LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019 8273

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 3 April 2019

The Council met at Eleven o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8274 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019

THE HONOURABLE WAI-CHUN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WING-HANG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019 8275

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

DR THE HONOURABLE , B.B.S., J.P.

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWAN-YIU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

THE HONOURABLE CHONG-SHING, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN

8276 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

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

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE MAN-HO

THE HONOURABLE KWOK-WAI

THE HONOURABLE AU NOK-HIN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019 8277

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

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

THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, G.B.M., G.B.S., M.H., J.P. FINANCIAL SECRETARY

THE HONOURABLE MS TERESA CHENG YEUK-WAH, G.B.S., S.C., J.P. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

THE HONOURABLE NICHOLAS W. YANG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY

THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH, J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS

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

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

THE HONOURABLE JOSHUA LAW CHI-KONG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE

THE HONOURABLE JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, S.B.S., P.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

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

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

8278 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019

DR BERNARD CHAN PAK-LI, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

DR CHOI YUK-LIN, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION, AND SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION

THE HONOURABLE PATRICK NIP TAK-KUEN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

MR LIU CHUN-SAN, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT

CLERK IN ATTENDANCE:

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

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING UNDER RULE 8 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS PUT BY MEMBERS.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019 8279

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S QUESTION TIME

PRESIDENT (in ): Members will please remain standing while the Chief Executive enters the Chamber.

(When the Chief Executive entered the Chamber and walked towards the rostrum, a number of Members with placards in hand entered the Chamber and chanted aloud the slogan: "Objection to rendition amendments! Withdraw draconian law!")

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

(Members stopped shouting)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Chief Executive's Question Time.

(A number of Members again chanted aloud the slogan)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If any Member continues to shout, I will immediately order him to withdraw from the Chamber without giving any further warning.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Question Time is conducted in a "short question, short answer" format. Members who wish to ask questions please press the "Request to speak" button. Each Member called upon to ask a question will be given 3 minutes. The time for asking a question should not exceed 1.5 minutes so that the Chief Executive will have time to reply.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Chief Executive, before the reunification, the Government and the legislature of decided not to forge a long-term agreement on surrender of fugitive offenders with the Mainland, in view of of rule of law on the Mainland, its dismal record in protecting basic human rights and the stark difference between the criminal 8280 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019 justice system of Hong Kong and that of the Mainland. Meanwhile, in a bid to reassure public confidence, the leaders of the Communist Party of China made such undertakings as "one country, two systems", "a high degree of autonomy" and "river water does not intrude into well water". Hence, it is with the approval and agreement of both sides that the state of having no agreement can continue to this day. Contrary to your description of this as a "loophole", this is in fact an intentional arrangement. Having served as a government official for years and experienced the transitional period first-hand, you cannot justifiably claim ignorance of this. In this connection, the Hong Kong Bar Association ("HKBA") also issued a press release yesterday with criticisms directed at you.

I have this question. Since there are no loopholes, and the Taiwan authorities have stated clearly that they will not accept the fugitive surrender arrangement currently proposed by the Hong Kong Government, why did you and Secretary John LEE let an entire year go by without engaging Taiwan in discussions on a one-off surrender arrangement, and piggyback instead on the deceased and this tragedy to deceive the public and the family of the deceased? Why are you playing the role of WU San-gui the traitor, taking the initiative to undermine "one country, two systems" and invite "river water" to intrude into "well water"?

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, in respect of the many discussions in the community concerning the relevant amendments to the ordinances on surrender of fugitive offenders recently, Secretary John LEE and I have been patiently giving accounts to the public. The amendments have two objectives, one of which is to provide us with a legal basis to deal with the Taiwan homicide case which involves a Hongkonger being murdered by another Hongkonger. The latter who is suspected of murdering a Hongkonger, however, has returned to Hong Kong. Since there is no legal basis for us to surrender fugitive offenders to Taiwan, we cannot do so even if the Taiwan authorities make a request for surrender of the fugitive offender. But it did not mean that we have done nothing.

Over the past year, we have, through the efforts of our colleagues in the Security Bureau and those in several divisions of the Department of Justice, worked very hard to study under what circumstances and in what ways can such surrender be enabled. Then, we came up with a method that is compliant with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019 8281 the legal requirements and hopefully will work. During the process, it was apparent to all that there is indeed a loophole in our existing laws in dealing with the surrender of fugitive offenders. Regardless, having noted Mr Andrew WAN relaying the remarks of HKBA and accusing us of somewhat misleading just now, I will now explain the meaning of "loopholes".

When talking about "loopholes", we were not claiming ignorance of the certain geographical restrictions built into the legislation pertaining to the surrender of fugitive offenders enacted in April 1997. Still, the situation was unlike the claim made by Mr WAN just now. I have no recollection of any records explaining the drafting of the relevant ordinance in the same way as Mr WAN did just now. In any case, there are indeed some loopholes as far as the present situation is concerned.

By "loopholes", I am referring to the inadequacies in the law that enable some people to avoid something they wish to avoid through lawful means. For instance, a fugitive offender facing extradition can circumvent it through lawful means, because of the geographical restrictions or limitations in case-based surrenders, which render such extradition impossible in practice. Hence, through these legislative amendments, we hope to eliminate the inadequacies or plug those loopholes, so that Hong Kong will not become a haven for fugitives.

DR PIERRE CHAN (in Cantonese): Chief Executive, there has been an unusual outbreak of measles in Hong Kong in recent months. As of yesterday, 40 infections were recorded, some of which being second round infections.

Measles is a highly infectious disease. This time, the virus was apparently imported, showing that there are loopholes in Hong Kong's immigration policy. First of all, I would like to commend the Department of Health, the Centre for Health Protection and Prof YUEN Kwok-yung for their efforts at epidemic prevention. I believe everyone is aware that measles is breaking out in many countries around the world, including Europe and Southeast Asia. Thirty to forty cases have been recorded in Hong Kong, but tens of thousands of cases in those countries. There are 23 000 recorded cases of measles in the Philippines since the beginning of this year, including some 300 deaths.

8282 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019

There are currently several hundred thousand foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong, of which some 200 000 came from the Philippines. Also, many people travel frequently between Hong Kong and the Philippines. Hence, measles infections and outbreaks at the Hong Kong Airport is just a matter of time. I have this question. Will the Government follow the examples of, for example, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, to require people who apply to settle or work in Hong Kong to pass certain medical examinations or make a declaration whether they are suffering from any highly infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis, before granting them entry into Hong Kong, so as to prevent the outbreak of any highly infectious diseases in Hong Kong? If it will, the reasons for that; if not, the reasons for that?

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, first of all, as Mr CHAN has said, under the leadership of Prof Sophia CHAN, the Department of Health and relevant departments have been highly vigilant in handling the measles outbreak and constantly adjusting the strategy. Certainly, I am very grateful to Prof YUEN Kwok-yung of the for coming forward and offering assistance whenever a public health issue breaks out in Hong Kong. Not only did he provide his expert opinions at meetings, he also paid site visits to the airport. I believe we may say that the situation is now under control.

Having said that, Hong Kong is a hub with an extremely high people flow. The Hong Kong Airport handled 74 million passenger trips last year, so such problems are difficult to eliminate completely. Therefore, I do not agree with Dr CHAN's remark just now―if I have not caught it wrong―he used the word "loopholes". He said that there are loopholes in our immigration policy, hence these issues. This argument is not quite tenable. Nevertheless, Dr CHAN's suggestion that more preventive measures can be taken in importing foreign domestic helpers, as they work in households, can be given consideration. In fact, I understand that the Secretary for Labour and Welfare has advised foreign domestic helpers through relevant consul generals to take precautions before arrival in Hong Kong. Thank you, Dr CHAN.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chief Executive, on the coming Sunday, you will visit Tokyo together with the representatives of Guangdong Province and Macao in a joint effort to promote the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019 8283

Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"). This unprecedented joint trip of promotion overseas undertaken by the senior officials of the three places will undoubtedly arouse widespread interest of the international community in the development of the Greater Bay Area. It also demonstrates how Hong Kong can leverage its advantage of "one country, two systems" to promote the development of the Greater Bay Area and the Belt and Road.

While being most confident in the development of the Greater Bay Area and supportive of the initiative, we members of the financial services sector face quite a few problems. For there are three different currencies, three different legal systems, three different customs territories and three different financial regulatory regimes in the region, about which the sector is most concerned. May I ask the Chief Executive whether she will suggest some solutions in respect of the aforementioned concerns of the sector in the Leading Group for the Development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area? Will she propose, for instance, the development of a financial innovation zone where the mode of financial regulation of Hong Kong would apply, or setting up a merchant bank for international development in the Greater Bay Area such that a Renminbi-based capital pool with full convertibility in the Greater Bay Area can be established, thereby enabling the free convertibility and flow of Renminbi, Macao Pataca and Hong Kong dollar in the Greater Bay Area?

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, I am very grateful to Mr CHEUNG for his support for the Greater Bay Area. Indeed, as mentioned by Mr CHEUNG, the promotion of the Greater Bay Area development has now moved beyond our home ground to overseas. In respect of the proposals and issues concerning financial connectivity put forward by Mr CHEUNG, while we will most certainly give them consideration, I can give no specifics here. That said, Mr CHEUNG must recall that one of the key initiatives of the Greater Bay Area development is to promote the flows of people, goods, capital and information. In a recent trip to Conghua in Guangzhou, I learnt that there is another flow―that of horses―in need of promotion, that is, how horses can flow smoothly between two systems in a way that facilitates the horse-racing industry of Hong Kong.

8284 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019

So, the mechanism is in place. For one thing, the objective is clear: we hope to achieve connectivity among and economic growth in the various places under "one country, two systems", three customs territories and systems. The mechanism is in place, as there is the Leading Group for the Development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Leading Group") chaired by Vice Premier HAN Zheng and of which I am a member. And it is obvious to all that the Leading Group is most pragmatic, having held two plenary meetings since August last year with an announcement of measures after each meeting. The last announcement on 1 March concerned eight measures seeking to promote the flows of people and goods. While measures on capital flow have yet been announced, I hope to bring some good news to Mr CHEUNG in future.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please lower your placard as it blocks my view.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please ask your question.

(Mr Gary FAN moved his placard aside but it still blocked the view of the President)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please lower your placard, as it blocks my view on the Members at the back. The placards of other Members, which I allow them to display, are smaller, while yours is particularly large. Please lower it a little.

(Mr Gary FAN lowered his placard)

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, Chief Executive. During her tenure as civil servant spanning 30-odd years, I am sure the Chief Executive must have used many treasury tags like these I have in hand. The only Factory for the Blind in Hong Kong where treasury tags are manufactured now faces redevelopment. Over 200 workers or trainees are set to be affected with the factory relocating from To Kwa Wan to Tuen Mun in the next four or five years. Of the 200 or so trainees or workers in the factory, 55 are employees. After redevelopment, the factory will be relocated from To Kwa Wan to Tuen LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019 8285

Mun, which are very far apart. Many of the 55 employees would probably cease working and thus lose the status of worker. Apart from manufacturing treasury tags, the factory also boasts a sewing section and produces carton boxes. These jobs may also undergo transformation or be eliminated.

I wish to pose this question to the Chief Executive through the President. Whether she has considered with compassion and empathy the long distance that these persons with disabilities―comprising those with intellectual disability, the blind and ex-mental patients―must travel to work in Tuen Mun, which would virtually force them to retire. Is this redevelopment project helping them or robbing them of their basic dignity? What would the Chief Executive do about this?

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, I have visited the service unit mentioned by Dr CHEUNG during my tenure as Director of Social Welfare. Actually, I have all along attached great importance to the employment of persons with special needs and those with disabilities. For I believe their proper integration into society and the nurturing of a spirit of self-reliance in them can hardly be achieved by sole reliance on a social security system. About a month ago, I took the initiative to request Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong to deal with this issue seriously and properly. While I may not be able to give a full answer today, I can tell Members that I will keep an interest in and deal with this issue personally.

I hope Members can appreciate that some redevelopment projects may entail reprovisioning or relocation as Dr CHEUNG described just now. Yet, with mutual respect and accommodation from all sides, or more discussions, a proposal that is satisfactory to all will come up eventually. Previously a case of concern, the Shine Skill Centre (Kwun Tong) has come to the existing arrangement which everyone finds acceptable. While a transient relocation is necessary, the Centre will return with better facilities and better arrangement for employment support. (The buzzer sounded) … Hence, we will deal with this group of blind employees with the same spirit.

(Dr Fernando CHEUNG stood up, intending to raise a supplementary question)

8286 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, your question time is up. If you wish to ask another question, please follow up on other occasions. Please sit down.

Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please ask your question.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Chief Executive, in respect of the Caring and Sharing Scheme under which a subsidy of $4,000 is disbursed, many members of the public have reflected recently that they have yet to receive the relevant acknowledgements after submitting their applications. Since they were told by staff members at the time that acknowledgements would be issued within two weeks upon the reception of applications, they have no idea as to whether their applications were lost or when they will receive the payments. Some members of the public tried making enquiries over the phone. But the hotline was either busy or unanswered.

Chief Executive, since the application deadline of the Scheme is 30 April, some members of the public are fretting over whether their applications have been received by the relevant authorities. If this is indeed the case, will the relevant authorities extend the deadline so that people can resubmit their applications?

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, the disbursement of $4,000 which Dr CHIANG mentioned is a scheme announced in the Budget in 2018 and in implementation now. On the face of it, it has taken a relatively long period of time. Yet, given the enormous number of applications―I remember the number of applications received so far has probably reached over 2 million―requiring processing and the necessity of meeting the basic requirements for using public funds, a mountain of clerical and verification work has been created as a result. I also noted that the unit tasked with processing the applications, a kind of work they used to not deal with routinely, is creaking under the workload and struggles to recruit enough temporary staff. In any case, given the caring and sharing nature of the Scheme, we will not be too rigid as to insisting on drawing a line beyond which fully eligible persons would be denied the opportunity of application.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019 8287

Perhaps the relevant departments, led by the Financial Secretary, can conduct a study on the issue. If the situation is indeed as described by Dr CHIANG, where many people eligible for the Scheme have, for various reasons, yet to submit their applications, we will study what should be done.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Will an extension of the deadline be considered? In the event of a member of the public having submitted an application without receiving the relevant acknowledgement and the relevant department confirming that the application has not been received, how will it be dealt with by the authorities?

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): As I said, please give us some time to study the issue. That said, the spirit of the Scheme goes like this: since it is about caring and sharing, we will not act stingily, still less adopting an attitude of discouraging applications for the sake of minimizing the expenditure. Instead, we will do our best to disburse the $4,000 under the Caring and Sharing Scheme to all eligible members of the public.

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, Chief Executive, I am a resident of the Southern District and chairman of an owners' committee of a major housing development in the District. Many residents have relayed to me that there is so far no concrete proposal on the South Island Line (West) which was set out in the Railway Development Strategy 2014. To my understanding, since the Government and the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") were busy dealing with the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") incident last year, MTRCL was not invited to submit a concrete proposal. Given the development of Cyberport 5 announced in this year's Budget and the imminent redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate, traffic in the District will inevitably get busier and come under increasing strain. To meet the future demand of the community in time, the relevant railway project should commence as soon as possible.

I have this question for the Chief Executive. Will the Government invite MTRCL to submit a proposal on the South Island Line (West) this year? For I understand that procedure-wise, the project would never come to fruition as long as MTRCL is not invited by the Government to submit a proposal. Hence, the South Island Line (West) will be given the opportunity of further studies and 8288 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019 development only if the Government takes the first step by inviting MTRCL to submit a proposal. May I ask the Chief Executive whether such an invitation will be made to MTRCL this year?

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, I believe the question asked by Mr CHAN is a major concern of many Members present, particularly those who serve the District. Since railway is the backbone of the public transportation system of Hong Kong, the public is most keen to learn about the commencement schedules of railway projects.

The South Island Line (West) mentioned by Mr CHAN was one of seven projects set out in the Railway Development Strategy 2014. As a matter of fact, none of these seven projects has reached the stage of implementation or detailed planning. One reason is that, as Mr CHAN pointed out just now, the Transportation and Housing Bureau, myself and MTRCL have indeed been burdened by railway problems since our assumption of office. There is indeed a limit in energy and manpower at any given time. I too find this situation unsatisfactory. Given that the previous batch of five railway projects will be completed shortly with SCL being the last, how to follow it up expeditiously with another batch of railway projects most keenly awaited by the public is a question that warrants a comprehensive evaluation. For that reason, I cannot give a specific answer to Mr CHAN in respect of the South Island Line (West) today. For Members of the North District will presumably have similar aspirations for the Northern Link, ditto those from Tuen Mun on the Tuen Mun South Extension and those representing Tung Chung on the Tung Chung West Extension. Hence, please let us collate the information properly before giving an account to Members altogether.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): President, Chief Executive, according to the latest comments of the Hong Kong Bar Association, the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 does not give further powers to the Court to ensure that the judicial system of the surrender destination complies with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. Hence, once the legislative amendment is enacted, the Chief Executive will become the key gatekeeper, and thus her opinion on the judicial system in Mainland China will become critical.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019 8289

A few days ago, Maria TAM, Vice-chairperson of the Committee for the Basic Law, said that Mainland China is implementing "sunlight justice". But how is it "sunlight"? Human rights lawyer WANG Quanzhang was secretly detained for three years before a closed trial and his family is not allowed to visit him even after the imprisonment sentence was announced. I need not mention the recent "8964 liquor case" of which the four defendants were also detained for three years before standing trial. Some trials have lasted for years without any judgment being handed down. Does the Chief Executive consider the "sunlight justice" in Mainland China is fine and that people can be sent to the Mainland for trial without worries?

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): First, in principle, each jurisdiction has its own unique system and arrangements. It is entirely inappropriate for public officers to comment on the system of other jurisdictions. I remember Mr WAN seems to have mentioned earlier that "river water should not intrude into well water". Then, well water should not intrude into river water, either. In Hong Kong, we act according to law. I believe the Bill will be scrutinized by a Bills Committee to be formed by the Legislative Council upon the First and Second Readings to be moved by Secretary John LEE later today. Detailed discussions on the provisions and the spirit of law will be held in the Bills Committee of the Legislative Council.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I did not intend to intrude into "well water" or "river water" either. However, the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 is breaking the firewall for the surrender of fugitive offenders between Hong Kong and China. Hence, the Chief Executive can no longer evade this key question. Does she agree to the secret detention of suspects for several years before trial under the so-called "sunlight justice" in Mainland China?

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): As I have just said, my colleagues and I, as the Chief Executive, act in accordance with laws enacted by the Legislative Council …

8290 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Since each case will be determined by the Chief Executive, her opinions are crucial. How can she evade this issue?

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): … and Hong Kong is proud of its independent judicial system and independent courts.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Nonsense! Nonsense!

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, this is my last warning to you. If you keep yelling in your seat, I will order you to leave the Chamber.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, please allow me to say a few more words. Legislative Council Members who defame Hong Kong's judicial system, claim that there is no judicial independence in Hong Kong, or call Hong Kong's judicial independence nonsense are letting Hong Kong people down. Hong Kong has established a very solid and independent judicial system since the reunification. If Members have paid attention to the speech by Chief Justice Geoffrey MA at the presentation of his honourary doctorate yesterday, they should ask themselves whether defaming and badmouthing the system in Hong Kong frequently is conducive to …

(A number of Members talked aloud in their seats)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet. This is not a debate. Members should keep quiet and act with decorum.

(Mr James TO stood up and talked aloud)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TO, please sit down. If any Member yells in his seat again or speaks without my permission, I will regard his behaviour as grossly disorderly.

Prof Joseph LEE, please ask your question.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019 8291

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): Chief Executive, I had dinner with a few businessmen last night who do business mostly in the Mainland. They knew that there would be the Chief Executive Question Time today, so they asked me to raise a question on their behalf. They would like to thank and commend you for exempting nine commercial offences from the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") which made them feel safe. But the worst thing is, there are now a lot of voices pointing out that the Bill is problematic and despite the Government's claim that the Bill seeks to plug the loopholes, a former Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions described such arrangements as strange because the Government should have no reasons to exempt these nine offences if it seeks to plug the loopholes. These businessmen are quite worried, now the Government claims to plug the loopholes while possibly listening to views on some issues of principle. The original arrangements were fine as they feel safe after the exemption of these nine offences. But they bade me to ask the Chief Executive whether she can undertake to, first, exempt these nine offences; second, expand the scope of exemption to cover more commercial offences so that they would feel even safer; and third, if the Bill is passed―because there are already enough votes―as it is up to the Chief Executive to initiate the process, not to extradite persons with relevant backgrounds or have business in the Mainland so that they can feel better at ease when doing business?

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): Prof LEE is very good at asking oblique questions by quoting others in dinner gatherings. I remember that he has also asked me questions by quoting a child. As I said just now, Secretary John LEE will move the First and Second Readings of the Bill in about two hours. Then, the Bill will be referred to the Bills Committee for scrutiny. It is the function of the Legislative Council to scrutinize bills, so Prof LEE may make further comments on his first and second questions raised just now during the scrutiny of the Bill. As always, Secretary John LEE will listen to Members' views in a humble and sincere manner.

Nevertheless, the third point raised by Prof LEE has oversimplified the situation. Unlike Prof LEE's description, the truth of the matter is that the Chief Executive does not have the powers to sign the paper and initiative the process as she wishes. Even with the agreement on the surrender of fugitive offenders, the Chief Executive would often have to make the decision based on a thick stack of 8292 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019 files. Many people have done a great deal of work in order to make recommendation to the Chief Executive on what decision to make. These certainly include the investigation departments, as everything is evidence-based, and the Department of Justice, which has various divisions, such as criminal, civil and international law divisions. So, it is not up to me alone to initiate the process arbitrarily.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): The Chief Executive held a press conference on 26 March to report on three issues in one go, namely the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Shatin to Central Link, the decision on the toll adjustment plan for rationalizing traffic among the three cross-harbour tunnels, and the amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. The media were caught unprepared as they were notified of the press conference only two hours in advance. You explained that you wished to give accounts and answer questions in person as the prestige in governance is involved. However, according to many members of the media, the giving of explanations on the three issues in a single press conference would blur the focus, and make it difficult for the public to digest and clearly understand the issues. Moreover, as these three issues have aroused great concerns, some reporters did not get opportunities to ask questions even though the press conference was slightly extended.

Chief Executive, may I ask you if you will consider trying to avoid such "all-in-one" press conference in future, so that members of the media will have sufficient time to raise focused questions and the public can fully understand the latest developments of the issues?

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): I thank Mr MA for giving me an opportunity to make a clarification again because I, too, value the function of the media of monitoring the Government. The media play a very important role in our dissemination of information to the public. As I explained at the beginning of the press conference that day, the reason for this perhaps unprecedented and unusual arrangement was that decisions on these three issues of wide concern in society were endorsed by the Executive Council at the meeting that morning.

I did not mention it at the time, but was later reminded that I was due to leave for an overseas visit the next day. Having weighed the situation, we decided that the Chief Executive would host the press conference, in the company LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 3 April 2019 8293 of relevant Secretaries and other colleagues to answer media questions on the three issues.

The press conference, lasting 2 hours and 15 minutes, was even longer than the delivery of my Policy Address which, as Members all know, covers a way wider scope than these three issues. I think the media would not be caught unprepared because more often than not, the Government would notify the media only an hour in advance, sometimes even without announcing the subject. We would simply inform them that we would meet the press at a certain time in the Government Offices and invite them to it.

The standard of the Hong Kong media is very high, so I think this arrangement poses no difficulty to them. Having said that, I have also heard voices asking me to avoid such arrangement. I will definitely be receptive to the comments and avoid such an arrangement.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Chief Executive's replies to Members' questions come to an end. The Chief Executive now leaves the Chamber. Members will please stand up.

(A number of Members chanted aloud the slogan in their seats: "Withdraw draconian law! Shame on Carrie LAM!")

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

(A number of Members continued to chant aloud the slogan in their seats)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please put down your placard or change to a smaller one to avoid obstructing my view.

ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Chief Executive's Question Time ends now.

Adjourned accordingly at 11:31 am.