only for the purpose of defining the composition of the relevant functional constituency. On the other hand, it has been reported recently that one ITFC specified body has engaged in a membership conversion programme with a non-specified body, in a bid to evade certain restrictions for elector registration and enable members of that non-specified body to become eligible 7838 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 electors of ITFC. There are views that at present, apart from specified bodies carrying out their own vetting of their members' professional and academic qualifications, there is no mechanism in place to govern membership matters of specified bodies, resulting in a lack of transparency in the eligibility of ITFC electors. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the current number of registered electors in ITFC; whether it knows the current number of ITFC specified bodies which implement membership conversion arrangements with non-specified bodies;
(2) whether it conducted, in the past four years, any examination on the administration of memberships of ITFC specified bodies, so as to ensure that their members meet the eligibility requirements for ITFC electors under Cap. 542;
(3) of the ITFC specified bodies to which the Independent Commission Against Corruption offered advice on membership administration under its visit-cum-advisory service programme in the past four years;
(4) of the number of complaints received by the authorities in the past four years involving membership conversion arrangements of ITFC specified bodies with non-specified bodies, and the related follow-up actions; whether they have studied (i) if those persons who obtained memberships of specified bodies through such arrangements possess recognized professional qualifications, and (ii) if it is against the law for such persons to vote in the LegCo ITFC election when they do not possess the recognized qualifications;
(5) whether it has assessed if the aforesaid membership conversion arrangements have violated the requirements in section 3(2A) and (2B) of Cap. 542;
(6) whether it has compiled statistics on those ITFC specified bodies which implemented the aforesaid membership conversion arrangements in the past four years, as well as the number of such bodies which had obtained written approval of SCMA for implementation of such membership conversion arrangements and the relevant details;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7839
(7) whether the authorities will, upon knowing that changes have been made to the eligibility of membership of a specified body, review the eligibility of the members of such body for registration as electors for the constituency concerned; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(8) whether it has plans to review the relevant provisions of Cap. 542 in the light of the aforesaid membership conversion arrangements, so that measures (such as establishing a monitoring system and conducting random checks proactively) can be put in place to plug the relevant loopholes to ensure the fairness of this year's LegCo Election and the Election Committee Subsector Elections; if it has such plans, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, with regard to the various parts of the question raised by Mr MOK, our consolidated reply is as follows:
Sections 20Z and 25 of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap. 542) (the LCO) specify the composition of and the eligibility for registration as electors of the information technology functional constituency (ITFC). According to sections 3(2A) and (2B) of the LCO, for the purpose of defining the electorate and the nature of the relevant functional constituencies (FCs), approval in writing by the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs must be obtained for any amendment to or substitution of the constitution of a specified body involving (i) the objects of the body; (ii) the criteria and conditions of membership of the body; or (iii) the eligibility of members of the body to vote at a general meeting of the body.
Besides, according to section 42 of the Electoral Affairs Commission (Registration) (Electors for Legislative Council Functional Constituencies) (Voters for Election Committee Subsectors) (Members of Election Committee) Regulation (Cap. 541B), all specified bodies are obliged to provide with the Registration and Electoral Office (REO) on request information about their members who meet the eligibility requirements in the relevant FCs under the LCO for the purpose of voter registration (VR). The information provided must be true and accurate and failure to do so constitutes a criminal offence and would be liable to a maximum penalty of a fine at level 2 ($5,000) and imprisonment for six months.
7840 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
With regard to the FCs, registered electors who have ceased to be eligible to be registered under the FCs concerned shall be disqualified from voting in the relevant election. Under section 16 of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (Cap. 554), a person engages in corrupt conduct at an election if the person votes at the election knowing that he/she is not entitled to do so. The maximum penalty is a fine of $500,000 and imprisonment for seven years.
Generally speaking, if electors of an individual FC include members of a specified body, this refers to members who are entitled to vote at general meetings of the specified body as provided by its constitution. In other words, although there may be more than one way to become a member of the specified body, or the specified body may have different types of membership, and so forth, at the end of the day, the relevant person still has to meet the eligibility requirements under the LCO in order to be registered as an elector in the relevant FC.
Under the aforementioned system, the REO collects from all specified bodies in every VR cycle their latest list of members who meet the eligibility requirements under the LCO for registration as electors in the relevant FCs so as to review the eligibility of individuals for VR. In the processing of new VR applications, the REO would check whether the applicants concerned are included in the lists provided by specified bodies. For registered electors, the REO would check the particulars in the electoral registers and, in accordance with the electoral laws, initiate the statutory inquiry process for electors who no longer meet the eligibility requirements for registration, requesting them to provide the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) with proofs of their eligibility for registration before the statutory deadline. If the electors concerned are not able to present proofs that they are still eligible for registration in the relevant FC before the deadline, the ERO will put their names on the omissions list (OL) in accordance with the electoral laws.
The REO publishes the provisional registers of electors (PR), OL and the final registers of electors every year for inspection by the public, so as to ensure a high degree of transparency in the VR system and to facilitate public scrutiny. Before the close of the public inspection period, the public may lodge objections or claims to the ERO. Such cases will then be referred to the Revising Officer for consideration and ruling.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7841
In addition, the REO has started, from the 2012 VR cycle, the practice of issuing letters to the specified bodies annually to appeal to them to strengthen their membership administration and comply with their constitutions, and to adopt proper procedures to ensure propriety in membership administration, enhancing transparency, and exercising due diligence in providing up-to-date membership information to the REO. The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has also, since mid-2013, started to visit specified bodies (including those of the ITFC) and provide corruption prevention advisory services to further drive home the message of good corporate governance and importance of a transparent membership administration. In late 2015, the ICAC also issued a best practice checklist on membership administration to all specified bodies through the REO to assist them in strengthening their membership administration system.
As far as the 2016 VR cycle is concerned, the REO is in the process of conducting the aforementioned checking measures on the eligibility of individuals for registration in the relevant FCs. The REO has all along adopted prudent and strict procedures to process each application for registration as electors or application for updating registration particulars, so as to ensure that the applicants or electors meet the eligibility requirements for registration under the relevant legislation. All validated applications for registration as electors in FCs and applications for updating registration particulars will be reflected in the PR to be published on or before 1 June this year.
If the REO receives any complaint or information showing that a specified body is suspected of breaching the relevant electoral laws, the REO will take appropriate action to follow up the case, including approaching the specified body for enquiry and information, and referring the case to the law-enforcement agencies for follow-up action as appropriate.
According to the 2015 final register of electors for FCs, a total of 5 650 registered electors are listed under the ITFC, of whom 5 307 are individual electors and 343 corporate electors. The REO does not maintain any information or statistics regarding membership conversion arrangements of specified bodies, or the number of complaints concerning such arrangements. We would conduct the Legislative Council general election in accordance with the current electoral laws.
7842 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Strengthening Regulation of Intermediaries and Related Illegal Financial Activities
4. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, recently, the media have made known to the public a huge number of confidential documents leaked from a Panamanian law firm (the Panama Papers), exposing the fact that quite a number of politicians, public officials and celebrities across the world have set up offshore companies in tax havens and they are possibly involved in illegal activities such as assets hiding, tax evasion, money laundering, etc. Those papers have also revealed that, among the cities in the world, Hong Kong has the greatest number of intermediaries offering services for setting up offshore companies and, for that reason, been dubbed "a top centre for secretive offshore financial services". Such a situation has aroused concerns about whether the intermediaries in Hong Kong are helping their clientele, on a massive scale, to set up offshore companies for the purpose of carrying out the aforesaid illegal activities, and whether such activities will jeopardize the reputation of Hong Kong as an international financial centre. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of (i) reports of suspicious transactions received and (ii) such reported cases found to be substantiated, in each of the past five years by the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit (JFIU), which is jointly run by staff of the Hong Kong Police Force and the Hong Kong Customs & Excise Department, together with a tabulated breakdown by trade/sector involved;
(2) of the respective staffing establishment of JFIU and its four Data Analysis Teams, together with the average monthly number of reported suspicious transactions handled by each member of those teams; the respective overtime work situations of the various types of JFIU staff last year;
(3) whether it has assessed the adequacy of JFIU's current manpower and other resources, and has planned to conduct a comprehensive review of JFIU's structure and functions so as to step up its efforts to combat the aforesaid illegal activities; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7843
(4) whether it knows the number of intermediaries in Hong Kong specialized in offering services for setting up offshore companies; of the legislation and policies the authorities currently have in place to regulate the conduct of business of such intermediaries; and whether it took any enforcement actions in the past three years against the alleged offending intermediaries; if it did, of the details; and
(5) whether it has planned to conduct proactive investigations on the basis of the information revealed by the Panama Papers to find out whether any local intermediaries have committed illegal acts, and to publish the results of such investigations locally and internationally; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President,
(1) The respective numbers of suspicious transaction reports (STRs) received in each of the past five years by the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit (JFIU), jointly run by the staff of the Hong Kong Police Force and the Customs and Excise Department, together with a breakdown by trade or sector, are set out as follows:
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Banks 17 194 19 202 27 328 31 095 34 959 Money Service Operators 1 051 1 171 2 108 2 772 3 566 Securities Firms 470 698 1 410 1 574 1 095 Insurance Companies 204 341 401 446 495 Money Lenders 1 31 28 32 33 Legal Firms 116 110 235 222 894 Trust and Company Service 32 49 27 46 22 Providers Real Estate Agencies 2 28 12 29 31 Dealers in Precious Products 1 16 26 18 6 Accounting Firms 10 4 4 3 6 Others 1 206 1 632 1 328 951 1 448 Total 20 287 23 282 32 907 37 188 42 555
7844 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
On receiving an STR, the JFIU will conduct intelligence analysis, and examine the intelligence received in terms of the degree of suspicion, level of risks and severity, and so on, according to its risk assessment mechanism. Cases which require in-depth investigation will be referred to the relevant law-enforcement agencies (LEAs) for follow-up action or criminal investigation. The numbers of STRs referred to relevant LEAs in the past five years by the JFIU are tabulated below:
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Number of referrals made 3 921 5 325 8 037 7 662 10 454
(2) and (3)
Since 1 April 2014, the staffing establishment of the JFIU has been 48 posts, including a total of 22 officers in the Data Analysis Teams. We do not have statistics on the average number of reported cases handled by each officer and their overtime work performed. With the number of STRs rising year on year, the JFIU will review and adjust its workflow in handling STRs from time to time to cope with the increasing caseload.
(4) and (5)
We do not comment on individual cases. However, we should point out that there is no law in Hong Kong prohibiting individuals or commercial entities from setting up companies in jurisdictions outside Hong Kong. We therefore do not have the statistics on the number of intermediaries in Hong Kong providing services in connection with the incorporation of offshore companies. Nevertheless, under the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance and the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance, if any person (including any company service provider, law firm or financial institution) knows or suspects that any property is proceeds of a serious crime or drug trafficking, or a terrorist's property, the person must file an STR in relation to the information or transaction with the JFIU. Also, financial institutions must strictly comply with the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7845
requirements of customer due diligence and record keeping to ascertain the objectives and business information of customers and apply reasonable measures to identify and verify the beneficial owners of customers for mitigating the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing in accordance with the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (Financial Institutions) Ordinance. Regarding tax matters, the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) has taken note of the report released by the organization concerned. As always, the IRD will take necessary actions against tax evasion and avoidance by taxpayers, based on information possessed by the Department or received from other sources.
Improving Usage of Public Libraries
5. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, according to a research report on "Challenges of Public Libraries in Hong Kong" released by the Legislative Council Secretariat, despite a sustained uptrend in the number of registered borrowers of public libraries (libraries) in recent years, the usage of libraries has faced downward pressure over the past decade (e.g. the total number of physical visits to libraries declined by 3% in the period from 2012 to 2014). The causes for such a situation include the growing popularity of Internet usage for information search and online reading (but the circulation of e-books in libraries declined by 7% between 2011 and 2014), and the limited collection of library materials. The per capita library collection of Hong Kong libraries was only 1.9 items last year, which is two-thirds of the average figure of developed places in the world and below international indicators. The distribution of library collection among various districts of Hong Kong is also uneven. Those districts with lower median monthly household income, including Kwun Tong, Sham Shui Po, Kwai Tsing, Tuen Mun and Yuen Long, often have smaller per capita library collection. Moreover, the growth of library e-book collection is rather slow, with e-books accounting for only 1.7% of the total collection and their circulation accounting for merely 0.3% of the total circulation in 2014. On the contrary, the library e-books collection in Singapore surged by nearly three times in five years to 3.5 million copies in 2014, a figure almost 18 times that of Hong Kong. On improving the usage of libraries, will the Government inform this Council:
7846 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
(1) of (i) the number of visits to libraries, (ii) the number of enquiries made on reference materials, (iii) the number of books on loan, (iv) the number of multimedia items on loan and (v) the circulation of e-books, in each of the past five years (set out in a table);
(2) whether it will review and adjust the library collections of the libraries in all of the 18 districts across the territory to ensure that per capita library collections of the libraries in various districts are roughly the same; if it will, of the details; if not, of the reasons for that;
(3) whether it has plans to allocate more resources for purchasing e-books and digitization of library materials; if it does, of the estimated expenditure; if not, the reasons for that;
(4) as it is learnt that the Singaporean authorities offer reading devices, e.g. e-readers and tablets, for loan up to three weeks for people who are in need of them, whether the authorities will, in reviewing the library services, consider making reference to such a practice, so as to enhance public interest in borrowing e-books; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(5) whether it will improve the existing "Multimedia Information" mobile application for libraries, so as to facilitate the public's browsing and viewing of e-books, images as well as audio and video materials of the libraries anywhere and anytime on their mobile devices;
(6) as I have learnt that the some 82 000 copies of Chinese e-books in the local libraries are mainly scholarly books, and therefore the average circulation rate of which has been persistently declining in the past three years, whether the authorities will consider purchasing other types of e-books, e.g. novels and other kinds of books for leisure reading and self-improvement, so as to attract members of the public to borrow such e-books; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7847
(7) whether it will step up its publicity and public education efforts to promote the library collections and e-book lending services, so as to promote a reading culture; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, the Hong Kong Public Libraries (HKPL) of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) has been striving to enhance services and facilities to provide territory-wide public library services that can meet the community's needs for knowledge, information, self-learning and continuous education, as well as the constructive use of leisure time. My reply to the various parts of Mr CHAN's question is as follows:
(1) The attendance figures, the enquiries handled (including reference enquiries), the numbers of loans of books and multimedia materials, and the number of virtual visits (sessions) of the HKPL in the past five years are set out at Annex 1. The usage of e-book collections is set out at Annex 2.
(2) The HKPL provides services for the public through a network of 68 static libraries and 12 mobile libraries under a five-tier planning structure (that is, the Hong Kong Central Library, major libraries, district libraries, small libraries and mobile libraries). The network of libraries is inter-connected by an integrated computer system. Libraries at the respective tier provide collections appropriate for their specific aims and target users. Users may easily reserve, borrow or return library materials across districts through the Library Catalogue and the library computer system.
Generally speaking, the Hong Kong Central Library and the major libraries serving the whole territory and districts respectively have richer library collections. Nevertheless, through the five-tier planning structure and the library computer system, the various libraries can meet the different needs of residents in the 18 districts.
For more effective use of library resources, the HKPL will regularly review their collections in various districts to ensure that they are developed in a diversified and balanced manner. An initial stock 7848 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
size will be designated for each new library under construction. After the opening of the new libraries, additional library materials will be acquired according to their development needs. Where necessary, the HKPL will complement the collections by arranging inter-library transfer of materials to cater for the needs of the users in different districts.
(3) and (6)
The HKPL has been devoting its efforts to develop a balanced and "mixed" library collection which covers print books and e-resources. In the past five years, the total number of e-books in public libraries has increased from over 110 000 in 2011 to over 220 000 in 2015. In 2016-2017, the number of e-book collections will increase from seven (covering about 220 000 titles) at present to eight (covering about 240 000 titles) and the estimated expenditure for the acquisition of e-book collections is $3.5 million. The new Chinese e-book collection covers a wide range of subjects such as arts, commerce and finance, children literature, fiction, language and literature, medicine and health, science and technology, and so on.
In addition to e-book collections, the LCSD now provides 63 e-databases where 21 of them are available for access by library card holders through the Internet outside library premises. The content covers encyclopaedias, human science, social science, environmental science, sports, music, performing arts, and so on. The estimated expenditure for the acquisition of e-databases in 2016-2017 is about $9.6 million.
Furthermore, the Multimedia Information System (MMIS) of the HKPL currently provides about 8 000 hours of digitized audio-visual recordings, over 170 000 audio-visual recordings and more than 4 million digitized pages of images and documents. The HKPL will continue the digitization of authorized collections, including local historical and cultural materials of different themes and ages. The digitized materials will be available for access by readers through the MMIS. The digitization in 2016-2017 includes 1 000 hours of audio-visual recordings and 90 000 pages of printed materials, and the estimated expenditure is about $600,000.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7849
(4) E-books of the HKPL can be viewed from desk-top computers, notebooks and any mobile devices in support of major Internet browsers without the use of any special reading devices. Given that mobile phones and tablets are very popular at present, the HKPL has no plan to provide loan service for electronic reading devices or tablets for a more effective use of resources.
(5) The "Multimedia Information" app of the HKPL provides a one-stop mobile platform for readers to log in the MMIS mobile site upon the installation of the app. Readers may search and browse digitized materials such as old photographs of Hong Kong, old newspapers, e-books, images and audio-visual materials in the MMIS anytime anywhere. The "Electronic Resources" webpage and the MMIS mobile site currently allow readers to browse the e-book collections and materials in the e-databases online. Moreover, the existing two English e-book collections and the new Chinese e-book collection further allow readers to download e-books to their mobile devices.
(7) To foster a reading culture, the HKPL regularly organizes diversified extension and reading activities for readers of different age groups. From 2013 to 2015, over 20 000 extension activities, with an attendance of over 3 million, were held each year. Territory-wide extension activities include Reading Programmes for Children and Youth, Reading Clubs, paired reading talks and workshops, thematic storytelling workshops, "Meet-the-Author" Talk Series, "Summer Reading Month", "4‧23 World Book Day Creative Competition", and so on. Each library will also hold thematic and roving book exhibitions with tie-in recommended booklists. Since 2008, the HKPL has been collaborating with District Councils and community groups to organize reading activities which cater for the needs and characteristics of individual districts. These activities include Summer Reading Programme in Sham Shui Po and Tuen Mun Reading Festival, and so on. To cultivate a reading habit among the public and to fully utilize library resources, the HKPL regularly offers block loan services to schools and community organizations.
Apart from promoting the use of its e-resources through printed publicity materials such as posters, the HKPL has stepped up publicity on the Internet via its e-resources webpage. In addition, the HKPL will promote its e-resources by regularly organizing user 7850 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
education sessions such as library visits by schools, briefing sessions on electronic information, "School Culture Day" and school visits. The LCSD will strengthen collaboration with the Education Bureau and schools to further promote e-reading. It will also promote its e-book collections among various sectors of the community through drawing up recommendations for e-resources and guides for readers, conducting customer liaison meetings and teacher liaison meetings, as well as paying visits to local groups/organizations.
Annex 1
HKPL Attendance figures, enquiries handled, numbers of loans of books and multimedia materials, and number of virtual visits (sessions)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
(million) (million) (million) (million) (million) Attendance 42.10 40.45 39.89 38.75 37.73 Enquiries handled (including 3.73 3.75 3.55 3.48 3.41 reference enquiries) Number of loans of books 55.45 53.30 52.88 50.53 49.19 (volumes) Number of loans of multimedia 2.70 2.39 2.21 1.87 1.72 materials (items) Number of virtual visits - 19.13 19.21 20.76 23.75 (sessions)
Annex 2
HKPL Usage of e-book collections
Title of e-Book Statistical Use Count* Item Collections Elements Adopted 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Number of Apabi Chinese e-Books consulted 1 45 441 31 641 63 753 68 096 74 610 eBooks (online reading and borrowing) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7851
Title of e-Book Statistical Use Count* Item Collections Elements Adopted 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Number of eBooks on e-Books consulted 2 10 309 9 192 11 025 8 679 8 851 EBSCOhost (online reading and downloading) Number of ebrary Academic e-Books consulted 3 14 932 18 059 24 868 26 315 25 019 Complete (online reading and downloading) Safari Books Online 4 (Including Safari Number of to Business Books 13 228 15 199 17 032 10 586 10 060 searches 5 Online and Safari Tech Books Online) Naxos Spoken Number of tracks 6 Word Library 53 063 45 205 43 966 32 131 33 635 played (Audio book) Number of Vista E-Book in 7 browses by 34 551 22 851 34 110 13 173 25 567 Traditional Chinese category
Note:
* The total usage of e-book collections is not available as different statistical elements are adopted to present the usage.
Development of Financial Technologies
6. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Chinese): President, some members of the financial technology (Fintech) industry have pointed out that while crowdfunding on the Internet has become very popular around the world in recent years, its development in Hong Kong has been extremely slow. Apart from the fact that local crowdfunding activities are small in scale and do not involve any equity investment, most of them are merely fund-raising activities conducted by arts and cultural groups and charitable bodies. Those people consider that such a situation is mainly attributable to the regulatory authorities in Hong Kong adopting a conservative attitude towards crowdfunding activities, and their failure to review and amend the relevant legislation in a timely manner to tie in with the innovations in the relevant technologies and funding approaches. On the contrary, in some jurisdictions, such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Taiwan dedicated legislation has been enacted to cater for crowdfunding activities. For example, in the United States, equity crowdfunding 7852 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 activities may be exempted from the requirements of the relevant securities laws provided that certain requirements relating to investor protection have been met; in the United Kingdom, enterprises are allowed to raise funds from those retail investors who have fulfilled certain financial conditions through equity crowdfunding platforms; in Taiwan, the authorities enacted legislation in the middle of last year to equity crowdfunding, making Taiwan the seventh jurisdiction in the world in which such activities are permitted. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has carried out any study on how equity crowdfunding activities should be regulated; if it has, of the outcome of the study; whether the authorities will, by making reference to the practices of other jurisdictions, enact legislation and relax relevant requirements, so as to promote the development of equity crowdfunding activities in Hong Kong;
(2) whether it has reviewed if the existing financial regulatory regime can tie in with the development of Fintech; whether it has explored how a balance between the protection of investors and the promotion of the development of Fintech can be struck; if it has explored, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) given that the authorities established the Steering Group on Financial Technologies (the Steering Group) last year to make recommendations to the Government on how to develop Hong Kong into and promote her as a Fintech hub, and that the Steering Group released a report in February this year, whether the Steering Group, in coming up with the relevant recommendations, had drawn on other jurisdictions' experience in promoting the development of Fintech; if the Steering Group had, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President, the Steering Group was established in April 2015 and chaired by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury. Its mission was to advise the Government on how to develop and promote Hong Kong as a Fintech hub. It submitted a Report to the Government in February 2016, setting out its views on the broad directions and focused areas for supporting the Fintech sector.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7853
In his 2016-2017 Budget, the Financial Secretary has also announced a range of measures for early implementation of the Steering Group's recommendations. As one of the announced measures, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI) have established their dedicated Fintech platforms (namely, Fintech Facilitation Office, Fintech Contact Point and Fintech Liaison Team) to enhance communication between regulators and the Fintech community.
My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) The regulatory approaches towards equity crowdfunding (ECF) vary globally across jurisdictions in view of the nascent nature of the business. While some economies have developed dedicated new regimes, others leverage existing rules to regulate such activities. Adequate investor protection remains the fundamental policy objective notwithstanding the differences. Issues relating to potential risk management issues have recently surfaced in various regions, raising concerns that retail investors, even provided with risk disclosure warnings, may still not fully appreciate the high risks inherent in ECF. Therefore, the market may consider making reference to exemptions relating to professional investors under the existing regulatory framework for developing ECF platforms targeting professional investors in Hong Kong.
(2) Apart from ECF, Fintech can be applied to a range of financial services such as payment and remittance, product investment and distribution, robo-advice, peer-to-peer financing, cybersecurity, data security, big data analytics and Blockchain technology. As Fintech may involve different segments and business models, the relevant regulatory frameworks and requirements will differ. For example, the Payment Systems and Stored Value Facilities Ordinance that took effect in November 2015 empowered the HKMA to implement a licensing system for stored value facilities and a designation system for retail payment systems as well as to perform relevant supervisory functions. The new regulatory regime will safeguard the safety and efficiency of stored value facilities and retail payment systems, strengthen the public's confidence in the use of these products and services, and foster the development and innovation of the payment industry.
7854 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
In addition, the dedicated Fintech platforms established by the HKMA, SFC and OCI will help enhance communication between regulators and the Fintech community, handle enquiries from the industry and provide information on related regulatory requirements to companies engaging in financial innovation to enhance the industry's understanding of the regulatory environment in Hong Kong. The platforms will also keep track of the latest development in the market through their exchange with the industry.
In developing Fintech, the Government will uphold the "technology neutrality" principle and at the same time attach importance to investor protection. The Government will continue to engage the industry to keep abreast of the dynamic Fintech landscape, and help ensure that an appropriate balance between market innovation and investors' understanding and tolerance of risks is struck, having regard to the development of Fintech.
(3) In coming up with the relevant recommendations to promote Hong Kong as a Fintech hub, the Steering Group has drawn on Mainland and overseas experiences in fostering Fintech as well as recent developments in Hong Kong. In its report, the Steering Group identifies five key parameters that may impact the Fintech ecology, that is, promotion, facilitation, regulations, talents, and funding, and examines what enhancements may be required to take Hong Kong's Fintech sector to the next level.
Measures to Shorten Waiting Time for New Cases at Medical Specialist Outpatient Clinics of Public Hospitals
7. MS CYD HO (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that the appointment dates available for booking by new cases at the medical specialist outpatient (SOP) clinics of one public hospital are in general at the end of 2017 the earliest, and those for certain specialties are even as late as May 2018. This situation reflects a serious shortage of manpower for various medical SOP clinics. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it knows:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7855
(1) (i) the current number of specialists in various medical specialties of public hospitals, and among such types of personnel, (ii) the number of those who left the service and (iii) the number of new recruits, in each of the past three years; among the new patients for the SOP clinics, the respective numbers of those who, before receiving the first treatment, (iv) sought treatments at the accident and emergency departments for the diseases concerned and (v) died of the diseases concerned, in each of the past three years (set out in the table below); and
(ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Medical specialties (i) 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 Cardiology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatric medicine Nephrology Neurology Respiratory medicine Haematology Rheumatology Total
(2) the new measures put in place by the Hospital Authority to shorten the waiting time for bookings by new cases at various medical SOP clinics, so that the patients concerned may receive treatments as early as possible?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, my reply to the question raised by Ms Cyd HO on the waiting time for first appointment at medicine specialist outpatient clinics (SOPCs) of public hospitals is as follows:
(1) The Hospital Authority (HA) assesses its manpower requirements from time to time having regard to the service and operational needs. As at 31 December 2015, there were a total of 1 251 specialists in Medicine in the HA. The table below sets out the number of intake and attrition of specialists in Medicine in the past three years. As a specialist in Medicine may serve more than one sub-specialty in Medicine, the HA does not maintain the relevant statistical record broken down by sub-specialty.
7856 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Attrition (wastage) Number Year Intake Number Full-time Part-time 2013-2014 75 36 5 2014-2015 98 43 14 2015-2016 100 50 7
Notes：
(1) The manpower figures are calculated on full-time equivalent basis including permanent, contract and temporary staff in the HA.
(2) Intake refers to the total number of permanent and contract staff joining the HA on headcount basis during the period. Transfer, promotion and staff movement within the HA will not be regarded as intake.
(3) The intake number of doctors includes the number of interns appointed as Residents.
(4) Attrition (wastage) includes all types of cessation of service from the HA for permanent and contract staff on headcount basis. Since April 2013, attrition (wastage) for the HA full-time and part-time workforce has been separately monitored and presented, that is, Full-time Attrition (Wastage) Rate and Part-time Attrition (Wastage) Rate respectively.
(5) For 2015-2016, the intake covers the period of April to December 2015, while the attrition covers the full year of 2015.
The HA does not have the statistics on the number of patients who have sought treatments at the accident and emergency departments before the first appointment at SOPCs or who passed away while waiting for specialist consultation.
(2) The HA has implemented a series of measures to alleviate the waiting time problem of SOPCs, including Medicine SOPCs. The measures include:
(i) Triage and prioritization
The HA has implemented the triage system for new SOPC referrals to ensure patients with urgent conditions requiring early intervention are treated with priority. Under the current triage system, referrals of new patients are usually first screened by a nurse and then by a specialist doctor of the relevant specialty for classification into Priority 1 (urgent), Priority 2 (semi-urgent) and routine categories. The HA's LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7857
targets are to maintain the median waiting time for cases in Priority 1 and 2 categories within two weeks and eight weeks respectively. The HA has all along been able to keep the median waiting time of Priority 1 and Priority 2 cases within this pledge.
(ii) Enhancing primary care services
The HA is committed to enhancing public primary care services. Patients with stable and less complex conditions can be managed at Family Medicine Specialist Clinics (FMSCs) and general outpatient clinics (GOPCs), thereby reducing the service demand at SOPC level. The HA will continue to promote primary care services to alleviate the pressure on SOPC waiting time.
(iii) Public-Private Partnership
With the setting up of the HA Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Fund, the HA plans to extend the GOPC PPP Programme to the remaining 15 districts in three years starting from 2016-2017. The capacity so vacated can be utilized to serve other patients in need, thus helping the HA to cope with the demand for relevant clinical services.
(iv) Enhancing manpower
In 2014-2015, the HA engaged about 350 part-time doctors and non-local doctors under "limited registration" to improve the manpower strength. The HA will continue to provide the Special Honorarium Scheme for the existing workforce, engage part-time doctors, rehire retiring doctors and adopt other measures as well in 2016-2017 to strengthen its medical manpower in SOPC service.
(v) Annual plan programmes implemented to manage SOPC waiting time
In 2016-2017, the HA will address the issue of SOPC waiting time through service development programmes that have incorporated SOPC elements. For example, Kowloon East 7858 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Cluster and Kowloon West Cluster will enhance their FMSC services to alleviate the pressure on SOPC waiting time. Kowloon West Cluster will also expand the SOPC capacity for services including the specialty of Medicine.
(vi) Reducing the disparity in waiting time at SOPCs in different clusters
The HA has implemented measures to address the disparity in waiting time at SOPCs in different clusters.
Firstly, in order to enhance transparency, the HA has, since April 2013, uploaded the SOPC waiting time on the HA's website by phases. Effective from 30 January 2015, the SOPC waiting time information for eight major specialties, including the specialty of Medicine, is available on the HA's website. This information facilitates patients' understanding of the waiting time situation in the HA and assists them to make informed decisions when considering whether they should pursue cross-cluster treatment.
To let more patients benefit from cross-cluster referral arrangement according to their preferences, the HA has reminded front-line staff to accept new case bookings from patients residing in other clusters. In February 2015, the HA produced a poster on the procedures and practice on the booking of first appointment at SOPC for the information of both the public and its staff.
(vii) Optimizing appointment scheduling practices of SOPCs
The HA has completed the comprehensive review of the appointment scheduling practices of SOPCs and identified good practices on scheduling appointments for patients in order to optimize the use of the earliest available slots. Such good practices have been incorporated into the SOPC Operation Manual which was issued to all SOPCs on 1 January 2016.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7859
Regulation of Online Sale of Restricted Foods
8. MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Chinese): President, to safeguard food safety, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department has prepared a new set of permits for the regulation of online sale of restricted foods (permits), which are open for application by the food business sector from 22 February this year. Some members of the food business sector have relayed to me their hope that while the authorities regulate the online sale of restricted foods, they can facilitate business operation as far as possible and expedite the processing of applications for permits, so that operators can commence conducting the business of online food selling as early as possible. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of cases, in each of the past five years, in which the authorities issued verbal warnings to and instituted prosecutions against persons who had conducted online sale of (i) foods manufactured by family-run workshops not granted with a food factory licence, or (ii) foods imported without an import licence as required by the law;
(2) of the number of applications for permits received by the authorities since 22 February this year; among them, the respective numbers of applications approved and rejected, as well as the reasons for some of the applications being rejected (set out in a table);
(3) of the respective numbers of cases, since 22 February this year, in which the authorities issued verbal warnings to and instituted prosecutions against persons who had conducted online sale of restricted foods without permits; and
(4) how the authorities carry out publicity and public education work to enable members of the public to understand the new measures for regulating online sale of restricted foods and to distinguish whether an online seller has obtained the relevant food business licences or permits?
7860 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, the Government has always attached great importance to food safety. In fact, our existing legislation regulates different aspects relating to food safety and food trade operations, whether it is conducted through electronic or other means. In general, the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) stipulates that all food for sale in Hong Kong must be fit for human consumption, irrespective of whether the business is conducted online or in the traditional manner.
As regards food imported and supplied, the Food Safety Ordinance (Cap. 612) stipulates a registration scheme for food importers and distributors and provides for requirements to maintain transaction records so that in the event of a food incident, the sources and points of sale of the food concerned can be traced and the incident can be dealt with effectively to safeguard public health.
Regarding food business, any person who carries on any food business which involves the preparation of food for sale for human consumption off the premises must obtain a food factory licence under the Food Business Regulation (Cap. 132X). For online food sale, relevant licences or written permission should be obtained from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), having regard to the modes of operation and categories of food for sale. For food with higher risks, the Regulation also stipulates that save with the written permission of the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene, no person shall sell any restricted foods specified in Schedule 2 to the Regulation, including sashimi, sushi and oysters to be eaten in raw state. Food premises must meet the relevant licensing requirements to be granted a licence or permit.
To further safeguard food safety, the FEHD introduced on 22 February 2016 a new set of licensing conditions for the regulation of operators without physical premises and selling restricted foods via the Internet or social media platforms. Applications for the relevant permits are accepted starting from the same day. The licensing conditions mainly require that restricted foods must be obtained from lawful sources and not be tampered with during transportation to prevent cross-contamination, and that the food products shall be stored at a safe and proper temperature at all times.
Under the licensing conditions, operators should also disclose on their websites information about their permits, such as the permit numbers, registered business addresses and the categories of restricted foods permitted to sell, for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7861 reference by consumers when they purchase online and enable them to verify such information by referring to the FEHD website.
My reply to the four questions raised by Mr Tommy CHEUNG is as follows:
(1) The FEHD has been monitoring online food sale since June 2012. If any food sold online for human consumption is suspected of involving unlicensed food business or is from a suspicious source, the FEHD will conduct investigations and take follow-up actions accordingly, including issuing warnings to the websites concerned. Should there be sufficient evidence, prosecution will be initiated. From June 2012 to March 2016, the FEHD issued a total of 597 warnings to the websites concerned and initiated 55 prosecutions. The FEHD does not have the breakdown of the enforcement actions against food production premises of unlicensed family-run workshops.
For public health reasons, import of certain foods, such as milk, milk products, frozen confections, game, meat, poultry and poultry eggs, are subject to regulatory control under the relevant subsidiary legislation of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance. Prior to importing these foods into Hong Kong, importers have to submit relevant information to the FEHD for approval. In the past five years, the FEHD instituted a total of 2 390 prosecutions in cases involving illegal import of food. Among these cases, however, we do not have the number of cases involving online food sale.
(2) As at 25 April 2016, the FEHD has received 142 applications for permits for online sale of restricted foods. So far, 30 permits have been issued and 79 applications are under processing. The remaining 33 applications require no further action as they have been withdrawn by the applicants, mainly because the business concerned involves actual handling of food and therefore other kinds of food business licences are required, duplicated applications have been submitted, or the proposed business does not involve the sale of restricted foods. If an applicant submits all necessary documents, the FEHD will promptly process the application.
7862 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
(3) From January to April 2016, the FEHD issued 17 warnings and instituted six prosecutions against operators suspected of operating an unlicensed food business or selling restricted foods online without permission, among which 10 warnings were issued and two prosecutions instituted after the introduction of the abovementioned permit on 22 February.
(4) The FEHD has stepped up public education and publicity on the sale of food online. A series of television and radio Announcements in the Public Interest (APIs) have been broadcasted since December last year to draw attention to the safety issues and inherent risks of purchasing food online and advise the public to check and make sure that food suppliers handle and deliver food properly before placing orders online. Moreover, members of the public should ask food operators to provide information about their licensing/registration particulars, and verify such information by referring to the FEHD website. The FEHD has also called upon food retailers, including online shops, through different channels such as leaflets, the FEHD website and meetings with the Business Liaison Group of Food Business and the trade to ensure that their food products are stored and delivered at a safe temperature as instructed by food manufacturers or suppliers. To safeguard the rights and health of consumers, the FEHD has reminded the trade and the public of the need to apply for a food business licence or permit under the law for operating a food business, irrespective of its scale and nature.
Besides, the FEHD launched another series of radio APIs in February this year to remind the trade of the need to obtain a licence or permit for their online food sale business and the conditions to be complied with. Relevant television APIs will also be launched in early May.
Recidivism Rates in Hong Kong
9. MRS REGINA IP (in Chinese): President, some members of the public have pointed out that the rehabilitative services in Hong Kong have all along been comprehensive, which are effective in rehabilitating discharged prisoners and reducing the likelihood of their committing crimes again (recidivism), LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7863 thereby making our community safer and helping reduce the workload of the Correctional Services Department and related public expenditure. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the data on Hong Kong's recidivism rates in the past decade and their trend;
(2) whether it knows how Hong Kong's recidivism rates compare with those in advanced neighbouring countries;
(3) of the measures currently adopted by the authorities to reduce recidivism rates; and
(4) whether the authorities will make public the statistics on recidivism rates so that academic institutions may make use of them in conducting long-term tracking studies; if they will not, of the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President,
(1) Recidivism rate is defined as the percentage of re-admission of local persons in custody (PICs) to correctional institutions following conviction of a new offence within two years after discharge. Over the past decade, the recidivism rate in Hong Kong has decreased from 36.5% based on 2004 as the year of discharge to 27.1% based on 2013 as the year of discharge. Details are as follows:
Year of 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Discharge Recidivism 36.5% 35.6% 36.9% 34.4% 34.3% 33.0% 31.0% 29.2% 29.0% 27.1% Rate
(2) To protect public safety and reduce crime, the Correctional Services Department (CSD) is committed to providing safe custody and appropriate rehabilitation programmes to help prevent PICs from re-offending after release. The CSD has also worked in partnership with various stakeholders to promote the message of supporting offender rehabilitation and to strengthen community education for 7864 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
crime prevention purposes. However, whether PICs will re-offend is affected by various factors such as personal, family, peer, social and economic factors.
The definition and calculation methodology of the recidivism rate in different places are fundamentally different. According to information available to the CSD, the recidivism rate in Singapore was 25.9% based on 2013 as the year of discharge, and that in Victoria of Australia was 44.1% based on 2012-2013 as the year of discharge. As the recidivism rate is affected by various factors, it is not appropriate to compare directly across different places.
(3) The CSD engages PICs in meaningful work to assist them to develop good working habits and lead a life with an organized schedule for work and rest. In order to help PICs re-integrate into society after release, the CSD, on the basis of provision of safe custody, arranges appropriate rehabilitation programmes which include:
(i) arranging appropriate counselling programmes for PICs with respect to their recidivism risks and rehabilitation needs under the Risks and Needs Assessment and Management Protocol for Offenders;
(ii) arranging counselling by clinical psychologists to improve PICs' general mental health and adjustment to institutions as well as to help them change their offending behaviours;
(iii) providing vocational training and education for PICs;
(iv) providing pre-release preparation services to address their personal needs;
(v) providing information on social welfare services and community facilities as well as briefings on job seeking, interview skills and labour legislation through the "Pre-release Re-integration Orientation Course";
(vi) assisting rehabilitated persons in seeking employment through the "Caring Employers" network under the Pre-release LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7865
Employment Service and collaboration with various organizations and associations;
(vii) referring rehabilitated persons with welfare or rehabilitation needs to appropriate government departments or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for post-release follow-ups to facilitate re-integration into society;
(viii) implementing the statutory supervision programmes for rehabilitated persons who are subject to statutory supervision after release and making regular visits to the supervisees' homes or places of work to facilitate re-integration into society;
(ix) providing advice on rehabilitation programmes and strategies on re-integration and publicity through the Committee on Community Support for Rehabilitated Offenders, comprising community leaders, employers, members of the education sector, professionals and representatives of NGOs and government departments;
(x) organizing publicity and public education activities to appeal for public acceptance of and community support for rehabilitated persons. One of the key initiatives is the Rehabilitation Pioneer Project, which is a community education programme disseminating the messages of "leading a law abiding and drug-free life as well as supporting offender rehabilitation" to secondary school students and young people. In addition, rehabilitated persons have been invited to various community education activities to share experience so as to strengthen their determination to reform; and
(xi) working in partnership with more than 80 NGOs to bring about positive change to the values of life of PICs and rehabilitated persons, and so on.
(4) The CSD has from time to time briefed academic institutions and organizations and members of the community interested in rehabilitation work, on the relevant statistics.
7866 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Regulation of Non-corrective Contact Lenses
10. PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Chinese): President, under the existing legislation, corrective contact lenses are classified as a medical device and must be prescribed and supplied on prescription by qualified registered professionals, including optometrists and ophthalmologists. However, the sale and prescription of non-corrective contact lenses (e.g. cosmetic contact lenses which are commonly known as "big eyes") are not regulated. Some optometrists have pointed out that in order to protect the eyes from being injured, members of the public should, before wearing any corrective or non-corrective contact lenses, receive examinations by professionals in respect of the health conditions of their eyes and the curvature of their eyeballs. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the authorities examined, in the past five years, the situation in which corrective contact lenses were supplied to members of the public by persons who were not registered professionals (including the supply of such lenses at physical and online shops); if they did, of the number of known cases; whether prosecutions were instituted against the relevant offenders; if so, of the number of such cases;
(2) whether the authorities know the number of cases in each of the past five years in which members of the public who, after contracting eye diseases due to wearing non-corrective contact lenses, sought consultation at clinics under the Hospital Authority and, among such cases, the number of those involving contact lenses which were not supplied on prescription by registered professionals; if they do not know, whether they will consider collecting the figures of such type of cases;
(3) given that the consultant commissioned by the Department of Health (DH) to study the business impact of the proposed statutory regulation for medical devices has recommended, in the Executive Summary of the DH's Final Report on Business Impact Assessment on Statutory Regulation of Medical Devices, that the prescription of non-corrective contact lenses which are for cosmetic purposes at the retail level should be regulated (e.g. mandating prescription by registered optometrists only) so as to ensure that the contact lenses prescribed will be suitable for users, whether the authorities will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7867
accept the recommendation concerned; if they will, of the implementation timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and
(4) whether the authorities will step up their publicity and public education efforts so that members of the public will be aware of the risks associated with improper wearing of non-corrective contact lenses; if they will, of the details of the relevant work; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President,
(1) According to section 21 of the Supplementary Medical Professions Ordinance (Cap. 359), only registered optometrists, or persons who are exempted from the regulations laid down by the above ordinance according to Schedule 4 to the Optometrists (Registration and Disciplinary Procedure) Regulation (Cap. 359F) (such as registered medical practitioners while practising medicine), are allowed to prescribe, fit or supply on prescription optical appliances (including contact lenses for vision correction). Over the past five years, the Supplementary Medical Professions Council has not received requests from the Police for professional advice on complaints related to selling of contact lenses for vision correction by unregistered medical professionals.
(2) The Hospital Authority currently does not collect data on the number of patients seeking medical treatment for eye diseases caused by wearing non-corrective contact lenses. In general, if there are public health risks associated with certain products, the Administration will closely monitor and take actions, which include considering the need to collect relevant data, to tackle the situation as appropriate.
(3) Regarding product safety and quality of non-corrective contact lenses, the Administration is in the process of drafting legislation related to the regulation of medical devices. The Administration also plans to provide the Panel on Health Services of the Legislative Council with details of the legislative proposal regarding the regulatory regime for medical devices in the next legislative session. The proposed regulatory regime includes empowering the Director 7868 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
of Health to, having considered the local situation and views of relevant stakeholders, subject some specific products, such as non-corrective contact lenses, to the regulatory regime with a view to ensuring that the products concerned comply with required safety and quality standards, thereby protecting public's health.
The consultant, who submitted the "Department of Health ― Business Impact Assessment on Statutory Regulation of Medical Devices ― Executive Summary of Final Report", mentioned in the above report that some interviewed stakeholders from the optical trade suggested enacting legislation to regulate the prescription of non-corrective decorative contact lenses at retail level (for example, mandating prescription by registered optometrists only). However, the consultant considered it not appropriate to regulate the fitting and prescription of contact lenses by the proposed legislation for medical devices, and recommended that the fitting and prescription of non-corrective contact lenses should be regulated through the existing legislation and Code of Practice related to the fitting and prescription of contact lenses. The Administration will continue to monitor closely the situation and, if necessary, examine which proposal is appropriate to regulate the fitting and prescription of non-corrective contact lenses.
(4) To enhance public education on correct usage of contact lenses, the Department of Health (DH) has produced and published on its website information leaflets on usage of contact lenses (including decorative or coloured contact lenses), namely "Know More About Contact Lenses" and "Tips for Using Contact Lens Solution", as well as a video on "Proper Use of Contact Lenses" which is also broadcast regularly at public venues. The leaflets and video provide members of the public with information about different types of contact lenses, caring tips and health advice; and in particular remind them to strictly follow the instructions of ophthalmologists or qualified registered optometrists in using and taking care of their lenses properly. Besides, the DH will step up publicity on messages of "Proper Use of Contact Lenses" during festivals (for example, Halloween, Christmas and New Year) through television and radio broadcasting.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7869
Measures to Prevent Landslides
11. MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that the Hong Kong Observatory has forecast that the rainfall in Hong Kong this year will be higher than that in previous years, and the Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO) has also forecast that the number of landslide incidents for the year will correspondingly increase. GEO will therefore carry out works so that slopes can better withstand severe rainstorms. In this regard, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective current numbers of man-made slopes and natural hillsides on government lands and private lands; whether the Government will, in light of the aforesaid forecasts, carry out comprehensive assessment on the stability of those slopes prior to the onset of the rainy season this year to protect the lives and safety of members of the public; if it will, of the relevant timetable; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) given that in 2014, a big tree collapsed from a slope inside a private residential estate at Robinson Road and fell onto a footpath, crushing a passing pregnant woman to death, whether the Government will take relevant precautionary measures in public places (e.g. bus stations and public light bus stations) with heavy pedestrian flows and adjacent to slopes prior to the onset of the rainy season this year to safeguard public safety; if it will not, of the reasons for that; if it will, apart from issuing notices to the relevant private lot owners to remind them of their responsibilities, what other measures the Government will take in respect of places adjacent to slopes on private lands, and what measures the Government will take in respect of places adjacent to man-made slopes and natural hillsides on government lands; and
(3) whether it has compiled statistics on the current number of dangerous slopes across the territory which were formed as a result of fly-tipping of soil; if it has, of the number of such slopes which are in danger of collapse; whether the Government will hydroseed the surface layers of those slopes to reinforce them with vegetation; if it will not, of the reasons for that?
7870 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the Government has been paying close attention to the risk of landslide and has strived to improve slope safety. To this end, we have adopted a risk-based priority ranking system to ensure that the most deserving man-made slopes and natural hillside catchments are selected for action under the Landslip Prevention and Mitigation Programme (LPMitP). Our reply to the three parts of the questions is as follows:
(1) and (2)
There are about 60 000 registered man-made slopes in Hong Kong, of which about 40 000 are government man-made slopes while the remaining 20 000 are of private responsibility. The number of natural hillside catchments with known hazards and located close to existing buildings and important transport corridors amounts to about 2 800.
The departments responsible for slope maintenance carry out regular maintenance inspections and, where necessary, maintenance works on all government man-made slopes and all hazard mitigation measures implemented on natural hillsides. These maintenance departments also adopt precautionary actions against heavy rainfall and endeavour to complete the regular maintenance inspection and maintenance works before the onset of wet season each year. For private slopes, their owners are responsible for the inspection and maintenance works. In this connection, the Civil Engineering and Development Department will continue with its public education programme to remind owners of private slopes the importance of slope inspection and maintenance. Relevant public education will be stepped up prior to the onset of wet season, including media briefings on slope safety, reminders for private slope owners, exhibitions on slope safety and special APIs for TV and radios.
In addition to the above precautionary measures before the wet season, the Government will continue to upgrade 150 government man-made slopes, implement risk mitigation works for 30 natural hillside catchments and conduct safety-screening for 100 private man-made slopes each year under the LPMitP. In accordance with the risk-based selection principle, priority will be given to slopes located in close vicinity of public facilities with heavy pedestrian flows (such as bus shelters).
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7871
The Greening, Landscape and Tree Management Section (GLTMS) has been actively co-ordinating and promoting proper tree care. By disseminating information on the Internet, TV APIs and seminars, the owners are made aware of their responsibilities and ways for proper tree care. The GLTMS has recently published a Handbook on Tree Management, with guidelines and practice notes on tree management, for information of the owners to help them enhance their work in tree care. Furthermore, apart from issuing letters to owners and property management companies in January 2016 to remind them to conduct tree inspections and carry out mitigation measures as appropriate before wet season, the GLTMS also conducted four public seminars on "Tree Care before Wet Season" in March and April 2016 to enhance the knowledge of public in proper tree care. The GLTMS is committed to disseminating the information on proper tree care to all stakeholders.
For trees on government man-made slopes and natural hillsides, the tree management departments will follow the requirements stipulated in the Guidelines for Tree Risk Assessment and Management Arrangement (the TRAM Guidelines) and undertake tree risk assessments and appropriate mitigation measures at least once a year before the onset of wet season to ensure public safety. Illustrations showing different location types of trees on slopes are included in the latest revised TRAM Guidelines for easy reference of tree inspection officers and to prompt them to pay particular attention to tree stability and root anchorage during tree inspections.
(3) The Government does not have any data on the dangerous slopes formed by fly tipping. On receipt of a complaint about fly tipping that have slope safety implications, the Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO) will assess the situation. For cases with potential risk of landslide that may endanger the public, the GEO will provide professional advice and assistance to the relevant departments, including the Buildings Department, Environmental Protection Department, Planning Department and Lands Department, for their follow-up actions. Generally, hydroseeding alone cannot stabilize substandard slopes.
7872 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Laundry Racks in Rental Flats Under Hong Kong Housing Authority and Hong Kong Housing Society
12. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Chinese): President, the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) announced in February 2014 that it would, free of charge for all of the flats of public rental housing (PRH) estates and the unsold rental flats of Tenants Purchase Scheme estates, replace the laundry pole holders (commonly known as the "three joss sticks" laundry racks) on the external walls of the flats with rope-operated laundry racks. In reply to a question raised by a Member of this Council on 3 February this year, the Government indicated that the replacement works had been completed for only 14 of the 162 housing estates concerned. On the other hand, it has been reported that the Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS) removed the laundry pole holders on the external walls of some of the flats of its housing estates, but afterwards it did not install new laundry racks for the flats concerned nor did it allow the tenants concerned to do so at their own expense. As a result, such tenants can only use the ceiling-mounted laundry hangers between the kitchen and the toilet on the balcony for drying clothes, making it easy for cooking oil smell clinging to such clothes. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the latest progress of HA's laundry rack replacement works, including the respective names and numbers of such housing estates for which (i) the works have been completed, (ii) the works are in progress, (iii) the works contracts have been awarded and the works are in the pipeline, and (iv) the tendering exercises for the works are yet to be conducted, as well as the respective works schedules for items (ii) to (iv);
(2) as the authorities have indicated that a three-year warranty is provided for the new laundry racks and that the contractors are required to, apart from conducting pre-installation sample tests on the new laundry racks, conduct second-round tests of such racks in the course of installation for quality assurance, and yet it has been reported that some PRH tenants whose flats have been installed with the new laundry racks have complained that the nylon ropes of such racks get damaged easily, whether the authorities have followed up on the results of the second round tests conducted by the contractors; if they have, of the details;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7873
(3) whether HA will (i) consider improving the design of the new laundry racks, (ii) replace the defective new laundry racks for tenants free of charge, and (iii) install new laundry racks of better quality for those flats for which the laundry rack replacement works have yet to be carried out; if HA will, of the details; if not; the reasons for that; and
(4) whether the Government will consider advising HKHS to follow the practice of HA by installing rope-operated laundry racks on the external walls of all its rental flats (regardless of whether or not the laundry pole holders there have been removed); if it will, of the details; if not; the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, while adopting the no frills principle, the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) is committed to enhancing the quality and safety of public rental housing (PRH) units, and has introduced new facilities and improved flat design to address the changing needs of tenants. Subject to resources availability and structural feasibility of buildings, the HA has introduced measures to improve existing PRH units with a view to enhancing the living environment of PRH tenants. To this end, the Subsidised Housing Committee of the HA approved in February 2014 the replacement of pole holders with laundry racks in rental units of PRH estates and unsold rental units of Tenants Purchase Scheme (TPS) estates free of charge. The programme involves a total of 162 estates.
Having consolidated information from the Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS), my reply to the questions raised by Dr Priscilla LEUNG is as follows:
(1) As at end of March this year, the replacement works in the following 18 estates have completed:
1. Chak On Estate 2. Choi Hung Estate 3. Choi Yuen Estate 4. Chuk Yuen (South) Estate 5. Hing Wah (II) Estate 6. Lai King Estate 7. Lower Wong Tai Sin (II) 8. Pak Tin Estate (Blocks 9, Estate 10, 11 and 13) 9. Sam Shing Estate 10. Sha Kok Estate 7874 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
11. Shek Kip Mei Estate (old 12. Shek Yam (East) Estate blocks) 13. Sun Tin Wai Estate 14. Tai Hang Tung Estate 15. Tai Hing Estate 16. Wah Fu (I) Estate 17. Wah Fu (II) Estate 18. Yue Wan Estate
Replacement works in another 31 estates are being carried out, as follows:
1. Butterfly Estate 2. Cheung Ching Estate 3. Cheung Hong Estate 4. Kai Tin Estate 5. Kai Yip Estate 6. Ko Yee Estate 7. Kwong Fuk Estate 8. Lai Kok Estate 9. Lei Muk Shue (II) Estate 10. Lok Wah (North) Estate 11. Lok Wah (South) Estate 12. Lung Hang Estate 13. Mei Lam Estate 14. On Ting Estate 15. Shek Lei (I) Estate 16. Shek Lei (II) Estate 17. Shek Yam Estate 18. Sun Chui Estate 19. Tai Wo Hau Estate 20. Tin Shui (I) Estate 21. Tin Shui (II) Estate 22. Wan Tsui Estate 23. Wo Che Estate 24. Wu King Estate 25. Yau Oi Estate 26. Choi Ha Estate* 27. Hing Tin Estate* 28. Kwong Yuen Estate* 29. Lower Wong Tai Sin (I) 30. Tak Tin Estate* Estate* 31. Tsui Ping (North) Estate*
Note:
* TPS estates in which the replacement works are restricted to PRH units only.
Based on the progress thus far, the Housing Department (HD) anticipates that the replacement works for households in these 31 estates who have opted to install new laundry racks will be completed within this year.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7875
Meanwhile, contracts for the replacement works in the 111 estates listed below have been awarded and the works will soon commence:
1. Cheung Hang Estate 2. Cheung Kwai Estate 3. Cheung Shan Estate 4. Cheung Wang Estate 5. Choi Fai Estate 6. Choi Wan (I) Estate 7. Chun Shek Estate 8. Chung On Estate 9. Fortune Estate 10. Fu Cheong Estate 11. Fu Tai Estate 12. Fu Tung Estate 13. Fuk Loi Estate 14. Hau Tak Estate 15. Hing Tung Estate 16. Hing Wah (I) Estate 17. Ho Man Tin Estate 18. Hung Hom Estate (Phase 1) 19. Ka Fuk Estate 20. Kam Peng Estate 21. Kin Ming Estate 22. Kwai Chung Estate 23. Kwai Fong Estate 24. Kwai Shing (East) Estate 25. Kwong Tin Estate 26. Lai On Estate 27. Lai Yiu Estate 28. Lee On Estate 29. Lei Muk Shue (I) 30. Lei Yue Mun Estate Estate 31. Lek Yuen Estate 32. Lok Fu Estate 33. Lung Tin Estate 34. Ma Hang Estate 35. Mei Tung Estate 36. Ming Tak Estate 37. Nam Shan Estate 38. Ngan Wan Estate 39. Oi Man Estate 40. Oi Tung Estate 41. On Yam Estate 42. Pak Tin Estateα 43. Ping Tin Estate 44. Po Tat Estate 45. Po Tin Estate 46. Sau Mau Ping Estate 47. Shek Wai Kok 48. Sheung Lok Estate Estate 49. Sheung Tak Estate 50. Shui Pin Wai Estate 51. Shun Lee Estate 52. Shun On Estate 53. Shun Tin Estate 54. Siu Sai Wan Estate 55. Tai Yuen Estate 56. Tin Chak Estate 57. Tin Hang Estate 58. Tin Wah Estate 59. Tin Wan Estate 60. Tin Yan Estate 61. Tin Yiu (I) Estate 62. Tin Yiu (II) Estate 63. Tsui Lok Estate 64. Tsui Ping (South) 65. Tsz Ching Estate 66. Tsz Lok Estate Estate 67. Tsz Man Estate 68. Un Chau Estate 69. Upper Ngau Tau (Phase 3) Kok Estate 70. Upper Wong Tai Sin 71. Wah Lai Estate 72. Wah Sum Estate Estate 73. Wan Hon Estate 74. Wang Tau Hom 75. Yat Tung Estate Estate 76. Yau Tong Estate 77. Yiu Tung Estate 78. Choi Ming Court# 79. Hoi Fu Court# 80. Yung Shing Court# 81. Cheung Fat Estate* 7876 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
82. Cheung On Estate* 83. Cheung Wah Estate* 84. Chuk Yuen (North) Estate* 85. Fu Heng Estate* 86. Fu Shin Estate* 87. Fung Tak Estate* 88. Fung Wah Estate* 89. Heng On Estate* 90. Hin Keng Estate* 91. Kin Sang Estate* 92. King Lam Estate* 93. Lei Cheng Uk Estate* 94. Lei Tung Estate* 95. Leung King Estate* 96. Long Ping Estate* 97. Po Lam Estate* 98. Pok Hong Estate* 99. Shan King Estate* 100. Tai Ping Estate* 101. Tai Wo Estate* 102. Tin King Estate* 103. Tin Ping Estate* 104. Tsing Yi Estate* 105. Tsui Lam Estate* 106. Tsui Wan Estate* 107. Tung Tau (II) 108. Wah Kwai Estate* Estate* 109. Wah Ming Estate* 110. Wan Tau Tong 111. Yiu On Estate* Estate*
Notes:
α Replacement works is only applicable to H1 and H3 block types.
# Buy or Rent Option estates in which the replacement works are restricted to PRH units only.
* TPS estates in which the replacement works are restricted to PRH units only.
The HD anticipates that the replacement works for households who have opted to install new laundry racks in these 111 estates will be completed next year.
As estate redecoration works for Ap Lei Chau Estate and Fu Shan Estate will soon commence, the laundry racks replacement works will be conducted concurrently with the redecoration works of the external walls of the buildings so as to reduce costs by sharing gondolas to be used at work. The two redecoration works will be tendered out this year and is scheduled for completion next year.
Based on the current progress, the HD anticipates that all replacement works will be completed next year as scheduled.
(2) To ensure the quality of the laundry racks, the HD will select samples of laundry racks to carry out quality tests, including repeated running tests of rollers and pulling strength tests of nylon ropes, before commencement of the replacement works. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7877
Contractors will only be allowed to commence the installation after passing the tests. In addition, during the course of works, the HD will require the contractors to carry out interim quality tests to ensure the overall quality of the laundry racks.
Among the 19 contracts concerned, 16 contractors have completed the pre-work quality tests, and 10 of them have also completed the interim quality tests, with all test results indicating that the quality of the laundry racks conformed with the contract requirements. For the remaining six contracts in progress, the HD will require the contractors to carry out interim quality tests in accordance with the progress of the works. For the other three contracts recently awarded, the contractors are planning the relevant works arrangements.
(3) The HD understands that residents might have different preferences on the design of the laundry racks. However, in order to fully utilize the space available for drying, avoid disturbance caused by future maintenance, and maintain a neat and tidy outlook of the buildings, the HA will provide the most suitable laundry racks with the largest laundry area and which complies with the requirements of the Building (Minor Works) Regulation in accordance with the building types, individual site conditions, actual circumstances and space available.
The contractors provide a three-year warranty for the laundry racks and will make good any defects free of charge, except for deliberate damage. Upon the expiry of the warranty period, the HA will be responsible for the subsequent maintenance of the laundry racks.
(4) According to information provided by the HKHS, Lok Man Sun Chuen, Kwun Lung Lau and Lai Tak Tsuen are the only rental estates of the HKHS that are still installed with laundry pole holders on the external walls. Since 2014, subject to the preferences of tenants of Lok Man Sun Chuen, the HKHS has removed laundry pole holders from the external wall of their flats free of charge. The HKHS reviewed the measure in 2015 and decided to install stainless steel laundry installations on the external wall at no charge for tenants who opted for removal of the laundry pole holders in 7878 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
order to address tenants' needs. The replacement works will formally commence in May 2016 and is scheduled for completion within this year. As regards Kwun Lung Lau and Lai Tak Tsuen, the HKHS will collect tenants' opinions and plans to issue tender for the replacement works in end 2016.
Employment of Regular Teachers on Contracts of a Defined Period
13. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Chinese): President, under subsections (3)(c), (4) and (5) of section 40AF of the Education Ordinance (Cap. 279), recruitment of teachers by incorporated management committees (IMCs) of schools to fill teaching posts within the establishment of staff (the establishment) provided for in the codes of aid (COA) (including the Code of Aid for Primary Schools, the Code of Aid for Secondary Schools, the Code of Aid for Special Schools, and the Code of Aid for Aided Schools applicable to aided schools with an IMC) must be conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of service as set out in COA. According to a judgment handed down by the Court of Final Appeal on the case of KO Hon-yue v the Management Committee of Fung Kai No. 1 Secondary School for the year 2001 (FACV 8/2011), schools may not terminate the employment of teachers within the establishment simply by adopting the approach of letting employment contracts expire or giving such teachers due notice, and they are required to follow the procedures set out in COA. Moreover, COA has not specified that schools may employ teachers for a defined contract period (DCP) to fill teaching posts within the establishment. Nevertheless, quite a number of aided schools have been employing teachers on DCP terms to fill permanent teaching posts in their establishment (regular teachers on DCP terms) in recent years. According to the information provided by the authorities, there are over 1 200 regular teachers on DCP terms in this school year, and their average length of service is 2.1 years and the longest length of service among them is 10 years. Some regular teachers on DCP terms have pointed out that as their contracts need to be renewed annually, they have been deprived of job security, their professional development has been seriously hindered, and a succession problem in the teaching profession has arisen. They have also pointed out that, according to Section 56 of the Code of Aid for Primary Schools and Code 13.2(k)(iv) of the Code of Aid for Aided Schools, teachers on first appointment to a school will serve a probationary period of two years and be employed by the same school thereafter. In the event that the schools wish to terminate their employment (regardless of whether the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7879 probationary period has ended), they may not do so simply on the premise that the employment contracts have expired but they have to follow the specified procedures. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows since when aided schools have employed regular teachers on DCP terms;
(2) of the current number of regular teachers on DCP terms with a length of service of five to 10 years; whether it knows the respective reasons why aided schools have (i) employed those teachers on DCP terms for prolonged periods, and (ii) not converted them to regular teachers on permanent terms over the years (set out such information separately by primary and secondary schools);
(3) of the respective numbers, in the past five years, of regular teachers on DCP terms in primary and secondary schools whose employment contracts were not renewed upon expiry or whose employment was terminated by their schools after giving due notice or payment in lieu of notice; whether it knows the reasons why those teachers' contracts were not renewed/employment was terminated; whether it has assessed (i) the legal basis for the schools adopting this practice, and (ii) if such a practice is in breach of the relevant requirements under the Basic Law, the Education Ordinance, the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57), COA and the common law;
(4) whether the Education Bureau (EDB) conducted any review in the past three years to see if sufficient job security had been provided for regular teachers on DCP terms; if EDB did, of the details;
(5) given that EDB has all along been allowing aided schools to employ regular teachers on DCP terms, whether EDB has examined if the relevant practices of employment and termination of employment have violated the relevant requirements under the legislation concerned and COA; if EDB has, of the details; if not, whether EDB will conduct such an examination; if EDB will, when the examination will be completed and the relevant outcome published;
(6) as it has been specified in the Code of aid for Primary Schools (1994 edition) and the Code of Aid for Secondary Schools (1994 edition) have provided that the employment of teachers after the two-year 7880 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
probationary period will be permanent and that the termination of the employment of such teachers by the schools must follow specified procedures, of the intent of EDB in setting out such provisions;
(7) whether it has assessed if the employment contracts of the teachers within the establishment who have passed the two-year probationary period as mentioned in (6) are permanent contracts and not subject to annual renewal; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, and given that the Code of Aid for Primary Schools and the Code of Aid for Secondary Schools published in 1994 contain provisions relating to permanent employment not subject to annual renewal, of the reasons why such provisions have not been included in all the various editions of the Code of Aid for Aided Schools published since 2005; the policy considerations for the decision of EDB not to include such provisions in the Code of Aid for Aided Schools; whether EDB will consider adding such provisions to that code; if EDB will, of the specific timetable; if not, the reasons for that;
(8) whether it has examined if EDB's allowing schools to employ regular teachers on DCP terms is in contradiction with the intent of establishing permanent teaching posts; of the reasons for EDB changing the following arrangement: teachers first employed within the establishment will serve a probationary period of two years and will continue to be employed by the same school thereafter;
(9) whether EDB has any plans to require aided schools to convert regular teachers on DCP terms to regular teachers on permanent terms; if EDB does, when the relevant work will be completed; if not, of the reasons for that; and
(10) given that EDB has repeatedly revised COA, thus giving rise to differences between the terms in the employment contracts for newly appointed and those for existing teachers as well as changes to the legal position of and remuneration packages for teachers, whether EDB will conduct an extensive consultation with frontline teachers before revising COA in future; if EDB will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7881
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, the posts within the approved teaching staff establishment of aided schools are regular posts, and the teachers filling these posts (except temporary or supply teachers) are regular teachers. According to the information provided by schools on the appointment of teachers, while most regular teachers do not have a fixed term of employment, a small number of regular teachers are employed for a clearly defined contract period (DCP). These teachers are entitled to the same remuneration package, including participation in the Grant/Subsidized Schools Provident Fund Schemes, as those without a specified term of employment. My reply to the question raised by Mr IP Kin-yuen is as follows:
(1) Before the introduction of appointment of regular teachers on terms with a DCP, (that is, regular teachers on DCP terms as mentioned in the question), schools wishing to employ teachers on a short-term basis to fill regular posts due to factors like actual operational needs and anticipated fluctuation of manpower requirements in the coming years could only employ temporary teachers, who were not eligible to join the Grant/Subsidized Schools Provident Fund Schemes. In response to the request of the school sector and taking into account the actual operational needs, starting from the 2006-2007 school year, the Education Bureau has allowed schools the flexibility to employ regular teachers on DCP terms with justified reasons.
(2) According to the statistics for the 2015-2016 school year, there were about 70 regular teachers employed on DCP terms for five to 10 years. To our understanding, the schools concerned employed regular teachers on DCP terms for various reasons, which mainly include anticipated redundancy arising from reduction of classes in future, the time-limited nature of some regular teaching posts (for example, the six additional teaching posts under the Voluntary Optimization of Class Structure Scheme, provision of additional teaching posts to primary schools maintaining 30 students per class, and so on), flexibility in planning the senior secondary curriculum and appropriate match of subject teachers.
(3) Every year, teachers choose to resign or not to renew contracts for various reasons, for instance, health, family, further studies, taking offer from another school, retirement, and so on. Changes in the number of classes in individual schools may also affect the number of regular teachers in their establishment, and teachers who have 7882 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
become surplus are required to leave. At present, schools only need to report to the Education Bureau the effective date and period of notice of termination of service (if applicable) for the departure of regular teachers within the establishment without giving details of the handling procedures unless such termination involves disciplinary action. Therefore, we do not have the statistics on DCP teachers whose employment contracts were not renewed.
(4) As the employers of teachers, school management committees/incorporated management committees (SMCs/IMCs) of aided schools are required to comply with the Employment Ordinance, Education Regulation, relevant Codes of Aid (COA) and legislation as well as guidelines issued by the Education Bureau from time to time in handling the appointment and dismissal of teachers and other personnel matters. The Education Bureau always reminds schools via various channels that regular teachers on DCP terms are regular teachers within the approved establishment and that their salaries and leave entitlement (including contribution to the Grant/Subsidized Schools Provident Fund) as well as their appointment and dismissal are no different from those for regular teachers in general. These matters should also be handled in compliance with COA and the requirements set out in relevant ordinances/regulations. Other than the time-limited nature of the teaching posts, regular teachers on DCP terms are provided with employment protection similar to that for other regular teachers regarding dismissal.
(5) As mentioned above, regular teachers on DCP terms are introduced in response to schools' actual operational needs. As pointed out in part (4) above, aided schools are required to comply with the Employment Ordinance, Education Regulation, relevant COA and legislation as well as guidelines issued by the Education Bureau from time to time in handling matters concerning the appointment and dismissal of regular teachers, irrespective of whether they are employed on DCP terms or not. The Education Bureau has kept the teacher employment situation of aided schools under review, and often reminds schools that employment of regular teachers on DCP terms should be truly justified and that schools should not take such mode of employment as a staff management tool.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7883
(6) According to COA, regular teachers employed in aided schools are required to serve a two-year probationary period before they are offered appointment on a long-term basis. As in other professions, the purpose of setting a probationary period is to allow employees an opportunity to know how well they are suitable for long-term employment in the profession on the one hand, and enable employers to observe whether the performance and character of the employees fulfil the criteria and requirements of the jobs concerned on the other. It is a well-established and well-received practice in the education sector to set a two-year probationary period for regular teachers employed in aided schools.
(7) Relevant provisions of the Code of Aid for Aided Schools for schools governed by an IMC stipulate that teachers and specialist staff on first appointment should normally serve a probationary period of two years. After the probation, termination of employment shall follow the requirements prescribed in the Compendium to the Code of Aid for Aided Schools and any other conditions as set out in the letter of appointment or contract of service signed between the schools and employees. Although the Code of Aid for Aided Schools does not stipulate that it is necessary for staff employed after the two-year probationary period to renew their contracts annually and the wording of permanent employment is not used either, it does not imply that the employment arrangement for qualified regular teachers will be changed after the two-year probationary period. Schools should specify the term of employment in the contracts for information of the teachers concerned if there are justifiable reasons or actual operational needs (for example, teaching posts being time-limited in nature) to do so. For other matters concerning appointment and dismissal, the arrangements are basically the same as the requirements stipulated in COA for primary schools, secondary schools and special schools. Therefore, we consider that revision to relevant provisions is not necessary.
(8) As mentioned in part (2) above, some schools employ regular teachers on DCP terms owing to various reasons or actual operational needs. The Education Bureau has not changed the 7884 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
arrangement stated in COA that requires a regular teacher to serve a two-year probationary period before being employed continuously by the same school thereafter.
(9) As mentioned above, regular teachers on DCP terms are introduced in response to schools' actual operational needs. The Education Bureau has kept the teacher employment situation of schools under review. We have always stressed that schools may consider employing regular teachers on DCP terms only when there are actual operational needs. The Education Bureau will ask schools to make improvement if they employ regular teachers on DCP terms without justifiable reasons. In fact, the overall number of regular teachers employed on DCP terms has been declining over the past three years.
(10) Please refer to part (4) above for matters requiring the attention of SMCs/IMCs in handling the appointment and dismissal of teachers as the employer of teachers. The Code of Aid for Aided Schools was developed to tie in with the implementation of school-based management and the establishment of IMC. It is incumbent upon the Education Bureau to review and revise related provisions in the Code from time to time having regard to the actual implementation and feedback from the sector. Taking the above into account holistically, the claim as raised in the question about the differences in the employment terms between newly appointed and serving teachers and the change in the legal position of and remuneration packages for teachers as a result of the revision made to COA by the Education Bureau is without grounds.
All along, the Education Bureau attaches great importance to communication with the sector and is always ready to listen to the views of various parties on the provisions of the Code of Aid for Aided Schools. Appropriate amendments will be made as necessary so that the design and content of the Code can be refined to support schools in fulfilling the goal of providing quality education.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7885
Organ Donation and Transplant
14. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Chinese): President, currently, quite a number of patients suffering from organ failure are waiting for transplant of deceased organs in order to sustain life. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of patients waiting for transplant of various types of deceased organs, and the respective average time for which they had waited, as at April 2016;
(2) whether it knows the number of patients who passed away in each of the past five years while waiting for transplant of deceased organs;
(3) of the number of members of the public who newly signed the organ donation card in each of the past five years;
(4) of the channels through which the authorities promoted organ donation in the past five years and the relevant expenditure incurred; the difficulties encountered by the authorities in promoting organ donation; whether the authorities have conducted regular reviews on the effectiveness of the various publicity channels; and
(5) if it knows whether there were Hong Kong residents who sought medical treatment from local public hospitals in each of the past five years due to after-effects of the organ transplant operations they received outside Hong Kong; if there were, the number of such patients and the details?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President,
(1) The Hospital Authority (HA) updates the statistics of organ donation on a half-yearly basis. The number of patients waiting for transplant of various types of organs and the average waiting time in 2015 are set out in Annex 1.
(2) Whether the cause of a patient's death is related to the lack of an organ for transplant depends on the organ needed and the availability 7886 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
of alternative treatment options. Given the complexity of the issue and controversy involved, there is no unanimous conclusion yet. As far as kidney, cornea, skin and bone tissue are concerned, patients suffering from renal failure can live on by receiving dialysis treatment, and the lack of cornea and skin and bone tissue for transplant does not directly cause a patient's death. After detailed discussions of different organ transplant teams, the HA began to adopt a set of standard criteria in 2010 to calculate the number of patients on the organ transplant waiting list who died in the year. Based on such criteria, the statistics of the number of patients who died while waiting for organ transplant in each of the past five years are shown in Annex 2.
(3) The Department of Health (DH) launched the Centralized Organ Donation Register (CODR) in November 2008 to encourage the public to register their wish to donate their organs after death. Members of the public may choose to register in the CODR by mail/fax or through the Internet
Members of the public may carry signed organ donation cards. Since people who have signed the organ donation card do not need to report to the DH, we do not have the latest number of people who have signed the cards.
(4) Organ donation and transplant, and eventually whether patients can be saved, depend on a number of factors. The HA has put in place a mechanism to handle and co-ordinate various clinical aspects involved in the process. However, a key factor is the attitude of the general public towards organ donation. The Government has been inculcating a culture of organ donation in the community, hoping that the public can accept the concept of donating organs after death to bring new lives to others. Over the years, the DH and HA have been working with various professional community partners such as organ donation co-ordinators who play a supportive and co-ordinating role, with a view to creating a positive atmosphere for organ donation in the whole community.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7887
A focus group study conducted by the DH in 2015 revealed that traditional beliefs and family factors, together with certain misunderstandings and worries among the general public, have led to their reservations about organ donation. Hence the DH and its partners should enhance public understanding about organ donation to ease their concerns and increase their willingness to donate organs after death.
The Government just established the Committee on Promotion of Organ Donation in mid-April to further promote organ donation. The committee will co-ordinate and integrate the relevant work of different government departments and organizations to augment public education and publicity, so as to foster and fortify the culture of organ donation. It is responsible for formulating strategies and directions for organ donation promotion, co-ordinating activities for promoting and facilitating organ donation, as well as formulating programmes and activities to encourage and educate the public on organ donation. It will also invite non-governmental organizations, institutions, members of the community and the media to participate in various activities and programmes, with a view to enhancing public understanding of and reducing their resistance and hesitation to organ donation. It is hoped that through these efforts, Hong Kong people will be willing to donate organs after death to save other people's lives.
The expenditure and manpower on the publicity of organ donation cannot be separately identified as they are absorbed by the overall provision for health promotion under the Food and Health Bureau and DH.
(5) No matter where the transplant was conducted, patients who have undergone organ transplant have to receive follow-up treatment after the operation, such as taking anti-rejection drugs on a continuous basis. The HA will provide the necessary follow-up services and continuum of care for these patients.
For kidney transplant, statistics on the number of patients who had kidney transplant outside Hong Kong and received follow-up care in public hospitals in each of the past five years are shown in Annex 4.
7888 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Apart from kidney transplant, the HA does not have the annual statistics on the number of Hong Kong residents who receive follow-up care in public hospitals after undergoing organ transplant operations in places outside Hong Kong. According to the information currently available to the HA, the number of patients who have undergone liver, heart and lung transplant outside Hong Kong and are receiving follow-up care in public hospitals are 205, four and two respectively.
Annex 1
Number of patients waiting for transplant of various types of organs in 2015
Number of patients waiting Average waiting time Year Organ/Tissue for organ/tissue transplant (months)(2) 2015 Kidney 1 941 51 Heart 36 16.1 Lung 16 15.4 Liver 89 43 Cornea (piece) 374 24 Bone Not Applicable(1) Not Applicable Skin
Notes:
(1) Cases of patients waiting for skin and bone transplant are spontaneous and are an emergency in nature. As substitutes will be used if no suitable piece of skin or bone can be identified for transplant, patients in need of skin and bone transplant are not included in the organ/tissue donation waiting list.
(2) "Average waiting time" is the average of the waiting time for patients on the organ/tissue transplant waiting list as at end of that year.
Annex 2
Number of patients who died while waiting for organ transplant
Organ/Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Liver 27 28 32 22 31 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7889
Organ/Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Heart 6 5 7 5 7 Lung 1 5 4 2 5
Annex 3
Number of people registered in the Centralized Organ Donation Register
2016 (As at 31 2011 2012(1) 2013 2014 2015 March 2016) Number of 22 610 27 518 24 036 19 868 29 357 10 055 registrations during the year Cumulative 91 656 115 578 139 614 159 482 188 839 198 894 number of registrations
Note:
(1) The figures have been adjusted to eliminate multiple entries starting from 2012.
Annex 4
Number of patients who had kidney transplant outside Hong Kong and received follow-up care in public hospitals in the past five years
Year Number of patients 2011 2 284 2012 2 334 2013 2 355 2014 2 396 2015 2 402
7890 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Measures to Combat Parallel Trading Activities
15. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Chinese): President, some residents in the North District have relayed to me that although the Government has implemented certain measures in recent months to step up its efforts in combating parallel trading activities, such activities are still rampant in the district, causing nuisance to the daily living of residents. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the details of the immigration control measures implemented by the authorities to combat parallel trading activities in the past three years;
(2) of the respective numbers of Mainland residents arrested and prosecuted by the authorities for suspected engagement in parallel trading activities in each of the past three years, with a breakdown by the type of travel documents they held and by the offence involved;
(3) given that since April last year, Shenzhen permanent residents are no longer issued with one-year multiple-entry Individual Visit Endorsements (commonly known as "multiple-entry endorsements") (those endorsements already issued are not affected and will expire one after another within one year), and only "one trip per week" Individual Visit Endorsements (commonly known as "one trip per week endorsements") may be issued to them, of the respective numbers of Mainland residents who entered the territory with these two types of endorsements, as well as the percentages of such numbers in the total number of Mainland visitors, in the past three months; whether the authorities have assessed the effectiveness of the aforesaid measure in alleviating the problem of parallel trading;
(4) in each month in the past three years, of (i) the number of persons put on the "watch list of suspected parallel traders" drawn up by the Immigration Department, (ii) the number of immigration examinations of persons on the watch list conducted by the authorities, and (iii) the number of persons on the watch list refused entries, with a breakdown by immigration control point;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7891
(5) in the past three years, of the number of black spots for parallel trading activities and their locations each year, as well as the respective numbers of law enforcement actions taken by the departments concerned at such black spots and Fixed Penalty Notices issued in each month; the current average daily number of times, as arranged by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, for which cleansing work is carried out on streets near such black spots;
(6) of the respective numbers of Fixed Penalty Notices issued by the Police for road obstructions caused by illegal parking and by loading or unloading of goods in connection with parallel trading activities, in each of the past three years; whether the Police took other law enforcement actions (e.g. impounding the vehicles concerned) to combat parallel trading activities;
(7) in each month in the past three years, of (i) the number of inspections for industrial buildings conducted by the authorities to combat parallel trading activities, and (ii) the number of warning letters issued by the authorities to owners of industrial building units for breaches of permitted uses as well as (iii) the number of cases where such warning letters were registered at the Land Registry (commonly known as "imposing an encumbrance"), with a breakdown by type of such breaches;
(8) whether it knows the progress of preparatory work for the establishment of a proposed boundary shopping mall near Lok Ma Chau Control Point; whether the authorities have provided any assistance for the implementation of the project, and whether they have formulated any plan on how to minimize the impacts of the project on the daily living of residents and the transport in that district; if they have, of the details; and
(9) whether the Government held any inter-departmental meetings on combating parallel trading activities last year; if it did, of the number of such meetings held and the government departments which sent representatives to attend such meetings, as well as the conclusions drawn upon reviews at such meetings of the effectiveness of the various measures for combating parallel trading activities; if no such meeting was held, the reasons for that?
7892 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, regarding Mr TANG's questions, having consulted relevant departments, the Government's reply is as follows:
(1) to (4) and (9)
The HKSAR Government attaches great importance to the long-term and healthy development of Hong Kong's tourism industry. Whilst ensuring the stable and orderly development of the tourism industry, we minimize as far as possible the inconvenience caused by increasing visitor arrivals to local residents, with a view to striking a balance between the impact of the tourism industry on Hong Kong's economy and the livelihood of the community. After we reflected our views to the Central Government regarding Mainland visitors, it replaced "multiple-entry" individual visit endorsements for permanent Shenzhen residents with a "one trip per week" cap. In the first three months of 2016, there were over 10.37 million Mainland visitor arrivals to Hong Kong, including over 440 000 visitor arrivals on "multiple-entry" (4.3% of total Mainland visitor arrivals) and 1.93 million visitor arrivals on "one trip per week" (18.6% of total Mainland visitor arrivals) individual visit endorsements.
We believe that the measure can effectively deter the activities of Mainland professional parallel traders who come to Hong Kong multiple times within one week or even one day. The "one trip per week" measure has been implemented for around one year. The decline in Mainland visitor arrivals, especially same-day visitors, was expected, and shows that the measure has taken effect. The HKSAR Government will continue to monitor the impact of the "one trip per week" measure, and will maintain close liaison with relevant authorities of the Central Government.
Since September 2012, the law-enforcement agencies have been mounting large scale joint operations to suppress parallel trading activities and to improve order at railway stations and boundary control points. They have also refined their enforcement strategies in response to the mode of operation of parallel traders.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7893
The Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) has pinpointed suspected parallel goods storage and packing establishments, and passed intelligence to the Immigration Department (ImmD) and the Police to conduct enforcement actions.
The C&ED has also been exchanging intelligence and planning dedicated operations with the Shenzhen authorities. In the past three years (that is, 2013 to 2015), the two sides cracked down on 1 017 smuggling cases involving parallel traders, seizing goods with a total value of about $15.80 million. During the same period, the C&ED also detected 13 508 cases of attempting to export unlicensed powdered formula, involving the arrest of 7 790 Mainland visitors, among which 7 309 were prosecuted, and the seizure of 196 000 kg of powdered formula.
Regarding public order, the police station officers every day at the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line (LMCSL) Control Point and its neighbouring areas to implement crowd management and special traffic arrangements. When necessary, additional manpower will be assigned to ensure that cross-boundary travellers can use the LMCSL Control Point in a safe and orderly fashion and that traffic is smooth. From January to December 2015, 84 persons, including one Mainland visitor, were arrested for entering and remaining at the LMCSL Control Point without possessing a valid Closed Area Permit were convicted and were sentenced to a fine, imprisonment and imprisonment (suspended sentence). The goods they carried were confiscated by the Court.
The ImmD and the Police conducted 271 joint operations in the past three years, and arrested 2 299 Mainland visitors who were suspected of contravening conditions of stay by being involved in parallel trading activities. Among them, 205 Mainland visitors were prosecuted for breach of conditions of stay, 190 of whom were sentenced to imprisonment for 19 days to three months and 15 were acquitted, the remaining 2 094 were repatriated to the Mainland.
In addition, the ImmD has established a "watch list of suspected parallel traders" to examine suspected parallel traders, and will also conduct special operations to strengthen the interception of 7894 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
suspected parallel traders when entering Hong Kong. If their purposes of visits are in doubt, the ImmD will consider refusing their entry and repatriating them immediately. As at the end of March 2016, the ImmD has included information of more than 20 200 suspected Mainland parallel traders in the watch list.
In the past three years, over 47 000 entries were refused due to suspected involvement in parallel trading activities:
Control Point 2013 2014 2015 Lo Wu 6 068 4 520 6 765 LMCSL 3 981 3 473 10 128 Hung Hom 0 1 0 Lok Ma Chau 160 88 148 Shenzhen Bay 1 201 2 256 4 882 Man Kam To 239 1 000 1 653 Sha Tau Kok 167 108 238 Total 11 816 11 446 23 814
(5) The Police have stepped up enforcement actions against issues including obstruction and nuisance in public places caused by parallel traders and shops and issued a total of 453 summonses in the past three years. Relevant departments will continue to take strict enforcement action at black spots of parallel trading activities to minimize the nuisance caused to residents in public places.
In order to maintain environmental hygiene and tidiness in North District, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) will continue to enhance street cleaning services and enforcement actions at parallel trading black spots in the district, including removing discarded items more frequently, issuing Fixed Penalty Notices to persons who have committed public cleanliness offences. To combat obstruction problems caused by parallel trading activities, it also takes part in inter-departmental enforcement actions against shops which violate the laws. In the past three years, the FEHD issued 4 030 notices under the Fixed Penalty (Public Cleanliness Offences) Ordinance (Cap. 570) at the relevant black spots. To LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7895
make sure the neighbourhood is tidy and hygienic, the FEHD arranges no fewer than three to five rounds of street cleansing every day at black spots of parallel trading in the North District.
(6) Regarding road obstructions caused by illegal parking and loading or unloading of goods in connection with parallel trading, in the past three years, the Police issued over 13 400 fixed penalty tickets under the Fixed Penalty (Traffic Contraventions) Ordinance (Cap. 237) (applicable to obstruction on roads by motor vehicles) and the Fixed Penalty (Criminal Proceedings) Ordinance (Cap. 240) (applicable to offences including loading/unloading goods or picking up/setting down passengers in restricted zone, insecure load, and so on).
The Police have also targeted illegal conduct involving taxis in the North District. From January to December 2015, the Police have taken out traffic summonses against 62 drivers for carriage of goods on a taxi, soliciting and refusing to accept a hire.
(7) To complement the Government's enforcement action against parallel trading at the source, the District Lands Offices under the Lands Department (LandsD) will accord priority to cases involving parallel trading as appropriate. Industrial units converted and used for retail purposes may have breached the relevant leases. From January to December 2015, the LandsD conducted over 170 inspection operations, targeting multiple units in industrial buildings suspected of being involved in parallel trading activities in the three districts of Tuen Mun, Yuen Long and North District in the New Territories. Grace periods have been shortened to enhance enforcement actions. During this period, warnings had been issued to 45 units suspected of breaching leases. As three of the breaches were not rectified before the deadlines, the LandsD re-entered these units in accordance with the Government Rights (Re-entry and Vesting Remedies) Ordinance (Cap. 126), under which interests in land and connected rights and obligations become vested in The Financial Secretary Incorporated.
(8) The proposed temporary boundary shopping facility at Lok Ma Chau is a private development project. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to arrange its planning and other operation 7896 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
matters. Application for the above project must follow the established planning, lands and other relevant statutory procedures. The Tourism Commission of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau has co-ordinated relevant departments to provide the proponent with information concerning the statutory procedures relevant to its application. On 18 September 2015, the Town Planning Board granted permission on a temporary basis with conditions for a period of three years for the planning application in relation to this project. The proponent needs to fulfil the relevant conditions, and provide proposed arrangements regarding traffic, environment and construction works for approval by relevant departments.
Relevant departments will continue to closely monitor the situation and take enforcement action as mentioned to crack down on parallel trading activities.
Nomination of Representatives of Arts Interests for Hong Kong Arts Development Council
16. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Chinese): President, according to the Hong Kong Arts Development Council Ordinance (Cap. 472), except for the three official members, the Chairman, Vice-chairman and not more than 22 other members of the Hong Kong Arts Development Council (HKADC) shall be appointed by the Chief Executive (CE) for a term not exceeding three years. Of the 22 members, CE may appoint up to 10 members who have been nominated by specified arts interests. The authorities are conducting an exercise to nominate representatives of arts interests for the new term of office of HKADC (nomination exercise). In view of the widespread controversies which have aroused over the mechanism and procedures for the nomination exercise for the last term of office, quite a number of members of the arts sector consider that the authorities should improve the mechanism and procedures for the nomination exercise for the new term of office. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the number of registered voters in each arts interest in the nomination exercise for each of the past three terms of office;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7897
(2) given that the Home Affairs Bureau (HAB) submitted a paper on the review of the mechanism and arrangements for the nomination exercise to this Council early this year, of the latest progress of the follow-up actions taken by HAB and HKADC in respect of the tasks set out in the paper; for those tasks the follow-up actions for which have not been taken or are uncompleted, whether the authorities have a specific timetable for their completion; whether HAB and HKADC will review afresh the mechanism concerned and its operation upon completion of the nomination exercise for the new term of office; if they will, of the specific contents of the review; if not, the reasons for that;
(3) given that HAB has appointed an agent for the nomination exercise for the new term of office through tendering procedures, of the number of bidding documents received by HAB; the estimated expenditure to be incurred for the nomination exercise for the new term of office, with a breakdown by major expenditure item; and
(4) how the Government and HKADC will encourage eligible persons to register as voters for and actively participate in the nomination exercise; of the details of the relevant work?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President,
(1) The number of registered voters for the last three exercises for nominating representatives of arts interests for the Hong Kong Arts Development Council (HKADC) (the nomination exercise) is listed in the following table:
Number of registered voters Arts Interest 2007 2010 2013 Arts administration 113 168 356 Arts criticism 58 33 73 Arts education 536 647 949 Chinese opera (Xiqu) 1 210 1 206 1 163 Dance 1 701 1 616 1 794 Drama 489 478 479 Film arts 320 271 408 7898 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Number of registered voters Arts Interest 2007 2010 2013 Literary arts 521 491 551 Music 690 881 1 198 Visual arts 1 391 1 280 1 541 Total number of registered voters 7 029 7 071 8 512
(2) and (3)
Following our briefing for the Legislative Council Panel on Home Affairs on the recommendations and way forward for the 2016 nomination exercise in January this year, the Home Affairs Bureau has taken forward the relevant follow-up actions including:
(i) appointment of a nomination agent through the established tendering procedures to handle the administrative and promotional arrangements of the nomination exercise. Two bidding proposals had been received by the Home Affairs Bureau, and Instinctif Partners (Hong Kong) Limited was appointed as the nomination agent for the 2016 nomination exercise in December 2015;
(ii) commencement of Phase 1 of the nomination exercise, applications from arts organizations and individual arts workers to register as voters(1) are accepted from 29 March to the closing date on 27 May this year;
(iii) publicity of the nomination exercise through various channels (see part (4) of the reply). Briefing sessions were also arranged on 15 and 17 April this year respectively to brief the arts sector and the public on the arrangements of the nomination exercise; and
(iv) following up on the planning and administrative arrangements for subsequent phases of the nomination exercise.
(1) Arts organizations successfully registered under this phase may register their eligible members/employees as voters during Phase 2 of the nomination exercise. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7899
After vetting all registration applications received during Phase 1 of the nomination exercise and informing the relevant arts organizations and individual arts workers of the results of their applications, we expect to launch Phase 2 of the nomination exercise (that is, voter registration by arts organizations) in August this year. Candidate nomination, electioneering and polling phases will be conducted in the fourth quarter of this year.
The estimated total expenditure for the 2016 nomination exercise is around $4.2 million. Major expenditure items include the expenses for appointing the nomination agent and hiring extra manpower required by the Home Affairs Bureau (around $2.3 million in total), publicity expenses (around $1.1 million) and other costs on printing, mailing and computer systems, and so on (around $0.8 million in total).
In accordance with prevailing practices, we will review the arrangements of the nomination exercise and examine areas for improvement with the HKADC upon the completion of the 2016 nomination exercise and before the launch of the next nomination exercise. We will continue to consult the arts sector and stakeholders in the process.
(4) Various publicity efforts will be implemented during the nomination exercise to encourage participation of the arts sector. Such efforts include:
(i) organizing briefing sessions for the public to introduce the arrangements of the nomination exercise and the work of the HKADC;
(ii) publicizing the nomination exercise through press releases, radio broadcast, letters, emails, SMS, phone contacts, and so on, and placing advertisements in newspapers and arts magazines;
(iii) distributing promotional leaflets to arts organizations and individual arts workers to inform them of the arrangements of 7900 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
the nomination exercise and encourage them to register as voters;
(iv) setting up a dedicated website to provide up-to-date information on the nomination exercise; and
(v) displaying posters and publicity leaflets at major arts and cultural venues including the Home Affairs Bureau, HKADC, Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts, Hong Kong Arts Centre, Jockey Club Creative Arts Centre, the Fringe Club, Cattle Depot Artist Village as well as civic centres, museums and major libraries of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department and Public Enquiry Service Centres of the various District Offices.
Outsourcing Public Services
17. MS EMILY LAU (in Chinese): President, regarding the outsourcing of public services, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the authorities have all along been emphasizing that cost-effectiveness is the basis for outsourcing public services, but they indicated in reply to my written question raised on 2 March this year that they did not have information on the savings in public expenditure through outsourcing of cleaning and security services by various government departments, how the authorities determine whether outsourcing public services is a cost-effective approach when they do not have such information;
(2) how the median wages of civil servants in the past three years compared to those of non-civil service contract staff and outsourced staff who performed comparable duties (with a breakdown of such information by duty); and
(3) given the comments that in order to keep costs down with a view to securing service contracts, public service contractors generally will not offer outsourced workers wages whose rates are more generous LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7901
than the statutory minimum wage rate, and that the Government, being the ultimate employer of a large number of grass-roots workers, is pushing their wages down indirectly and aggravating the problem of working poverty, whether the authorities will consider changing the practice of awarding outsourced service contracts according to the "lowest bid wins" principle, so as to improve the living standard of grass-roots workers?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President,
(1) Outsourcing is one of the ways adopted by government departments to deliver public services. Whether outsourcing of services is adopted is at the discretion of individual departments having regard to their operational needs. Reasons for outsourcing of services vary from one department to another, and are not necessarily for saving public money. For example:
(i) when departments do not have the expertise to deliver the service, they have to seek outside help even if the costs are relatively high;
(ii) when the demand for the service fluctuates, departments can meet the demand more flexibly and timely through outsourcing the service to service providers with economies of scale; or
(iii) when departments believe that there are more effective ways to deliver certain services in the market, the outsourcing of such services can hence tap the innovative ideas and support from the market, which enable them to focus more on their core services.
If departments decide to deliver public services by means of outsourcing, they must provide a level playing field for all tenderers to compete through clear, open and fair procedures, so as to obtain best-value-for-money services.
7902 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
(2) As for government service contracts relying heavily on the deployment of non-skilled workers, according to the information provided by the four major procuring departments (that is, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), Government Property Agency, Housing Department and Leisure and Cultural Services Department), over the past three years, there was no civil service grade with scope of duties comparable with those of non-civil service contract (NCSC) staff and outsourced staff. Take Workman II in the FEHD who are involved in cleansing duties as an example, it is specified in their open recruitment advertisement that apart from public cleansing work, they are also required to undertake pest control work, remove/dispose of dead bodies, perform cemeteries/crematoria related duties (such as transportation of coffins, handling cremated human remains and assisting in exhumation in cemeteries or related work), and hence cannot be compared directly with positions of NCSC staff and outsourced staff who purely undertake cleansing services.
(3) The Government does not assess tenders of all outsourced service contracts solely according to the "lowest bid wins" principle. If the procured service relies heavily on the deployment of non-skilled workers, departments may consider to adopt a marking scheme for assessing the technical and price aspects of the tenders for the service contract, and consider to include in their technical assessment criteria the evaluation of tenderers' proposed wage rates for non-skilled workers. The contract will only be awarded if a tender meets all the essential requirements and obtains the highest overall score (that is, the sum of price and technical scores) under the marking scheme.
The wages of non-skilled workers employed by the government service contractors are determined by the market mechanism, and such workers are protected under the Minimum Wage Ordinance (Cap. 608). They are in no way different from non-skilled workers employed by outside organizations in this regard.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7903
GOVERNMENT BILLS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bills.
Council went into Committee.
Committee Stage
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee stage. Council is now in Committee and continues to examine the Schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2016. We now continue with the second debate. For those Members who pressed the "Request to speak" button at last week's meeting but have not yet spoken, their names are already on the waiting list. They have no need to press the button again.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2016
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I wish to speak on Amendment No 306 proposed by me to reduce head 144 by $2.83 million in respect of subhead 000, which is equivalent to the estimated expenditure for the costs of the annual salary of the Chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC). My reason for proposing this amendment is very simple: The new EOC Chairperson, Prof Alfred CHAN Cheung-ming, is not the right candidate to fill this post and the Government should not have appointed him in the first place.
First of all, he has no understanding of the role of the EOC at all. The EOC is an independent statutory organization to monitor whether discrimination has been involved in the Government's implementation of various policies. The EOC gets its power from four anti-discrimination ordinances. However, before he took office, this Chairperson told the media that the Government should, to a large extent, keep pace with the EOC. What does that mean? Does it mean that the EOC should echo the Government's views and when the Government is unwilling to take certain actions or has not taken certain actions, the EOC should turn a blind eye to that?
Ms Anna WU proposed a Private Member's Bill in 1995 to force the colonial Government then to enact a law on equal opportunities. If Ms WU had chosen to keep pace with the Government, there would not have been the four 7904 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 anti-discrimination ordinances which we have today. If she had chosen to keep pace with the Government, the EOC would not have existed today. When Ms Anna WU was the EOC Chairperson, she fought to have all Primary Six pupils, both boys and girls, compete on an equal footing in the Secondary School Places Allocation System. I believe that the daughters of several Members in this Chamber, including Ms Starry LEE, have benefited from that. But does anyone know how big a dispute this proposal caused at that time? The then Secretary for Education and Manpower, Mrs Fanny LAW, almost engaged in an open war against Ms Anna WU, stating that her proposal was absolutely unsuitable for Hong Kong. If the EOC Chairperson then had chosen to keep pace with the Government, not only would girls a little older than 10 years of age in those years have lost at the starting line and systematically discriminated against, but so would the girls of the same age today.
Another EOC Chairperson, Dr York CHOW, advocated equal opportunities for sexual minorities during his tenure. He conducted a large-scale consultation exercise with emphasis on both quality and scale, and proposed to the Government amendments to the law, which included banning discrimination against sexual minorities. However, the Government drags its heels on the amendment for fear of enraging certain political powers.
Had the former EOC Chairpersons kept pace with the Government, the EOC would have been something for decoration only, rather than an organization fighting against discrimination on behalf of the people of Hong Kong. This is the most significant and essential reason why Prof Alfred CHAN should not be the EOC Chairperson.
The second reason is that Prof Alfred CHAN does not understand the plights of the sexual minorities at all. Even before taking office, he said that it was more effective to continue promoting education on this subject than by other means. The most outrageous comment he made was, "Legislation was the least desirable means." If legislation was the least desirable, what was his view about the four anti-discrimination ordinances? He must explain why the former EOC Chairpersons or even the Government agreed to enact the four anti-discrimination ordinances. If legislation is the least desirable while education is the most essential, are the four ordinances redundant then? If education is as essential as he said, has the Government been educated in the past 10-odd years? The Government is the foremost public organization that needs educating. Many non-government organizations and many Members of this Council have put LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7905 forward many opinions and repeatedly made a stand but the Government still refuses to change and take aboard their views. Such views include those about the Race Discrimination Ordinance where the use of ethnic minorities' languages is concerned. It is yet to be educated.
Small progress, very small, in various areas has been made concerning the discrimination against sexual minorities since the item about the inequality faced by sexual minorities was added to the agenda of the Legislative Council in 2000. The first is that cohabiting couples are covered in the Domestic Violence Ordinance now. The second area seeing small progress comes to the Electronic Health Record Sharing System Ordinance, under which cohabitants, including same sex couples, are allowed to make a minor decision about the healthcare arrangements of their partners. Such decision is to allow others to access their partners' electronic health record. Other than these few ones, no progress has been made whatsoever.
Even though the incumbent Government has promised to conduct a survey on the population of sexual minorities in Hong Kong under the Census and Statistics (2016 Population Census) Order, now it has backed out and grouped the sexual minorities together with other categories. It refuses to give them a formal identity. Under the Private Columbaria Bill, same sex couples are held back from making a decision about any matters concerning the columbaria of their deceased partners. In respect of major policies such as housing, same sex couples are not eligible to apply jointly for public rental housing and HOS housing. In respect of healthcare, same sex couples do not have the legitimate status to make a decision about the healthcare arrangements for their partners. In respect of tax, same sex couples cannot claim the married person's allowance. It is even worse in the case of family reunion. Even though a same sex couple have registered their marriage outside Hong Kong, one partner cannot apply for reunion with their legally wedded partner in Hong Kong.
In the face of all these issues, can the Government be educated? Why has the Government remained indifferent after having been taught for over 10 years? Prof Alfred CHAN said education was good enough and there was no need for legislation. As a matter of fact, legislation sets the minimum standards for one's behaviour. More importantly, legislation sets a legal norm for the Government, which has the biggest public power, to follow when it formulates policies on public affairs. This ensures that all Hong Kong people, be they homosexual, heterosexual, transsexual or any other sexual minorities, will be treated equally 7906 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 and not be discriminated against. At present, what do we depend on to ensure that this policy is implemented? We depend on the judicial system and litigation. The Government will be willing to amend the law only after the Court has handed down the rulings. Can the Government be educated? It is only when the judge wields the cane that the Government is forced to move a few steps. The contents of the legislation, however, are very stringent. With the post of the EOC Chairperson filled by Prof Alfred CHAN, who thinks that education is more effective than legislation, I can foresee that during his three-year tenure, the EOC will not only stop progressing but go backwards instead.
The third reason why Prof Alfred CHAN should not be the EOC Chairperson is that he is lazy. I think it is the gravest insult to a public officer to be called "lazy" but he is genuinely lazy. Two weeks before taking office, he told the media in an interview that he was not yet familiar with the four anti-discrimination ordinances. These ordinances are the foundation of his work. He is paid $2.83 million a year, over $200,000 a month, for this post. Two weeks before taking office, he had not yet familiarized himself with the relevant legislation! Alfred CHAN is a professor. If a student came to the classroom unprepared, he would be displeased. If students fool around in the classroom, he should send them home and tell them to come to class well prepared next time.
Prof Alfred CHAN also told the media the reason why he applied for this post. It was, I quote, "I was about to retire and getting a little bored, so I tried something new." This shows that he has no commitment to this work at all. How can a public office of this rank, being paid such a high salary with such a favourable package, be filled by someone who has no commitment, lacks awareness and is lazy? Chairman, I very much worry that the EOC under the leadership of Alfred CHAN will be a laughingstock of society again, after it was chaired by Michael WONG Kin-chow. During that time, Hong Kong was quite miserable to have the EOC as a laughingstock, a public body with no credibility. However, it is very likely that the same situation will repeat.
The fourth reason why Prof Alfred CHAN should not be the EOC Chairperson is that he has no integrity. First, in the incident concerning Lifelong College, he moonlighted without reporting it to Lingnan University. He received $8,000 from Hong Kong Management Association for tutoring Anna TANG in writing her doctoral thesis. Although $8,000 is not a big sum and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7907
Lingnan University also said that the amount did not reach the threshold for declaration and need not be shared with the University, the case is different for a public officer. For him, making an unrequired declaration would not be a problem but he would arouse suspicions if he does not do so. It was bad that he did not declare it in the first place and later corrected himself three times a day in respect of this incident. When the incident was first disclosed and the media interviewed him, he denied it time and again. When the information was spread on the Internet and he could not evade it anymore, he then admitted having moonlighted and got $8,000 as the doctoral advisor of Anna TANG.
How can such a person who lacks awareness, competence, commitment and integrity, and will not make up for his inadequacy by working hard, be appointed to such an important post? The Selection Board, chaired by Mrs Laura CHA, should also be held responsible. After appointing Alfred CHAN, they said he had a strong sense of commitment, a clear vision and competence. However, this illusion was soon smashed up crazily by himself. Seeing how he acted in front of the public, one would not dispute any of such remarks.
Yesterday, we read another incident about Alfred CHAN. It was reported that he sent a message via his EOC email account to Petula HO's email account with the University of Hong Kong. In the email, he tried to explain and respond to her comment that he should resign, as well as other criticisms she made. The case should not have been a problem. But the biggest problem was that he ended the email with the following words, "I used to work closely with your colleagues Prof 1 and Prof 2, and also your superior Prof A." Let me quote another sentence, "I hope they take me from a different perspective." What was he implying? He told Petula HO that he knew her boss and also her colleagues and hoped that they would have a different opinion of him. Was he trying to exert pressure on her? By writing this, was he telling Petula HO to ask for instructions from her boss or forewarning her that her boss might reprimand her? There is another question concerning this email. Alfred CHAN needs to explain to the public whether he contacted Petula HO's superior before writing the email and whether HO's superior exerted any pressure on her as a result. The public have the right to know about these.
We smelt the imminent "frying" long ago. We knew that the Government wanted to discontinue York CHOW's appointment because he was too bold and went too far ahead in promoting equal opportunities for the sexual minorities. We tried to persuade him to eat humble pie and apply for the post again because 7908 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 if he did not do so, the Government could appoint another person without giving any explanation. In the end, Dr York CHOW did apply. The Selection Board needs to explain to us now what outstanding abilities Prof Alfred CHAN had that made him superior to York CHOW and Anna WU and won him this post? Besides being submissive, lazy and not having no ambition, what other abilities had he that won him this post?
Chairman, when the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration appoints people to various offices, it always gives people the impression that the appointments are made on the merits of individuals but these merits are mediocrity and the lack of ambitions. One will not get appointed if he has calibre. When mediocre people and lackeys handle something, they always screw it up, making it impossible for the relevant policy to be implemented. Such examples include the cases of the Independent Police Complaints Council, the Councils of the University of Hong Kong and Lingnan University, and also the appointment of Andrew FUNG as the Information Coordinator.
Chairman, I propose cutting one year's salary of the EOC Chairperson.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, please do a headcount first. Thank you.
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 Albert CHAN, please speak.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, the amendment which Ms Cyd HO has proposed earlier involves the Chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I now propose a similar amendment which is Amendment No 305; the amendment proposed by Ms HO is Amendment No 306. She proposes to reduce the relevant expenditure by $2.83 million; I propose to reduce LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7909 the expenditure by $3,060,600, which is equivalent to the annual emoluments of the Chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission. Regarding the reasons for deducting the emoluments of the Chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission, I will not repeat them as most of my points have been covered in Ms Cyd HO's speech.
Basically, my amendment is related to the appointments made by LEUNG Chun-ying. In fact, if LEUNG Chun-ying's emoluments are deducted and the Chief Executive's Office is closed down, it may be unnecessary to propose any other amendments because LEUNG Chun-ying is the chief culprit. Therefore, I have proposed Amendment No 2, among many others, which serves to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Chief Executive's Office by $110 million. I have also proposed an amendment to reduce the personal emoluments of LEUNG Chun-ying, but it has been rejected by the President. In fact, I have proposed a total of 95 amendments, but only 13 have been approved by the Honourable President.
I understand that I cannot criticize the decisions made by the President, but I can tell the public which of my proposed amendments have been rejected. These amendments include the one to reduce the emoluments of the Chief Executive. Fortunately, the President has approved two similar amendments to be proposed by Ms Emily LAU and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and so I can support their amendments. I have proposed an amendment which is actually the same as theirs, but it has been rejected. Another amendment which has been rejected is the one to reduce the emoluments of the Information Coordinator. I believe the majority of the people of Hong Kong would have supported this amendment, but unfortunately, it has been rejected.
Why have I proposed to reduce the emoluments of the Information Coordinator? Certainly, the calibre of the Chief Executive is the problem, isn't it? As the saying goes, "A lump of loose mud can never hold onto a wall." Basically, if the man has a low calibre, no matter how hard the political make-up artist works on improving his image, it will still be difficult to make him look good. Nonetheless, the Information Coordinator has caused embarrassment on too many occasions, and to a certain extent, he has created lots of troubles. But surprisingly, he called himself the equivalent of the White House Press Secretary. We may said that the incumbent Information Coordinator is the person with the lowest calibre of all Information Coordinators in our history. If he is allowed to remain in his position, I believe the government department responsible for 7910 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 information services will feel ashamed of him and it will strike a blow to the morale of civil servants. In fact, the popularity ratings of LEUNG Chun-ying and the Information Coordinator are becoming increasingly low. By appointing people such as the Information Coordinator, LEUNG Chun-ying's popularity rating will only become lower until it hits rock bottom, won't it? We all see that his recent net popularity, which is the difference between his approval rate and disapproval rate, is as low as negative 41 percentage points, which is the lowest ever.
I can explain the problems caused by the Information Coordinator with a simple example. All leaders of the world like to use dogs to create an aura of harmony and build a public-friendly image, but the report on LEUNG Chun-ying walking his dogs became a scandal. This clearly shows how incapable the Information Coordinator is. The simple exercise of dog walking has surprisingly caused netizens to ask LEUNG to eat dog dung. The reason is that he has not properly disposed of the dog dung. Since the Information Coordinator is so careless in his work and he cannot even handle a common problem appropriately, allowing him to remain in his position will cause shame to the entire Chief Executive's Office and the Government as a whole, particularly to staff members who are involved in news-related work. This is something we should not tolerate any more.
One of the reasons for proposing to delete LEUNG Chun-ying's position is that the people whom he has appointed have been tearing the Hong Kong community apart. Besides, LEUNG often says contradictory things. He said on one day that press freedom should be upheld, but on the next day, he reprimanded the media for doing certain things. This clearly shows that he is confused in his mind, has double standards and preaches one thing but does quite another. In order to prevent people from tearing the community or society of Hong Kong apart further, reduce embarrassment and prevent Hong Kong from becoming a laughing stock in the international community again, I think he must step down and he should do so as soon as possible. After the recent airport incident, the Government of the United States has sent people to Hong Kong to check if the Hong Kong International Airport really lacks regulation. The Hong Kong International Airport used to be one of the best airports in the world, but its ranking has dropped to the fifth or the sixth now, not to mention other rankings such as those of press freedom and our container port. Furthermore, the corruption problem in which LEUNG Chun-ying is involved has caused the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7911 quality of governance of Hong Kong to deteriorate significantly. Besides, the problem involving $50 million which was disclosed soon after LEUNG Chun-ying took office has not been properly dealt with even to this date.
Chairman, in relation to reducing the estimated expenditures in other areas, I have proposed a very important amendment which has been rejected by the President. That amendment seeks to reduce the estimated expenditures of the Immigration Department. In fact, before I proposed the amendment, the Audit Commission had not published its report. One of the purposes of my proposal to reduce the estimated expenditures of this department is to express my dissatisfaction with the Immigration Department concerning the work of the Quality Migrants and Mainland Residents Section, the way it handles extension of stay and its work on immigration arrangements for non-local graduates.
The Audit Commission has upheld justice for me because it shows that the amendment which I have proposed is obviously not frivolous, but supported by a concrete report compiled by the Audit Commission. The report shows inadequacies in the practices of many sections of the Immigration Department and considers it necessary for these sections to give explanations and make improvements.
In proposing amendments to the Appropriation Bill, Members of the Legislative Council cannot propose any amendment to increase the estimated expenditures to commend certain government departments. However, we can propose to reduce the estimated expenditures of different sections of government departments and that is our basic responsibility and duty in monitoring the work of the Government.
Another amendment that I have proposed which has been rejected by President is the one to reduce the annual emoluments of the Director of Highways. This is an item which I am most concerned about. I have been following the progress of infrastructural projects for years and I have not seen problems of such severity and so large in number under the supervision of any former Director of Highways. At present, the total cost overrun of projects amounts to nearly $100 billion and the delay experienced is the most serious ever. Some projects have been delayed for two or three years and the reasons given are also the most ridiculous.
7912 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Members may have heard about the shifting of the connection point of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (the Bridge) recently. Besides, the large number of industrial accidents involved in the project gives me the feeling that the Bridge is a bridge of death. Recently, yet another worker died in an industrial accident of the project. This shows that not only is there a problem of cost control, but also a problem of supervision on the quality of works. Regarding supervision on the quality of works, many reports have found that the materials supplied for the project do not match the descriptions and it seems that the Bridge may collapse at any time. The problem concerning the connection point was very simple. With advance technology nowadays, how could it have shifted a few metres? How will the Director of Highways supervise the works and how will he ensure that these problems will be resolved within a reasonable time? In relation to the delay of the project, he has given many excuses. Delay occurs not in one project, but in all of the larger projects under his supervision.
Earlier, I asked the Director of Housing in a meeting of a Panel why it took so long to build a public housing estate. In building a public housing estate, it takes four to five years from commencing foundation works to building and the works involved is large in scale, but the problems and results faced by the Highways Department are totally different …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please express your views on the provision for the expenses of the Highways Department in the fourth debate. I have already given permission for you to propose an amendment in the fourth debate to reduce the estimated expenses of the Highways Department under the relevant head. Therefore, please wait until the fourth debate to express your views.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Alright, thank you for the reminder, Chairman.
Chairman, please give me a bit of time. I would like to talk about the issue of reducing the emoluments of the Chief Secretary for Administration, which is head … Chairman, please wait a moment. Chairman, let me talk about Amendment No 302 first. It concerns the reduction of head 144 by $168 million LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7913 which relates to the annual estimated expenditure for salaries under personal emoluments of the staff of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau.
Chairman, for many years, I have criticized the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau for having nothing to do. The reason is that the constitutional issues of Hong Kong have, to a certain extent, already been finalized and so the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau does not have to do anything. As the Central Authorities have said that no review would be conducted, the demand for democracy by Hong Kong people will not be acceded to in the foreseeable future. First, the performance of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau on constitutional matters has entirely failed to meet the expectations of Hong Kong people. Second, as the Government knew many years ago that the former Constitutional Affairs Bureau did not have any work to do, it included Mainland affairs to its portfolio. However, work on Mainland affairs mainly concerns economic development and it is basically a mismatch of duties to ask the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau to liaise with the Mainland authorities in relation to matters on economic development.
The Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau deals with many human rights issues. In fact, it should concern itself more with the human rights condition of Hong Kong people on the Mainland. Nonetheless, for many years, although some Hong Kong people have been under administrative detention, imprisoned, unfairly treated and even unlawfully detained and imprisoned because of commercial disputes on the Mainland, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau has turned a deaf ear to them. For all these years, I have criticized the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs because he prefers visiting pandas to enquiring whether those Hong Kong people are alive or dead. Therefore, with such poor performance and under the circumstances, there is no reason to allow this Policy Bureau to keep wasting public money. Worse still, handling Mainland affairs has now become a way for senior civil servants to build Mainland relations so as to find new jobs, get new opportunities and continue to make money in their "second spring" or days after retirement from the Civil Service. As there are reasons to deduct the provision for the estimated expenditure of the entire Policy Bureau, I have proposed Amendment No 302 to reduce the provision by $168 million which is equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for salaries under personal emoluments of the staff of the Policy Bureau.
7914 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, the Neo Democrats proposed nine amendments on the Appropriation Bill 2016 to show dissatisfaction with the performance of the Government. They involve eight Policy Bureaux and government departments. In fact, Members of the previous terms of the Legislative Council expressed dissatisfaction with government policies by proposing reductions in government expenditures. Within the current four-year term of the Legislative Council, thousands of amendments are proposed every year, but not for no reasons. The LEUNG Chun-ying Administration criticized Members who proposed these amendments and labelled such Members obstructions to government operation and policy implementation. However, it fails to introspect and is unwilling to rectify the blunders in its policy implementation. LEUNG Chun-ying should be severely criticized for his lack of introspection.
Chairman, I do not intend to comment in detail your rulings on the amendments but I think your rulings precisely show that the Government's governance has fallen behind in these few years. While the nine amendments of the Neo Democrats are ruled as admissible by the President, on the whole, the number of amendments ruled as admissible is getting smaller year after year and the President has only vaguely defined frivolous amendments. This year, the President has even set a time limit for debate, which will fail to ensure that Members have sufficient and adequate time to discuss various amendments, including the amendment I proposed which would only be handled in a later session according to the current arrangement. Therefore, many Hong Kong people have the impression that the room allowed for discussion in the Legislative Council is getting smaller each year.
Chairman, this joint debate session covers the rule of law, governance, elections and district administration. LEUNG Chun-ying distorted the rule of law and caused the failure of governance and a constitutional reform, which enraged many Hong Kong people. In this debate session, two amendments are proposed by the Neo Democrats, namely Amendment No 10: reducing the estimated annual remuneration of the Chief Executive and Amendment No 326: reducing six months' remuneration of the Secretary for Security. I will speak on the amendment on reducing the remuneration of the Chief Executive first and explain my reasons.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7915
Chairman, in January this year, LEUNG Chun-ying delivered the fourth Policy Address, and this can be described as the last chance for him to "materialize" his manifesto. As everyone in Hong Kong have noticed, however, in respect of universal retirement protection, 15 years of free education and housing supply, LEUNG Chun-ying has not fulfilled his commitments to help Hong Kong people solve pressing livelihood issues. LEUNG Chun-ying said that he would focus on dealing with economic and livelihood issues but he is just diverting attention so that the public would no longer target his responsibilities for the failure in the past two years in promoting a constitutional reform, as well as the problems with his personal conduct such as concealing illegal structures and receiving remunerations under secret agreements. More outrageously, LEUNG Chun-ying has taken advantage of livelihood issues to threaten and coerce the Legislative Council to pass some unjust bills and funding applications.
Since he took office four years ago, LEUNG Chun-ying has been unable to improve people's livelihood and he has even blindly invested a lot of public resources in projects promoting integration between Hong Kong and China. In the Policy Address, he extensively discussed how to take forward the Belt and Road Initiative with the Mainland, overlooking the immediate problems of Hong Kong people. Moreover, LEUNG Chun-ying abuses privilege and he is ethically deficient in the private sphere of life. Thus, he should be held accountable and step down instead of continuing to receive high remunerations, asking Hong Kong taxpayers to put up with the distress and allow him to remain superior.
Chairman, LEUNG Chun-ying has been in office for four years and he has always intensified conflicts in society, and the SAR Government has simply failed to build consensus on controversial policies. While the popular will is against the Government, the authorities have failed to carry out effective governance. It is a pity that LEUNG Chun-ying has not attempted to solve these problems; on the contrary, he is aggressive and advancing, and he always puts political struggle first. All opposing views are considered as obstructions to government operation, and he intends to use tougher measures to force people to accept decisions on which a consensus has not been reached yet. As a result, our society has become more differentiated.
In the Policy Address last year, LEUNG Chun-ying criticized a book named Hong Kong Nationalism published by Undergrad, the official magazine of the Hong Kong University Students' Union. As a result, the sporadic 7916 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 discussions on Hong Kong independence became the subject of heated discussion among the Hong Kong community. It is not because LEUNG Chun-ying had a powerful Midas touch but because he has not properly dealt with the deep-seated contradictions behind these phenomena in our society. On the second day of this Lunar New Year, serious clashes between the Police and the public broke out in Mong Kok. LEUNG Chun-ying, however, only labelled the clashes as riots and criticized violence, failing to address the sources of these clashes. Since the Umbrella Movement, hostility between the Police and the public increased because the Police abused their powers and arbitrarily arrested and suppressed demonstrators for various offences. As a result, the clashes between the Police and the public went out of control on the second day of this Lunar New Year.
Nonetheless, LEUNG Chun-ying does not properly recognize the plight faced by young people in Hong Kong. Nor has he mitigated the mistrust or opposition between the Police and the public after a number of large-scale social movements. On the contrary, he continues to fuel the expansion of police powers. After the clashes, the Police have arrested 43 people for committing the offences of riot and unlawful assembly but 10 of them have their charges withdrawn this month. Even the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Grenville CROSS, has publicly expressed surprise. He believes that the fact that so many people have their charges withdrawn shows that there was a lack of evidence before the suspects were arrested. The Police's excessive arrest and prosecution is really worrying.
For many years, Hong Kong has attached importance to the rule of law, systems and compliance with rule and regulations. Nevertheless, these institutional advantages have been violently distorted after LEUNG Chun-ying has taken office, leading to questions about the credibility of various departments of the SAR Government. The illegal structures scandal which took place soon after LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office put the Buildings Department in doubt of exercising double standards in law enforcement. The scandal of LEUNG Chun-ying being suspected to have received from UGL Australian secret remunerations of HK$50 million resulted in the public questioning the independence of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. It was said that LEUNG Chun-ying recently pressurized airline staff over the phone, requesting for his daughter's hand baggage to be delivered to the restricted area without requiring his daughter to retrieve her baggage personally and go through screening again. The incident has the effects of the burning of chained barges. The Security Bureau, the Civil Aviation Department and the Airport Authority LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7917
Hong Kong (AA) have ignored regular procedures and tried to cover up LEUNG Chun-ying's mistake by false reasoning, at the expense of sacrificing the well-established and internationally accepted security system in Hong Kong, for the sake of making up for LEUNG Chun-ying's mistakes.
Chairman, LEUNG Chun-ying wants to introduce into Hong Kong the unspoken rules in the Mainland official circles, demanding face giving and privileges; and he has shamelessly said that the airline decided to grant the privilege and this has nothing to do with him. LEUNG Chun-ying's has acted in a more outrageous way than Donald TSANG who was invited to a ride on a private aircraft and a yacht. While Donald TSANG was willing to bear his responsibilities, LEUNG Chun-ying's shirking responsibilities has implicated the SAR Government and the Government's prestige is shaken.
Within his term of office, LEUNG Chun-ying has destroyed a lot of well-established laws and institutions such as the Chancellor system as parts of the legacy of colonial rule. Former Governors chose to keep a low profile to avoid the public questioning about intervention in university autonomy. Despite its nature, such a privilege system did not trigger social controversies. However, after the transfer of sovereignty in 1997, the SAR Government has never proposed a review on the system. LEUNG Chun-ying has even taken advantage of this system to obtain political reward. He has exercised his power in appointing members of the university councils to practise favouritism and he has even influenced the operation of universities. Before the Council of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) voted on the appointment of Vice-president, he secretly summoned Pro-Vice-Chancellor Peter MATHIESON and intervened in the institutional autonomy of the HKU. Later, he ignored the opposition of academic staff, students and alumni of the HKU and insisted on appointing Prof Arthur LI the Chairman of the HKU Council. LEUNG Chun-ying wielded his privilege as the Chancellor to plainly intervene in university autonomy.
Chairman, many Hong Kong people treasure the laws and institutions as parts of the legacy of colonial rule in Hong Kong. Prior to 1997, the Beijing Government thought that these well-established laws and institutions were important factors which would help enhance the quality of life of Hong Kong people and economic development. LEUNG Chun-ying, however, put emphasis on learning from Shenzhen and Tianjin. He even said that Hong Kong had a higher degree of autonomy than Mainland cities under the Basic Law.
7918 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Chairman, Mr LAM Hang-chi from the Hong Kong Economic Journal wrote earlier criticizing LEUNG Chun-ying for abandoning "one system" in Hong Kong as he only had "one country" in mind and had no plans for "two systems". He criticized that LEUNG Chun-ying did not care about how to achieve sustained development of "one system" in Hong Kong. There are numerous examples of LEUNG Chun-ying promoting "one system". The Policy Address this year has degenerated into a work report on the Belt and Road Initiative, blindly matching the contents of the Policy Address with the work of the Mainland Government. He even asked all Policy Bureaux to contribute towards the Belt and Road Initiative. The Belt and Road Scholarship Fund is thus derived, causing uproars among Hong Kong people who accuse him for violating the principles for utilizing public funds. Chairman, LEUNG Chun-ying has blindly promoted integration between Hong Kong and China and betrayed the interests of Hong Kong people for the sake of currying favour with Beijing and XI Jinping, and striving for re-election.
Chairman, the "one country, two systems" concept specifically exhibited that the Beijing Government recognized local consciousness in Hong Kong years ago. Back then, the Beijing Government understood that there were obvious differences between Hong Kong and China in respect of systems, ideologies and lifestyles; thus, the "one country, two systems" concept was presented. Yet, after LEUNG Chun-ying took office, he failed to respect these differences and he even tried to ensure that Hong Kong people would integrate blindly with the Mainland community in various aspects, such as the political system, economic development, population policy, national education, arts and culture. The local consciousness of Hong Kong people was also uprooted. To really implement "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong, we must defend local interests and maintain our institutional strengths. Nonetheless, LEUNG Chun-ying acted perversely and adopted policies and measures which aimed to turn "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong into "one country, one system". Hence the institutional advantage treasured by Hong Kong people has degenerated as the authorities are dovetailing with the Mainland practices. This approach violated the commitments made by the Beijing Government in the 1980s during the Sino-British negotiations and also violated the aspirations of Hong Kong people today.
Chairman, LEUNG Chun-ying has all along failed to improve people's livelihood and develop our economy. Instead, he has gradually torn the community apart. Measured against the standards of the local leaders in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7919 democratic or mature systems, his performance is definitely below standard. In the past four years, there were a number of demonstrations targeting LEUNG Chun-ying, and the quantity and scale of these demonstrations were the largest among those during the terms of office of the former Chief Executives. Yet, LEUNG Chun-ying has not suitably examined himself. When he initially assumed office, he said that he would bring along a stool and a pen to listen to people but these commitments have never been materialized. He should not run for election as Chief Executive again at all because that would make Hong Kong people suffer for five more years. Hence, the Neo Democrats proposed the amendment to reduce the estimated annual remuneration of the Chief Executive and we also hope that he would not be re-elected. LEUNG Chun-ying should be held accountable and step down immediately.
Chairman, I so submit.
(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 back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TO, please speak.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I was to speak on the expenditure of some $70 million for the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO), but before that, I would like to first express my views on reducing the Chief Executive's emoluments.
7920 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Chairman, in fact, the bottom line of many Hong Kong people is that the Chief Executive would not run for re-election. As far as I understand, be they surveys conducted by colleagues from the pro-establishment camp, public sentiments that I am aware, or public sentiment reports on Hong Kong, they have come to a very interesting conclusion. Many Hong Kong people, regardless of whether it is justified or purely a kind of feeling, truly wish that Mr LEUNG Chun-ying would stop making Hong Kong sink further. Of course, the last thing many Hong Kong people would wish to see is that he is being re-elected. The present proposal to reduce the expenditure on his emoluments is tantamount to asking him to resign right away.
According to my observation, the Chief Executive is a person who never admits fault, nor admits he is not accepted by Hong Kong people. In a radio programme this morning, one of the hosts joked that Mr LEUNG is now a saint who would never make mistakes, because only saints never err. But how can a human being never errs? It is not a question of whether he has or on what occasion he erred. I wonder if there is anyone who can persuade or talk him to quit and even resign, which will perhaps make him feel very bad. But if he remains in office, he would only make Hong Kong people feel even worse. Therefore, if there is anyone who can persuade Mr LEUNG to quit or resign, I think amidst the currently poor economic environment, Hong Kong people will instead be thankful to him. So, if he really cares about Hong Kong, the last good thing he can do is to save Hong Kong and the people at large because many of them are extremely unhappy at present.
As I have mentioned earlier on, regardless of whether it is justified with particular reference to a decision or a policy of the Government, or is purely personal feeling, the last thing people wish to see is LEUNG Chun-ying being re-elected. The entire community is not only seen to have been driven into dissension, which means the existence of two different views, but that many colleagues from the pro-establishment camp show no respect for Mr LEUNG among themselves and made indiscreet remarks about him from time to time. I have seen a colleague from the pro-establishment camp requesting a calligrapher to write an inscription for him, expressing the wish for the Chief Executive to step down as soon as possible so that Hong Kong will have a better future. His request was, however, rejected by that Mainland calligrapher. Nonetheless, I think this shows that we have indeed reached a major consensus and even Members from the pro-establishment camp are under pressure.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7921
Of course, I am just a small potato and may not be able to do anything, but after all, I have made the voices of the public heard ― I think those were voices from the bottom of their hearts. In fact, I seldom talk about political issues, so it would be better for me to discuss the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) and the CAPO.
Chairman, the expenditure of $79 million is mainly concerned with the issue of confidence or trust. I am not going to repeat the remarks that I have been making over the past 20 years, as Honourable Members, especially those veteran colleagues, should know that the major problem of the CAPO is its peer investigation system, meaning police officers investigating police officers, which has failed to give us enough confidence. On the contrary, however, police officers may feel insecure or worried if the investigations are not done by police officers. They worry that investigations conducted by people who are not familiar with police work may easily arrive at conclusions that are unfavourable to them or have misunderstanding towards them.
I think the same argument also applies to the investigation of corruption complaints decades ago. In the past, complaints about corruption were dealt with by police officers through internal investigations. Supposedly, after the establishment of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), there should not be any case of civil servants or police officers being wrongly accused as the ICAC is bound to make impartial judgments in the end. If there is a need for the Courts to follow up, the case will be referred to the relevant courts. Cases involving disciplinary issues, which need not be followed up by the Courts, will be dealt with by the appropriate disciplinary committees in an impartial manner. However, if Hong Kong remains in a state where members of the pubic do not have enough faith in the system, then I would say the money spent was wasted. If a police officer considered himself innocent or being wrongly accused and lodged a complaint, even if the CAPO subsequently proved that he had not abused power, members of the public would not be convinced. Not only the complainant, other people will not be convinced by the relevant conclusion either. Thus, in the end, there is still no way to return justice to the police officer concerned.
Chairman, after all, colleagues of the CAPO belong to the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) and given that this is a small world, it is possible to have role reversal of supervisors and subordinates due to staff deployment. While I was the officer investigating your case of power abuse yesterday, we might be 7922 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 fighting for our lives side by side under heavy fire today. The HKPF attaches great importance to team work and vows to risk it all to solve a case. The point is, however, too much sympathy and understanding or any public perception that relevant considerations have been given might prejudice the impartiality of the investigation.
Furthermore, from a legal perspective, the establishment of a separate investigation authorities to undertake investigation, in replacement of peer investigation, would enable prompt investigation. The difficulty we face at present is that upon receipt of a complaint concerning an abuse of power by a police officer, if the Police has already initiated investigation into the relevant case against that complainant, the CAPO must inform the complainant that the statement given on that day might be sent to the team responsible for investigating the case, which is precisely the team being complained. In other words, the statement of the complainant would be passed to that team right away.
In view of this, the complainant would seek legal advice before deciding whether the statement should be given right away or at a later time. In other words, if the complainant chooses not to give a statement, he may be able to protect certain rights, but this would render the CAPO unable to initiate investigation right away. Also, complaint cases may drag on for a long time, sometimes for an unacceptably long period. Worse still, the Police may even put the blame on the complainant for not giving a statement. Why do I say so? It is because once the team responsible for investigation has found out that it is being complained, it may hold up the investigation. So long as the investigation of the case is not completed, the complainant will not give a statement to the CAPO and the investigation will be further delayed. The much aggrieved complainant, on the other hand, would put the blame on the unfair system. Under these circumstances, if a separate body which is independent of either side is tasked to carry out investigation, it can certainly look into both sides and act in accordance with the law.
Chairman, the Government is also aware that the system of peer investigation has the credibility problem, and this is why the IPCC was established for monitoring, with a view to making up for the inadequacies. But just as we have previously said, even if the IPCC is under the chairmanship of a very determined and well-respected person, one cannot help but suspect if it can give play to its role in an effective manner.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7923
Nonetheless, the most surprising of all is that, after holding the post of IPCC Chairman for six years, Senior Counsel Ronny WONG, said in public that while the IPCC adopted a peer investigation system, the CAPO strived to "sweep cases under the carpet", in an attempt to test the abilities of IPCC members to find, among the thousands of complaint cases, how many cases that they can successfully convince the CAPO with blunders and failures, and substantiate the complaint concerned in the end. Members must not forget that this is the remark made by a well-respected former Chairman of the IPCC appointed by the Government. He made such a remark in public only when he could no longer tolerate the IPCC after holding the post of IPCC Chairman for six years. I find his remark pretty thought-provoking because the fact that even the former IPCC Chairman, who is resolute and determined, has to make such a remark, implies to a certain extent that he was infuriated, let alone being discouraged.
Larry KWOK, who is a lawyer, recently took up the post as Chairman of the IPCC, and the situation has become even worse. Why is this so? When he was asked why he refused to conduct on-site observations, he replied that if the IPCC conducted too many on-site observations, it might prejudice impartiality. He then went further to make an analogy with judges, asking whether any judge would conduct site visits before the trial. As far as I understand, judges would definitely do so during the trial. I find his remark very amazing. Firstly, are the duties of the IPCC and judges exactly the same? The IPCC is tasked to review the cases being investigated by the CAPO. Secondly, I believe the reason why so many senior counsels conducted on-site visits in the past was that, instead of sitting in their offices to look at pictures or listen to briefings, the senior counsels might be able to gain a sense of liveliness from the visits, which would certainly facilitate their examination of the CAPO cases as well as give them a clear picture of the relevant procedures and situation.
As a matter of fact, Members should be well aware of this, especially because many IPCC members are members of the legal profession. The IPCC will not make judgments basing purely on the relevant procedures. Frankly speaking, even if they conducted on-site visits, they could at best see things within their view. And yet, many complaints are concerned with actions taken out of sight. Therefore, they will have to take into account many other considerations, including the statements made by the complainant and other people, and may even require watching the relevant videos. They cannot jump 7924 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 to a judgment after visiting the sites without conducting a trial. It is therefore pretty difficult to understand why Chairman Larry KWOK has made such a remark.
Chairman, even the former IPCC Chairman, who is trusted by more people, remarked that the system has intrinsic inadequacies. The IPCC is under the chairmanship of Larry KWOK, who is a lawyer, but it seems that the more he speaks, the greater concern and distrust he would arouse. Furthermore, this is not simply a matter of the IPCC Chairman. Given that it has all along been our wish to appoint someone with investigation experience to be the Secretary-General of the IPCC, the Government has taken heed of our advice and appointed Ricky CHU the Secretary-General in view of his rich investigation experiences in the ICAC. However, he was "dismissed" a few years later. The IPCC has conducted an open recruitment exercise for the post, which indicates that his contract will not be renewed. I think the entire system is getting worse and worse, just like the case of Hong Kong. If the Chief Executive makes Hong Kong worse and worse, this would only deter those committed people from getting involved in this mess, which is too bad for Hong Kong.
(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 back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please speak.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7925
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I rise to speak on the amendments proposed by Ms Cyd HO and Mr Albert CHAN to reduce the expenditure on the emoluments of the Chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC).
Not long ago, I received two theses from a friend in the media. One of them is a thesis for a master's degree at Lingnan University (LU), and the other is a thesis for a doctorate at a second-rate or third-rate university called Tarlac State University (TSU) in the Philippines. From what I have heard, TSU is ranked after dozens of universities in the Philippines. The LU master's thesis is more than double the thickness of the doctoral thesis. Both theses involve the same supervisor, Prof Alfred CHAN, and were written by the same student, Ms Anna TANG, who I believe is a District Council member from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. I have glanced through the two theses. They are largely similar in contents. One of them concerns legislating for the maintenance of parents, and the other concerns the responsibility to provide for the aged. The date of the doctoral thesis is earlier than that of the master's thesis.
Chairman, in my view, the whole incident is astounding. Why? It is because generally, in the academia, we seldom supervise studies conducted by the same student using the same set of data in respect of the same area … Both theses are based on 12 cases which spanned 25 years. Such data are very flimsy. Anna TANG wrote the two theses on the basis of these 12 cases, and obtained two different degrees from two different universities under the guidance of the same supervisor. This prompts me to doubt the academic ethics and morals of the supervisor. It is a matter of personal integrity. As university teachers, we will not casually work for another university and supervise any of our students in the name of that university. That is unthinkable.
Let us take a look at how Prof Alfred CHAN responded after this incident came to light. On the day he took office as the Chairperson of the EOC, a media organization revealed this incident. On the following day, many members of the media approached him, but he avoided them, refused to answer questions and did not go out for lunch. But, on the morning of that day, when asked by a reporter from Apple Daily, he once responded that he had worked as a thesis supervisor for TSU because of the collaboration between TSU and The Community College at Lingnan University (CCLU). He also claimed that he had declared such work to CCLU, and stressed that he had not received any remuneration for it. On the 7926 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 evening of the same day, in reply to Apple Daily's enquiries, LU pointed out that neither LU nor CCLU had any collaborative relationship with TSU. Later that night, Alfred CHAN issued a statement through the EOC saying that he was invited by Alex LEE, founder of Lifelong College, to act as Anna TANG's thesis supervisor, and admitting that he never declared such work to LU, as well as apologizing to the public.
Chairman, Lifelong College is notorious, as it is apparently a diploma mill. At 10.25 pm that night, Alfred CHAN issued a supplementary statement, again through the EOC, admitting that he had received a remuneration of $8,000 for being Anna TANG's thesis supervisor. Later on, LU responded that it was a fact that he had not declared such work, but as the amount of the remuneration did not reach the threshold for a sum to be shared with LU, and Alfred CHAN had left LU and apologized for the incident, LU would not pursue the matter. When the media asked LEUNG Chun-ying about the incident, he said that it should be handled by LU. Given that LU has indicated that it will not pursue the matter, the incident has been handled. As no amount has to be shared, it is not necessary to pursue the matter, and there is nothing left to say.
Chairman, the person appointed as the Chairperson of the EOC is obliged to strive for equal opportunities, promote human rights, advocate equality and eliminate discrimination in society for us. How can a person whose character, academic ethics and integrity are questionable be appointed to the post?
In an article in Apple Daily dated 15 April this year, economist Andy KWAN mentioned that as far as he was concerned, the most suspicious part of the whole moonlighting scandal had nothing to do with whether Alfred CHAN had made any declaration or received any remuneration (which is of secondary importance), but came in two aspects. First, Alfred CHAN claimed that he had forgotten to make a declaration to LU, but he had made a declaration to the Inland Revenue Department. This is obviously selective "amnesia", which is mind-boggling. Second, there is a serious mistake in the two theses. Andy KWAN quoted a comment made by Prof CHUNG Kim-wah of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University in an interview with Apple Daily, saying that it was absolutely inappropriate for the two theses to use basically the same cases. As Prof CHUNG Kim-wah said, it is certainly improper to use cases that took place 20-odd years ago for discussing today's social welfare system and family system. In fact, generally, it is not easy for us to accept the use of identical data and cases by a student to produce two theses. I am not saying that this is totally out of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7927 question, but there must be special justifications. Andy KWAN also explained that under LU's rules and regulations, if a student taking a degree programme at LU intended to enrol in a similar degree programme at another university, he or she must make an application first. Honestly, no student or professor has any reason to do that. What is the reason behind this incident? We have no idea.
Subsequently, Anna TANG and Alfred CHAN co-authored a new book entitled "From Maintenance to Well-being: Negotiating Responsibilities in Supporting the Aged as in the Modern Chinese Culture", which was published in 2014. According to a report in HK01, Alfred CHAN said at the book launch ceremony that it was time to consider introducing legislation to address the issue of caring for the elderly, as there was a growing trend for Hong Kong people to evade the responsibility to provide for their aged parents and shift it onto the community at large, leading to an increasing reliance on public systems to support the livelihood of the elderly. He seemed to be advocating legislation for requiring Hong Kong people to maintain their parents.
However, in a media interview, when asked about the promotion of equal rights, such as equal rights for sexual minorities or other people, Alfred CHAN said that legislation should be the last resort. This former Chairman of the Elderly Commission opines that it is necessary to push for legislation to make it an offence if one fails to maintain their parents in Hong Kong, but when it comes to promoting equal rights for sexual minorities and non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, he takes the view that legislation should be the last resort. Moreover, he said that the current laws were sufficient to protect the rights and interests of sexual minorities. The fact that he is not familiar with the four anti-discrimination ordinances currently administered by the EOC has even caused York CHOW to query whether he has read the relevant EOC report.
The EOC has recently released a report on its review of the four anti-discrimination ordinances, which covers the issues of whether the ordinances should be merged into one, and how improvements should be made. Yet, Chairman, Alfred CHAN says that legislation should be the last resort. From LAM Woon-kwong to York CHOW … The aforesaid review was actually started by LAM Woon-kwong. I remember him telling me that he had invited a legal expert from the United Kingdom to review Hong Kong's four ordinances on equal opportunities with a view to upgrading them. At present, a complainant has to prove that he or she has been discriminated against by a person on the grounds of sex, family status, race or disability before that person can be found in breach of 7928 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 the relevant ordinances. This is a reactive approach. By contrast, in some overseas countries, organizations, government departments, employers and educational institutions, among others, have long been required to take proactive measures apart from being forbidden to discriminate. For instance, the EOC report now recommends that the Disability Discrimination Ordinance should include a requirement to make reasonable adjustments, stipulating that failure to provide reasonable adjustments for persons with disabilities is also an offence.
Nonetheless, the new Chairperson of the EOC now says that legislation should be the last resort. This report is the fruit of the efforts of two former EOC Chairpersons hoping to upgrade the relevant laws, but this new Chairperson says that legislation should be the last resort. What does he mean by that? In addition, in an interview with a reporter before he took office, he once referred to homosexuals as "junkies", and indicated that he strongly agreed with Mrs Regina IP's proposal for setting up closed refugee camps. Chairman, is he engaged in human rights work? Does he know how to do his job? As stated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and explained by the Courts of Hong Kong in a judgment, while housing refugees in closed camps within a reasonable time frame can be considered, it is absolutely undesirable to do so. The UNHCR has affirmed that this is absolutely undesirable, so what is this EOC Chairperson up to? His personal integrity and character have been called into question, and he has violated all academic ethics. What can we expect from such an EOC Chairperson?
Therefore, I absolutely agree that if Alfred CHAN continues to act as the Chairperson of the EOC, we must cut the entire expenditure on his salary and emoluments. What is more, since he assumed office, he has always used his post as a shield. All his public statements were issued through the EOC. Actually, he did not have to apologize to the public for his moonlighting scandal through the EOC, as he could do so in his personal capacity. He has even used the EOC's email address to send Prof Petula HO of the University of Hong Kong an email explaining the incident, saying that he knows and is well acquainted with her colleagues and supervisor and hopes that they will not share her view on the incident. What is that all about? Is that some kind of indirect oppression?
The whole incident shows that the EOC is by no means a fully-fledged human rights organization, and the process of selecting the EOC Chairperson was neither transparent nor compliant with the United Nations' international standards, that is, the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7929 promotion and protection of human rights, also known as the Paris Principles. With five of the six members of the selection board being Executive Council Members or government officials, the Government was just practising cronyism in the selection process. What were the Government's selection criteria? Was an integrity check conducted? But then again, the idea of asking the LEUNG Chun-ying Government to do an integrity check is a joke in itself. Chairman, this is beyond redemption. We had high hopes that the holder of this post would promote human rights and equality, but now this post has been taken over by a man of questionable integrity and character who has apparently violated academic ethics.
With these remarks, Chairman, I support the amendments proposed by Ms Cyd HO and Mr Albert CHAN.
(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 back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please speak.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, based on the target you have set for the Budget debate, by imposing a time limit for the debate, the filibuster is expected to be cut off on 11 May. In view of this, in the second debate session, I will talk about the amendment to reduce the remuneration of the Chief Executive and the estimated expenditure of the Chief Executive's Office.
7930 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Members of the opposition camp have censured LEUNG Chun-ying eloquently and unceasingly in their speeches just now. Their rhetoric could not be more malicious. Among them, Dr KWOK Ka-ki is the best example, being second to none. I feel very sad to see Dr KWOK, who is a professional doctor, uttered such words. They claimed that the Hong Kong society is now faced with all kinds of division, conflicts, confrontation and opposition. They also claimed that Hong Kong has degenerated and suffered for a few years ― as they put it ― "the root of the evil is '689', the culprit is the Chief Executive". Is that really the case? If so, I would really like to ask Members of the opposition camp: Will the problems be solved simply by reducing the remuneration of the Chief Executive? In fact, this does not help. Hence, Members of the opposition camp have simply suggested a "pseudo-proposition" by treating LEUNG Chun-ying as a "scarecrow" only.
In fact, as early as the beginning of the current term, opposition Members had called on C Y to step down even before he took office; they continued to ask him to step down after he assumed office. They censured C Y so much as if he were cheaper than dirt. After all, they did so just to get the votes of radical voters. I have to point out their real intent and purpose for opposing the Chief Executive.
If C Y is really so bad that he causes Hong Kong to degenerate, inflicts more blood and tears for Hong Kong people, and makes Hong Kong people lose all of their confidence, how on earth can we solve the problems just by reducing his remuneration? Why don't the opposition Members come up with ways to reform the system of the Chief Executive election to allow a candidate who is acceptable to the people to get elected, or at least create an opportunity for such an election? However, they have not done so indeed. The C Y Administration has proposed constitutional reforms on the methods for the Chief Executive election, only to be rejected by all of the 20-odd opposition Members. It is evident that they are all schizophrenic, adopting double standards, and confused with logic. Frankly, rather than saying that they oppose coterie election, they hate C Y and want him to step down, I think they simply "say one thing and do another". The more harshly they condemn C Y, the more eager they want to keep C Y in office.
I have no choice but to show for the third time the cartoon I cited during last year's debate on constitutional reforms. This cartoon is quite meaningful, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7931 noting the bogus democracy advocated by the pan-democratic opposition camp. While they rejected the proposal for the selection of the Chief Executive, it is precisely they who cling on to the coterie. They do not allow the 1 200-member election committee to nominate candidates, from which all Hong Kong people will then select the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote". It is their fault. Hence I noted here: "The killers of universal suffrage will earn eternal notoriety". I would like all Hong Kong people to see clearly that it is the so-called "democrats" of the pan-democratic camp, and the "opposition camp" who has made it clear they would oppose everything pertaining to the current-term Government, who do not allow the selection of the Chief Executive and the subsequent formation of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage.
In contrast, the Government of Chief Executive C Y has proposed the methods for selecting the Chief Executive which apparently run counter to its own interests. As I mentioned in the first line of my couplet: "The driving force of democracy will forever be revered by posterity". Should anyone disagree with my cartoon, I am now openly throwing down the gauntlet to opposition Members and invite them to draw a cartoon to counter mine.
Hong Kong people are all very rational, and very sensible as well. After seeing that nothing has been achieved on constitutional reforms after years of wrangling, we can all differentiate between the blatantly mean persons and the hypocrites. Members of the opposition camp have condemned LEUNG Chun-ying for so many hours that he has been thoroughly criticized and he will go down in history as a byword for infamy. However, why do they still have to preserve "689", the Chief Executive who was elected by 1 200 people?
It is already the end of April. The Chief Executive election will be held in March next year, which is still many months away. Frankly, if nothing happens, I believe that Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying has a great chance of winning should he seek re-election. However, since Members of the democratic camp have rejected the selection of the Chief Executive by all Hong Kong people by "one person, one vote" in accordance with the 31 August Decision of the National People's Congress, all Hong Kong people have been deprived of their democratic rights. I therefore hope that all Hong Kong people will think carefully whether they advocate real democracy or bogus democracy. As my cartoon clearly indicates, they advocate bogus democracy.
7932 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Frankly speaking, Mr Albert HO and Mr Alan LEONG have successfully secured the nomination by the 1 200 people as the Chief Executive candidates in the past. Under the proposed mechanism, all Hong Kong people can cast their votes and C Y may not necessarily get elected. Chairman, many people in the community also encourage you to stand in the election. Under this system, whether it is you or Mrs Regina IP who is nominated, I believe that LEUNG Chun-ying will come under a great threat. Understandably, it may be inappropriate for the Chairman to respond to me now. But I believe that C Y would face a major threat if this mechanism is in place, under which all Hong Kong people are entitled to vote, instead of just looking on. It is precisely the opposition camp, namely those identifying themselves as the democratic camp, who make us only observers but not voters. They have been criticizing C Y but they have never proposed any feasible options. They are very hypocritical indeed. Hence, I think that they simply regard C Y as a "scarecrow." The real purpose of both progressive and moderate pan-democratic Members is to campaign for themselves.
The pan-democratic camp hoisted the flag of "self-determination of our fate" on the stage of the illegal occupation movement. They also advocated that the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage be implemented in one go by even skipping the nomination by 1 200 people as proposed by the 31 August Decision, which they dismissed as undemocratic. We notice that Members and primary figures of the opposition camp and the youth leaders arising from the Umbrella Movement have respectively visited the United States and Canada recently. However, in view of the undemocratic system for selecting the President of the long-revered United States, they have not even made a query so far. As we can see on television every day, the presidential candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties actually only require 2 000-odd votes to secure the nomination. It is not until after the candidates have been chosen by the coteries of the two parties that other nationals can cast their votes.
The so-called "Hong Kong independence" is never possible. What is the source of funding for the supporters of "Hong Kong independence"? What backing do they rely on for standing in the election? According to the methods for selecting the Chief Executive, the 1 200 people come from all walks of life and all sectors in society, which are generally representative. However, they even reject such a proposal, leaving members of the public unable to vote but just LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7933 observe in March next year. Not everyone can "become their own masters", for which the pan-democratic opposition camp is to blame. I hope all of the over 7 million Hong Kong people will see clearly this truth and fact …
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Another break for me. Thank you.
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 WONG Kwok-hing, please continue with your speech.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I spoke for more than 10 minutes just now. Generally speaking, the pan-democratic opposition camp has deprived all Hong Kong people of their interests in four aspects. First, they have deprived all Hong Kong people of their democratic right to select the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote". They are anti-democratic.
Second, they have deprived members of the public of their right to directly hold the Chief Executive accountable. As we can imagine, if the Chief Executive is elected by "one person, one vote", he will have to honour the pledges in his election manifesto once he is elected. Why do we find it so difficult when 7934 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 we strongly request the abolition of the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) offsetting mechanism and the legislation for standard working hours now? It is because the current Chief Executive is elected by 1 200 people.
Third, they have deprived Hong Kong people of the opportunity to solve their deep-seated contradictions. In the process of economic development and wealth distribution, there is a growing disparity between the rich and the poor. These deep-seated contradictions remain unresolved. Since they continue to uphold the election by 1 200 people, there is still no timetable for the Government to address the demand of the general public for setting up a retirement protection scheme and alleviating the disparity between the rich and the poor.
Fourth, they have deprived Hong Kong of an opportunity to move forward the gradual democratization of its political system. While I am not saying that the methods for selecting the Chief Executive put forward last year are perfect, they at least represent a breakthrough and a step forward. If they do not even allow this step to be taken, everything will come to a standstill. To be frank, if the Chief Executive is elected by universal suffrage, we can subsequently explore ways for further democratizing the Legislative Council and implementing universal suffrage. However, it is precisely because of the 20-odd opposition Members of the pro-democratic camp who rejected the proposal that the wish of all Hong Kong people eventually vanished.
Deputy Chairman, Members of the opposition camp seek to reduce the remuneration of the Chief Executive. Rather than calling for a pay reduction, I think they are in fact canvassing votes. If they still have a little ability to introspect, I hope that the Members who canvass votes, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen in particular, the People Power, the League of Social Democrats, and Members of the opposition camp who facilitate "filibustering" to consider putting in place a mechanism for reducing the remuneration of Members: Members who cause meetings to be aborted by abusing "filibustering" through requesting a headcount (The buzzer sounded) … should have their pay reduced.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, your speaking time is up. Please sit down.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7935
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, if even the request for a headcount will lead to a pay reduction, then please just do the headcount.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, this is not your speaking time now. Please sit down.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I request a headcount under Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
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): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please speak.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, we are continuing with the second debate on the Budget today. Regrettably, the adjournment of the Council intentionally caused by certain Members has made this debate lose some 10 hours for no purpose. President Jasper TSANG of the Council is really a kind person as he allows all filibustering tactics of the opposition camp, including speaking many times in a debate, putting forward amendments, requesting a quorum call and proposing the adjournment of the Council. Regrettably, a kind person may not be appreciated by all people, for the conscience of some people has been eaten by dogs. Following the adjournment of the Council due to the lack of a quorum last week, "Long Hair" and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen made ferocious attacks on television, using even unpleasant language to describe the President. The President is lenient toward them while in some cases paying no heed to our good advice, but when pan-democrat Members chides the President, trumping up a countercharge against him, my heart really aches.
7936 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Deputy Chairman, the two Members whose conscience has been eaten by dogs consider that it is unfair for the President to set time limits for the debates. They have forgotten that for the single one agenda item of scrutinizing the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014, they had made speeches over a period of three months. Was that fair? Secretary Gregory SO ultimately had to perform a song titled "Reflections on Filibustering", so as to express his emotional ups and downs and helplessness. We should know that there are time limits for all things in the world. Even in the case of human beings created by God, there is a time limit for the life of a human being. No matter how zealous one is in filibustering, one departs at the age of 110, if not 100. For this reason, the President has ultimately set time limits for the debates this time around. His decision is absolutely right.
Deputy Chairman, from the fact that the Council was adjourned due to the lack of a quorum when we debated the Budget last week, you and the general public must, I believe, have clearly seen that certain opposition Members have gone too far. They simply did not want to attend the meeting and engage in the debates, let alone passing the amendments. Why? The reason is that shortly before the adjournment, of the 12 Members who have proposed amendments, only one was present. Deputy Chairman, when only one Member was present, where had the other 11 Members gone? I believe that if these 11 Members had any sense of responsibility, they should walk outside hand in hand, face the cameras and bow and apologize to the public. On the other hand, however, I must commend certain candid Members such as Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung. One of them was busy having an interview with an electronic media outlet, and the other busy having an interview with a print media outlet. They would rather do media interviews than come back to attend the meeting.
For this reason, Mr TAM Yiu-chung was right in saying that these people must be suffering from mental disorders. I very much agree to his saying so. Members will understand what I am saying if they take a look at the amendments proposed the two Members whose conscience has been eaten by dogs as I referred to just now. First, I will speak on Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung. He proposes the full deduction of the annual estimated expenditure for subhead 193 "Earnings scheme for persons in custody" under "Head 30 ― Correctional Services Department", rejecting the payment of salaries to persons in custody. Is he kidding me? The salaries received by persons in custody, though being LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7937 limited, at least enable them to purchase certain snacks when they serve their time, and to have some cash at their disposal following their release from prisons.
In addition, Mr LEUNG also proposes the full deduction of the annual estimated expenditure for the expenses on repatriating bogus refugees illegally residing in Hong Kong under subhead 202 of "Head 70 ― Immigration Department". As Members all know, bogus refugee incidents have disrupted the daily life of residents in many districts of Hong Kong and brought many security problems. People earnestly look forward to the expeditious repatriation of such bogus refugees. What is the intention of "Long Hair" when he surprisingly proposes the full deduction of repatriation expenses? Obviously he intends to stir up chaos in Hong Kong.
In some of Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's amendments, even orphans and widows are not spared. He proposes the deduction of estimated expenditure for deceased civil servants' surviving spouses' and children's pensions under subhead 017 of head 120. Does he honestly know where all these sums of money come from? Under section 14 of the Surviving Spouses' and Children's Pensions Ordinance (Cap. 79) and section 11 of the Widows and Orphans Pension Ordinance (Cap. 94), the estimated expenditure serves as the payment of pensions to surviving spouses and children of deceased contributors, and contributions plus interest to contributors who, on leaving the service, are never married or are widows or widowers or divorcees. Is there any reason that such sums of money, being the contributions made by civil servants when they served in the Civil Service, should not be returned to them and their surviving spouses and children? What is on Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's mind? If Mr LEUNG says that he does not know the purpose of the funding, it follows that he simply has not perused the Budget and thus has no right to propose any amendments. He is only filibustering for the sake of filibustering, obstructing the operation of the Council and obstructing the allocation of funding for people's livelihood. However, if he says that he knows the purpose of the funding but still insists on deduction, the fact is thus laid bare that his dark conscience has been eaten by dogs.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung proposes the deduction of subhead 366 "Remuneration and reimbursements for Members of the Legislative Council" under "Head 112 ― Legislative Council Commission". In my view, for those opposition Members who have had their conscience eaten by dogs, make trouble out of nothing, refuse to attend Council meetings, intentionally engage in filibustering, obstruct the allocation of funding for people's livelihood, and accept 7938 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 illicit funds in contravention of their own conscience, we should deduct their remuneration, and members of the public must be, I believe, highly supportive of this.
As for another Member, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, whose conscience has been eaten by dogs, he is in a more critical mental condition than "Long Hair". He surprisingly proposes the full deduction of operational expenses under "Head 45 ― Fire Services Department", virtually requesting the Government to shut down the Fire Services Department. Accordingly five trade unions issued a statement today opposing this amendment, saying that the passage of the amendment will halt the operation of the Fire Services Department, and pose serious threats to people's life and property. Firefighters, families of firefighters, and friends from the trade unions, you can rest reassured. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong very much understands that the work of a firefighter is fraught with challenges and dangers. In the past many firefighters sustained injuries and even sacrificed their life for protecting the life and property of Hong Kong people. For this reason, we will never allow the passage of such inhumane and illogical amendments that give no regard to people's livelihood.
Deputy Chairman, why does Mr CHAN Chi-chuen want to shut down the Fire Services Department? I wonder whether he intends to take charge of all future fire rescue operations. However, the fact is that while Mr CHAN Chi-chuen is good at setting a fire, there is no way we can place any expectation on him when it comes to fire rescue operations. That said, since he does not know how hard the work of a firefighter is, the Fire Services Department had better give him a chance to undertake front-line work, and ask him to be a pioneer in any operations. Should he have sacrificed his life as a result, I, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, will surely attend his farewell ceremony.
Lastly, I propose the increase of training expenses for civil servants under head 143. Why so? As the Secretary is present, I would like to tell him that the coming 10 years will be a peak period for the retirement of civil servants, and the Civil Service is suffering from severe succession problems. A civil servant told me that he had proposed his early retirement plan, but the authorities kept telling him that they were unable to arrange a person to succeed him and thus requested him to postpone his plan by several months. However, the authorities indicated several months later that he needed to postpone his plan by another several months, and until recently the authorities said that no person had been identified to succeed him. These years civil servants have been working really hard, so we need to inject new energy into the Civil Service, in an effort to train LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7939 every civil servant to be like the Chief Secretary for Administration, who once said that "a government official with no expectation is always courageous", such that they will be courageous enough to face up to and say no to Members whose conscience has been eaten by dogs.
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, please hold on.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): For this reason, I hope that the Government will boldly and resolutely increase training expenses for civil servants next year. I so submit. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I think there is not a quorum as required under the Basic Law, as Members present are less than one half of all Members of the Council.
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, but some Members had not sat down)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please sit down.
(Mr LEE Cheuk-yan had not sat down)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, please sit down. Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please speak.
7940 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, before I speak, I have to first denounce the pan-democratic Members for requesting headcounts incessantly during the Council meeting last week, thereby deliberately causing the abortion of the meeting. They vented their emotions through the rascal act of filibustering. I find such contemptible act despicable. I am also very furious at their selfish act of only caring about filibustering and putting up a show, without considering whether the Government has enough resources to maintain the essential public expenditures on education, social welfare and medical services.
I speak to oppose all the amendments proposed by pan-democratic Members. We can simply ignore these "three have-nots" amendments, that is, amendments having no novelty, no justification and no value. Members from the pan-democratic camp have, year after year, proposed a series of amendments, and their intent is obvious to all. They just want to filibuster or "make a show" to get media exposure and maliciously discredit government officials. Such kind of practice wastes the valuable Council time and is indeed absurd and tedious. I thus oppose the various amendments proposed by the pan-democratic camp.
First, I would like to talk about the 163 amendments involved in the second debate. As always, these amendments seek no more than to slash the annual emoluments of the Chief Executive, or to slash the estimated annual expenditure of the Chief Executive's Office (CEO). In fact, anyone who thinks normally will understand how frivolous these amendments are. As we all know, the Chief Executive is responsible for leading the SAR Government, while the CEO is responsible for providing assistance to the Chief Executive. Without doubt, the CEO is indispensible and important. The pan-democrats' proposal of slashing the emoluments of the Chief Executive and the estimated expenditure of the CEO will plunge the Government into a chaotic state with no one taking the lead, and paralyse the policy implementation of the Government. In my view, the democrats not only have not been constructive in proposing these amendments, but also have the ulterior motive of stirring up chaos.
Deputy Chairman, the pan-democratic Members often launch vicious verbal attack against the Chief Executive, criticizing him scathingly for making no achievement. On this matter, I do not want to waste effort to comment on who is right and who is wrong; instead, I just want to ask Members: Are they making fair criticism or are they just deliberately hyping issues up? As in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7941 case of the "airport incident" related to the Chief Executive's family, if the family members of the Chief Executive are not involved, will these Members still show so much concern and vigorously pursue the matter? Are they actually focusing on individuals and not on the facts? While denouncing government officials wantonly for having done nothing, what have the pan-democratic Members done for Hong Kong and the public? As they dislike the Chief Executive, they criticize him at every meeting and demand him to step down; they filibuster, hurl objects and cause disturbances at every meeting, making it impossible for the Government to implement many policies conducive to people's living. Consequently, Hong Kong's future and people's well-being are sacrificed. Can one say that they are duly performing their duties as Members of the Legislative Council? We hope the pan-democratic Members may reflect on profoundly and give a clear account to the public.
Certainly, while no one is perfect, so is the Chief Executive. However, as a Member of the Legislative Council, one should not appraise another person based on his own liking, nor should he try to please the public with claptrap. He should not, for the sake of achieving certain political ends, distort the fact and attack the Chief Executive maliciously. Conversely, he should be objective and fair in handling issues and be rational in monitoring the Government's policy implementation. After all, if the executive-legislative relationship hits rock bottom and the administration of the Government is paralysed, the ultimate victims will be the people of Hong Kong. If pan-democratic Members give prime concerns to the overall interests of Hong Kong and people's well-being, they should propose more constructive motions instead of such frivolous amendments that seek to attack government officials and vent their emotions.
Deputy Chairman, next, I would like to talk about the amendments concerning security affairs. If the amendments to slash the Chief Executive's emoluments are considered to be a frivolous outburst of emotions, then the amendments to slash the provisions for police equipment and salaries of police officers are complete disregard for the safety of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong is one of the world's safest cities and the merit goes largely to the elite Hong Kong Police. In recent years, in view of incessant political disputes and increasingly violent protests, the Police have to face mounting pressure and challenges. On the night of the first day of the Lunar New Year, a few radicals started a riot. Lawbreakers resorted to smashing, setting fire and hurling objects. They even launched frenzied attacks on police officers with bricks, and over 90 police officers were injured. After the riot, a number of 7942 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 political parties advocating militant confrontation and even "Hong Kong independence" have emerged one after another in Hong Kong. It can thus be foreseeable that in future, street protests in Hong Kong will only become more and more violent.
Against this background, what justifications do we have to reduce the provisions for police equipment and the expenditures of the Police? With a reduced funding, how can the Police maintain law and order and how can the lives and properties of the public be safeguarded? Though police officers ― in particular front-line officers ― might be hit by bricks and their personal safety was at stake, they still courageously moved to the fore and made the best effort to maintain law and order and safeguard people's safety, to the neglect of their personal safety. Are they not worthy of our respect? Why should they be criticized and their salaries slashed? In proposing such amendments, does individual pan-democratic Member want police officers to stand aside and do nothing? Or are they happy to see that Hong Kong has become a city of unrest and riot?
Besides, I also want to respond to the amendments proposed by several Members to slash the expenditures of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC). First of all, I declare that I am the Vice-Chairman of the IPCC. I would like to make some fair comments on the IPCC based on my own experience. Just now, Ms Cyd HO pointed out in her speech that the Chief Executive has purposefully appointed mediocrities for key positions in organizations such as the IPCC. I think her criticism is unfounded and she lied with eyes open. If she has some common sense, she would know that members of the IPCC are drawn from all walks of life, and some of them are pan-democratic Members. Are they mediocrities as well? I hope Ms Cyd HO can be objective and fair, do not label those who share the same political views with her as "talent" while those who have different political views are "mediocrities".
Although I have joined the IPCC for merely a year, I fully understand that the IPCC is definitely not the type of body as described by Mr James TO. All he has said are distortion of facts. Take for example the complaint against Franklin CHU, if the IPCC is not fair and impartial, we would not have bothered to hold numerous meetings to seriously discuss and examine the case over and over, and we would not have eventually objected to and overruled the findings of the Complaints Against Police Office.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7943
Deputy Chairman, as political disputes have become increasingly white-hot, it is inevitable that the Police will be caught in the middle. I can foresee that the number of complaints against the Police will be on the increase in the future. Therefore, Hong Kong definitely needs to have an independent and impartial body to continue monitoring the law enforcement of the Police and duly protect the rights of both the Police and the civilians. Therefore, I totally oppose the idea of slashing the expenditures of the IPCC.
Lastly, I also want to respond to Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's amendment to slash the annual estimated expenditure on the remuneration of 35 Members of the Legislative Council returned by functional constituencies. I consider the amendment ridiculous and groundless, and I hope that all fellow Members would seriously review their own performance over the current Legislative Session. To be honest, starting from the current Legislative Session, I have never been so disappointed with the legislature. While I fail to see any rational discussion, I fully realize what is meant by parliamentary violence. At the meetings of the Council, the Finance Committee and the Public Works Subcommittee, pan-democratic Members have unreasonably exploited the Rules of Procedure to filibuster, request headcounts incessantly, splash ink, snatch microphones, take possession of the seat of the Chairman, and so on. Their conduct is no different to that of a scoundrel. We are really disappointed.
More ridiculously still, pan-democratic Members, including Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, have ignored their proper duties and their only concern is to make a show at every meeting, throwing the meeting into disarray. Now they even seek to slash the remuneration of other Members. May I ask what justifications does Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung have and in what position can he seek to slash the remuneration of Members returned by functional constituencies? If the remuneration of Members is to be slashed, I think we should slash the remuneration of those Members who filibuster indiscriminately to paralyse the legislature, bringing shame on the Council, but not slash the remuneration of Members like us returned by functional constituencies who carry out the scrutiny work diligently and seriously, trying to uphold parliamentary dignity with our best endeavour.
Deputy Chairman, in the past, I have been appealing to pan-democratic Members to pull back and stop filibustering before it is too late. But I am not going to make such meaningless appeals anymore because I remember 7944 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che once said that we should not talk reason with bandits. The filibustering pan-democratic Members have now lost their mind and they think like bandits. What is the point of talking reason with them?
I also sincerely hope that the President of the Legislative Council would no longer pay attention to the lingering and wilful misdeeds of the filibustering Members. They should not be allowed to impede the proceedings of the meeting under various pretences and pretexts. Instead, actions should be taken decisively in strict accordance with the Rules of Procedure to cut off the filibuster as the situation warrants, so that we can seize every minute and second to scrutinize a large number of outstanding items of social and livelihood concerns. That is the due obligation of Members, and that is also a practical and beneficial action that we should take for the people of Hong Kong.
I so submit. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I think the number of Members in this Chamber does not comply with the requirement of the Basic Law.
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): Dr Helena WONG, please speak.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7945
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I speak in support of Amendment No 8 proposed by Ms Emily LAU concerning head 21 in respect of subhead 000, which requests a reduction of the annual estimated expenditure for the emolument of the Chief Executive.
Deputy Chairman, just now, I have listened to the passionate speech of Mr WONG Kwok-hing. Members may recall that in 2012, The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) offered its utmost support for Mr LEUNG Chun-ying to be elected as the Chief Executive. I wonder if FTU still loves him as much as before. Since Mr WONG Kwok-hing cast doubt on the purpose of reducing Mr LEUNG Chun-ying's annual emolument just now, so I pricked up my ears and listened attentively to see if he has figured out some ways to make LEUNG Chun-ying step down right away or not to stand for re-election. However, after listening to what Mr WONG Kwok-hing said, I found that he still cares as much about LEUNG Chun-ying as ever, and continues to harbour him and defend him. I must say Mr WONG Kwok-hing does have good taste, no wonder FTU gave utmost support to LEUNG Chun-ying in 2012.
On the other hand, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) has awakened. Although it also fully supported LEUNG Chun-ying to be elected as the Chief Executive back then, it has now become evasive and tried to keep a distance from him. Even the Chairman of the DAB, Ms Starry LEE, resigned from the Executive Council and her place was taken up by another DAB Member who does not intend to run for re-election. Even the DAB has awakened, but FTU still offers its utmost support to LEUNG Chun-ying, thus I really have no idea what FTU has in mind. Whoever has supported, nominated and voted for LEUNG Chun-ying back then owes members of the public an explanation.
Deputy Chairman, yesterday, the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong released the latest popularity rating of LEUNG Chun-ying, and the relevant survey was conducted after the first family's "bag-gate" incident at the airport. The figures showed that when compared with the rating before the incident which happened early this month, the popularity rating of LEUNG Chun-ying has dropped two points to 39.6 and remains below the warning line of 45, while the net popularity rating for the same period has dropped significantly by 9% to negative 41%. So, do Members think that his annual emolument should be reduced? I believe many people will agree with this.
7946 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
When Mr James TO of the Democratic Party spoke earlier on, he has earnestly hoped that LEUNG Chun-ying would do a good deed for Hong Kong, and that is, not to run for re-election. Although his four-year tenure has yet to end, he has already turned Hong Kong upside down. As a matter of fact, not only Members of the so-called opposition party criticize LEUNG Chun-ying, pro-establishment Members present at the meeting should also ask themselves: How many of them think that LEUNG Chun-ying is still suitable to be the next Chief Executive? Since he has brought Hong Kong to such a pass in just one mere term, I believe Hong Kong can no longer withstand further harm brought about by him as the next-term Chief Executive.
As the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, he should accommodate people with divergent political views and unite people from all walks of life. Even the Communist Party supports this saying and advocates united front, though its work in this regard has not been satisfactory. Yet, instead of conducting united front work, LEUNG Chun-ying only required people not to attend the cocktail reception of both the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, and surely, that of the Labour Party ― the Labour Party had not invited him, we will not invite him again either. The Chief Executive has not only turned Hong Kong upside down, but has also created an intense atmosphere of confrontation between the executive authorities and the legislature. Worse still, he refuses to move an inch and exploits his powers to the fullest. So, should we not reduce the annual emolument of someone like him?
Therefore, for the sake of Hong Kong, I hope that Members from the pro-establishment camp will respond to people's aspiration to avoid the re-election of LEUNG Chun-ying, given that they take up the majority votes in the Nominating Committee. In fact, not only the Democratic Party and the opposition camp are dissatisfied with LEUNG Chun-ying, many people from the pro-establishment camp also share the same dissatisfaction. So are the trade and industries. When we visited the districts, people not belonging to any sector or having no political background came to us and said that they were gravely dissatisfied with LEUNG Chun-ying. They even vowed to take to the streets if LEUNG Chun-ying was re-elected, which might end up in a riot. I have no idea of the purpose of ZHANG Dejiang's coming visit to Hong Kong, but I hope that he will listen to public views. I hope he would earnestly listen to the views of people with different political views and that of Legislative Council Members, as well as visit various districts to listen to the genuine public views to see if anyone LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7947 supports the re-election of LEUNG Chun-ying. Therefore, Deputy Chairman, I support Ms Emily LAU's amendment to reduce the annual emolument of LEUNG Chun-ying. The Democratic Party also calls on LEUNG Chun-ying to expeditiously declare that he will not run for a second term, which may be the last good thing that he can do for Hong Kong people.
Deputy Chairman, let me put aside the issue concerning the Equal Opportunities Commission for the time being and turn to discuss the work of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) and the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO). As Mr Christopher CHEUNG has earlier declared that he is the Vice-Chairman of the IPCC, I also want to declare that I am a member of the IPCC, now serving my third term as an IPCC member for the sixth year.
Deputy Chairman, I do not support the reduction of the annual estimated expenditure of the IPCC, but I support a reduction of the annual estimated expenditure of the CAPO. Deputy Chairman, regarding the IPCC, I have worked under the leadership of two chairmen. I can say that the IPCC does have some problems at present, and I am going to discuss the problems in my capacity as a Member of the Legislative Council. When JAT Sew-tong was the IPCC Chairman, I had worked with him for as long as four years, but after Larry KWOK took over the chairmanship, I notice that there are many changes in the style of work and procedures.
Furthermore, although the posts of Chairman or Vice-Chairmen were often taken up by Members from the pro-establishment camp in the past, one of the Vice-Chairman posts is always reserved for the democratic Members. This is, however, no longer the case. The incumbent Chairman is a "LEUNG's fan" and the posts of Vice-Chairman are all taken up by Members from the pro-establishment camp. Mr Christopher CHEUNG just now said that some IPCC members are pan-democrats, which is true, but among the dozens of IPCC members, only Mr Kenneth LEUNG and I are Members from the pan-democratic camp. All the newly appointed members have strong political overtones, they either come from the pro-establishment camp or oppose Occupy Central. Who actually are the people newly appointed by LEUNG Chun-ying into the IPCC? In late 2015, he appointed the pro-establishment legal adviser of the Alliance for Peace and Democracy, Barry CHIN, as a member of the IPCC. Then, he appointed Jose-Antonio MAURELLET, who applied for an injunction order 7948 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 against the obstruction of Admiralty for Kwoon Chung Motors Company Limited. Of course, there are also DAB members. As such, some non-democratic members have been expelled before their six-year tenure ends. While Edwin CHENG is one of these people, Albert CHENG suffered the same fate back then. I am nonetheless luckier, how come I still have not been kicked out?
Notwithstanding that, our role in the IPCC has become very insignificant as the Chairman can now exercise supreme power to remove any agenda item proposed by members. As an established procedure, the Secretary-General will consult members of the issues to be discussed at the next meeting. I will earnestly respond by sending the Chairman details of the proposed discussion topics via WhatsApp or email. I have once proposed to discuss the Mong Kok Incident because as we can see, some police officers were unarmed and they almost had to pick up some bricks to fight back. Is there a problem with the command of the Police Force such that front-line police officers have to protect themselves in such a panic? I consider it necessary to review the relevant policy. Therefore I proposed to look into the Mong Kok incident to see how we could avoid further injuries to police officers, and prevent the recurrence of such serious riots in the future. This is absolutely the topic that is allowed to be discussed under the Independent Police Complaints Council Ordinance (the Ordinance). What is more, according to section 8(1)(c), the IPCC may make recommendation in respect of any procedure adopted by the Police that might lead to reportable complaints. However, my proposal has disappeared without a trace and was not included into the agenda. In response, the IPCC Chairman said that the agenda has been sent to all members and would be considered as endorsed if no comment was received. How could he expect members to constantly update any changes in the agenda, and how could the proposed agenda item disappear for no reason. This is indeed not the first time, and as a member of the IPCC, I feel very regretful.
Recently, a new practice has emerged and is not simply the removal of an agenda item to stop us from discussing sensitive issues. Since the Occupy Central broke out in 2014, there have been numerous cases of confrontations between police officers and members of the public, or large-scale demonstration and protest actions in Hong Kong. I have therefore requested the new IPCC Chairman to organize visits to the scenes, but he rejected and ruled out all possibilities of organizing visits for the time being. So far, the IPCC has only LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7949 organized one site visit during the Occupy Central movement, and it was conducted on the day when the occupied site was cleared. The IPCC Chairman formally requested to visit the scene, but after staying for a short while, he urged members to return to their Wan Chai office for a meeting. Throughout the entire Occupy Central movement, which lasted for 79 days, he had not conducted any formal visit to the scene until the very last day. And yet, after staying for a short while, he urged members to return to the office for a meeting. Why not rescheduled the meeting? I really have no idea how this Chairman can lead the work of the IPCC.
In the IPCC, I am not the only member who feels agitated and demoralized, so do the senior staff of the IPCC Secretariat. Four senior staff had left since 2014, and among them, two belonged to the manager level. The Secretariat intended to promote another senior staff to Senior Manager, but he sternly refused and resigned. Among those four senior staff, three had already left. With regard to the Secretary-General, the highest ranking staff, I have been working with him in harmony over the past six years. He is serious and diligent in his work and has provided outstanding performance, but he has been unreasonably dismissed and will leave office by the end of this year. This is baffling. Has the IPCC given him a reasonable appraisal? Has he made any mistake? As a member, I fail to see that he has made any mistake. Although the Secretary-General was subsequently informed that he might submit application during open recruitment, but as we all know, this is nothing but a tactic employed by the human resources department to force him to leave, and more importantly, not to apply for the job again. Therefore, Ricky CHU did not submit any application.
The selection of the Secretary-General is very important and the IPCC Chairman considered that members might, by a show of hands at the meeting, empower a selection board to engage a head-hunting agency, and make the agency accountable to the board. I do not oppose the establishment of a selection board or the spending of $500,000 to engage a head-hunting agency, as the money has already been spent. The selection board then shortlisted four persons to attend an interview, and the top candidate Mr X would succeed Ricky CHU by the end of this year. However, the selection board refused to disclose the names of the four candidates who have been shortlisted for interview, and there is no way members can find out as they do not sit in the selection board.
7950 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Deputy Chairman, this practice has already undermined the operation of the IPCC because even if any committee is tasked to take up a dedicated job, it is duty-bound to make a report to all members at the plenary session on completion of its work before a decision is made at the plenary session, but not by a few people. Then how come members are not even allowed to examine the curriculum vitae of the candidates or ask about their names? Even the name of the selected candidate is not disclosed, who is only identified by his initials, Mr XX. I was so angry and almost died of stroke during the meeting. The presence of democratic members is meaningless, given that the Chairman has chaired the meeting in this way and the fact that Members from the pro-establishment camp have remained silent. Mr Christopher CHEUNG, for example, agrees with whatever the Government says and supports whatever the Chairman says. So, what is the point of spending huge sums of money to set up the IPCC?
Furthermore, with regard to the case concerning a former Police Superintendent, we did conduct a number of meetings. The IPCC is plagued by many problems, and some of which are attributable to the inherent deficiency, and that is, the IPCC is not vested with the power of investigation under the Ordinance. Therefore, although we have finally come to a decision that the complaint against this former Police Superintendent, who allegedly used a baton to assault a pedestrian, is substantiated, the CAPO has rejected our decision and pointed out our mistakes, saying that we should so and so. Subsequently, the matter was again put to vote in the IPCC after long hours of discussion, but the CAPO still disagreed with our conclusion. We then held another meeting and voted again. In that case, what is the point of having us play the secondary monitoring role?
Therefore, Deputy Chairman, I think the most important of all is not the reduction of the estimated expenditure, (The buzzer sounded) but a review of the work of the IPCC and the CAPO.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, please stop speaking.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7951
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, Dr Helena WONG said we should axe the emoluments of the Chief Executive, but in fact we should axe the Chief Executive instead.
Deputy Chairman, I will speak on heads 31, 92 and 142. In particular, I will focus on head 142 which relates to the Chief Secretary for Administration's Office (CSO) and the Financial Secretary's Office, to which amendments have been proposed by at least 15 Honourable colleagues, including Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Albert HO, and so on. Mr Albert HO of the Democratic Party proposes to reduce the estimated expenditure of this head by $117,958,000, which is equivalent to the annual estimated operating expenditure of the Central Policy Unit (CPU) under this head, namely, the Government Secretariat: Offices of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary.
Deputy Chairman, I do not intend to discuss the CPU as a number of Honourable colleagues have already spoken about it. Instead I would like to take the opportunity to talk about some hidden expenditures in the Budget, especially those hidden under the head of the Government Secretariat: Offices of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary. One hidden item is the expenditure relating to the establishment of the Belt and Road Office to take forward related studies and co-ordination work.
On 20 April, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau issued a supplementary note for the special meetings of the Finance Committee to examine the estimates of expenditure 2016-2017 vide LC Paper No. FC192/15-16 to clarify the expenditure items under the Budget relating to the Belt and Road Initiative. According to the paper, provisions relating to the Belt and Road Initiative are covered under eight expenditure heads. The important one relates to the setting up of the Belt and Road Office at a cost of $76 million, which is by no means a small sum. Yet, strangely, this sum is not mentioned in the Financial Secretary's budget speech, nor can it be found in the relevant draft estimates.
So I raised questions at the Finance Committee meetings about the expenditure heads relating to the Belt and Road Initiative. At that time, nobody knew the answer. In the Chinese version of the Policy Address announced on 13 January, the Chief Executive mentioned the term "Belt and Road Initiative" 40-odd times. Given such importance of the Belt and Road Initiative, how much provisions should be set aside in the Budget for taking it forward?
7952 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
At the Finance Committee meetings held in early April, I raised the question repeatedly. Eventually, in one session of the meeting, a Deputy Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury said that a number of Members had been enquiring about the expenditure heads relating to the Belt and Road Initiative lately. I once asked Secretary Raymond TAM the question, and his reply was, interestingly, that the Government had yet to decide which particular expenditure heads should cover the relevant provisions. Afterwards, perhaps because the matter was picked up in some press reports, the Government started to do some work immediately. At the Finance Committee meeting held in early April, the Deputy Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury undertook to provide a supplementary note on the matter. But it was only after two weeks that he eventually submitted a two-page paper on 20 April, indicating that the provision for setting up the Belt and Road Office would be included in head 142, which is being discussed by the Council today.
A sum amounting to $76 million suddenly came into being under head 142. Let us take a look at "Head 142 ― Government Secretariat: Offices of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary" as stated in the Budget. This year, an estimated provision of $958 million is made under this expenditure head which includes several areas of work, namely, Programme (1): Efficiency Unit, Programme (2): Government Records Service, Programme (3): CSO ― Administration Wing, and Programme (4): Protocol Division.
Let us take a look at the contents of Programme (3): CSO ― Administration Wing. As stated in the Budget, the estimated financial provision for the Administration Wing this year is $610.9 million, or an increase of $83.1 million as compared with last year's provision. However, the estimated increase of expenditure in relation to the Belt and Road Office alone already amounts to $76 million. It does not matter that the Belt and Road Office would be put under the Programme: CSO ― Administration Wing. In fact, each programme is explained under three sections, namely, "Aim", "Brief Description" and "Matters Requiring Special Attention in 2016-17". But under the Programme: CSO ― Administration Wing, nothing has been mentioned about matters requiring special attention.
As far as this programme is concerned, the aim is to assist the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary in their work. As stated in paragraph 12 under the "Brief Description" section, the Administration Wing's main responsibilities under the programme are to: provide support to the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7953
Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary; provide administrative support to the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary; act as the contact point between the Judiciary and the Government; act as the contact point in the Government for the Independent Commission Against Corruption; act as the contact point in the Government for the Office of The Ombudsman; act as the contact point between the Consular Corps and the Government on issues related to the HKSAR; provide secretariat support for the Administrative Appeals Board and the Municipal Services Appeals Board; administer and co-ordinate the Justices of the Peace system; provide centralized support for common services and accommodation in the Central Government Offices ― I do not know if any contents has been hidden here; provide timely, quality and strategic economic advice to support the formulation of the Government's policies and programmes including budgetary policies; and provide support to the Business Facilitation Advisory Committee and its task forces on regulatory reviews, and take forward business facilitation initiatives, and so on. Given the great importance of the financial provision in relation to the Belt and Road Initiative, it is most strange that nothing has been said about the Belt and Road Initiative throughout the "Brief Description" section. Why is the cost of $76 million not mentioned under head 142? As the Financial Secretary is not in the Chamber now, he cannot answer this question now.
According to the paper provided by the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, in 2016-2017, the estimated expenditure in relation to the Belt and Road Initiative is about $125 million, and in the following financial year, the provision is capped at $152 million. I find it most strange that the Budget has failed to disclose in detail the estimated provisions for implementing new strategies and for enhancing existing measures relating to the Belt and Road Initiative.
According to the paper, other matters are also covered by the expenditure relating to the Belt and Road Initiative. For instance, the provision of $4 million to continue work on Air Services Agreements falls within the scope of the Belt and Road Initiative. Likewise, the expenditure of $45 million for setting up a dedicated office to develop a Trade Single Window and organize relevant promotional activities falls within the scope of the Belt and Road Initiative. What is more, the funding provision includes the estimated expenditure of $52 million to establish new overseas Economic and Trade Offices and enhance liaison with overseas trading partners. If the Chief Executive considers the Belt and Road Initiative so important that he even mentioned the term "Belt and Road Initiative" 40-odd times in the Policy Address, seemingly, the funding provision of $125 million is not much because the total expenditure in the Budget amounts 7954 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 to $400-odd billion. He has nothing to hide really, and need not be silent about it. I do not know whether the policy relating to the Belt and Road Initiative is only a slogan or not. If it is not enough to say the term "Belt and Road Initiative" 40-odd times in the Policy Address, say it 40-odd times again on the next occasion, and the work relating to the Belt and Road Initiative will be accomplished.
The Administration hides the funding provision relating to the Belt and Road Initiative in various expenditure heads. Has any recurrent expenditure been packaged as expenditures relating to the Belt and Road Initiative? Is it because the relevant expenditures had not been factored in when the Budget was being formulated, but it was subsequently considered necessary to cover the relevant expenditures that the remedial measure was taken by the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau to account for all sums under various expenditure heads?
Regarding the Programme: CSO ― Administration Wing, its actual expenditure in 2015-2016 was $527 million. This year, its estimated expenditure is $610 million, representing an increase of $83 million; and of which, $76 million is related to the Belt and Road Initiative.
Deputy Chairman, I think I have overlooked nothing. Had the expenditure relating to the Belt and Road Initiative been set out clearly in the Budget, I reckon the 15 Members who propose amendments to various sums of expenditure under head 142 would not have overlooked it either. None of them has proposed any amendment to reduce the expenditure relating to the Belt and Road Initiative because such expenditure has been hidden under the CSO's expenditure under head 142.
I have no idea why the Government wants to hide the expenditure relating to a major policy in the Budget in such a way, instead of telling the public in an open and transparent manner how much provision will be incurred to implement the new policy. Is it a new idea or concept in the Government's governance? Is it a case of the relevant provisions not included in the Budget originally, but it is necessary to make something up because the matter has been subsequently exposed? Is it a new practice of the Government's fiscal management?
I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7955
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I think there are too few Members in the Chamber.
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 Alvin YEUNG, please speak.
MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, regarding the emotional speech made by Dr CHIANG Lai-wan earlier today, I think it is in order for me to respond to it briefly. Targeting Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr CHIANG said he should set a good example by working as a firefighter, and should he unfortunately die while on duty, she would be magnanimous and attend his farewell ceremony. First of all, in Hong Kong, we call the ritual a funeral, rather than a farewell ceremony. Secondly, let me give a word of caution to Dr CHIANG. Although there is nothing like taboos in the Council, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen is very much alive. And, as there is no taboo in this Council, I would make a special suggestion to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan. She might as well make an early start in sending funeral donations1, the sooner the better, the more the better. I think if she were to send her donations day in, day out, it would help stop what she called the "black money".
(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
Chairman, I will now speak on a number of issues, including Amendment No 305 proposed by Mr Albert CHAN in relation to the Chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC). Some Honourable Members have also spoken about it today. Though Prof Alfred CHAN, Chairperson of the EOC,
1 Funeral donation "帛 金" is homophonous with "白 金" in Cantonese, which means "white money". 7956 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 only assumed office not long ago, he has certainly stirred up quite a number of controversies. One incident which we can still recall vividly is that he called homosexuals by a Cantonese slang term which means "drug addicts". It shows how little understanding or knowledge he has in this matter, not to mention his lack of basic respect for homosexuals. Is it right for a man of his calibre to continue assuming the post of Chairperson of the EOC? I think the answer is plain for all to see.
Then another incident happened, which we can also recall vividly, namely, Prof Alfred CHAN's involvement with Philippines' Tarlac State University and its collaborator Lifelong College. Because of this incident, doubts have been raised as to whether Prof CHAN, given his ability and integrity, is the right person for the post of Chairperson of the EOC. The latest controversy involves exchanges in some private emails between Prof Alfred CHAN and Dr Petula HO, Associate Professor at the Department of Social Work and Social Administration of the University of Hong Kong, which she posted in her social networking page last night. In these exchanges, CHAN even claimed to know HO's supervisor. Chairman, while I certainly do not consider it appropriate to debate or discuss personal matters openly in the Council, why do we still bring these matters up? The reason is of course that we must make these matters known to members of the public, so that they can understand why we have such serious doubts about the personal ability of the Chairperson of the EOC.
Just now, we mentioned the remarks made publicly by Prof CHAN, his undertakings as revealed by the press (which he did not deny), as well as his attitude in private. Clearly he is not capable enough to properly discharge the duties of the Chairperson of the EOC, which is precisely why we insist that the estimated expenditure for his emoluments should be reduced substantially, even though he could barely stay on, claiming that he wants to be more accountable to the public.
Chairman, another item which I would particularly like to raise for discussion relates to Amendment No 222 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen in relation to the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC). As its name suggests, the IPCC is responsible for monitoring the Police on behalf of the people, but we did not see the IPCC performing this role effectively last year. As mentioned by Dr Helena WONG, since the new Chairman assumed office, the public has lost confidence in the IPCC as a whole about its functions, direction of work and commitment to discharge its functions properly. Its handling of some LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7957 cases has aroused many controversies, such as the case involving the suspected use of violence by a retiring superintendent during the Occupy movement. Such controversies were created as a result of the incumbent Chairman's style and attitude, which has already come under criticisms. More importantly, as Dr Helena WONG has also mentioned, the political inclination of most IPCC members is clearly pro-Government. Under the circumstance, how can the IPCC perform its role?
Chairman, it would be most important for the IPCC to be independent. If the IPCC can no longer operate independently, the substantial funding allocated to the IPCC, which amounts to almost $62 million of estimated expenditure per annum, will be wasted. Chairman, this is why we support the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen.
The IPCC is established in Hong Kong for the Police to stay vigilant when exercising its powers and be aware that such powers are not unchecked. Moreover, the IPCC serves to monitor the Police independently on behalf of the people as to how its powers have been exercised or whether violence has been used. The IPCC should never come under any influence in its work. Regrettably, over a period of time in the past, we really could not see the IPCC performing any functions. As Hong Kong people have already lost confidence in the IPCC, I think it is undeserving to provide such a large amount of funds to the IPCC.
Chairman, another item which I would like to discuss relates to Amendment No 187 proposed by my fellow party member, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, in relation to the estimated expenditure for the emolument of the Secretary for Justice. Why do we target the Secretary for Justice specifically? The Secretary for Justice is the chief legal adviser to Hong Kong as well as the Hong Kong Government. Of all the offices in the Hong Kong Government, he is also the highest defender of the rule of law. But we cannot see any commitment on the Secretary for Justice's part to defend the rule of law in Hong Kong. Firstly, as regards the "co-location" of customs, immigration and quarantine facilities (co-location arrangements) for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL), the Secretary for Justice has never come forward to say a few fair words for Hong Kong people. Notwithstanding the importance of the co-location arrangements, the Secretary for Justice has never clarified the matter publicly, and he even helped the passage of the two funding applications concerning the Hong Kong section of the XRL with some vague remarks.
7958 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Chairman, of course we know that XRL funding is history now, but the co-location arrangements have yet to be finalized. What will be done to take the matter forward in future? The Secretary for Justice has yet to give a clear account to Hong Kong people in a responsible manner. Has the Secretary for Justice performed his duty properly? I think the answer is plain for all to see.
Recently, a political party in Hong Kong advocates the change of Hong Kong's political ideologies. Chairman, though I do not agree with this party's political philosophy, the freedom of expression is protected in Hong Kong. But we have not seen the Secretary for Justice speaking out to protect the freedom of expression or standing up against pressures from all sides, including the comments made by a certain Mainland newspaper. Regrettably, when the Secretary for Justice spoke on the matter in public, he only mentioned categorically that investigations would be conducted in accordance with the Companies Ordinance, the Societies Ordinance, the Crimes Ordinance as well as other ordinances. Chairman, we are not asking the Secretary for Justice to throw weight behind any particular political idea. We have only one humble request. And that is, as the highest defender of the rule of law in Hong Kong, the Secretary for Justice should stand up with dignity and tell Hong Kong people, including those who intend to organize or form different political parties that even though their views or political ideas are not totally agreeable to all, freedom of speech and freedom of association in Hong Kong are provided under the Basic Law.
Regrettably, as a result of the remarks made by the Secretary for Justice, the Secretary for Security was likewise irresponsible when speaking on the matter later. When asked about the specific crime committed by the relevant persons, the Secretary for Security told the reporters to consult their own legal advisers. Of course, this debate session is not about the Secretary for Security, but it is blatantly clear from the remarks made by him and the Secretary for Justice that the Secretary for Justice has, much to our disappointment, neglected his duty.
Earlier, when some Mainland scholars attended a forum in Hong Kong, they suggested that the electoral system of the Chief Executive should be reformed; they even claimed that Hong Kong should have two Chief Executives. And I quote, "One of the Chief Executives will be directly controlled by the Central Authorities, while the other will be controlled by Hong Kong people." (Unquote) The idea is also in breach of the principles of the Basic Law, but why is it possible for Mainland scholars to discuss the same in such a high-profile LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7959 manner? Why has the Secretary for Justice of Hong Kong not responded to these remarks from Mainland scholars that are blatantly in breach of the Basic Law in the same high-profile and stern manner? Clearly, it is a case of different treatment for different people, and the focus is the people rather than the matter itself. Chairman, under the circumstance, is it justified for the Secretary for Justice to continue holding such a high-ranking and well-paid position? For this reason, I support the amendment proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki.
I will now speak on governance issues, that is, Amendment No 8 proposed by Ms Emily LAU, which seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure of the Chief Executive's Office for emoluments. Chairman, I think Honourable colleagues of the pro-democratic camp have already spoken to their hearts' delight against the Chief Executive. But regrettably, such frank and free remarks of Members are not met with any proactive response or improved governance. The best we can do is to keep expressing our views on the governance problems as we know of.
Chairman, the Chief Executive is the representative of Hong Kong. When seeking to reduce the estimated expenditure of the Chief Executive's Office for emoluments, we must of course consider the matter cautiously. But notwithstanding our cautiousness, has the Chief Executive ever acted with the same caution and ponder on how to duly perform his duties? No, we have seen nothing so far. Over a period of time in the past, the Chief Executive has not defended our basic rights in his capacity as the defender of Hong Kong, either in respect of his personal and family affairs or other issues concerning public interests.
Let me cite a few examples. Surely, I am aware that it will do no good in Council to further dwell on the incidents surrounding the Chief Executive himself or his family. But we must bear in mind that the acts of the Chief Executive himself as well as his family members would indeed affect Hong Kong. As we all know, what his youngest daughter did in the airport has already seriously tarnished the international image of Hong Kong, including the Hong Kong Airport Authority (AA). Of course, as far as the personal acts of the Chief Executive's daughter are concerned, we are not saying that she has committed any crimes, but such acts have already hurt Hong Kong as a whole, in particular, the AA's good reputation built up over the years has been undermined. Is it worth it?
7960 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Chairman, as the saying goes, "Example is better than precept." Surely we do not want to keep dragging on about the personal acts of the Chief Executive's daughter. Our focus is on the First Family, whose members have nothing left of self-respect. Chairman, we do not see why this family, especially its head, that is, our Chief Executive, deserves such a large sum of funding. In particular, we should note what was said by the Chief Executive in the past two days about press freedom. One evening, he was talking in a high-sounding manner about defending press freedom, but the next day, he lashed out on one particular media. Chairman, the Chief Executive is such a narrow-minded person, and we can see no reason why Hong Kong people should give his office so much administrative resources to sustain its operation.
I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I think a quorum is not present in the Chamber.
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): Members, this debate will last until 10 am tomorrow, that is, there are about five hours of speaking time left. If Members want to speak in this debate, please use the time wisely and press the "Request to speak" button as soon as possible.
Mr Alan LEONG, please speak.
MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak particularly to support the amendment proposed by Ms Emily LAU to reduce the annual emoluments for the incumbent Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7961
Chairman, I support this amendment because LEUNG Chun-ying is really not up to scratch. I believe President XI Jinping will also support this amendment because even if LEUNG Chun-ying has really been sent by the Communist Party of China to implement its policies here in Hong Kong, his performance is really terrible.
Chairman, I do not know if you are aware that Lin Xi, a lyricist, has recently given LEUNG Chun-ying the name of "Once-in-a-millennium Alien". I think that is an apt name. Why do I support the proposal to reduce the emoluments for LEUNG Chun-ying? Certainly, the crimes committed by him are too numerous to mention, but I think there are a few which many people will agree. Chairman, have you seen any Chief Executive of Hong Kong (after the reunification) or any Governor of Hong Kong (before the reunification) who had to hide in the Government House or the former Government House like a homebody? As the Chancellor of a university, LEUNG Chun-ying dare not attend the graduation ceremony of the university. After LEUNG was invited by the Hong Kong Jockey Club to perform the gong-striking ceremony to open the new racing season, he attended the ceremony only once and dare not attend again afterwards. Is such a Chief Executive "a waste of resources"? Recently, someone asked me if I knew that apart from the name "Once-in-a-millennium Alien" given by Lin Xi, LEUNG Chun-ying was also given another name which is "Simon FAN". I asked why he was called "Simon FAN" as his surname is LEUNG. The person told me that the pronunciation of "Simon FAN" is quite close to the Cantonese expression of "嘥米飯" (saai1 mai5 faan6, meaning "a waste of resources"). I agree that their pronunciations are rather similar. Under the circumstances, why do we have to pay him salary?
Certainly, LEUNG has committed other crimes too. It has been four years since he assumed office and the social split of Hong Kong has gone wider. Chairman, do you remember that soon after he was elected, he said there would no longer be any "TONG's camp", "LEUNG's camp" or "HO's camp" in Hong Kong, and there would only be a "Hong Kong camp". Surely, the "Hong Kong camp" which LEUNG Chun-ying envisaged then has not emerged and the people have joined forces to direct the spearhead at him, and another kind of "Hong Kong camp" has emerged. However, this camp cannot help the present situation of Hong Kong because LEUNG Chun-ying has insisted to hold onto the position of the Chief Executive and even indicated that he planned to stand in the next election. What am I trying to say, Chairman? I am saying that the "LEUNG's camp" mentioned by him back then is shrinking. In this regard, one cannot but 7962 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 admire him. He has been in office for almost four years and this "LEUNG's camp" is becoming smaller and smaller and he has fewer and fewer friends. Some members of the Election Committee who nominated and voted for him back then now think that LEUNG Chun-ying is no longer worthy of their support. How then can the "LEUNG's camp" not shrink?
Another crime of LEUNG Chun-ying is that he has made Hong Kong people more ashamed to tell others of their Chinese identity. From the results of the polls conducted by the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong, we know that the number of people who renounce their Chinese identity has been on the rise during LEUNG Chun-ying's term of office. Yet another crime of his is that under his governance, the ideology of militant resistance and the idea of "Hong Kong independence" have grown in popularity, and there seems to be no sign that this tide will ebb. Counting his crimes up to this point, I already have sufficient reasons to reduce his salary.
Nonetheless, an extremely entertaining incident which many colleagues mentioned earlier occurred recently. That is the cabin baggage incident at the airport which involves the daughter of the LEUNG family and Mrs LEUNG. We have to reduce the emoluments for LEUNG Chun-ying because he would not apologize for the incident. In fact, if he had apologized and said that the incident would not set a precedent, and if he had said that he made a careless mistake because he was too anxious to help his beloved daughter and it would not happen again, he could have settled the matter. But he did not do so. How he behaved may be related to his character, but we really cannot understand "Once-in-a-millennium Alien". He tried to tell Hong Kong people time after time that he had not exercised any privilege, nor had his wife and his daughter exercised any privilege.
Three departments published their reports yesterday and what is the fact that we have noticed? The fact is that the Airport Authority and the Civil Aviation Department obviously wanted to shirk the responsibility onto the security company of the airport and the airline company. However, Hong Kong people are clear-minded and wise. I hope LEUNG Chun-ying will not underestimate us. We are not fools, are we? From the reports, we know that the Hong Kong Aviation Security Programme was formulated by the Secretary for Security and one of the regulations in the Programme provides that (and I quote) "all screening of cabin baggage shall be conducted in the presence of the passenger". Common sense tells Hong Kong people that if the so-called "courtesy delivery" or other regular channels were available, Mrs LEUNG would LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7963 not have bustled about at the airport for almost 50 minutes but to no avail and it was only after LEUNG Chun-ying phoned to show his awful power that the problem was resolved.
Since we have a Chief Executive who will not apologize and may even be suffering from pathological lying, the entire system, our regulations, the credibility of our Directors of Bureaux and heads of government departments have to suffer to conceal the lie told by the Chief Executive who has obviously exercised privilege but will not apologize.
It is characteristic of LEUNG Chun-ying to put all blames on the others because they are always wrong and he is always right. LEUNG Chun-ying has been in office for four years now. His behaviour in response to the incidents of UGL and the unauthorized building structures before he assumed office and his behaviour afterwards have prompted people to query whether he is a pathological liar. If he is an ordinary person, it will not be a big problem. He will only be a friendless man whom nobody trusts. Nonetheless, since he is the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, other public officials will have to collaborate with him to conceal his lies. This crime will also support us in deducting his salary.
Chairman, there are certainly other matters which I must spill out. For example, LEUNG Chun-ying has damaged the value system of Hong Kong by appointing some "LEUNG's fans" who are yielding sycophants to important positions, such as Eddie NG … I have heard some Members who are or were members of the Independent Police Complaints Council complain how bad the Council is, that is, the problems under the leadership of Larry KWOK (the first Chairman who is not a Senior Counsel). Let me talk about Alfred CHAN. He is a professor and the Chairperson of the Equal Opportunities Commission who earns $250,000 per month. Reporters asked him three times how the four pieces of legislation giving the Equal Opportunities Commission authority should be understood. Prof CHAN had difficulties even in stating those pieces of legislation in his answers. The reporters asked him the question, not once, but three times, and he could not answer.
Furthermore, I cannot miss out Arthur LI. Alumni of the University of Hong Kong, its current teaching staff and students as well as staff members disdain him, but LEUNG Chun-ying deliberately picked quarrels with them and insisted on appointing LI as Chairman of the Council of the University of Hong Kong.
7964 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
What does the cabin baggage incident at the airport show us? The rule of law is a very important feature that distinguishes Hong Kong from China where the rule of man applies. In Hong Kong, people rely on the systems; in China, they rely on relations. The "luggage gate" incident shows people clearly that LEUNG Chun-ying is departing more and more from the rule of law and the systems, and inclining more and more towards the rule of man and relations. That is certainly heart-breaking. However, the remarks made by some "LEUNG's fans" is surprising. For example, Prof CHANG Chak-yan said, "If the staff member at the airport that evening was reduced to tears during the telephone conversation with Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying as Dr David CHU alleged, that person is not adequately trained and needs to be retrained." I detest such remarks by Prof CHANG. He is calling a horse a stag. When more and more people use specious arguments, call black white and confound right with wrong, Hong Kong will be doomed to fall.
Chairman, these well-founded arguments mentioned above are sufficient to support the proposal of not paying LEUNG Chun-ying salary anymore. Since I have a little speaking time left, I may as well carry on with my speech.
Turning to the Hong Kong National Party, how did it originate? In 2014, LEUNG Chun-ying held the book Hong Kong Nationalism published by the editors of Undergrad of the University of Hong Kong in his hand here in this Chamber and roundly condemned it. Before LEUNG did so, I think nine out of 10 Hong Kong people did not even know the book at all. Thus, LEUNG Chun-ying is actually the Father of "Hong Kong independence" and the keenest advocate of militant resistance, do you agree? I have to help President XI Jinping teach him a lesson by not paying him salary.
Chairman, as Hong Kong faces so many problems, I think there is no reason to oppose this amendment proposed by Ms Emily LAU. LEUNG Chun-ying is not qualified to be the Chief Executive of Hong Kong at all. Since this conclusion has been verified over a period of four years, I think the best we can do now is, at least, not to pay him salary.
I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7965
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, over the 19 years or so since the reunification, I have seldom asked the following question when referring to the Basic Law in my public speeches or university lectures. Today I would like to broach that question, that is, "Class, friends, where do you think you are from?" Understandably, many say they are Hongkongers. In fact, when we travel to foreign countries or the Mainland, we are immensely proud of our identity as Hongkongers. Our identity as Hongkongers should have nothing to do with "Hong Kong independence", which is the talk of the town recently. However, many people have been politicizing gradually the identity of Hongkongers so that "Hongkongers" now runs counter to our own identity.
My speech today involves head 144. I will explore whether the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau has, since the reunification, seriously committed to the promotion of the Basic Law, civic education, a sense of national identity and the identity as Hongkongers, and whether it has confidently explained to the Hong Kong public, particularly the next generation, what our identity is under "one country, two systems" following the reunification.
In a public speech I once took out an SAR Passport and asked my audience whether they knew what passport it was. Many people are holders of this passport, which is available for application only after the reunification. My audience all said that it was an SAR Passport. But when I further asked them about its full title, many of them failed to give the right answer. In fact, the full title of the passport is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region People's Republic of China Passport". We have to be a Chinese citizen as well as a permanent resident of Hong Kong before we are eligible to apply for an SAR Passport.
I understand that certain Members of the Council are unable to obtain Home Visit Permits due to historical reasons, but I do hope that they may obtain Home Visit Permits in the future. What does it mean if one holds a Home Visit Permit? Many Hong Kong people hold Home Visit Permits, and such holders are citizens of the People's Republic of China as well as permanent residents of Hong Kong. However, Hong Kong people just merely know that they are holders of Home Visit Permits and SAR Passports, while few Hong Kong youngsters know that Home Visit Permit holders are Chinese citizens.
7966 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Let me further talk about the provisions of the Basic Law in detail. The Basic Law is an important document that guarantees what is described as "the river water not interfering with the well water, and the well water not interfering with the river water" following the reunification. In particular, for national laws of China to be applied in Hong Kong, Annex III of the Basic Law serves as the most important basis. Annex III contains no highly sensitive laws, and Hong Kong people did not consider it very much unacceptable although certain persons were prosecuted for violating the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance. A law contained therein, the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China, was unreservedly and directly applied on Hong Kong, and the Legislative Council of Hong Kong made no adaptation of laws in this regard. The Chinese citizenship of a Hongkonger following the reunification and how one may acquire Chinese citizenship are all stipulated in the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance.
Frankly speaking, unless being specifically referred to in law programmes, this issue is, as I have observed, rarely mentioned in civic education programmes in the community. The Government frequently promotes the Basic Law on television, but it uses hard-sell tactics in many cases. An example is that it avoids mentioning a child's Chinese citizenship when featuring his growth following the reunification. The SAR Government has been afraid to highlight "one country" under the "one country, two systems" formula lest it be blamed. However, this exactly explains why so many youngsters have still come to champion "the Hong Kong nation" even though 19 years have passed since the reunification.
I have made inquiries with some Shanghai people. They are very proud of their identity, claiming that they are Shanghainese in any place on the Mainland. Many Shanghai people have also come to Hong Kong to help drive the Hong Kong economy. People from various places would say, "I am Shanghainese", "I am Fujianese" ― there are many Fujian associations in Hong Kong ― "I am a Cantonese". I have even noticed the promotion of Cantonese by some Guangdong people and some NPC delegate and CPPCC members from Gongdong promote traditional Chinese characters. We share the same roots, and we have a beautiful culture and language, but the hidden message is not that "I am Cantonese; not Chinese".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7967
I would like to talk about my personal experience as a Hong Kong girl and exchange student in the United States. Back then, students from 10 countries needed to make a briefing on the culture, politics and economy of their own country. In the same manner as a typical Hong Kong university student, I stood up and said that I was from Hong Kong. When I had finished expounding on the institutions of Hong Kong, the other people requested me to say something about China. They asked me, "Are you not representing China?" It was 1984 then, and I felt like getting a knock on the head. Students from 10 countries, including Brazil, Italy and Spain, talked about their own country in turn. When it came to me, I said that I was from Hong Kong, prompting them to ask me why I knew nothing about China. Some of them even thought that I was a Native American for my sun-tanned skin. With the mere knowledge that Hong Kong was a tiny spot on the map, young people in the United States believed that I should talk about China.
The experience inspired me to learn more about my own country and to trace my own root in the days to follow. Hong Kong people held discussions on China in air-conditioned rooms, whether they be bashing or lauding China. I recollect that the China Study Society engaged in abstract discussions exploring what was meant by China and the actual problems faced by China. Regardless of whether one pursued socialism in an abstract manner, or opposed socialism in an abstract manner, all such discussions took place in air-conditioned rooms.
While all such are truisms, some youngsters have surprisingly come to advocate "the Hong Kong nation" in the present day of 2016. If the Shanghainese advocated "the Shanghainese nation" and the Fujianese advocated "the Fujianese nation", China would fall apart. They have had no personal experience in this regard. Why does China place so much emphasis on sovereignty? Why was it could compromise on anything except for sovereignty in negotiations related to the reunification? The reason is that the Chinese have suffered incredibly before establishing a unified country, such that we are not looked down upon in foreign countries. Have they ever experienced starvation? Taiwan's LEE Teng-hui has advocated the "theory of seven parts for China", with the earnest hope of dividing China into seven parts. If that became true, civil wars and extreme misery would ensue.
When listening to radio one day, I heard a youngster supporting "Hong Kong independence" refer to widespread destitution and extreme misery in Hong Kong nowadays. I then wondered whether he had learned about true destitution 7968 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 in the era of early Republic of China and late Qing Dynasty. I simply did not know what he was up to. However, I believe that we are also to blame. There have been big problems with the secondary and tertiary education of Hong Kong. While Article 1 of the Basic Law states that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China, I doubt whether this provision is referred to in liberal studies or civic education in secondary schools and courses that are not related to the Basic Law at universities.
Demosistō established by young people have proposed a third option ― "Hong Kong independence", with the hope of amending the Basic Law upon the expiry of the 50-year period. The reason for their requesting the amendment of the Basic Law is that they have had no involvement in its enactment. The Chinese Constitution aside, Article 159(4) of the Basic Law, in addition to stating the difficulty of amending the Basic Law, stipulates that no amendment to the Basic Law shall contravene the policies under "one country, two systems".
When "one country, two systems" is supposed to be a truism, we now have to underscore the gem of "two systems", that is, the socialist system practiced on the Mainland shall not be practiced in Hong Kong. The Preamble to the Basic Law clearly states that the capitalist system of Hong Kong shall remain unchanged for 50 years. I understand that there are people who aspire to a welfare state or tax increases, but the Basic Law provides otherwise. Are tax increases simply impossible? No, the low tax policy is flexible, and we once explored whether the increase of tax rates to 20% or 25% would trigger any judicial review. I estimate that should the Hong Kong Government really increase tax rates within 10 years, some people may initiate a judicial review under Article 5 of the Basic Law.
While there is room for adjusting the low tax policy, there is no room for adjusting the fact that Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China. Why? When we say that "one country, two systems" shall remain unchanged for 50 years following the reunification, we are talking about the system, and we will have choices in 50 years. If we choose not to practice the capitalist system, we may practice a welfare state system or any other alternatives, and another system may be practiced on the Mainland. We can make changes in terms of the system, but the change of sovereignty in 50 years is out of the question. The foundation of "one country, two systems" is "one country".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7969
If we attempt to end the exercise of sovereignty by China, we will immediately lose "one country, two systems". Have they ever experienced living under "one country, one system"? I very much treasure "one country, two systems", for I have lived under "one country, one system". I love my country very much, but I also know that Hong Kong people may not get accustomed to ways on the Mainland, including practices in the areas of politics, legal services and even economics. I like very much the low tax policy of Hong Kong, and I will encourage people to consider challenging the increase, if any, of tax rates to 20% or 25%, for the Basic Law stipulates that the low tax policy shall be pursued in Hong Kong. Those populists who advocate the implementation of a welfare state system may also be challenged under the Basic Law. The Basic Law shall not be amended to cater for the implementation of a welfare state system, for it runs counter to the established policies under "one country, two systems".
While all such are truisms provided for in the Preamble to and provisions of the Basic Law, many people nowadays seemingly fail to see the problems. Well, there are also problems with the political arena, where many people are lookers-on. I trust my colleagues in the Council, including those from the pan-democratic camp. In fact, most of them are democratic-reunificationists, who are my classmates and friends acquainted before the unification. I very much believe that they are unwilling to tread the path of "Hong Kong independence". For this reason, I hope that Members will, under such a premise, reconcile and co-operate on the middle ground, and deter "Hong Kong independence", for "Hong Kong independence" does no good to the political spectrum of the pan-democrats.
Hong Kong must not rely solely on the pro-establishment camp. Our society will be unhealthy without the involvement of the pan-democrats or the opposition. However, if opposition Members fail to stick to the proper principle, fail to uphold their stand even on such issues as "Hong Kong independence", and, simply because of the 60 000 votes or so Edward LEUNG has obtained, all choose to tread the radical path and even take an ambiguous position on "Hong Kong independence", they will ultimately be wiped out. We must take a consistent position when facing the younger generation. I remember vividly Mr Alan LEONG clearly indicating that he was opposed to "Hong Kong independence" at a Council meeting last year. I agree with his saying so. Despite all our differing views, political figures of our generation, I believe, have 7970 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 a clear mind when it comes to this premise. However, in this day and age, as radical figures are able to obtain more votes, voice of this kind is becoming weaker among the opposition camp or the pan-democrats.
Both Dr Helena WONG and I serve Kowloon West, and we compete against and often chide each other, but I appreciate her, for she at least says that she still supports democracy and reunification at the same time. I think that we must never make any compromise on this premise. Otherwise, "one country, two systems" will disappear and Hong Kong people will not get accustomed to what ensues. When we say that we are Hongkongers, the hidden message is that we are Chinese. I would like to appeal to pan-democrat friends to be in the same boat with us in this regard. As for our differing views, we may seek support among our respective supporters, and seek to improve, under "one country, two systems", the institutions we hope to improve, including whether in the future we will …
(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, please hold on. Mr Albert CHAN, what is your point?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): We are actually in different boats. Chairman, will you please call a quorum.
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): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, please continue with your speech.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7971
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): I know that the democratic-reunificationists must be depressed nowadays, for no breakthrough seems to have been made in terms of political reforms. The path to democracy in China is difficult to tread, and so is that in Hong Kong. But we must never let our sense be overwhelmed by depression. "Hong Kong independence" is immensely detrimental to China and Hong Kong, and it may lead to disastrous consequences that we cannot afford to bear. I hope that Members can join hands to say no to "Hong Kong independence".
Chairman, I so submit.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, for the sake of filibustering, opposition Members have proposed a total of 2 168 amendments to the Appropriation Bill 2016. Under the wise decision of the President, only 407 amendments have been allowed to be moved in the Council. According to the provision under the Rules of Procedure (RoP), any decision made by the President is final and indisputable. But as we can see since the debate last Wednesday, many opposition Members have disregarded the provision and wilfully criticized the President's ruling. Honestly, I would say the Chairman has been acting in a highly tolerant and accommodating manner, as he has never stopped them from raising the matter again and again in the debate. But opposition Members are untouched by his tolerance. As a matter of fact, the President has already explained his ruling in detail earlier on. As we can see, most of these amendments are frivolous …
(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam, please hold on. Mr Albert CHAN, what is your point?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I seek your ruling on whether the high praises just made by Mr CHAN Kam-lam about the President's ruling being wise are actually some form of criticisms against your ruling?
7972 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): What I heard just now is Mr CHAN Kam-lam criticizing some Members for their undue criticisms against my ruling.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, please continue with your speech.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, he was just singing high praises about you being wise.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam was commenting on the views expressed by other Members including Mr Albert CHAN in this Chamber in relation to my ruling.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, please continue with your speech.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, should praises count towards a form of comments? Is it permissible to sing praises?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, I have already responded to your question, please be seated.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, you are brilliant. Please do 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): Mr CHAN Kam-lam, please continue with your speech.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7973
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, Mr Albert CHAN cannot even differentiate between praises and criticisms. Clearly, he is a person who twists reality with lies and confounds right and wrong. He is always hurling insults and unjustified criticisms against other people. His so-called queries are surely just meant to interrupt my speech. It shows that his true nature is simply to destroy, and he will not do anything constructive. I will never let my voice be subdued.
Chairman, a moment ago, I was saying that the pan-democrats have proposed a total of over 2 000-odd amendments. Under the wise decision of the President, only 407 amendments are left. Their amendments are frivolous and meaningless. For instance, one amendment seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure for the emolument of the Chief Executive to $689. Other amendments seek to reduce the estimated expenditure for the emolument of various public officials, including Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM, Financial Secretary John TSANG and Information Coordinator Andrew FUNG, as well as the annual estimated operating expenditure of the Central Policy Unit, and so on. These amendments are proposed by Members without any criteria or grounds, and they only want to wilfully insult and criticize the Chief Executive and various public officials. They even hype up the "luggage gate" incident at the airport, and use it as an excuse to further undermine the Chief Executive's reputation. What is more, the remuneration of public officials and civil servants is determined by a system with no room for any arbitrary hikes or reductions, let alone adjustments made on the basis of personal preference for any government officials. Likewise, the remuneration of Members of the Legislative Council is determined by a system with provisions made for annual adjustments. Hence, the remuneration received by Members will be the same regardless of their performance being good or bad.
On account of their dislike for certain public officials, these Members propose amendments to reduce the estimated expenditure for their emoluments. On the other hand, many members of the public have also asked whether there is any way to reduce the remuneration of Members who do not attend meetings or debates of the Council. As we can see clearly, only one or two pan-democratic Members are present in the Chamber now. For that matter, only three pan-democratic Members were in the Chamber when the last Council meeting was adjourned due to a lack of quorum. Can punitive measures such as the reduction of remuneration be imposed on Members who hurl objects like water 7974 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 glasses, rubbish, bananas, papers or even "hell money" around? To be honest, such measures cannot be taken because we are bound by the parliamentary system.
In fact, Members propose the amendments to reduce the estimated expenditure for the emoluments of public officials are no more than a means of filibustering because we all know that such things will never happen. Is it not the basic duty of Members of the Legislative Council to attend meetings? Now only two pan-democratic Members are left in the Chamber, and Prof Joseph LEE should not be counted as one of them because he is often discounted. Of course, he is sometimes elusive when he speaks, at times like a pan-democrat, and at other times like a royalist. That is why some people see him as a pan-democratic Member while others do not.
I think the crux is that opposition Members only act according to their own personal preferences. Sometimes they even act against the RoP or play with the rules deliberately. They do so for the sole purpose of disrupting the operation of the Council, and they are doing so frequently. As we can see, when I was chairing the meetings of the Finance Committee to scrutinize the funding application for the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link according to the RoP, they created trouble all the time, such as hurling objects around, occupying the Chairman's seat, and so on. They simply wanted to disrupt the conduct of the meetings. Their acts have not only prevented the smooth operation of the Council, but also delayed the implementation of various livelihood measures. Members of the public clearly know that these Members have impeded the normal operation of the Council by deliberately causing the adjournment of Council meetings …
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam, please hold on. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7975
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 Kam-lam, please continue with your speech.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, at present, a headcount is no longer requested to ensure compliance with the Basic Law's requirement on the quorum for meetings of the Legislative Council, but to interrupt the speeches made by other Members. Such a practice is highly undesirable, and the Members concerned have abused their powers conferred by the RoP as Members of the Legislative Council.
As we can see, when the summoning bell has been rung for almost 15 minutes, more often than not, only a few pan-democratic Members are present in the Chamber. Hence, I call upon the people of Hong Kong to vote only for a few pan-democratic Members at the forthcoming elections in September as it would be meaningless to have more pan-democratic Members get elected because after all they have no intention to attend meetings of the Council. It is alright even if Mr CHAN Chi-chuen can get elected because it is further proof that Hong Kong's legislature is democratic. If even such a crap Member can get elected, there is no more reason to criticize the legislature as undemocratic and hence …
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, such a remarkable speech should be heard by more Members. Please do a headcount.
7976 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
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 Kam-lam, please continue with your speech.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, the Legislative Council should have been serving the people, especially now when Hong Kong's economy is beset with difficulties. We should have used our time properly to monitor the Government on behalf of the people, in order to promote economic development and improve people's livelihood. But instead, we are wasting the people's time. While my speech is just about 10 minutes long, it might take me an hour to complete the whole thing because much time is wasted on quorum counts. I think the people of Hong Kong can witness this, even though it is not something they want to see. Nonetheless, the situation will not change as long when so many of these pan-democratic Members are disrupting the operation of the Council. Many people are saying that Hong Kong's future is doomed. I think the remark is not made out of spite but suggests some practical problems which we must consider carefully.
Chairman, let me tell everyone clearly what amendments are proposed by these Members. Hong Kong people watching the Council proceedings on television may not know exactly what the 407 amendments are about. That is why I would like to raise some amendments for discussion now.
One of the amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen relates to the Correctional Services Department (CSD). The amendment seeks to reduce the relevant expenditure head by $3.49-odd billion, which is equivalent to the annual estimated operating expenditure of the CSD. If the relevant expenditure has been cut, it will mean that all staff of the CSD need not work at all in the coming year. In other words, all correctional work of the CSD will have to be suspended. But is this possible?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7977
Another amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen relates to the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED). The amendment seeks to reduce the relevant expenditure head by $3,289,660,000, which is equivalent to the annual estimated operating expenditure of the C&ED. As we all know, the C&ED's work in law enforcement and revenue protection at boundary control points is very important. If the provision for the department's annual estimated operating expenditure is cut, it will mean that the staff cannot work at all.
Many similar amendments are also proposed by Mr CHAN. If I have not pointed them out, Hong Kong people may have no idea what these amendments are really about, or they simply know that these amendments are opposed by pro-establishment Members. Even after the debate is over and the scrutiny of the Bill completed, Hong Kong people may still know nothing about what is going on. Mr CHAN also proposes to reduce the relevant expenditure head by $5.198-odd billion, which is equivalent to the estimated annual operating expenditure of the Fire Services Department (FSD). Chairman, the work of the FSD is very important. Firefighters would be deployed whenever an accident or a fire happens, or when members of the public are trapped in lifts. Hence, the lives and property of the public will be threatened if the operating expenditure of the FSD is withheld.
In addition, some amendments are related to the general expenses of the Civil Service. Several Members, including Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, propose amendments to reduce the provision for the benefits and pension of civil servants, or even their children's education. I call upon all civil servants to take note of this point. They have been working hard to serve the people of Hong Kong, but now these Members are seeking to reduce or even cut their benefits, including the benefits duly enjoyed by civil servants before the reunification, as well as the rewards for their service after the reunification. I call upon all civil servants to consider carefully whether these Members are doing practical things. Do they really want Hong Kong and the public to continue enjoying the services provided by an excellent Civil Service?
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen also proposes an amendment to reduce the relevant expenditure head by $4.23-odd billion, which is equivalent to the estimated annual operating expenditure of the Immigration Department (ImmD). With hundreds of millions of people entering and leaving Hong Kong each year, what will happen if the operating expenditure of the ImmD is cut?
7978 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
What is more, he proposes an amendment to reduce the relevant expenditure head by more than $14.3 billion, which is equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure of the Hong Kong Police Force for personal emoluments. In other words, all police officers will not get paid for the whole year, and the department's operation will be paralysed. I invite the people of Hong Kong to reflect on the riots which happened in Mong Kok on the night of the first day of Lunar New Year. Police officers were attacked by rioters wilfully. As we can see, had it not been the police officers' hard work in maintaining public order, what would have happened to Hong Kong? Therefore, I earnestly hope that the people of Hong Kong can understand clearly that these amendments are actually doing harm to Hong Kong.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, People Power, the League of Social Democrats and several radical Members such as Mr WONG Yuk-man have, for the purpose of staging their rotten political show, proposed a lot of frivolous and meaningless amendments at the Committee stage of the Budget year after year. We are all angry at the ritual practice of filibustering, quorum calls and abortion of meeting, and at the same time, we are inured to their deeds. At the meeting last week, only three of the 27 Members from the pan-democratic camp were present. The situation today seems to be pretty much the same, as only two or three of them are present, making few speeches and idling away our meeting time. Are they simply nonchalant or are they lodging a passive protest against those few radical pan-democratic Members? We have no idea.
Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr CHAN Kam-lam, two of my fellow party members who have just spoken, have analysed the various amendments proposed by pan-democratic Members. According to their analysis, pan-democratic Members will, in the first part of their speeches, attack LEUNG Chun-ying, criticizing him for this and that. All such remarks are platitudes. The ultimate aim is to stop paying emoluments to the Chief Executive. However, among the 400 or so amendments proposed by them, many of them do not only involve the emoluments for the Chief Executive's Office or LEUNG Chun-ying, but also the expenditures for many government departments. The pan-democrats specifically target at five disciplined services departments and reject payment of salaries to the staff concerned. What is their intention? Do they intend to paralyse the operation of the entire SAR Government, or disrupt Hong Kong?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7979
Let me perhaps provide extra information that have not been covered by my two fellow party members. For example, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan seeks to deduct the estimated expenditure for the procurement of new fireboats and a fast rescue vessel and the replacement of crash fire tenders. All such types of rescue equipment are keenly demanded by our fishermen, but why does he still ignore their demand? In addition, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung seeks to deduct the annual estimated expenditure on town ambulances of the Fire Services Department (FSD). Is he ignoring people's life? According to Mr CHAN Kam-lam just now, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Customs and Excise Department to $1,000. They do not even let go of the FSD, the Immigration Department and the Government Flying Service. Are they saying that no salaries should be paid to the staff of all these departments? Though they are dissatisfied with LEUNG Chun-ying, why should so many civil servants, particularly disciplined services staff members, be affected? Why do they make Hong Kong come to a pass where there is no one to fight fire and catch thieves, and there is no one to man the immigration counters, such that anyone can enter and leave Hong Kong as they like, and bogus refugees will be most delighted? If that is the case, I believe not only Hong Kong's international image will be tarnished, Hong Kong people's property, life and assets will also be at stake. Hong Kong will then be plunged into chaos for sure. Should the particulars of these amendments be made known in the international community, Hong Kong's international image will be seriously affected. Fortunately, the press in Hong Kong do not report on such absurd amendments. Do Members not think that the implications of such amendments are way more serious than that of the so-called "bag-gate" incident? Luckily functional constituencies are still retained in the Legislative Council election, and the pan-democrats are thus unable to become the majority in the Council. I wonder what will become of Hong Kong should they become the majority. I am afraid it will probably be in a worse state than Syria.
In fact, these amendments are not as bad as the other amendments that they will propose in a moment or several days later. Such amendments are even more absurd, as they seek to reduce certain social security allowances. For this reason, we must really stay alert. If anyone from their camp became the Chief Executive, what would become of Hong Kong? People's safety will be at stake as we have no idea how they would make a mess of Hong Kong.
7980 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Please bear in mind, no matter how these people rebuke the Chief Executive, the Chief Executive has at least planned to build more public housing estates and Home Ownership Scheme flats to resolve housing problems, and he has also introduced the Old Age Living Allowance. Yet, I fail to see what good deeds have been done by these radical pan-democrats. I hope that they will stop harming us, our civil servants and Hong Kong at large by filibustering, making quorum calls and causing the abortion of Council meetings. We must cherish Hong Kong, and we hope that the pan-democrats will return to the right track and forsake their egregious ways.
Thank you, Chairman.
(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 back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please speak.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would continue to discuss reducing the annual emoluments of the Chief Executive, and the estimated expenditures of the Central Policy Unit (CPU) and the Information Coordinator.
Chairman, today, many pro-establishment colleagues strongly criticize pan-democratic Members who have proposed amendments, and I would like to share with you some very interesting information. As we all know, SHIU Sin-por, Head of the CPU, once worked in the One Country Two Systems LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7981
Research Institute (Institute) and Executive Council Member CHEUNG Chi-kong is the current Executive Director of the Institute. This pair should be able to help LEUNG Chun-ying improve governance; unfortunately, the CPU and the Information Coordinator failed to help the Government do a better job. A recent opinion poll showed that LEUNG Chun-ying's popularity rating keeps falling while the numbers of people who are against him or have no confidence in him are on the increase.
Let us consider the work of the CPU. The CPU conducts a number of researches, and 30% of these researches are conducted by the Institute under it. These researches include the Study on Trend of Discussions on Social and Political Issues in the Mass Media conducted in 2013-2014, of which $772,800 were spent. The Institute was granted $772,800 in 2014-2015 and more than $800,000 was granted in 2015-2016. Can the funding help the Government? All we can see is that society has been torn apart more seriously.
(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
A number of people who had helped the Government, such as a good friend of LEUNG Chun-yang and a young and well-known former Political Assistant, pointed out some facts recently. First, LEW Mon-hung has just published an article, stating that LEUNG Chun-ying is the father of "Hong Kong independence". Just now, Mr WONG Kwok-hing and Mr TAM Yiu-chung have incessantly denounced and reproached supporters of "Hong Kong independence", but I think they have picked the wrong targets because their close friend, LEUNG Chun-ying, is the father of "Hong Kong independence". If they really detest "Hong Kong independence", they should get rid of the source. Anyway, this is their usual practice.
As LEUNG Chun-ying is the father of "Hong Kong independence", this may be the best solution to deal with him. In respect of administration, almost all of his policies have failed. On the housing front, he is good at reneging on his promise. The number of public rental housing units constructed within his term of office is even less than that when Donald TSANG was in office. While the authorities cannot identify land for private housing construction, he said demands have to be managed. Property prices have recently rebounded after a decline. People have come to realize how incompetent the Government is and 7982 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
LEUNG Chun-ying has talked much but done little. Hence, speculators simply ignore him and continue to engage in property speculation. We are well aware that LEUNG Chun-ying is unreliable, he is good at making Hong Kong more divided and bringing up the issue of "Hong Kong independence".
In the eyes of LEUNG Chun-ying, "Hong Kong independence" may not be a bad thing. Some people regard that "Hong Kong independence" is the best excuse for enacting legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law and for imposing the Mainland's national security law on Hong Kong. Some have asked the Secretary for Justice and the Secretary for Security which laws have "Hong Kong independence" violated. Rimsky YUEN replied that he would look into the matter, but most interestingly, LAI Tung-kwok said that this issue has already been discussed. If people consider that there are problems, they can seek legal advice. According to some online comments, the Secretary for Security is the best comedian; when he cannot think of any justifications or if he has nobody to turn to for help, he asks people to seek legal advice. Maybe he is now considering how to trump up a justification.
Fortunately, there is a tenable judicial system in Hong Kong. Although there is no way we can ask the media not to be biased, we still have a monitoring system to avoid a chaotic situation. If the views of "Hong Kong independence" are exaggerated, will this only affect young people? This is definitely not the case. Last year, when LEUNG Chun-ying presented the policy address, he specifically named a book published by the official magazine of the student union and made a fuss by saying that the idea of "Hong Kong independence" should be axed. Any person with a good sense would realize why LEUNG Chun-ying has adopted such tactics. First, for "Grandpa", sentiments can be provoked, creating more hostile attitudes in Hong Kong. Second, we reckon that LEUNG Chun-ying will benefit from social dissension. He will be more and more elated as society becomes more and more divided, for he will stand a better chance of being re-elected for five more years.
Is there a trend of thought of "Hong Kong independence"? Even though the pro-establishment camp does not like it, have they asked their boss, LEUNG Chun-ying? Maybe he really likes it or thinks that such a plot is excellent and appropriate. If the idea of "Hong Kong independence" is blown up, there are good causes for legislating on Article 23 of the Basic Law, introducing the national security law or bringing in the People's Liberation Army as danger is imminent. The Government should not do so if it wants to do practical work.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7983
Let us look at the source of "Hong Kong independence". Over the past few years, the Government has given zero response to the constitutional reform and the Umbrella Movement. The Mainland authorities published a White Paper before the introduction of the constitutional reform, further narrowing down the restrictive room for constitutional reform in Hong Kong, leaving us with no power. The Mainland authorities asked us to stop having allusions, for the constitutional reform was just a game, and a framework has long been set. It was just old wine in a new bottle. The nomination would still be made by a 1 000-strong nominating committee and Hong Kong people would vote in a so-called election, turning a fake universal suffrage will a genuine one. For this reason, unlike the pro-establishment camp, Hong Kong people detested the constitutional reform proposal. If the proposal could bring about genuine universal suffrage or genuine democracy, why would people strongly oppose it?
Following the White Paper, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) made the 31 August Decision. The gate was closed and Hong Kong people knew that there was no hope left. As the public became extremely angry after the NPCSC made the 31 August Decision, the Occupy Central movement which lasted more than 70 days began. Has the Government responded positively after the Umbrella Movement? The SAR Government, LEUNG Chun-ying …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, we are now having a debate on the amendments to the Appropriation Bill 2016.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Right, I am discussing the related issues and my speech is also about LEUNG Chun-ying's political achievements.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): But you have digressed from the subject; please focus your speech on the relevant amendments.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): All right. How did Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying respond after the Umbrella Movement? There was zero response. He kept closing his eyes to what had happened. Therefore, in the view of civil society, all possible means had been explored and what could be 7984 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 done had been done. Since peaceful demonstrations, Occupy Central and attempts to make the Government and LEUNG Chun-ying change their minds did not work, the idea of "Hong Kong independence" has thus arisen.
If the Government, LEUNG Chun-ying and the CPU continue to adopt such attitude, they will only add fuel to fire. We cannot say that SHIU Sin-por has not done anything. As reported, he once criticized the pro-establishment camp for failing to perform their duty and making trouble. During the voting on the constitutional reform package, they made a mistake and only eight Members were present in the Chamber. How could that be possible? He was right in making such criticisms. When the blemishes of the pro-establishment camp were exposed, they reproached SHIU Sin-por, saying that he was drunk. In my view, he was not drunk, he was just telling the truth.
The pro-establishment camp is like an army in disarray, each with his own axe to grind. Only eight of them were present during the voting. How dare they claim to defend their master. Mr WONG Kwok-hing also made a mistake on that day and did not show up for the voting. As he could not even perform a simple task of being present in the Chamber and vote, how dare he boost of his competence now. I advise him to keep his mouth shut. SHIU Sin-por is right; Members of the pro-establishment camp have done nothing though they get paid. The pro-establishment camp claim to defend their master but they should be reproached for their unsatisfactory performance. I have to praise SHIU Sin-por; his comments have offended certain people, they thus fought back and said he was drunk.
We would not bother about their flinging abuses at one another, but it is well evident that they have performed badly. Regarding LEUNG Chun-ying's popularity rating and administration, Information Coordinator Andrew FUNG has not done a good job, leading to the continuous sinking of the Government's popularity rating. Take for example the recent incident at the airport. If a sage in the CPU or the Chief Executive's Office told LEUNG Chun-ying to tell the truth and not to lie, the situation would be better. Obviously, Mrs LEUNG wanted to force her way into the restricted area but surprisingly, LEUNG Chun-ying said later that nothing like that had happened. Without a doubt, he threatened others with his special power, but he denied having taken such actions. I wonder why people around him have not given him advice or if he insisted on taken such actions though knowing that it would lead to a dead end. Given their unsatisfactory performance, it is really hard to justify that taxpayers should LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7985 shoulder the expenses of the CPU, the Information Coordinator and LEUNG Chun-ying.
Recently, Paul CHAN Chi-yuen, a talented young man and the youngest Political Assistant, has also expressed some views. Interestingly, he pointed out seven hypocritical acts. For example, senior officials, Members of the pro-establishment camp and rich people hold British, United States, Australian or Canadian passports, yet they ask members of the public to learn more about China and they even berate those who have not taken the interest of the country into consideration. Another example is that the Government sold shopping centres in housing estates to the Link Asset Management Limited, resulting in a rental increase. While the Government says that small shops have human touch, it has taken the lead to contract out the management of shopping centres and markets under the Housing Authority. These are hypocritical acts. While the Government asks us to embrace culture and respect history, it impedes conservation. While the authorities talk about conserving Lantau Island, they are in fact destroying the Island. While the authorities blame monster parents for conniving their children, LEUNG Chun-ying is the one who connives his children most. While the authorities say that society should be pluralistic, they have restricted the room of expression and condemned the critical attitudes of young people. Consequently, young people dare not tell the truth.
Based on the above, the Chief Executive, the CPU and the Information Coordinator do not deserve to get paid. I insist that they should pay back what they owe.
I so submit.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I request a headcount.
7986 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
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): Members, please note that in order to allow the movers of the amendments to speak again before this debate ends, the Chairman will call upon public officers to speak at around 7 pm tonight, and then call upon the movers of the amendments to speak again. This debate will end at around 10 am tomorrow. I once again appeal to Members to make good use of the debate time. Members who wish to speak, particularly those who have yet to speak, will please press the "Request to speak" button as early as possible.
Mr IP Kwok-him, please speak.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, it has been quite a long time since I joined the Legislative Council in 1995. Every year, I attach great importance to the scrutiny and passage of the Appropriation Bill. Over the past four to five years, we have seen pan-democratic Members keep filibustering and propose some utterly frivolous amendments to impede the scrutiny of the Appropriation Bills, leaving Honourable colleagues in this Council with no alternative but to do something totally pointless, which is to press buttons to vote on such amendments time after time. This year, they have proposed 2 000-odd amendments. While the President has wisely cut their number to 400-odd, I still find the remaining amendments very frivolous.
Originally I did not intend to speak, because I knew that pan-democratic Members were trying to use the amendments to humiliate the SAR Government and the Chief Executive in this Council. We have seen and heard these things, and we know in our hearts whether or not they are doing this for the good of Hong Kong. Just now, we saw and heard many pan-democratic Members attack the Government in their speeches with all sorts of vicious words, dubious facts and even many fabrications.
The themes of this session are Rule of Law, Governance, Elections and District Administration. Initially, I thought I should just wait for them to finish their speeches, but as we can see, many pan-democratic Members have not only LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7987 made vacuous speeches but also used quorum calls to hinder other Members from speaking or expressing their views. Worse still, whenever a Member criticized the pan-democrats for such meaningless behaviour, they would use a quorum call to interrupt the Member, causing the Member to spend almost an hour on only one speech. These are very …
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
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)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Some Members proposing a large number of amendments have repeatedly said that there needs to be sufficient time for their amendments to be debated. However, I note that these Members have kept requesting headcounts to waste the debate time. They have even chosen to leave or refused to enter the Chamber. In my view, such behaviour on their part exactly indicates that they do not take their amendments seriously, and do not intend to engage in any meaningful debate on their amendments.
I would like to reiterate that on the basis of past experience, the President has set aside sufficient time for Members to speak. Members should stay in the Chamber and make good use of the debate time to express their views on the Bill and the amendments.
Mr IP Kwok-him, please continue with your speech.
7988 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, we are extremely angry that Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has kept using vile and despicable ploys to hinder Members from speaking, and we find such behaviour utterly shameless.
I will now proceed to speak on the seven amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. I hope that he will stop hindering me from speaking. Now that he has proposed the amendments, he should uprightly allow the public to know the contents of his amendments …
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): If a quorum is present, no one can hinder him from speaking.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, it is not your turn to speak now, please sit down. Mr IP Kwok-him, please continue with your speech.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I hope to be able to clearly elaborate on my views so that Hong Kong people will understand how frivolous the contents of Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendments are, and to point out the injustices that his amendments would create in Hong Kong.
A couple of weeks ago, I delivered a speech on the Appropriation Bill 2016 focusing on the concern that Hong Kong might become another Detroit. In view of the contents of the current amendments, if these amendments are really passed, I believe and feel that Hong Kong will truly become a city of sin.
First of all, I wish to talk about Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment which seeks to axe the whole of the annual estimated expenditure of the Correctional Services Department totalling $3,492.74 million. If this amendment is passed, what will happen? Is he trying to enable all prisoners to freely make trouble in Hong Kong society on a continuous basis? Does he intend to make that happen? If this amendment is really passed, we will see that happen. How can we protect the personal safety of Hong Kong people? Can we allow those criminals to go scot-free in Hong Kong society?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7989
In his another amendment, he proposes to reduce the estimated expenditure of the Fire Services Department (FSD) by $5,198.79 million. If this amendment is passed, what will happen? I have in my hand a statement issued by the Hong Kong Fire Services Officers Association, Hong Kong Fire Services Department Ambulance Officers Association, Hong Kong Fire Services Department Staffs General Association, Hong Kong Fire Services Department Ambulancemen's Union, and Hong Kong Fire Services Control Staff's Union. Let me read it out for Members and all Hong Kong people: "The five unions of staff of the FSD strongly oppose the amendments proposed by individual Legislative Council Members in respect of the FSD's estimated expenditure to slash the annual provision for the FSD's operational expenses and personal emoluments, as well as the annual provision for the FSD's replacement and acquisition of new fire appliances, fire vessels, ambulances and fire equipment. If the amendments are passed, the FSD will be unable to operate. This is tantamount to cancelling the FSD's provision of essential services, such as fire fighting, rescue and emergency ambulance services, posing serious threats to people's lives and property." The facts are here. If this amendment is passed, who will come to people's rescue when there are fires? Who will fight fires? How can elderly people get help in case of emergency?
His third amendment seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure on the operation of the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) by $3,289.66 million. What are the consequences of such a reduction in the C&ED's expenditure? As everyone can imagine, sordid activities involving counterfeit goods, smuggling and tax evasion will mushroom in society. In that case, can this society still be governed?
Similarly, he proposes to cut the estimated expenditure of the Immigration Department by $4,235.69 million. If even the Immigration Department cannot operate, bogus refugees will be able to enter and leave Hong Kong freely as Mr TAM Yiu-chung said just now. What would become of our city?
He also proposes to slash the estimated expenditure of the Hong Kong Police Force by $14.344 billion. Our Police are responsible for maintaining law and order. If there are no police officers to maintain order, who can we turn to when there is crime? Also, I have noticed that while some pan-democratic Members have kept reproaching the Police, they needed the Police's assistance 7990 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 when they ran into trouble. But now, he is saying that even the Police should not be granted funding. He is trying to paralyse the Police.
In addition, he proposes to reduce the estimated expenditure of the Government Flying Service by $270 million. What is he up to?
If these amendments are really passed, can Hong Kong still operate? What will become of Hong Kong? This Member actually has the audacity to propose these amendments. I hereby call on Hong Kong people to recognize the truth. Of course, he also knows that these amendments will not be passed, for pro-establishment Members will definitely vote down these amendments. Still, can we accept this kind of malevolence? We must recognize the truth.
Lastly, I must point out a more important fact, which is he actually proposes to slash the total annual estimated expenditure of $1,113.68 million of the Registration and Electoral Office (REO). If that happens, it will be impossible for the upcoming elections to be held, in which case he may say that he has to remain in the Legislative Council because no election is to be held and the REO is completely paralysed. We all know that the Legislative Council Election is scheduled for September, but now he is saying that election needs not be held. Of course, pan-democratic Members may even hope that … If this amendment is passed, it may even be impossible for the Chief Executive election to be held. Despite his verbal denunciations of the Chief Executive, I wonder if he strongly supports the Chief Executive in his heart of hearts.
Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I request a headcount.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7991
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): Four Members who have not spoken in this debate have pressed the "Request to speak" button. They are, in descending order of priority, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WU Chi-wai and Dr Elizabeth QUAT. I will first allow these four Members to speak in that order, and then I will ask the public officers if they wish to speak. Finally, I will call upon the movers of the amendments to speak again.
Ms Starry LEE, please speak.
MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak to oppose the 382 amendments in this debate proposed by the opposition Members. If these amendments are passed, the governance of the Government will be disrupted, and people will be harmed directly. I also strongly condemn some opposition Members who incessantly request headcounts, causing the abortion of meetings. They say one thing and do another. They criticize the Chairman for cutting off the filibuster, disallowing them to have sufficient debate time, yet their actions are telling. They keep requesting headcounts and then immediately leave the Chamber, wasting our time. When they return, they complain about the Chairman not giving them sufficient time to speak on their amendments. If they truly wished to speak in the debate, why did they cause the abortion of last week's meeting? Why did they keep requesting headcounts? Why did they leave the Chamber?
I strongly demand the Members who filibuster crazily to tell the public their real reasons for requesting headcounts and causing the abortion of meetings. They should have the guts to admit what they have done. They should not present some specious arguments to the public. As a matter of fact, their purpose for constantly causing the abortion of meetings is very clear. Chairman, 7992 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 if we can vote on the Appropriation Bill 2016 as scheduled, a fiscal cliff can be avoided; but if meetings are aborted repeatedly, there will be mounting pressure on the voting timetable and the possibility of a fiscal cliff. Hence, the public have to see clearly why these Members keep requesting headcounts and trying to abort the meeting.
After listening to the debate for so long, members of the public come to understand that many Members just want to declare their political stance by proposing amendments. In short, I do not know if most Members who have spoken support all the amendments. Their rationale for supporting or proposing the amendments is to blame the Chief Executive and the principal officials for all problems in society, and because they have not performed their duties properly, their emoluments should be slashed. If one thinks very carefully and maturely, they will come to the following conclusion: Hong Kong society is indeed rife with problems, but if Members simply attribute all problems to the unsatisfactory performance of the Chief Executive, principal officials or certain government departments, they are just declaring a political stance, without analysing the problems in depth. They are irresponsible. If all the amendments are passed, society and people's daily lives will be seriously affected.
I would like to make use of the time to briefly explain to the public the contents of the 382 amendments. As I have just mentioned, apart from the amendments seeking to reduce the emoluments of the Chief Executive, Secretaries of Departments, Directors of Bureaux, Members of the Executive Council and other principal officials, there are other amendments. The Members proposing these amendments have not explained clearly the contents of these amendments or the overall impact on Hong Kong society and the Legislative Council if they are passed. Hence, I hope that people who are listening to this debate will understand clearly why the pro-establishment Members oppose these amendments. Actually we oppose filibustering Members making use of these amendments to obstruct the operation of the Government, causing people to suffer in the end.
Let me cite a few examples. Just now, Mr IP Kwok-him has also mentioned the amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. In Amendment No 27, Mr CHAN seeks to reduce the expenditure of the Audit Commission by $80 million, which is equivalent to six months' estimated expenditure of the Commission. I do not understand why he seeks to reduce the expenditure of the Commission as a reduced amount of expenditure will seriously affect its work. While Mr CHAN keeps talking about monitoring the Government as its LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7993 performance is not satisfactory ― we have to understand that the Audit Commission has conducted many value-for-money audits over the years ― he then proposes an amendment to reduce the expenditure of the Audit Commission, does he truly wish to monitor the Government or is he just highlighting his political inclination, or even trying to achieve his political goal through these amendments? If we fail to negative these amendments, the Government will not be able to function.
Amendment No 33 seeks to reduce the expenditure of the Correctional Services Department (CSD) by $3.4 billion, which is equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure of the CSD. Many Members may ask what will happen if all the expenditure of the CSD are slashed. The consequence is that the CSD will cease operation immediately. Will the dedicated CSD staff now in charge of managing prisons or undertaking correctional and rehabilitation work have to stop working? I call upon all CSD staff and their families to pay close attention. If they only take note of those Members' righteous criticisms against the Government but overlook the contents of their amendments, they may not be aware of the actual impacts on them should we be careless and have not negatived the amendments.
I have to see whether those Members will support all these amendments when they vote. If they support … Actions speak most honestly. If they support all the amendments, it means that they are only concerned about declaring their political stance, without considering the consequences of the impact on society should the expenditures are unfortunately slashed.
The CSD aside, there are amendments seeking to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) to $1,000. This is surely a vicious move. If the C&ED ceases operation, who will deal with the problems of parallel goods and smuggling? Should the situation become chaotic, who should bear responsibility? By then, the opposition camp will come forward and blame the SAR Government for not doing the work properly. Surely they will say that the Chief Executive and the Secretary for Security have not performed well, causing such troubles. They will not blame themselves for proposing to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the C&ED. Can they just evade the responsibility? Hence, I hope that people of Hong Kong would pay attention to the actual contents of speeches delivered during the debate, and do not just focus on the political stances declared by Members in the Chamber.
7994 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
After the C&ED, I will talk about the Fire Services Department (FSD). I do not understand why the opposition Members seek to reduce the annual estimated expenditure of the FSD. In fact, they are only angry with the Police, why do they vent their anger at the FSD? What happens if there is a fire? It really boggles my mind. If family members of civil servants are listening to this debate, I ask them to pay attention. In Amendment No 74, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung seeks to reduce $84 million, which is equivalent to annual estimated expenditure of salaries under the general expenses of the Civil Service. I wonder why he proposes this amendment. When Members speak, they only criticize the accountability officials; yet, they always thank the civil servants for safeguarding Hong Kong and doing practical work. However, it turns out that they say one thing but do another as they propose to reduce the general expense of salaries of the Civil Service. We always say that the blame is not on civil servants, even though they are sometimes rather rigid and fail to keep abreast of the times. We have repeatedly asked them to be more flexible in their work. However, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung now seeks to reduce their salaries for no reason. If we do not oppose his amendment, he will have his way. What will happen to civil servants? I still find it very baffling why he wants to reduce the general expenses of salaries of the Civil Service.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan have proposed amendments to reduce the expenditures of the Immigration Department (ImmD), some of the expenditures are related to the procurement of equipment and facilities. They even wish to reduce the salaries of officers stationed at the Lo Wu Control Point. These officers are discharging their duties properly. Why do Members wish to reduce their salaries? Have they considered the impact of reducing the expenditures of the ImmD? Are they being responsible? They have just now eloquently argued that the Chief Executive should bear the biggest responsibility for "Hong Kong independence", but should that be the reason for supporting these amendments? It seems that they have not explained.
Chairman, apart from the amendments on the ImmD, they have proposed another even more formidable amendment on the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Don't we always talk about upholding the core values of Hong Kong? Clean politics is a very important core value of Hong Kong. That is why Hong Kong people always take pride in the work of the ICAC. Some Members always report to the ICAC whenever they see anything wrong. The ICAC has also helped them hype up a lot of political news. How come they do not even let the ICAC off? Why do they seek to reduce its LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7995 operation expenditure? If the ICAC has its expenditure reduced, will its investigation power be affected? Have they conducted an in-depth study before proposing the amendment?
Next, the amendments on the Information Services Department (ISD). Perhaps they dislike the ISD, thinking that the messages disseminated are not good enough. We are also dissatisfied with the work of the ISD at times as the messages disseminated to the public are not good enough. The public have very high expectations nowadays, and it is true that the online publicity work conducted by the ISD is particularly unsatisfactory. However, what will happen after the salaries of the ISD staff are slashed? If the ISD ceases operation, what will happen to its staff? Is it no longer necessary to inform the public about the work of Government through effective channels? Can the Government's website, GovHK, cease operation? Does the work in other aspects have to stop as well? I do not know. The Government should talk about substantial impacts on the daily lives of the public if the above-mentioned expenditures are all slashed? Honestly, members of the public may not know what we are doing. They think that the filibustering Members only criticize some principal officials. But that is not true. If many of their amendments are passed, the Hong Kong Government will be unable to operate and all people in general will be affected.
There are some amendments related to the Legal Aid Department (LAD). Do we not often hear Members say that the LAD is another target that needs to be safeguarded? Thanks to the LAD, all people can receive equal treatment before the law. But why do they seek to reduce the estimated expenditure of the LAD? Have they ever looked into the impact on the LAD? Many people are now applying for legal aid to pursue justice. Do we not always talk about upholding judicial independence and safeguarding this most important core value of Hong Kong? But the opposition Members now seek to reduce the estimated expenditures of the Department of Justice and the LAD. I can understand why they wish to wield their axe at the Department of Justice but these amendments will also affect the general public. Hence, people now waiting for LAD services have to find out, if the expenditure of the LAD is slashed, does that mean they have to wait longer for legal aid.
May I draw the attention of Members' assistants who are now listening to the debate in this Complex. It turns out that Amendment No 206 seeks to reduce $279 million, an amount to be provided to the Legislative Council Commission for payment to Members to cover expenses on their assistants and office operation expenses reimbursement. Chairman, if we do not negative this 7996 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 amendment but let it pass, I wonder if that means all Members' assistants will not be paid next year. I just learn from the newspaper and some colleagues have also pointed out to me that some time ago, some Members told the Legislative Council Commission that owing to insufficient operating expenses reimbursements, their assistants were underpaid and they wanted to increase the reimbursements. While they said so to the media, they propose an amendment to reduce these reimbursements. Chairman, Members, may I ask Members' assistants who are now listening to my speech in the Legislative Council Complex to find out clearly what is going on.
In respect of pension, the opposition Members may not be happy that some government officials can enjoy pensions. But have they thought about how civil servants who work silently for society under the established system will be affected if their benefits are suddenly slashed or stopped? Is it reasonable for responsible Members to propose this kind of amendments? Should we support them? We must let the general public know how unreasonable these amendments are.
In respect of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC), I understand that some Members have great discontent with the IPCC. I have heard many such views before. But will it further help the Police or help resolve the relevant issues by reducing its expenditures, or they are just using this as an excuse to proclaim their stand? What will happen if the IPCC's expenditure is slashed and its operation is halted, but a new regime has yet to be established and no new funding is provided? Later I will ask the Secretary for Security how they and the public will be affected if such amendments are passed. The public will then have no channel to file complaints. The situation will not be as simple as these Members say, that is, they just wish to take the chance to make a stand, express their great ideas and voice their discontent with the IPCC.
Chairman, the time is short and I have not yet finished. There are some other amendments concerning the Hong Kong Police Force, seeking to reduce some of its annual expenditure. Although the opposition Members may be dissatisfied with the Police, have they considered how law and order in Hong Kong will be affected after the expenses for the equipment, facilities or salaries are slashed? Did they just propose the reduction without thinking? Is a Member's work so simple? Should they make this kind of political stand? Chairman, I hope that people of Hong Kong will understand and consider carefully the real impact of the reduction of these expenditures on society.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7997
There are also amendments on the Government Secretariat and the Office of the Chief Secretary for Administration, but I do not have enough time to talk now. (The buzzer sounded)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms LEE, your speaking time is up.
MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, during the scrutiny of the appropriation of funds in the Budget last week, Members of the pan-democratic camp keep making quorum calls, but they subsequently walked out of the Chamber and deliberately refused to return. Consequently, they got what they wanted as the meeting was aborted. Members have thus lost 10-odd hours of debate time. In my opinion, this well proves that Members who proposed the amendments have no concrete justifications at all, and they are just filibustering for the sake of filibustering.
In fact, the speeches delivered by pan-democratic Members contained no new ideas, and the reasons they cited are the same every year. Simply put, in respect of any items in the Budget not to their liking, they would propose amendments by citing a thousand reasons at will to reduce the funding for various projects. Certainly, their biggest reason is that they are dissatisfied with the performance of the Chief Executive. Thus they will raise all kinds of criticism against him and try by all means to paralyse the operation of the SAR Government. This is in line with their practice of opposing for the sake of opposing. Another reason is that they want to embarrass the Chief Executive through the debate. For example, this year, a Member seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure of the Chief Executive's Office of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to $689, which is obviously aimed at the Chief Executive personally. Certainly, in the wake of the "bag-gate" incident involving the daughter of the Chief Executive, they may now make yet another accusation by confounding the incident with power abuse. While the Airport Authority Hong Kong has explained the incident in detail in its report released on Monday, they, without knowing the truth, continued to resort to sophistry in an attempt to mislead the public. Earlier on, an experienced media professional wrote in her column an article entitled "濫權指控旨在倒梁" (Power abuse accusation aimed to overthrow LEUNG). A thorough analysis was made. The implied message is that the pan-democratic Members want to force LEUNG Chun-ying out of office. It does not matter whether he has really abused his power or exercised his privilege. What matters most is to deliver a judgment before a trial by jumping to the conclusion.
7998 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
However, have the filibustering Members reflected on what they have done? How come filibuster has further intensified to become a norm? Have they disregarded the overall interests of Hong Kong and the interests of Hong Kong people by filibustering? Why do they have to position themselves as the enemy of the people by even seeking to reduce the expenditure of government departments responsible for fire-fighting, rescuing people and maintaining law and social order? In fact, a fire once broke out in the office of one Member. While the cause of the fire remains unknown despite much speculation, the fire was put out without incident, thanks to the firemen. If the fire department is not funded or is underfunded, rescue efforts will be impeded if fire breaks out again. This may not only cost us more public money, but may also cause causalities, which is the last thing that members of the public would wish to see. I am of the view that the filibustering action of Members should be reprimanded by members of the public.
Secretary for Development Paul CHAN also solemnly stated in his speech at the meeting last Wednesday that due to filibustering, the funding for new projects approved by the Legislative Council has drastically reduced from $160 billion and $90 billion in the past two years to $3.6 billion this year, representing a decrease of over 90%. As for …
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, a point of order. No pro-establishment Member is now present in the Chamber, making it impossible for the meeting to continue.
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 Jeffrey LAM, please continue with your speech.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 7999
MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, as soon as I mentioned that we counted on firemen to put out fire, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung called a halt to the meeting. I really thought his office was on fire again and he had to call firemen for help.
Chairman, I mentioned just now that the funding for new projects approved by the Legislative Council has drastically reduced from $160 billion and $90 billion in the past two years to $3.6 billion this year, representing a decrease of over 90%. As for the 60-odd projects proposed in this Legislative Session, only two projects with a total funding of $200 million have been approved. It is evident that filibustering has brought the operation of the whole society to a standstill. The situation can be described as a warhorse stuck deep in mud. If the situation persists, Hong Kong would become a dead horse any time. It is even more ironic for the utterly shameless filibustering Members to seek to reduce the remuneration of Members returned by functional constituencies. Perhaps they should have their wages reduced first because filibustering has cost us so much money and time. More importantly, it is public money and the office hours of Members that have been wasted. The pan-democratic Members actually seek to pass the buck by causing division and attempting to smear Members returned by functional constituencies.
I would like to ask Members: During the recent aborted meetings, are the majority of absentees directly elected Members or Members returned by functional constituencies? Are the majority pro-establishment Members or pan-democratic Members? The answer is perfectly clear. As such, Members who proposed various amendments have made an unnecessary move indeed. They simply sought to cover up their misdeeds. I hope that members of the public will recognize this fact with their discerning eyes.
Pan-democratic Members seek to reduce the annual operating expenditure of the Registration and Electoral Office, making it impossible to hold the Legislative Council election this September and the Chief Executive Election next year. I would like to ask if there is anything more absurd than the amendments in terms of distorting facts and confounding right and wrong. Is it possible that pan-democratic Members, daunted by the challenge from voters in September this year, want to play the "truce card" now in addition to filibustering?
Finally, I hope pan-democratic Members would repent and be saved. Let me advise them: the one who plays with fire will get burnt any time. If anything goes wrong when the Budget is put to vote on 11 May, the operation of the entire 8000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016
Government will be paralysed. Not only will civil servants fail to get their salaries, all public services available to Hong Kong people will also be suspended. Food and water supply to the grassroots and the elderly will even be cut off any time. I hope pan-democratic Members will act sensibly by setting aside their grudges for the sake of public interest.
With these remarks, Chairman, I oppose the amendments.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Actually, the pro-establishment camp does not have to be so agitated, because the President has decided that voting will be conducted on 11 May. This tells Members that regardless of how many amendments we have proposed to the Budget, and no matter how we discuss or express our views on the amendments, voting will still be conducted on 11 May. Therefore, the "fiscal cliff" crisis mentioned by some pro-establishment Members will not arise.
In fact, the President's decision to adopt the current approach is based on his experience in handling Budget debates over the past few years. We do not necessarily agree with his decision, as we think that the present arrangements will further throttle the room for Honourable colleagues to give opinions on various aspects of the Budget. But in any event, under the President's management, the Budget will be put to the vote on 11 May. In the circumstances, individual Members or political parties should make the best use of the limited time to express their respective views on the problems observed by them regarding the Government's policy implementation. This will be all the more beneficial to the governance of society as a whole by the Government.
In this debate session, the Democratic Party has put forward a basic point of view that head 21 should be reduced by $5,359,620, approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure on the Chief Executive's annual emoluments under the Chief Executive's Office. In this debate session, different pan-democratic Members have proposed to cut the expenditure on the Chief Executive's annual emoluments under the Chief Executive's Office. Some people may say that the pan-democrats are antagonistic to the Chief Executive, and so they will criticize and oppose whatever the Chief Executive does, making it very difficult for the Chief Executive to implement policies. Nevertheless, looking back on various problems and having regard to public sentiment, can one say that pan-democratic Members are groundless in criticizing the Chief Executive for what he has done? This is the most realistic consideration.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 8001
I remember most vividly what the Chief Executive said when he was elected. He said that upon completion of the Chief Executive Election, there should no longer be a "TANG camp" or "LEUNG camp", and everyone should jointly build a "Hong Kong camp". Members may still recall that back then, everyone hoped that the current-term Chief Executive … While some people might be dissatisfied with him, they all hoped that he would be politically broad-minded and be able to unite Hong Kong people and all sectors, so that society could steadily progress as a unity. But unfortunately, this has never happened, because all the incidents that have occurred one after another since LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office have caused the public to question the Government's credibility, LEUNG Chun-ying's capability and methods of managing society, and whether he is able to find ways to resolve social conflicts at source.
Chairman, in any place and any society, it is only natural for people to hope that the head of the local government will have the ability to connect all sectors and unite the community. And it is equally important that he has to make every effort to safeguard the credibility of his government because, as we all know, no government can stand without the trust of the people. The Government must not lose its credibility in implementing policies. In the process of exercising public powers, the Government will often face a situation where the interests of some stakeholders are harmed. So, when exercising public powers, the Government must make the community believe that it is acting in the public interest, and that even if some people suffer losses in the process, they are sacrificed for the public interest. However, has the Chief Executive attached importance to his job of safeguarding the Government's credibility? When he is faced with challenges arising from integrity issues, the attitude and approach adopted by him are to evade and shirk responsibility, which reflects that he lacks the political integrity expected of him to the detriment of the governance credibility of the Government. This is precisely the root cause of social grievances that have accumulated over the years.
In this regard, let me first talk about the unauthorized building works saga that unfolded as the Chief Executive came to power. He blamed the problem on others, saying that he was not a building surveyor and so did not knowingly violate the law. Subsequently, he issued a statement to the effect that the glass trellis and grape pergola involved were additional structures built after he moved into the property, and that his earlier claim that they were left behind by the previous occupant was the result of a memory lapse. If he had properly handled the problem much earlier, it could have been just a small matter, and he would 8002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 have been able to restore public confidence in him and to safeguard the integrity of the SAR Government in policy implementation. However, he was unwilling to admit that his integrity was questionable or apologize to the public. Instead, when he explained the matter, he passed the buck to professionals by saying time and again that he had approached other professionals to handle the problems with his mansion. As to the 300-square-foot "Chamber of Secrets", he chose to handle it himself. From this we can see that the attitude adopted by the Chief Executive in dealing with his personal integrity issues is not to shoulder the responsibility he should take, but to merely shift the blame onto others.
Next, let us take a look at the licensing incident involving Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN). On 15 October 2013, the Executive Council, upon completion of the relevant vetting and approval procedures, agreed in principle to grant free television (TV) licences to Fantastic Television Limited and Hong Kong Television Entertainment Company Limited, but the application of HKTVN, which was largely ready and waiting, was rejected. Nonetheless, the Government had never stated beforehand that it would cherry-pick two out of the three applicants. If one looks back on the previous licensing arrangements, one will know that the previous Government considered that Hong Kong society should be able to accommodate more competition so as to allow the public more choices. Yet the Executive Council led by the Chief Executive arrived at the final decision to cherry-pick two out of the three applicants, and the Government did not explain the reasons for refusing to grant a free TV licence to HKTVN. All these are baffling and have raised public doubts.
Under the pressure of public opinion, Gregory SO, the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, and LEUNG Chun-ying both indicated that given the principle of confidentiality of the Executive Council, they were unable to make public the reasons for the refusal. They merely said that the decision was based on a basket of factors, but the public found this explanation totally unacceptable. The incident sparked an outcry in society and prompted 120 000 people to march and besiege the Central Government Offices. It was generally believed that in this policy implementation process, the Government's refusal to grant HKTVN a licence was a decision made by "one single man". Why did the Chief Executive choose to sacrifice Hong Kong people's right to watch TV? Ricky WONG once queried, "Who rules Hong Kong: the law, the policies, or the Chief Executive?"
In fact, what the public demanded was the availability of new TV channels to choose from. Though Asia Television Limited did not survive in the end, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 8003 newly launched ViuTV and the channels taken over by Radio Television Hong Kong have brought new options for audiences. This does not do any harm to society as a whole, does it? We have always hoped to see the emergence of innovation and technology and creative industries in society, but when HKTVN was willing to make investments, how come the Government or "one single man" decided not to grant HKTVN a licence on the pretext of considering market competition? This would only make the public think that the decision was a political judgment rather than one based on proper, credible and procedurally compliant arrangements.
Of course, the most recent example is the airport "bag-gate" incident. Just now many Honourable colleagues said that according to the statements issued by the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) and the Civil Aviation Department (CAD), the handling of the baggage belonging to the Chief Executive's daughter in the incident was in compliance with the rules. However, if we read the relevant reports carefully, we will note some problems that the public is gravely concerned about. First of all, regarding what happened that night, if we read the AAHK's report, we will know what procedures were gone through for the baggage of LEUNG Chun-ying's daughter to be conveyed from outside the restricted area into the restricted area, and finally to her. Were these procedures in conformity with the basic requirements of aviation security screening?
If the incident could be properly handled in accordance with the procedures for the handling of lost and found items as mentioned by the AAHK, how come the AAHK staff refused to handle the problem and passed it on to the airline at that time? If it had all along been possible for the airline to provide customers with a courtesy delivery service, why did the incident drag on for such a long time? What is more, the AAHK's report points out that during the past year, there were 517 lost and found cases that involved courtesy delivery services. But then, if courtesy delivery is a simple and common service, why does the Hong Kong Cabin Crew Federation have such a strong opinion about it? Also, the AAHK states clearly in the paper that it has not laid down any strict restrictions on airlines in respect of such so-called courtesy delivery services. If that is the case, how can the AAHK get a good grasp of the respective courtesy delivery services of so many airlines? What is this if not a loophole in aviation security?
Come to think of it, the nature of the whole incident is actually very simple. In this airport "bag-gate" incident, maybe LEUNG Chun-ying's daughter really had an urgent need to have this piece of baggage delivered to her, and perhaps she did really exercise privilege. Such privilege, whitewashed by the statements 8004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 April 2016 issued by the AAHK and the CAD, has eventually damaged the reputation of the Hong Kong International Airport when it comes to aviation security, and aroused strong dissatisfaction among ground crews and flight attendants because this amounts to disregarding their personal safety or putting them at risk.
Today, we still have an international airport of extremely high standing and repute, but if we do not plug the loophole in question, it is bound to tarnish the reputation of the Hong Kong International Airport. From this perspective, we can understand why Hong Kong people are so angry and so disgusted at LEUNG Chun-ying's administration. At the end of the day, it is his work attitude marked by a false sense of pride, self-righteousness and sheer obstinacy that has caused many problems which could have been easily solved to turn into major political incidents, which underlie the decay of the core values and systems of Hong Kong society. As democratic Members and members of the public who regard Hong Kong as our home, how can we not be concerned and care about the political system that has been operating effectively and credibly in our society? How can we not express our views and speak out when this system decays?
Chairman, in this Budget, as the Democratic Party sees it, although the Financial Secretary has not proposed ways to resolve all the problems from which social conflicts stem, at least he is willing to mend fences with Hong Kong people, acknowledge that different stakeholders including the SAR Government must face up to the problems plaguing Hong Kong society, and identify the root cause of the problems with a view to mending social rifts. He does not want the Hong Kong public to live in resentment. Judging by this attitude alone, LEUNG Chun-ying does not bear comparison with the Financial Secretary at all. This is why I think (The buzzer sounded) that slashing the annual emoluments of the Chief Executive is exactly what we should do. Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WU, your speaking time is up.
SUSPENSION OF MEETING
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9 am tomorrow.
Suspended accordingly at 7.57 pm.