LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7741

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 21 March 2019

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

7742 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

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

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7743

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

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

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

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

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

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

7744 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

THE HONOURABLE AU NOK-HIN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN

MEMBERS ABSENT:

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7745

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

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

MR SONNY AU CHI-KWONG, P.D.S.M., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

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

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

7746 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good Morning. Debate on motion with no legislative effect.

Motion on "Reforming the immigration and admission policies".

Members who wish to speak please press the "Request to speak" button.

I call upon Mr Gary FAN to speak and move the motion.

MOTION ON "REFORMING THE IMMIGRATION AND ADMISSION POLICIES"

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that my motion be passed.

President, during the peak season of influenza in January this year, wards of public hospitals were all occupied and frontline health care workers were facing immense work pressure. The situation was so intolerable that they started to make a rallying cry to the Government by requesting the Government to halt the daily quota of 150 One-way Permits ("OWPs"). Some doctors said frankly that if the Government failed to suspend the approval of these OWPs, the addition of resources could never help to resolve the problem of overcrowding in wards.

The rallying cry of health care workers is perhaps a timely reminder to Hong Kong people, which reminds us not to evade the question of immigration policy. We should face the root of the problem squarely. The problem is highly relevant to Hong Kong's population policies. It is because non-local born immigrants are one of the major sources of Hong Kong's population growth. Many Hong Kong people consider that Hong Kong has gone beyond its capacity and therefore it cannot accept non-local population anymore. The public demand the SAR Government to reform its immigration policy so that Hong Kong can regain control of its autonomy in deciding its population policies. Today's debate topic is a timely one. I understand that different people have their own strong views as five Members have put forward their amendments. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to listen and respond to the aspirations of Hong Kong people. President, Hong Kong is like a severely overloaded vessel: the more people it carries, the more likely it will sink.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7747

I have made seven proposals in my original motion. They can be summarized in three major directions: to stop the queue, to take back the vetting and approval power and to combat immigration frauds. I have summed up views proposed by my colleagues, the academia and local groups, as well as reports put forward by the Research Office of the Legislative Council Secretariat in these three directions, with a view to finding a practical and realistic way out for Hong Kong people in its demographic planning.

The first is "to stop the queue". It means that we cannot afford to accept interminable influx of immigrants. The full vetting and approval power is a prerequisite. The problem with the current OWP system is that the entire vetting and approval process is undertaken by public security authorities of various Mainland provinces and municipalities. Except for applicants for the Certificate of Entitlement, the eligibility of all other OWP holders is solely determined by Mainland authorities. Hong Kong is in a passive position as far as accepting them as new immigrants is concerned. Hong Kong has all along lacked an unequivocal index for its population policies, not to mention the full execution capabilities. In addition, Mainland authorities do not require applicants to go through any integrity, medical or financial examination under the Mainland's points system. Therefore, Mainlanders with severe criminal record may emigrate from the Mainland to Hong Kong under the OWP system. In this respect, the Hong Kong SAR has lost totally to the Mainland provinces and municipalities, which can exercise full control on non-local new arrivals and household registration.

The fact that the SAR Government cannot get hold of the vetting and approval power will give rise to corruption and bribery activities of Mainland officials. In 2016, Secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of Hebei Province was found selling OWPs, with a price tag of each OWP at HK$1.5 million to HK$2 million. The Immigration Department announced in September 2018 the cracking down of a criminal syndicate engaging in cross-boundary bogus marriages. The syndicate alone had processed at least 66 bogus marriages and collected from each Mainlander a handling charge of HK$70,000 to HK$100,000. The total amount involved was around RMB5.7 million.

The illicit OWP trade reflects that OWP has become a shortcut for Mainlanders to emigrate to other places without the need of a means test. Besides, under the current system, the authorities need not examine the financial 7748 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 background of the applicants. Since the SAR Government is not going to exercise the vetting and approval power, Mainland criminal syndicates and corrupted officials are taking its place to run this lucrative business. As a result, those who are rich enough to pay the price can get their OWPs faster than law-abiding applicants.

For that reason, the first three proposals in my original motion, including "Hong Kong should exercise the full vetting and approval power". Hong Kong should make it on a par with the dependents system by incorporating the approval conditions on integrity and financial means, so as to prevent illegal intermediaries to gain profits. This will reduce Mainland's demand for OWPs, and gradually reduce the OWP quota from 150 per day by half to 75 and achieve the "stop the queue" effect. The vetting and approval power and the combat on immigration frauds will enable the Government to make adjustment autonomously so that the local capacity can be adjusted to cope with the new arrivals, and then public resources can be distributed according to the principle of "putting Hong Kong people first", with a view to addressing Hong Kong people's needs.

President, in fact, 20 years ago, i.e. 1999, joint signatures of 22 Hong Kong Deputies to the National People's Congress and delegates to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference were presented with a view to requesting the Mainland to allow Hong Kong to take part in the vetting and approval of OWPs. In 2002, the former Chief Executive TUNG Chee-hwa also submitted the request to the Central Government to reduce the OWP quota. For that reason, the aspiration to take back the full vetting and approval power is nothing new at all as there have been precedents already.

Under the current OWP system, the Mainland household registrations of Mainland residents will be nullified after they have settled down in Hong Kong. I propose in paragraph (4) of my original motion that a study on the introduction of a "return mechanism" should be conducted. At present, when legally married couples of cross-boundary marriages find that the life in Hong Kong is not what they have expected after settling down in Hong Kong for some time, or when they have run into troubles such as financial troubles, disparity in age, living conditions or cultural differences, it is most likely that they will be caught in an eternal predicament if a "return mechanism" is not available, and the worse scenario is a domestic tragedy. Even if the couples are divorced, the need to take care of themselves as well as their dependents will impose great financial pressure on them. In particular, the standard of living of those Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7749 residents who lost their public rental housing ("PRH") units will fall drastically, and they will end up in long-term poverty. Their basic rights in life are not protected after their families have broken up.

A "return mechanism" may provide families of cross-boundary marriages with adequate time to consider if Hong Kong is the final destination for their reunion and settling down. A "return mechanism" can allow them to have another option. If a larger portion of families opt to settle down in the Mainland, they will help divert Hong Kong's population. Therefore, a "return mechanism" and the "stop the queue" approach are complementary to each other.

President, as to the vetting and approval power and the combat of immigration frauds, we should play the role as the gatekeeper for Hong Kong's public resources. Let us take subsidized housing as an example. Hong Kong residents doubt that some new arrivals are holding property assets outside Hong Kong but they are also given a PRH flat. Recently, there are media reports that over the past three years, the Housing Department ("HD") has received 50 cases involving PRH residents concealing their ownership of properties outside Hong Kong. Only four cases are successful in prosecution and conviction. The conviction rate is really very low. Mr Stanley WONG, Chairman of the Subsidised Housing Committee of the Hong Kong Housing Authority, has also said that HD had studied the feasibility of vetting the assets of applicants outside Hong Kong, but that had not been put in to practice. He thinks that Mainland and overseas institutions may not be willing to cooperate with the scrutiny. Mr Stanley WONG also thinks that if new arrivals conceal their assets outside Hong Kong deliberately, HD may not be able to find them out and that would become a loophole in the vetting and approval process.

President, in addition to concealment of assets and provision of false information, non-local people have committed immigration frauds through bogus marriages and falsification of documentation in order to obtain the right of abode in Hong Kong and social welfare benefits. From 2013 to 2017, the Immigration Department investigated a total of 2 744 cases of suspected bogus marriages and a total of 5 208 people were arrested, in which 606 were successfully prosecuted and convicted. The Immigration Department has replied to the Legislative Council that most of the non-local people involved in bogus marriages were Mainland residents.

7750 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

President, I also propose in my motion that the vetting and approval of various talent admission schemes should be enhanced, and the corresponding quota should be reviewed. In recent years, an average of about 50 000 people per year are permitted to work and settle down in Hong Kong under various talent admission schemes. Each year, about 3 000 to 4 000 people are granted the right of abode in Hong Kong. A rising trend can be observed from the relevant figures. Besides, as far as the loophole of various talent admission schemes is concerned, some people may use falsified academic and professional qualifications in their job applications.

In 2017, the year before the last, the media revealed that a Mainland immigration consultancy assisted "bogus talents" to come to Hong Kong. In October last year, the Security Bureau replied to a question raised by a Legislative Council Member that from 2014 to September 2018, the Immigration Department investigated 12 applications under the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme. The applicants were suspected to have furnished false information or made false representation. Those applications were all terminated and nine cases were under criminal investigation.

For this reason, I point out from paragraphs (5) to (7) in my motion that the loopholes should be further plugged. As to combating bogus marriages, the Government may step up efforts and draw reference from the practice of the United Kingdom by extending the period for the issue of a Certificate of Registrar of Marriages if the authorities suspect that non-local people are engaging in bogus marriages. This will give government departments more time to conduct investigations, to take enforcement actions and to refuse the marriage applications. As to combating "bogus talents", false academic and concealment of the ownership of assets outside Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Government should establish an inter-departmental task force dedicated to investigation. It aims to participate in the global cooperation on immigration fraud prevention, to step up the efforts in the communication of information and investigation cooperation by conducting strict verification of supporting documents and collecting information of the assets owned by new arrivals outside Hong Kong.

President, at present, Hong Kong is just like a severely overloaded vessel: the more people it carries, the more likely it will sink. As the local capacity of our public services has reached its upper limit due to the population growth, the efforts on "stopping the queue", vetting and combating immigration frauds are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7751 indispensable. We need to get hold of the vetting and approval power, to review the quota, to prevent the abuse of the loopholes by illegal elements, and to make their approval conditions on a par with applicants of different nationalities. Only by doing so can we give genuinely equitable treatment to all immigration applicants from different places of origin. President, I am not sure if Members know that it just so happens that today is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. I understand very well that the discussion on immigration policies will cause controversy, and it is very easy for the public to mix up their discontentment against a policy with that against an official. In the real world, we can hardly draw a line between the policy and the person. But instead of focusing on the person, be it the Government, the Chief Executive, Members or local groups, we should focus our discussions on the policy level.

President, regardless of the extent of openness of a place, it is impossible for a place to accept immigrants from a whole country and the whole world. Even countries emphasizing human rights, such as the European Union, will impose domicile, medical insurance and financial means requirements for family immigrants. For that reason, the formulation of immigration policies will not constitute discrimination. Quite the contrary, the formulation of a population policy which is reasonable and which can meet the local expectation as well as the development needs, will avoid unnecessary social conflicts and hatreds. The objective of reforming the immigration policies is to put a check on the population policy and slow down the rate of population growth so that Hong Kong can have the room to draw up proper long-term planning for the people's livelihood. After all, Hong Kong is like a severely overloaded vessel: the more people it carries, the more likely it will sink.

President, I so submit.

Mr Gary FAN moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That between mid-1997 and end 2017, there had been an annual average entry of 48 300 One-way Permit ('OWP') holders into Hong Kong, giving a cumulative inflow of 990 000 people; moreover, between 2013 and 2017, an annual average of some 53 500 non-local professionals were allowed to work and settle in Hong Kong under three major talent admission schemes; as there have been strong views in the Hong Kong community in recent years, expressing concern that the persistent increase 7752 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

in Hong Kong's population has created a heavy burden on public services and facilities in Hong Kong, and that some of the entrants have committed immigration frauds (including concealing overseas assets, using false identities, forging documents, engaging in bogus marriages) to obtain right of abode and social welfare, this Council urges the SAR Government to reform the immigration and admission policies by adhering to the principle of 'putting Hong Kong people first' and taking into account the local carrying capacity; specific measures include:

(1) establishing a dual vetting and approval mechanism for OWP in accordance with Articles 22 and 154 of the Basic Law and the Immigration Ordinance whereby the SAR Government can exercise the power to vet and approve entry for immigration and taking back the initiative in the policy on OWP, so as to serve properly the gatekeeping role on the population policy of Hong Kong;

(2) striving for reducing OWP quota by half to 75 per day and reviewing the quota for various talent admission schemes, so as to alleviate the burden on public healthcare services, subsidized housing, social welfare and educational resources posed by an increasing number of immigrants and entrants in the future, so that priority can be accorded to meeting the needs of the Hong Kong people in the allocation of public resources in Hong Kong;

(3) reforming the OWP application system to make it on a par with the dependents system of various talent admission schemes by incorporating the approval conditions on financial means, to be complemented by a points system, so as to make early identification and selection of immigrants having long-term means to live at a standard well above the subsistence level to settle in Hong Kong;

(4) negotiating with the relevant departments of Mainland China in respect of the OWP system for a study on the introduction of a 'return mechanism' to allow people coming to Hong Kong on OWPs to temporarily retain their household registration in the Mainland and return to Mainland China for resettlement if they cannot adapt to the life in Hong Kong;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7753

(5) regarding people who are granted the right of abode in Hong Kong through various talent admission schemes and the OWP system, stepping up investigation into their overseas assets if they apply for social welfare and subsidized housing in Hong Kong, so as to plug the loopholes in the existing policy;

(6) stepping up efforts in combating cross-boundary bogus marriages by, among others, drawing reference from the practice of the United Kingdom, extending the period for the issue of a Certificate of Registrar of Marriages if the Registrar of Marriages has reasonable suspicions of non-local people planning to get married in Hong Kong engaging in bogus marriages, so that government departments can have more time to conduct investigations and take enforcement actions to prevent fraudsters from obtaining through bogus marriages the requisite documents to apply for settlement in Hong Kong, and the Immigration Department should compile statistics on the number of bogus marriages in Hong Kong annually; and

(7) stepping up efforts against immigration frauds at the local and international levels by, drawing reference from the practices of the United Kingdom and Australia, establishing an inter-departmental dedicated team to tackle organized immigration crime to carry out, focusing on applications suspected of using false identities, forging documents, making false statements, etc., strict verification of supporting documents, and participating in the global cooperation on immigration fraud prevention."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Gary FAN be passed.

Five Members will move amendments to this motion. This Council will conduct a joint debate on the motion and the amendments.

I will call upon Members who will move the amendments to speak in the following order: Ms Claudia MO, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Steven HO, Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Dr Fernando CHEUNG, but they may not move the amendments at this stage.

7754 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): After Carrie LAM took office as Chief Executive of Hong Kong, I had the opportunity to meet with her alone, face to face, to discuss the issue of One-way Permits ("OWPs"). At the time, she categorically replied: "The relevant policy has been working well. I do not see any need for change." Therefore, if John LEE Ka-chiu says here today that the SAR Government has no intention of changing the OWP scheme, I will not be surprised at all. That is his boss's idea, so he has to parrot it exactly. It seems that the boss's idea is based on Beijing's idea.

Recently, I had a chance―not exactly a chance, but an initiative I took―to ask five countries, namely the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, whether the numbers of Hong Kong people being granted immigration permission to live in those countries over the last five years have indicated a tide of large-scale migration of Hong Kong people. Of course, we can all reckon that the annual immigration quota granted to Hong Kong people by these countries is about 1 000-odd places. I am not suggesting that if 100 000 people submit applications, 8 000 will be granted approval. That is not the case.

Prof CHAN Kin-man has a catchphrase: "Do not yield to force; do not emigrate because of poverty." Many young people say that they want to leave Hong Kong but are unable to do so. On the contrary, a large number of people have immigrated into Hong Kong. In 1997, 30 000 immigrants entered on OWPs from Mainland China, and last year the cumulative figure reached 1 030 000. How can we handle it?

Hong Kong receives 50 000 to 60 000 immigrants from Mainland China every year. As we discuss the issue of immigration now, I hope that Members do not confuse people by saying: "Hong Kong is originally an immigrant society; why should we argue?" The generation preceding our parents were refugees. Being persecuted and criticized for practising petty capitalism, they had no alternative but to leave hearth and home. They were refugees without a choice.

I teach a subject at university. Recently I asked a class of nearly 100 students: "Among the three current major issues in Hong Kong, namely the National Anthem Bill, the amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, and OWPs, which one do you think hits you the hardest and has the most impact on your future? Almost all the students selected the issue of OWPs as their answer, because this issue directly affects them with respect to both education and employment. They see themselves as an oppressed group. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7755

When people holding OWPs arrive in Hong Kong, they also need living space. Leaving aside social welfare issues such as health care, housing and education for the time being, they need living space, which means a need for land. As there is insufficient land, the Government has to spending $600 billion-odd to reclaim land to the east of Lantau Island. Actually, $600 billion-odd will not be sufficient, because land reclamation will not commence until a few years later and the price of sea sand will have changed by then. The whole project will possibly cost more than $1 trillion. The purpose of reclamation is to build public housing for accommodating 1 million future population. If there was no such influx of population, could we be spared the need to reclaim land for an artificial island to the east of Lantau Island and thus be fairer to the taxpayers of Hong Kong?

I would like to talk about a few paradoxical mysteries about OWPs. After all the talk, should immigrants to Hong Kong be subject to assets tests? Assets tests are required in the several countries mentioned earlier. I do not name the official who says it, but the Government's proposition is that they are not immigrants, but people migrating within a country, nor overseas people immigrating to Hong Kong. This is very paradoxical. I know a young man who married a Taiwanese girl. When he applied for his wife's settlement in Hong Kong, the authorities asked searching questions about his family background, and assessed whether he was financially capable of supporting the living of his spouse, whether he has suitable accommodation, and so on, all to be recorded on the forms. However, regrettably, applicants holding OWPs are not required to undergo means and assets tests. Only overseas people are required to do so. But then what about Taiwan? Is Taiwan not said to be a part of China? When fit for purpose, such political lingo describes the applicants holding OWPs as migrants within a country instead of immigrants. When necessary, these people are said to be immigrants, and we are strongly advised not to discriminate against them. But what about Taiwanese people? They are said to be Chinese one moment, and overseas people the next.

Furthermore, nobody would object to family reunion, but now that Hong Kong is out of its depth, what should we do? Many people ask: "Why do they not return to the Greater Bay Area for family reunion?" Every day the Government calls on Hong Kong people to live and work in the Greater Bay Area, so why do they not take the opportunity to get reunited there? Quite the opposite, the Government's another proposition is: "Bear in mind that Hong Kong is now already part of the Greater Bay Area." This is very shameless. On the one hand, the Government encourages Hong Kong people to go to the Greater 7756 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Bay Area, but on the other, it says that the Greater Bay Area already includes Hong Kong, so the suggestion of reunion in the Greater Bay Area is not valid. Is this shameless beyond imagination?

Of course, there is also a situation where Mainlanders have a special need to apply for OWPs to come to Hong Kong or Macao for settlement. At present, those who apply for OWPs to come to Hong Kong for genuine family reunion … I repeat, nobody object to family reunion. According to the official source, one third of the OWP applicants involve Mainland-Hong Kong marriages. If their marriages are based on romantic love, there is no reason why their spouses, no matter male or female, should not be allowed to come to Hong Kong, and that should not be a problem. However, while one third involve marriages, for the remaining two thirds, please state clearly on what grounds they have applied for settlement in Hong Kong. The Government said that some applicants are unsupported elderly people. Why are there suddenly so many elderly people?

Members should understand that, supposing one has successfully applied for the spouse to come to Hong Kong, he/she will apply for his/her parents to come seven years later, and his/her parents can further apply for other children to come seven years later, and those children can submit further applications seven years later. In the past 20 years, 1 030 000 people have come to Hong Kong in such an infinite loop. For the Hong Kong Government, this issue is invisible, unheard of and unspoken about. While there is obviously a big white elephant in the room, everybody brush it aside as if nothing has happened and nothing is worth worrying about. This is absolutely unfair to the people of Hong Kong.

The Hong Kong Government said that there are only 1 000 cases of bogus marriage, which is not a huge figure, and those convicted are only in the hundreds, so there was no need to worry about bogus marriages. Not that there are none, but they are not numerous. It is really … Because you cannot identify them does not mean that they do not exist. A lawyer told me to feel at ease to debate the issue of OWPs, because he was helping many newly arrived women in the district and almost all of those who came for consultation asked about the divorce procedures of Hong Kong. Therefore, we all know in our heart of hearts whether the number of bogus marriages is really as low as described by the Government or just the tip of the iceberg.

If those who have immigrated to Hong Kong on OWPs really cannot get used to the life here and want to go back to the Mainland, I know there are difficulties. Some time ago, we did discuss letting them return to the Mainland LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7757 and resume their household registration. As soon as they left, the Mainland government would cancel their household registration, which is understandable to me, but on the contrary, when they want to return to the Mainland, why should they not be allowed to resume their household registration given that they are compatriots whose blood is thicker than water? There should be more appropriate arrangements in this regard.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the motion moved by Mr Gary FAN today contains many suggestions about the immigration policy, and I most agree with the first suggestion which calls on the SAR Government to establish a dual vetting and approval mechanism for One-way Permits ("OWPs"). At present, Hong Kong has a number of admission schemes allowing people from different places outside Hong Kong to settle in here. The Immigration Department ("ImmD") has the power to vet and approve entry applications in most cases except for OWP. Having no say in the vetting and approval, ImmD can only accept whatever comes to it. As long as approval has been given by the Mainland authorities, an OWP holder must be allowed entry into Hong Kong when he or she comes to Lo Wu Control Point with such permit. Basically, officers of ImmD have no power to raise questions.

In contrast, the overseas family members of Hong Kong people will not automatically be allowed to settle in Hong Kong upon obtaining the documentation from their original places of domicile. They must file an application with ImmD, and then go through its vetting and approval procedures to obtain a dependent visa before they can come to Hong Kong for family reunion. Regarding the overseas family members of Hong Kong people, ImmD not only exercises the vetting and approval power conferred to it under the Immigration Ordinance, but also requires an applicant to meet certain criteria. For example, there should be reasonable proof of the relationship between the applicants and their family members in Hong Kong; the applicants should not have any adverse record; and the Hong Kong family members should have the ability to support their dependents to live at a standard well above the subsistence level in Hong Kong and to provide suitable accommodation.

However, OWP applicants from the Mainland are not required to meet the above criteria. So long as an applicant is the spouse, child or parent of a Hong Kong permanent resident, he or she can file an application in accordance with the system in the Mainland. Under the Mainland system, there is no requirement concerning one's financial means or the submission of a Certificate of No 7758 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Criminal Conviction. We are also well aware that people who have previous records of serious criminal offences are still allowed to file an OWP application for settlement in Hong Kong, and have their applications approved. Basically, the SAR Government has no knowledge about these people at all, and has adopted an indifferent attitude towards the situation. Both being family members of Hong Kong people, these two groups of people only differ in the places they come from―one being Mainland China and the other being overseas. Why can the SAR Government give them unequal treatment?

What is more, as we all know, the vetting and approval process of the Mainland public security authorities has always lacked transparency. As exposed by the local media, there are corrupt Mainland officials selling OWPs for profit, and unlawful elements obtaining the right of abode in Hong Kong through bogus marriage. The reality is that the SAR Government has actually made no attempt to act as the gatekeeper of Hong Kong and has done nothing to control the quota for OWP.

Yesterday when Secretary John LEE came to the Legislative Council to reply to Members' oral questions, he just repeated the words of his predecessor, Mr LAI Tung-kwok, like a tape recorder. Whenever any Member requests the SAR Government to reform the policy on OWP, the Security Bureau will merely cite Article 22(4) of the Basic Law in its response: "OWPs are documents issued by the relevant authorities in the Mainland. The application, approval and issuance of OWPs fall within the remit of the Mainland authorities." Two of the oral questions yesterday are about OWP, and these very words were then repeated twice by the Secretary. Such reply by the Security Bureau is probably, I believe, deemed as a classic which is worth passing down faithfully by Secretary John LEE. However, it is just the same old cliché for those members of the Hong Kong public who earnestly look to the Government to reform OWP system.

In fact, Article 22(4) of the Basic Law does not provide that the number of Mainlanders coming to Hong Kong for settlement cannot be amended, or that the SAR Government is prohibited from exercising the vetting and approval power. A dual vetting and approval mechanism will, on the one hand, enable the Mainland authorities to continue with its vetting and approval of OWP applications―this is not a problem―while on the other hand, Hong Kong can verify if the applications meet our criteria. The vetting and approval by the Mainland is a hurdle, and Hong Kong likewise puts up another hurdle of its own for the vetting and approval of those applications. This is absolutely feasible and legitimate. While the SAR Government is vested with this power under the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7759 law, it has left the power unexercised, and ended up curtailing its own power merely because of its reluctance to exercise this power. Being dilatory and evasive over the years, the Security Bureau has refused to exercise the power it should have had, and turned a deaf ear to the public's demand for a reform. So, does this mean that it gives no regard to Hong Kong people?

President, another benefit from a dual vetting and approval mechanism is that it will enable the SAR Government to collect the applicants' information. As the situation currently stands, the information of OWP applicants is scattered over different Mainland provinces, and it is basically difficult for the SAR Government to collect and analyse such information in advance. Information such as marital status, working experience, income level of OWP holders can only be available to us when they arrive in Hong Kong. If we have a dual vetting and approval mechanism in place, the SAR Government will be able to acquire this kind of information in advance to facilitate our formulation of policies.

Insofar as the OWP quota is concerned, under Article 22(4) of the Basic Law―actually, let us have a careful look at it―the SAR Government absolutely has the constitutional power and duty to make recommendations to the Central Government on the adjustment to the quota. Yesterday when it was my turn to put an oral question to the Secretary in the Legislative Council, I asked him whether the SAR Government had ever executed the power and duty conferred to it under Article 22(4) of the Basic Law over the past 22 years since our reunification with the Mainland. Unfortunately, we failed to hear any positive response from the SAR Government. We are completely unable to get an idea as to whether the SAR Government has ever tried to relay to the Central Authorities that Hong Kong is actually under considerable pressure and an adjustment to the quota is necessary for us. Is it a yes or no? Just one word will suffice. What has the SAR Government relayed to the Central Authorities? What recommendations have been put forward? Are Hong Kong people not entitled to the right to know in this regard at all? What we do not understand is why the SAR Government remains reluctant to face Hong Kong people honestly.

President, I have precisely mentioned in my amendment that the SAR Government should establish a mechanism for communicating with the Central Government, and regularly make public the recommendations it has offered to the Central Authorities. Before making any recommendations, the SAR Government can also conduct consultations, so that the Hong Kong public can at least participate in the relevant discussion. As for adjusting OWP quota, it is a 7760 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 matter of enormous import which should not be done behind closed doors for sure. During the process, the SAR Government should consider the policy needs of Hong Kong, especially whether our public services are overloaded and whether they face enormous pressure. This pressure does not come from any particular group of people but the population growth in our society which naturally results in a proportionate increase in the demand for public services. When public services are inadequate, land resources are limited, and hospitals and schools are lacking for such a large population, should we not contemplate and do the planning by a mathematical approach in a logical and rational manner? During this process, if the Government can consult Hong Kong people and the Legislative Council, and ensure that our population policy is formulated in an open and transparent process, I believe Hong Kong people will definitely be delighted.

Further, in my amendment, I have advocated the establishment of a standing office of population policy to examine various factors affecting population growth in the short and medium term, especially the OWP system, dependents system and various talent admission schemes, with a view to analysing their demand in relation to the allocation of public resources in Hong Kong. In fact, after all these years, I believe, the SAR Government should have got hold of the relevant statistics to enable us to get an idea of what these various people need from Hong Kong when they are here. This is how we can plan for the future. It will not do just to make bare assertions that reclamation is needed because of shortage of land in Hong Kong; construction of hospital is required because of shortage of hospitals; construction of schools is required because of shortage of schools. We should not adopt such a non-scientific and non-rational approach to address the exponential population growth at present.

President, we hope that the SAR Government can set up an office of population policy to make timely recommendations to the Chief Executive on the immigration and admission policies, and more importantly, to assist other departments in adjusting the health care, education, welfare and housing policies of Hong Kong. On the basis of these statistics, this office will also allow the SAR Government to regularly make recommendations to the Central Government on the OWP quota in accordance with the prevailing needs, thus avoiding the overloading of Hong Kong's public services and facilities as a result of a persistent and uncontrollable population increase in the future. Otherwise, whether people who have long settled in Hong Kong, or new immigrants who have just arrived here for settlement will suffer in the end.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7761

If the SAR Government is a responsible government, it should listen to the views voiced by Hong Kong people, and expeditiously implement a reform to formulate a population policy which can strike a balance between the considerations of family reunion and public interests. In this way, new immigrants coming to Hong Kong on OWPs will no longer have to bear the bitter consequence arising from the conflicts between the Mainlanders and Hong Kong people. If there can be a transparent and fair vetting and approval procedure for all new immigrants coming to Hong Kong for settlement in the future, it will allay people's concerns about the Mainland vetting and approval system which allows black-box operations, and will turn out to be conducive to mitigating the antagonism between local residents and new immigrants. If the SAR Government, however, chooses to keep on evading from its responsibilities and turns a blind eye to these problems, I believe they will only get more serious, and it will be all Hong Kong people who will eventually swallow the bitter pill.

I so submit

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, I move to amend today's motion.

Just now, I have listened to the speeches delivered by a number of Members belonging to the opposition camp in the debate on the policy of granting a daily quota of 150 for Mainland residents holding One-way Permits ("OWPs") to come to Hong Kong for permanent settlement. In their speeches, some Members question whether the Government has implemented the Basic Law in every way. Actually, the success of "one country, two systems" has been evident. People all over the world can see, regardless of my personal view, that the Government has yet to fully execute certain provisions of the Basic Law. For example, legislation on Article 23 has yet to be enacted so far. Several Members belonging to the opposition camp have also mentioned just now whether permitting OWP applicants to come to Hong Kong will pose any threat given that they are not required to apply for the Certificate of No Criminal Conviction ("CNCC") before they are granted entry. Regarding this question, we only need to ask the Secretary for Security, who is also present today. He is the most appropriate person to respond to the above question. As a matter of fact, Hong Kong is still the safest city in the world as we are under the protection of the Hong Kong Police.

Of course, the practice of permitting those Mainland residents to come to Hong Kong for permanent settlement without requiring them to apply for CNCCs is deemed an issue of concern by some people. Thus, I re-read the relevant part 7762 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 of Hong Kong's history and found that the Hong Kong Police was the busiest throughout the Occupy Central incident which took place in 2014. The second busiest was the riot broke out in Mong Kok a year later. And among those cases involving wasteful employment of Police, the "Howard LAM incident" is the worst. It seems that all such cases were caused by the Hong Kong people themselves. But anyway, I had better revert to today's motion. We understand that, given the unfavourable political landscape and climate for the time being, conflicts may arise very often in the Government's dealing with livelihood issues. Those manipulative politicians will thus make use of the conflicts to stage many more political attacks to fish for political capital. Well, we do understand that people just take what they need.

Members belonging to the opposition camp have put forward a host of negative factors related to the immigration policy just now, and so we have to state also the positive ones here so that the community can consider both the pros and cons of the matter in order to make a fair judgment. In the olden days, the population was much smaller in Hong Kong as a small city, but such a small city could still manage to develop rapidly and emerge as one of the Four Little Dragons in Asia―I wonder if the Four Little Dragons still exist nowadays. Given its inclusive attitude towards all immigrants (people from the Mainland and all over the world alike) and different cultures as well, Hong Kong had induced a drastic flow of the labour force then and acquired a great deal of technologies and experience that have helped create today's economic miracle. As for those who have immigrated to Hong Kong, they can go to great pains to realize their dreams by working with their own hands and take root here in Hong Kong as long as they are willing to. Therefore, Hong Kong is perceived as a dreamland by a lot of people, including those in the Mainland. This place has witnessed the efforts of a number of Hong Kong people in the past generations, including even LI Ka-shing, whom I think also came here from the Mainland. Many people coming to Hong Kong from the Mainland have built up their families here and given birth to children of the next generation. And among their children, many are the members of the public who are listening to the debate of this Council right now and some may even be among the Members sitting in this Chamber. Hence, my Honourable colleagues, neither should we forget how those who came to Hong Kong from the Mainland have contributed to building today's Hong Kong nor attempt to manipulate today's motion for making unreasonable accusations to incite social hatred and discrimination against the new arrivals.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7763

Some Members have included in their amendments the requirement of means test to restrict Hong Kong people's family members living on the Mainland to come here for family reunion, but they should not have done so in fact. Such a requirement will affect those retired Hong Kong people who do not have sufficient means to apply for permission to have their children living on the Mainland come here for family reunion and to take care of their retired parents. We should not deprive these elderly people of the right to family reunion, having regard that they have contributed to Hong Kong and wish to have the company of their loved ones in their twilight years.

Perhaps you will say that this is the story of the past generation. Very well then, let us look at the present situation in Hong Kong. No matter how the opposition or self-determination camps refuse to recognize or even accept the Mainland, they just can neither block the frequent exchanges between Hong Kong and the Mainland. Nor can they stop the continuous upward trend in the number of people working and studying across the border. Some study shows that in the last two decades, the number of Hong Kong people and Mainland people involved in cross-boundary marriages was nearly 1 million, where the cumulative number of marriages has exceeded 480 000, equivalent to 20% of the current number of households in Hong Kong. According to the information provided by the Census and Statistics Department, the number of cross-boundary marriages between the two places accounts for 35% of the 50 000 marriages registered in Hong Kong in 2016 alone. Therefore, it is necessary to allow the family members of these Hong Kong people to come to Hong Kong in an orderly manner for family reunion. In fact, the OWP system has been relatively acceptable to both our generation and the past generation.

It is a reality that the population of Hong Kong will keep growing for some while in the future. Although some government reports indicate that the population of Hong Kong will slowly fall back when it reaches its peak at some 8 million, it has yet to be confirmed with members of the public by the Government. But still, this provides no grounds for us to accuse any particular social group of consuming our resources because they are indeed Hong Kong people as long as they enter Hong Kong legally, no matter whether they are new arrivals or those who come to Hong Kong under talent admission schemes. Inevitably, they will have an impact on the demographic structure of Hong Kong and cause changes in the demand for various services after they have moved to Hong Kong for settlement. This being an objective truth, the Government should take corresponding actions and update its planning for provision of public services as early as possible, while Members of this Council should not 7764 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 unjustifiably criticize and stage attacks against a certain group of people. This is the second time I say these words all because they already spent the whole day criticizing and staging attacks yesterday. That explains why here is the motion targeting the new arrivals and overstating their demand for local public services to provoke social conflicts and mislead certain members of the public into targeting their attacks at the new arrivals. It is neither scientific nor fair.

There are also data showing that the participation rate of new arrivals in the labour market is 50%, which is the same as that of the overall population in Hong Kong. Moreover, there is a tendency in which the jobs they engaged in are gradually becoming more professional. For example, the percentage of the new arrivals having lived in Hong Kong for less than seven years working as managers and administrators/professionals/associate professionals rose from 13.2% in 2011 to 17.9% in 2016.

On health care front, new arrivals using public health care services are often referred to as being not so young, but as of 2016, new arrivals aged 45 or above accounted for only 0.48% of the total population of Hong Kong, which is utterly too insignificant to "overwhelm" our health care services. In fact, the real cause for the inadequate provision of health care services lies in the rapid ageing of our population. To respond appropriately to society's demand for public health care services under the pressure of the surge in demand for health care services prompted by an ageing population, the Government must adopt multi-pronged measures, including relaxing relevant restrictions in order to attract more overseas doctors to come to Hong Kong to provide service. We have discussed the issue of health care manpower earlier, and we all know that there are only 10 doctors recruited to Hong Kong from abroad, whereas there are more than 3 000 in Singapore. Hong Kong does not have sufficient health care manpower due to the excessive restrictions/protective measures imposed on the health care sector under our policies. I do not mean that doctors and nurses are not working hard enough, and even if the SAR Government gives them a pay rise of 8%, the problem of manpower shortage will still remain unresolved. I certainly have no objection to giving them a pay rise, however.

As regards social welfare, the Government must also render help to the new arrivals and those coming to Hong Kong from all over the world when required. We should also provide assistance to anyone in need. The new arrivals, though poor, are self-reliant people indeed. As pointed out by the Commission on Poverty in the Hong Kong Poverty Situation Report 2016 ("the Report") issued by the Commission on Poverty, 67% of the new arrivals are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7765 employed and are working people who do not abuse the resources available under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") Scheme. The Report also states that the new-arrival households accounted for about 26% of the CSSA recipient households, which is lower than either the 32% of the poor households with children or the 62% of the single-parent poor households in Hong Kong.

In the light that Members are actually concerned with the burden on public resources, let us first find out who should be held accountable for this, although doing so is quite political in nature. In fact, a lot of political parties filed for judicial reviews in respect of numerous cases, such as the NG Ka-ling case in 1999 and the CHONG Fung-yuen case in 2001. Members may still recall that with the concerted efforts of the opposition camp and the proactive support from the core figures of the Civic Party in those days, the Court finally handed down the orders that the applicants' appeals of both cases be allowed. More than 1.6 million of children born on the Mainland to China-Hong Kong marriages became eligible to come to Hong Kong for settlement following the successful appeal filed for the NG Ka-ling case. At last, the Government had to―they opposed though―seek interpretation from the NPCSC to resolve the crisis. As regards the CHONG Fung-yuen case, it gave rise to the problem of influx of doubly non-permanent resident ("DNR") pregnant women to Hong Kong to give birth back then. Over 170 000 babies born to DNR women were granted right of abode in Hong Kong between 2001 and 2011, thus affecting the delivery of local health care and social welfare services. Given the above, if you ask: Why has Hong Kong's population increased so sharply and rapidly that shortfall of public services are caused? Well, it is precisely due to the "success" of the aforesaid two cases. Strangely enough, however, the opposition camp, which plays the dual role of principal culprit and accomplice, now makes a U-turn to accuse the new arrivals from the Mainland of having added to the heavy burden on our society.

Another point of concern revealed in the motion has something to do with combating bogus marriage. As far as I know, the Immigration Department has been quite stringent in dealing with cases of China-Hong Kong marriage, including refusing to let any doubtful visitor holding a Two-way Permit with "visiting relative" exit endorsement enter Hong Kong. Even a Mainland resident who has come to Hong Kong for settlement after marrying a Hong Kong citizen may also be repatriated to the Mainland upon being reported and found to have contracted a bogus marriage which has been proved true. Moreover, that married person's legal status of permanent resident of Hong Kong will be revoked immediately no matter whether he or she holds a permanent identity card of Hong 7766 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Kong or not. The Immigration Department may exercise such power to revoke the status of the person having contracted a bogus marriage, regardless of his or her length of residence in Hong Kong. Even if the person in question is already 90 years old, his or her status of permanent resident of Hong Kong can still be revoked right before death. The problem of bogus marriage do exist here and I hope the Government can step up law enforcement actions in this regard.

Finally, I hope Members will treat all new arrivals, including those from the Mainland and other overseas countries, in a fair and just manner. Only by doing so can a more glorious future be created for Hong Kong.

I so submit, President.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the subject under discussion today is how to control the number of One-way Permit ("OWP") entrants. OWP entrants have led to many livelihood issues, including health care, education, housing, social welfare and even employment opportunities. Local residents hold that new immigrants have used their daily services. This has led to many regrettable incidents of discrimination. For instance, new immigrants are being called "locusts". People who call new immigrants by this name think that the latter come to Hong Kong to rob their resources. This is obviously an act of discrimination.

Is there anyone in Hong Kong whose forefathers were not an immigrant? When discrimination comes to an extreme, people like TAM Hoi-pong will come to the fore. In his articles, TAM says that even the young immigrants will use Hong Kong's medical resources when they grow old. Mr Steven HO cited some figures just now to show that the overwhelming demands for health care services may not necessarily come from new immigrants. At present, over half of the hospital beds are occupied by elderly people. But elderly people only account for a tiny fraction of the new immigrants. Most of them are women and children. How can they overload our health care system? This view is fundamentally unscientific.

According to people like TAM Hoi-pong, new immigrants will become old and they will also use the health care services in Hong Kong, thus making them also a burden to our health care services. If their view is established, somehow I am also a new immigrant, or rather, I am an immigrant. I was born in Macao and came to Hong Kong at about the age of seven. I took up many jobs in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7767 helping immigrants because I went on to study and work in the United States when I grew up. I became their immigrant and my work was to help new immigrants.

Many Chinese who emigrated to the United States from the Mainland, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam and other places are discriminated by the locals. They have difficulties in integrating into the local cultures. Americans think that Chinese people are dirty and the most disorganized places are China Towns. In their opinion, Chinese people do not follow any rules when they park or drive; and Chinese food is an eyesore because cooked chickens and ducks are hanged up everywhere. I have come across many cases in which the immigrants could not get along with the locals due to cultural differences. I fought for basic rights and interests, as well as equality for ethnic Chinese, Asian people and ethnic minorities in the United States. Upon returning to Hong Kong, I find discrimination against new immigrants is serious. They are all Hong Kong people, but those who came from the Mainland are always treated as an inferior. If they go to the United States, they may also be treated as an inferior. The whole thing is absurd.

How should we get along with the new immigrants? The situation in Hong Kong is rather complicated. We not only have to deal with the OWP entrants, but also the power and autocracy coming from the Mainland. Under this autocracy, Hong Kong people … I regard myself as a Hongkonger … feel oppressed and threatened, and the cultures in Hong Kong are under threat. It is because we are not only facing the vulnerable immigrants from the Mainland, but also the power of the regime or the whole country.

Our Cantonese language may be forced to "disappear"; and no effort is made to control the 70-odd million tourists who have completely messed up our community life. When we go out, different transport modes are full of people. When we are on the street, we jostle with tourists and their wheeled suitcases. The situations in many districts are disastrous, especially in the North District. We have completely lost our way of life. When we go shopping, the products we used to buy have changed and the prices have gone up. At the time of the baby boom of doubly non-permanent residents, local children could hardly find a school place to study; and pregnant mothers could hardly find a place in the maternity wards of public hospitals to give birth. All these habits and practices in our daily life have been affected by people from the Mainland. We feel that new immigrants have seriously affected, or even controlled, our life, and thus we loathe them. I can sympathize with this feeling.

7768 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

I live in the Southern District of Hong Kong. The shopping malls in our district are gradually turning into places for promotional sales events. There may even be a new hotel in the district. Many new developments are tailored for Mainland tourists. Many of my neighbours are speaking Putonghua. All these changes may brew hatred against the new immigrants.

But I am afraid we have mixed up something. The problems in front of us are not created by OWP entrants. We have to be clear about one thing. These people should be family members of Hongkongers. Which walk of life do cross-boundary marriages take place? These marriages mainly take place among the grass roots. They do not threaten our politics, legal system and culture. They are actually vulnerable people. A typical new immigrant is often a grass-roots woman who probably comes to Hong Kong to take care of her husband and raise her children, or even to take care of the parents of her husband. These women are often willing to work hard and take up tough jobs in society. They may even be the main financial support of the family. So, they are in a difficult situation.

But then, why do we have so many livelihood inadequacies? According to Mr Steven HO, this is caused by the opposition camp. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Is the rapidly ageing population, which has led to an overloaded health care system, something unpredictable, or something that happens all of a sudden? What has this Government done so far? The Government slashed the health care expenditures in 2002 and reduced some 800 nurses, hundreds of environmental hygiene staff and 98 doctors. It also cut training. Between 2003 and 2010, hospital beds were reduced from 29 539 beds to 26 872 beds in 2009. To date, the hospitals are still unable to increase their beds back to their past level. No hospital was built from 2000 to 2012. The Government slashed school places in the years after 2003. I taught at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. That is why I know. This is entirely a planning blunder of the Government (The buzzer sounded) … Hence, we should not blame the new immigrants …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, please stop.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kwok-fan, please speak … Sorry, it should be the time for the Secretary for Security to speak.

Secretary for Security, please speak. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7769

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, it is stipulated in Article 22(4) of the Basic Law that "For entry into the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ('HKSAR'), people from other parts of China must apply for approval. Among them, the number of persons who enter the Region for the purpose of settlement shall be determined by the competent authorities of the Central People's Government after consulting the government of the Region." The provisions of this Article, in accordance with the interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in 1999, mean that Mainland residents "who wish to enter the HKSAR for whatever reason, must apply to the relevant authorities of their residential districts for approval in accordance with the relevant national laws and administrative regulations, and must hold valid documents issued by the relevant authorities before they can enter the HKSAR." Mainland residents who wish to settle in Hong Kong for family reunion must apply for One-way Permits ("OWPs") (i.e. Permits for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao) from the exit and entry administration offices of the public security authority at the places of their household registration on the Mainland.

The OWP scheme allows Mainland residents to come to Hong Kong for family reunion in an orderly manner through approval by the Mainland authorities in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Mainland. OWPs are documents issued by relevant authorities in the Mainland. The application, approval and issuance of OWPs fall within the remit of the Mainland authorities. Under this framework, the Mainland authorities have since May 1997 implemented a point-based system with the eligibility points announced through the Internet, setting out open and transparent criteria for the OWP scheme to objectively assess the eligibility and priority of applicants. The public security authorities of some provinces and municipalities publish the names of OWP applicants under certain categories whose approval procedures are completed, and allow applicants to check the status of their applications online. Mainland residents who meet the eligibility criteria laid down by the Mainland authorities may apply to come to settle in Hong Kong. Those criteria are related to the age of the applicants or period of separation from family members in Hong Kong. They are objective and transparent, and connected with the purpose of family reunion.

In the processing of OWP applications by the Mainland authorities, the Immigration Department ("ImmD") facilitates at case level, including rendering assistance in verifying the supporting documents submitted by the applicants and 7770 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 their claimed relationship with relatives in Hong Kong (e.g. husband and wife, parent and child) when necessary. If a case is found to be suspicious or when factual discrepancies are identified, ImmD will inform the Mainland authorities and will request the applicant to provide further documentary proofs. ImmD will also help the Mainland authorities investigate the cases involving obtaining OWPs by illegal means. Taking OWP applications under the category of "reunion with spouses" as an example, in case the husband-and-wife relationship is doubtful, the Mainland authorities will pass the particulars of the applicants and their spouses in Hong Kong to ImmD for verification of the personal particulars of the Hong Kong residents, the certificates of registration of marriage in Hong Kong or other relevant records. ImmD will notify the Mainland authorities of the verification results for their follow-up actions.

Cross-boundary marriages now make up about one third of locally registered marriages. There is no sign of decline in trend in the long run. At present, the Mainland spouses are still required to wait for at least four years before becoming eligible to come to stay in Hong Kong. As such, there is a continued need for the OWP scheme to allow separated spouses and their children born in the Mainland to come to Hong Kong for family reunion. There are different views in the community on the 150 daily quota for OWPs, including views for maintaining or reducing the quota. Some of the views include advocating family reunion and demanding early settlement of Mainland family members of Hong Kong residents in Hong Kong.

The HKSAR Government exchanges views with the Mainland authorities from time to time on the views of various sectors of society concerning Mainland residents coming to Hong Kong for family reunion. In fact, having considered suggestions from the HKSAR Government and various sectors of society, the Mainland authorities have adjusted and refined the OWP scheme. For example, since 2003, the Mainland authorities have relaxed the age limit for OWP applications of accompanying children of separated spouses from 14 to 18, and removed the restriction that only one accompanying child was allowed; and in 2011, the scheme to allow Mainland overage children of Hong Kong residents to apply for OWPs to settle in Hong Kong in an orderly manner was implemented, allowing these children to join their parents here.

We have no intention of changing the operation of the existing OWP scheme. The HKSAR Government always attached great importance to the views of various sectors in society concerning Mainland residents coming to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7771

Hong Kong. We will keep a close watch on the usage of OWP quota, and continue to exchange views with the Mainland authorities on matters related to OWPs, having regard to the overall interests of the community.

Mr Gary FAN's original motion and the amendments of Mr Alvin YEUNG and Mr CHU Hoi-dick request to make the OWP application system on a par with the immigration policy on entry of dependants by incorporating the approval conditions on financial means, to be complemented by a points system, so as to make early identification and selection of Mainland residents having long-term means to live at a standard well above the subsistence level to settle in Hong Kong. I must take this opportunity to clarify that the immigration policy on entry of dependants to Hong Kong is not a family reunion policy. Instead, it allows those who are able to provide care and financial support to their dependants to sponsor their non-local dependants to come to reside in Hong Kong. The policy also ensures that Hong Kong will continue to attract and retain people with the right talent and skills to come to and remain in Hong Kong by giving them the choice of bringing in their non-local dependants to live with them in Hong Kong. On the other hand, the policy objective of the OWP scheme is to allow Mainland residents to come to Hong Kong for family reunion in an orderly manner. Incorporation of a means test into the OWP scheme would not serve the purpose of family reunion, but is tantamount to re-designing the scheme to carry out selection based on economic conditions, so that affluent family members in the Mainland can come to Hong Kong first, leaving the others to wait a long time before coming. This is not in line with the policy objective of family reunion. The immigration policy on entry of dependants differs from the OWP scheme in terms of policy objective and eligibility criteria, so the two should not be conflated, nor should the latter take its cue from the former.

Mr Gary FAN's original motion has also mentioned that quite a number of talents and professionals from all over the world come to Hong Kong for work or residence. At present, the HKSAR Government has put in place a number of admission schemes for talents and professionals, which facilitate the admission and stay of many expatriates for their career development in Hong Kong. These admission schemes include the General Employment Policy, the Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals, the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme ("QMAS"), the Immigration Arrangement for Non-local Graduates, the Admission Scheme for the Second Generation of Chinese Hong Kong Permanent Residents and the Technology Talent Admission Scheme ("TechTAS"). While 7772 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 there is an annual quota of 1 000 under QMAS and TechTAS, the remaining admission schemes for talents and professionals are market-driven and quota-free. All the talents and professionals who come to Hong Kong under various admission schemes have a good education background, good technical qualifications or proven professional abilities, or are already employed locally, or will establish or have established a business of a reasonable size in Hong Kong. They have sufficient financial means and are able to meet the living expenses for their own and dependants' maintenance and accommodation without recourse to public funds during the stay in Hong Kong of themselves and their dependants. On the contrary, the arrival and stay for career development of these talents and professionals from outside Hong Kong will help to build up Hong Kong's human capital in response to the population challenges of an ageing population and a dwindling workforce.

Mr Gary FAN's original motion also calls for stepping up efforts in combating cross-boundary bogus marriages. In fact, the HKSAR Government has always been concerned about bogus marriages. ImmD set up a special task force in 2006 to step up enforcement actions to combat such offences to prevent persons seeking entry into Hong Kong by means of bogus marriages and intermediaries aiding others to seek entry into Hong Kong through such means. ImmD has a mechanism for handling cases of obtaining OWPs by fraudulent means. ImmD will also initiate investigation into doubtful marriages, collect evidence from various sources and through different channels in order to investigate thoroughly the parties to suspected bogus marriage cases and the intermediaries involved. The relevant persons will be prosecuted when there is sufficient evidence. Once a case is substantiated, ImmD can declare the invalidation of a person's Hong Kong Identity Card, regardless of whether that person is a holder of Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card or has settled in Hong Kong for less than seven years and has divorced his/her Hong Kong permanent resident spouse. In addition, regardless of his/her years of residence in Hong Kong, ImmD has the authority to remove him/her from Hong Kong.

President, please allow me to listen to Members' speeches before responding.

Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7773

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, today we discuss the motion on "Reforming the immigration and admission policies". I have read the original motion and its amendments and consider the current motion more rational than what we have seen previously. While I may not agree with some of the views in the motion, the motion debate provides us with an occasion for discussion anyway.

Social problems of various sorts have emerged in Hong Kong in recent years, and they are rooted in the inadequacy and uneven distribution of resources. Many people and Members of this Council, however, simply blame the new arrivals from Mainland China for snatching Hong Kong's resources and thus making the latter a target for criticism. Is this the best way to resolve the problems? We have heard a lot of voices and views asking for an overhaul of the existing One-way Permit ("OWP") scheme. Provided that it conforms to the Basic Law framework and does not conflict with the initial OWP objective to facilitate family reunion, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong agrees to examine different ways to take forward the measure and explore for better implementation.

However, I must emphasize that OWP has certainly been demonized by the community, and by the opposition Members in the Chamber. Many believe in two major myths about OWP. The first, often quoted by the opposition Members, is that the OWP measure is introduced to allow the Central Authorities to send 150 people to Hong Kong daily, as a population replacement exercise aiming to turn Hong Kong red. Actually, the OWP scheme originates from an agreement between the British Hong Kong Government and the Mainland in the 1980s, under which a certain daily quota of persons is allowed to apply for settlement in Hong Kong. These Mainland applicants must be spouses, children, or parents of Hong Kong persons. In some rare cases, they can be unsupported elderly people. In other words, Hong Kong people apply for the settlement of Mainlanders in Hong Kong for family reunion. Hence, the new arrivals are not chosen by the Central Authorities; they are the spouses chosen by Hong Kong people, and their children. None of them are selected by the Central Authorities. After the reunification, the OWP scheme has become even more transparent. It is now based on a point-based system, under which about five points will be awarded to a four-year marriage, and a Mainlander can only come to Hong Kong on crossing a certain threshold of points. It is definitely not the case as described by some media that the Central Authorities send 150 people to Hong Kong daily in order to turn Hong Kong red.

7774 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

The second myth is that the new arrivals will do nothing but snatch public rental housing ("PRH") units and cheat for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA"). With tens of thousands of people arriving every year, we need tens of thousands of PRH units to house them. In fact, if and when the new arrivals apply for PRH units, they will be required to go through means tests and assets tests, just like many other Hong Kong people. Of course, whether they have reported their assets in the Mainland or overseas is another issue to be discussed. Many Members have experience in handling PRH application cases and they would know that an applicant household should have at least half of its members being permanent residents in Hong Kong, who have been living here for seven years or more. Honestly, it is inaccurate to say that tens of thousands of new arrivals will need tens of thousands of PRH units. The Hong Kong spouse of a new arrival, who is indeed a Hong Kong resident, also has his or her own housing needs. Upon settling in Hong Kong, a new arrival lives with his or her spouse in the same housing unit, a unit which the new arrival, as the spouse of a Hong Kong person, is entitled to live. As such, have the new arrivals actually created needs for more housing units? Of course, I will not argue with people who say new arrivals bring about a larger housing demand in terms of living space.

The new arrivals from the Mainland nowadays are very different from those who came to Hong Kong 10 or 20 years ago, in terms of their age, education background or assets. They are younger, more professional and own more assets. Even if they are poor after settling in Hong Kong, many of them are self-reliant and may not live on CSSA. The "Hong Kong Poverty Situation Report 2017" indicates that only about a quarter of the 23 000 poor new-arrival households receive CSSA. And even if we change CSSA's minimum residence requirement from seven years to one year, it makes little impact on the actual figure. I may not agree to lowering the minimum residence requirement from seven years to one year, but it is important to ask: Who supported relaxing residence requirement from seven years to one year back then? These people are in fact Jekyll and Hydes.

Some colleagues said just now the increasing number of new arrivals had brought pressure on health care and housing. But back then, core members of the Civic Party handled the NG Ka-ling case, CHONG Fung-yuen case, and even the case on the right of abode of foreign domestic helpers in 2001: cases which could possibly bring huge population pressure onto Hong Kong. We have fortunately been saved by the interpretation of the Basic Law; otherwise, persons born locally to parents who are not Hong Kong permanent residents, the doubly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7775 non-permanent resident children similar to the case of CHONG Fung-yuen, can come and settle in Hong Kong. The total number of this type of people is certainly sizable. Among those who participated in the signature campaign to petition for anti-discrimination, anti-exclusion and respect for the right of family reunion in 2014 were colleagues from the opposition camp. Many of them are also present in the Chamber today, including Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, and so on. Basically, all members of the Democratic Party and the Civic Party joined that signature campaign. I have more respect for Dr Fernando CHEUNG, as what he said in his speech is basically consistent with the petition he signed back then. But I would like to ask Members on the other side: How many of them are courageous enough to remain committed to the values they recognize and dare to continue expressing those views?

What I want to say is that I hope we can be more practical. My speaking time is limited, and seven minutes are definitely too short for me to refute their specious arguments. I want to say that many problems have emerged and the OWP scheme certainly needs improvement, such as introducing a return mechanism and stepping up inspection. We agree with all these suggestions. But now as the opposition Members discriminate against the dependents system, I would like to ask if they would like to revamp the dependents system to make it on a par with the OWP scheme, so that the amount of assets owned by applicants cannot determine their arrival timing and that all applicants must wait for their turn? If the dependents system will be revamped to model on the OWP scheme under which applicants have to wait four years before coming to Hong Kong, would the opposition Members pursue such a revamp? Alternatively, do they agree to revamp the OWP scheme with reference to the dependents system, allowing whoever is rich to come to Hong Kong so that there may be more than 150 people arriving in a day?

President, I so submit.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, I totally disagree with the contents of the motion raised by Mr Gary FAN, "Reforming the immigration and admission policies", but I am grateful to him. Why? For he provides us the chance to openly refute the smearing, discriminatory remarks and invalid criticisms raised by the opposition and a handful of others on One-way Permit ("OWP") and on the new arrivals from Mainland China, in the Chamber of this Council.

7776 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

I suppose we all remember that this Council should have discussed the OWP issue in January this year. But as the Member who raised the motion back then, Mr Alvin YEUNG, was inadvertently absent from the meeting, we have lost the chance to debate the topic. At that time, I intended to speak and criticize particularly his suggestion to introduce a means test regime into the OWP scheme so that only the rich are entitled to family reunion but not the poor. This approach is definitely inhumane and discriminating, in addition to contradicting principles purportedly upheld by the opposition all along: those of human rights, equality and care. This time, both the original motion raised by Mr Gary FAN and the amendment raised by Mr Alvin YEUNG similarly demand for the introduction of a means test regime. Hence, I will certainly oppose them.

The opposition and a handful of other people have blamed the new arrivals from Mainland for all our problems in land supply, housing, social welfare, and education. But this is inconsistent with the truth. According to the Hong Kong Poverty Situation Report 2016 released by the Commission on Poverty, among various poverty groups in Hong Kong, new arrivals from Mainland are more able to survive on their own, with fewer of them relying on social welfare measures such as the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance on a long-term basis.

There are again people who blame new arrivals from Mainland for health care manpower shortage and overcrowdedness in public hospitals, which have aroused public concern lately. In fact, the primary pressure on Hong Kong's public health care system comes from population ageing and the failure of the relevant health care resources to increase and follow up on a timely basis. Relatively speaking, a large proportion of OWP holders are children, youngsters and able-bodied people who suffer less from illnesses. Elderly persons aged 65 or above make up only 5% of all OWP holders. Thus, reducing OWP quota cannot effectively resolve the problem of overcrowdedness in public hospitals. Conversely, as indicated by the Secretary, the reduction will worsen population ageing, the relatively low fertility rate and insufficient labour supply in Hong Kong.

I have taken notice of the comment that OWP holders who come to Hong Kong at a young age will one day grow old and fall ill, eventually adding to the burden of the health care system. Hence, each additional arrival will mean an additional burden to us. If such a comment is valid, the Government should stop all measures that promote childbearing and adopt instead family planning policies which the Mainland is about to abandon. At the end of the day, however, local babies born to indigenous Hongkongers will eventually grow old and fall ill. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7777

If you have visited patients or doctors in public hospitals in recent years, you should have noticed a number of non-Chinese, apart from elderly persons, among the patients. I believe many of them are foreign domestic helpers. Shall we also restrict the number of foreign domestic helpers and other non-Chinese new arrivals in Hong Kong? Why do people pick on new arrivals from Mainland alone?

Many Members who pick on the OWP scheme are concerned about the rights of foreign domestic helpers and other ethnic minorities, in addition to the special care they give to the so-called "bogus refugees" or non-refoulement claimants. These Members, in a dismaying contrast, harbour discrimination and hatred towards Mainland compatriots and new arrivals who have black hair and yellow complexion like themselves. I am truly puzzled over this: where has their caring attitude gone? I believe the only reasonable interpretation is that they, for certain political purposes, deliberately politicize livelihood issues and instigate conflicts between Hong Kong and China.

President, the opposition attaches importance to the rights of not only the ethnic minorities but also animals and pets. One of their demands to the authorities was that residents affected by land resumption be allowed to bring along their pet dogs and cats when resettling to new homes. The authorities would be criticized for breaking up families and imposing unnatural separation between pets and owners if they fail to meet such a demand. The opposition seems to believe that the right to keeping pets is more important, and deserving a higher priority, than the right for China-Hong Kong families to reunite. Such views and comments do send shivers down my spine.

If not for the Basic Law's stipulation on freedom of marriage and the right to raising family, I believe sooner or later there will be people who suggest prohibiting China-Hong Kong families to bear children, prohibiting all China-Hong Kong marriages, or even requiring people to pass the means test before getting married and giving birth to babies, so as to control population growth to avoid adding pressure to housing and health care. The more one thinks of this scenario, the scarier it becomes. President, I just hope this will not happen one day.

I so submit, in support of Mr Steven HO's amendment and in opposition to the original motion and all other amendments.

7778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): President, it is indisputable that family reunion is a kind of basic human right. But it is also indisputable that family reunion is not an overriding right above other objective conditions. In view of the high population density and the limited supply of land in Hong Kong, the issue of population growth involves the welfare of the entire Hong Kong and should be handled with care. The scheme for allowing One-way Permit ("OWP") holders from the Mainland to come to Hong Kong for family reunion has been implemented for over 30 years. Since the environment under which the scheme was first launched was totally different from the situation today, no matter from the perspective of family reunion or the development of manpower resources, the scheme needs a review.

Since the OWP system was implemented in 1983, the daily quota was increased from 75 to 150 in 1995, and unwittingly, over 1.4 million new arrivals have already come to Hong Kong hitherto. 1.4 million is not a small number, but is a significant number to Hong Kong where there is a scarcity of land but a large population. On one hand, we should not deny the contributions brought to Hong Kong by new arrivals. In fact, due to various reasons, many of our ancestors come from the Mainland to take root in Hong Kong, contributing to the prosperity of Hong Kong. However, as Hong Kong has become an international city, we should move forward in a planned manner. In the 2018 Policy Address, the Chief Executive even says, "We will reinstate … the population-based planning ratios in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines in respect of subsidised residential care services and community care services, district elderly community centres and neighbourhood elderly centres." Under the existing OWP policy, there is no way that this population-based planning can be properly done. Similarly, it is not easy to grasp information for the formulation of other policies concerning education, housing and health care due to population changes.

President, as a matter of fact, with the enhancement of the public transport network and the commissioning of the infrastructure connecting Hong Kong with the Mainland, such as the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, which serve to support the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"), "one-hour living circle" is no longer a concept but has really materialized. With the weakening of the time and geographical factors affecting reunion of family members living respectively in Hong Kong and the Mainland, they can now meet after travelling for one hour, which is similar to commuting between two places within Hong Kong, and thus the urgency of family reunion has greatly dropped. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7779

President, at present, the SAR Government can only cooperate in the verification of information, while the vetting and approval of applications and issuance of OWPs are still the responsibilities of the Mainland authorities. However, as I said earlier, with the smooth integration between Hong Kong and the Mainland and the similar living standards in both places, I think the SAR Government should discuss reviewing the daily quota of 150 for Mainlanders to come to settle in Hong Kong with the Mainland authorities. I suggest that the reduction of OWP quota can be accompanied by a reverse programme. Given that the country is vigorously promoting the Greater Bay Area policy, Hong Kong should not be the only choice for family reunion, but instead, Hong Kong people should be given the choice for applying to settle and be given national identity in the Mainland due to family reunion. In this way, the relationship between China and Hong Kong can be truly reflected and the conflicts between Hong Kong people and Mainlanders can be ironed out.

President, I so submit.

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, I am glad to have this opportunity to share with Members my view on the subject of "Reforming the immigration and admission policies". First, we have to be clear about one thing. At present, the 48 000-odd One-way permit ("OWP") entrants are all Chinese nationals. They are, according to Article 24 of the Basic Law, children who are born of Hong Kong residents before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong SAR, or they are Chinese nationals. Hence, the Basic Law has already provided for the handling of these people.

Second, are they so alarmingly numerous in number as Mr Gary FAN has claimed? He says that there were 48 000 new entrants each year in the past decade. In other words, according to him, there would be 480 000 people coming in 10 years, and some 900 000 people in 20 years. Or, like what Ms Claudia MO has claimed, there have been 1 million people coming. Is this true? They provided these figures, but have they provided the population growth rate of Hong Kong? They should not show only part of the picture to mislead Hong Kong people.

Apart from the 48 000 new arrivals, there were also 53 000 professional entrants. But we did not have 53 000 professionals coming every year. Besides, our rate of natural increase is about 50 000 births. If we add all these together, we arrive at about 150 000 people only. These 150 000 people account for slightly over 1% of the total 7.3 million people. I did a search at Wikipedia 7780 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 just now on the global birth rate or population growth rate. I notice that this rate has to be deducted by the number of deaths. We have 48 000 to 50 000 deaths every year. So, we cannot say that there are only people coming without people leaving. If Ms Claudia MO eats a chicken every day, she will have eaten 365 chickens in a year. Will she become very fat? No, she won't. She has excretion and metabolism. So, we cannot look at only the number of people coming in. We also have to look at the number of people leaving.

Hence, our population growth rate is not as alarming as the opposition Members, who compared Hong Kong to a boat full of people, have claimed. Our per capita growth rate is only slightly over 1%. The average growth rate of the world is 18.7 births per 1 000 population. The birth rate of Hong Kong is very low in the first place. Even if we include the new immigrants and professional entrants, our total population growth is only slightly over 1%. What do we need? We need "new blood". We need new population to replenish our ageing population and boost the competitiveness of society.

What I just said is prescribed in the Basic Law. As also pointed out by the Secretary just now, we have our limitations because this is an established policy, and also because of the trouble-making pan-democrats who said regarding the CHONG Fung-yuen case that doubly non-permanent resident children should be allowed to come to Hong Kong. But now, when the Mainland entrants are allowed to come to Hong Kong in an orderly and controlled manner, they say these people should not come to Hong Kong because they are too large in number.

As some colleagues said just now, the pan-democrats have been very inconsistent. Worse still, I think the pan-democrats only point out the problems, but they never provide any solutions. Besides, they are very hostile to our views and provoke unnecessary disputes. Why can we not be more accommodating? Given that the population is ageing, how are we going to "change the blood", so that the new will replace the old in society in a balanced manner like the metabolism of our body?

Despite the daily quota of 150 OWPs, I agree that we can introduce a points system for OWP applications for family reunion. The purpose of the points system is not for means testing. OWP applicants who have children with good academic performance or high IQ will be credited with points. We want these talents. Are there any OWP applicants for family union who are professionals? If there are, we will accept children aged below 18 as well as adults to come to Hong Kong because they are professionals in the fields of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7781 knowledge technology, digital technology and artificial intelligence. If their parents happen to be Hong Kong residents, these people can earn more points for their application.

In this way, we can have more leeway since our bargaining power is limited. I think this is a feasible option. Solutions are often more than difficulties. Is the population growth of Hong Kong really that alarming? Absolutely not. As a city with 7.36 million people, it is justified to have population growth. It is irresponsible to blame all the problems on the OWP residents.

Last but not least, President, I wish to make one more point. If we always fill our heart with hatred, always stir up conflicts among us, or live with such deep hatred, it is hard to get things done properly. Instead, we should nourish the world with tender loving care, and quietly perform good deeds and establish more virtues. This will be beneficial to us all in the future.

President, I so submit. Thank you.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, this motion is worth discussion. There have been many conflicts between the Mainland and Hong Kong concerning health care, housing and resources. The One-way permit ("OWP") holders are always mentioned in these conflicts. A Member of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") said just now that these problems were created by the Civic Party because the CHONG Fung-yuen case in 2001 was associated with the Civic Party. But the Article 45 Concern Group was established only in 2003 and the Civic Party in 2006. How could they be related to the CHONG Fung-yuen case?

It is true that the lawyer of this case later joined the Civic Party. But if this is why they say the case is related to the Civic Party, may I ask if DAB or the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions or any other political parties has a member working as a lawyer and the lawyer defended sex crimes cases or murder cases before joining the political party, does it mean that the political party supports the acts of murder and rape? I do not think this is logical.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

7782 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

In Hong Kong, it does not constitute any problem for a member of a political party to act as a legal counsel in a lawsuit in his professional capacity. Any lawyers here will not be subject to any integrity test before taking up a legal case. Human rights lawyers in the Mainland are exactly running into this problem. If they assist a client by defending his human rights or defending certain cases, they will ultimately be arrested. This absolutely will not happen in Hong Kong.

Let us look at some figures, which are in fact quite misleading. The Government openly says that there is very little correlation between the health care system in Hong Kong and the new immigrants; and some pro-establishment Members also mentioned just now some figures of mid-2006, if I remember correctly, saying that new immigrants aged over 45 who used local health care services only accounted for 0.48%. But have we clearly defined what "new immigrants" are? They define people who have resided in Hong Kong for less than seven years as new immigrants. So, it is not difficult to calculate the number of new immigrants. Just time 150 people with 365 days and again with 7 years, and we get 383 250 people. This is the upper limit of new immigrants. As long as the daily quota of 150 new immigrants does not change, the maximum number of new immigrants will always be some 380 000 people, irrespectively of the number of years. The number stays the same at any time. This is simple mathematics.

In its reply to an oral question in the Legislative Council meeting yesterday, the Government discloses that among the age groups of 0-17, 18-59 and 60 or over, new immigrants dominates, especially in recent years, in the 18-59 age group. Take 1998 as an example. There were respectively 32 000 and 20 788 new immigrants in the 0-17 and 18-59 age groups. In other words, the number of young new immigrants was more or less the same as those in the 18-59 age group.

What about the number now? In 2018, there were only 9 600 new immigrants in the 0-17 age group, as compared with the 32 000-odd new immigrants in 1998. In 1998, there were 20 788 new immigrants in the 18-59 age group; or let us also look at the same age group in 1999, there were 27 518 new immigrants. The numbers are roughly the same. But in 2018, this age group increased to 30 277 people. The age of the new immigrants has changed. But has the Government formulated any policy to respond to this change? Just LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7783 look at the figures I just provided, and then refer to the always-constant number of 383 250 people, which is the maximum number of so-called new immigrants. This is how the fantasy of so-called new immigrants only using very little local health care services or public housing resources is created.

We are not asking the Government to stop all OWP applications for family reunion. But rather, we are asking the Government to consider introducing a means test, or to resume accepting these people to come after Hong Kong has recovered its capacity to do so. Some people hold that applications for family reunion should not be subject to any restrictions or screening by nationalities. I do not quite understand this view. If the spouse of a Hong Kong resident is not a Mainlander but a person holding foreign nationality, why should the spouse be subject to the dependent policy?

There are a right of abode policy and a dependent policy in Hong Kong. The two are different. Why does a person have to be subject to the dependent policy and pass the family means test before he or she can reunite with their spouse of foreign nationality in Hong Kong? No matter the spouse is of a nationality of the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Australia, Canada, Singapore, Japan or South Korea, why does he or she have to be means tested? I do not understand the logics behind. If this is tenable, why does the Government not apply this to Mainland immigrants? They are in the same situation, why can they not be means tested?

Besides, there is something strange about the dependent policy. Nationals of two countries, namely Afghanistan and Democratic People's Republic of Korea, are not allowed to come to Hong Kong. They cannot enter Hong Kong for residence as dependents. If your wife or husband is Korean or Afghan, sorry, they cannot apply to come to Hong Kong for family reunion. The Government should not say that there is no difference in treatment for people of different nationalities. The policy is bifurcated. Given that the Government is discriminatory against people of certain nationalities and bar them from coming to Hong Kong, I do not see why Hong Kong cannot have the authority or have a framework to request immigrants from the Mainland to be means tested, or even request the applicants to provide proof of financial sufficiency to support a family member to come to Hong Kong. This is precisely what the dependent policy is all about. I so submit.

7784 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, today, we discuss the motion on "Reforming the immigration and admission policies". This issue has been the source of conflicts in our community from the past till now. In fact, since Hong Kong's reunification, about 1 million Mainlanders have settled in Hong Kong, as also mentioned by the Secretary yesterday. In my view, this certainly will have some impact on Hong Kong no matter in terms of economy, people's livelihood or other aspects. Nevertheless, it is very unfortunate that the Government of the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") has not been formulating the population policy properly, and as a result, there is a shortfall of community and livelihood facilities to meet the population growth, giving rise to a phenomenon of imbalance or demand outstripping supply.

In my view, the Government is duty-bound to tackle this situation. In respect of social polarization or conflict derived from the shortfall of community and livelihood facilities, the Government ought to conduct a thorough review to resolve the unnecessary social contradictions. Yesterday, the Secretary for Security stressed that each day, 150 people came to settle in Hong Kong mainly for the reason of family reunion. I think no one will oppose but treasure this cause. However, is the present system really able to ensure family reunion? This is where the question lies.

Deputy President, I have been assisting overage children in family reunion. But it is unfortunate that after many meetings with the Government over the years, the SAR Government still says that it has no authority, does not have any say and is unable to offer assistance. Since everything is handled by the Chinese Government, it is thus unable to offer assistance. Deputy President, this is exactly the problem that we are facing. Hong Kong has no say in the vetting and approval of applications or in other related issues. Some families with special circumstances asked the SAR Government to liaise with the Chinese Government for giving special treatment to their applications. The SAR Government did not turn down their requests, but the number of cases that have been handled is really limited, thus giving us an impression that the Government is merely paying lip service to the purpose of facilitating family reunion of Hong Kong people. Of course, many families can actually enjoy family reunion, but we doubt whether the arrangement of vetting and approving applications can really achieve the purpose.

Deputy President, one of the focuses of this motion under discussion today is the vetting and approving power. I think that the present vetting and approval procedure pertaining to One-way Permit ("OWP") applications dominated by the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7785

Mainland is full of loopholes. The problems of falsification of documents and corruption, in particular, render the system incapable of allowing the truly qualified applicants in need to come to Hong Kong. Hence, in order to allay public concerns and facilitate the authorities' efforts to properly grasp the demographic data for future social planning, I think we have to enhance Hong Kong's vetting and approving power. For example, we can strive to vet and approve OWP applications together with the Mainland authorities or put in place another level of vetting and approval procedure on the existing vetting and approval foundation of the Mainland, and I think this approach can be studied and explored by both parties. The question is that in the absence of the Hong Kong Government's involvement, we are very worried whether Hong Kong people can really enjoy family reunion.

As a matter of fact, as pointed out earlier by the Secretary, there are quite a number of cases of bogus marriages, and we are sceptical about the effectiveness of the present system in preventing this situation. I think many colleagues also know that it is stipulated in Article 22 of the Basic Law that "the number of persons who enter the Region for the purpose of settlement shall be determined by the competent authorities of the Central People's Government after consulting the government of the Region". Hence from the legal perspective, the Hong Kong SAR Government is not totally without power in vetting and approving OWP applications and it is not necessary to give the entire power to the Mainland authorities.

Besides, since the vetting and approval power pertaining to the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme is entirely in the hands of the Hong Kong SAR Government, it is not impossible for Hong Kong to have vetting and approval power. However, Deputy President, the other question which is also one of the focuses of today's discussion is whether to have a means test in the vetting and approval procedure. I do not agree to conduct a means test. Because in a civilized and advanced society, when we discuss the population policy, apart from considering resource allocation and economic contributions, we need more to consider from a humanitarian angle. I thus do not agree to the delineation of the rich and the poor and the introduction of a means test in regard to family reunion, as this will in a way deprive grass-roots people of the opportunities to apply for family reunion in Hong Kong with their family members. As mentioned by a Member earlier on, if a means test is introduced, it would seem that only rich people are qualified to apply for family reunion in Hong Kong, which I think is very unreasonable.

7786 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

As I just mentioned, I am assisting a group of overage children in their family reunion applications. Besides, there is actually a group of elderly parents who are old and are in frail health, poor financial situation and need of care. Nonetheless, it is very regrettable that their applications are not approved and thus they have no one to take care of them. I think the procedure concerned is unreasonable and the SAR Government really needs to deal with it. A Member also just queried why the means test was applicable to people applying to settle in Hong Kong from other countries or regions with the sole exception of those coming from the Mainland. I recently handled a case of a grass-roots Hong Kong resident who is married to a Vietnamese woman. The spouse of that Hong Kong resident applied to settle in Hong Kong, but the application was not approved as the applicant's financial situation could not meet the requirement. In my opinion, this is unfair as they are formally married and have children, but the woman cannot settle in Hong Kong due to the means test. If that Vietnamese spouse comes to Hong Kong, she may not need to rely on the social welfare of the SAR Government as she can also earn her own living. But it is very regrettable that the application is not approved. (The buzzer sounded) … Hence, I do not agree to the introduction of a means test.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time is up.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in regard to the debate in these two days and the motion today, I think Members have got the wrong end of the stick on a certain aspect. Yesterday, the Government announced that since 1997, a total of over 1 million Mainland residents have come to Hong Kong for settlement on One-way Permits ("OWPs"). Of course, people are shocked by this figure as it roughly represents one seventh of the population in Hong Kong. What we can discuss is the pressure posed by this population of 1 million people on the public resources or public policies of Hong Kong. On this controversial issue, Members from either the pan-democratic camp or the pro-establishment camp have debated on the inadequacy of our health care, education and housing facilities. However, why do I think that people have got the wrong end of the stick on this issue? It is because the unfairness of the OWP system does not mainly lie in the quantity, or the imported population or the number of people settled in Hong Kong, but in the system under which Hong Kong, being a Special Administrative Region ("SAR") and under the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7787 protection of the principle of "one country, two systems" as prescribed in the Basic Law, is unilaterally deprived of the initiative and the power of vetting and approving OWP applications.

In these two days, very few Members mentioned a very crucial point, and that is, in the process of vetting and approving the applications, why can certain people with adverse records or criminal records be successful in their OWP applications and become Hong Kong permanent residents? May I ask the SAR Government whether it can provide the information that out of these 1 million people, how many have adverse records and how many have criminal records? I believe that the SAR Government may have the statistics, but does it dare to disclose them? The Government says that the Guangdong authorities have implemented a point-based system, but people may have forgotten about the most classic example of the SHI Junlong case. Do you still remember the incident of some people fighting for the right of abode in Hong Kong in 2000? In the vicinity of the Immigration Tower in Wan Chai, SHI Junlong's arson attack caused the death of two persons, one being a colleague of the Immigration Department, Mr LEUNG Kam-kwong, while 44 people were injured. SHI Junlong was originally sentenced for life imprisonment, but was later changed to eight years' imprisonment for manslaughter upon his successful appeal. This incident happened in 2000, but in 2011, SHI Junlong obtained a Hong Kong Identity Card through his OWP application. Is that fair? I am not referring to a single case, Deputy President, and that is the most crucial and unfair aspect of the OWP system.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG just mentioned that he came to Hong Kong from Macao at the age of seven and went to study in the United States when he grew older. No one will prevent anyone from emigrating to another place. But when the authorities of a place have the initiative in the vetting and approval of the applications, apart from considering the financial situation or the adaptability of the applicant, will they consider the basic condition of whether he has an adverse record or a criminal record? Honourable colleagues, the SHI Junlong case that I just mentioned did not happen in the place where he originally resided but happened in Hong Kong, and it is even a murder case. Why does Hong Kong not have any gatekeeping? Therefore, the crux obviously is to take back the power of vetting and approving OWP applications, which is of the utmost importance.

7788 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

I am not going to discuss whether family reunion is a kind of basic human right, as it is meaningless to argue over this kind of issues. But I believe that above the basic human right of family reunion, there must have another consideration and which is communal, regional and state security. Dr Fernando CHEUNG, may I ask you whether you had any adverse record or criminal record before you applied for studying in the United States? When you want to emigrate to the United States and get a Green Card (Permanent Resident Card), will the United States consider this background? I have a criminal record due to the flag desecration case. In case I want to emigrate to the United States, which should not happen, will the authorities of the United States keep me out of the country? This is the basic logic of a country.

Therefore, the burden on Hong Kong's public resources due to the large number of new arrivals that we argued about today and yesterday is merely the aftermath of the policy that is right in front of us, and it is already too late to deal with it. But we still have to resolve it, otherwise how can we be elected back to this Council? However, concerning the impact of a large number of new arrivals on Hong Kong's health care, housing, culture and education, can we use a rather positive angle to map out how to resolve the problems? The crux is to take back the power of vetting and approving OWP applications. First of all, I do not think that this is either depriving people of their right to family reunion or altering the OWP or the new immigrant policy, but if we can take back the vetting and approving power, it is practically beneficial to both sides.

Firstly, we should have the initiative. Secondly, if we can provide better complementary social or policy measures, will it be easier for new immigrants to adapt to the life in Hong Kong? After coming to Hong Kong for over a decade, some new immigrants find that they still cannot adapt to the life in Hong Kong, as they have to live in subdivided units or crowded environment under which some family tragedies did happen. A decade ago, Tin Shui Wai was called the "city of sadness". During the LEUNG Chun-ying era, it was mentioned that there were over 200 000 "N have-nots" (or low-income households not living in public housing and not receiving CSSA). But the authorities dare not mention this kind of figures now, and actually, these people are presently scattered in different districts. During a summer recess in the Public Complaints Office of the Legislative Council Secretariat, I handled four cases related to subdivided units and all the complainants were people of this category.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7789

We have to do well in our gatekeeping work, rather than preventing Mainland people from entering Hong Kong. We should consider from a more positive, humane and civilized perspective. Can the Hong Kong Government do better in its policy preparation so that new immigrants can easily adapt to the life in Hong Kong? Hence, Dr Fernando CHEUNG has asked a good question: How to get along with new immigrants? In my view, the best, fair and just way is to take back the power of vetting and approving OWP applications. The size of the daily quota can be discussed, for example, it can be 150, 75 as before 1997 or total abolition. But the question is: Why can the Government not vet and approve such applications? Why can people like SHI Junlong, who has committed a serious crime in Hong Kong, become your neighbours?

I so submit.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, when Secretary John LEE answered the questions from Ms Claudia MO and me, he pointed out why the Government cannot be involved in the vetting and approval procedure of One-way Permit ("OWP") applications. He quoted Article 22(4) of the Basic Law and particularly mentioned the interpretation of the provisions of this Article by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in 1999. The provisions mean that Mainland residents "who wish to enter the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for whatever reason, must apply to the relevant authorities of their residential districts for approval in accordance with the relevant national laws and administrative regulations". From this angle, one point is very clear and that is, in accordance with this interpretation, we cannot introduce various talent admission schemes (such as the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme or the Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals) in Hong Kong. It is because the basic application procedures of these schemes commence in Hong Kong. Upon completion of the application procedures, the relevant data will be sent to the public security bureaux concerned on the Mainland, and the applicant can leave the Mainland after receipt of the approval document.

Therefore, I think the question of the first level is: Why has the Government of the Special Administrative Region ("SAR"), over all these years, not been willing to explore properly with the Central Government the issue of being involved in the vetting and approval of OWP applications? We do not ask for the ultimate decision-making power. But can Hong Kong be at least 7790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 involved in the vetting and approval procedure of OWP applications, so that those Hong Kong people who got married in the Mainland can commence the application process in Hong Kong? The advantage of allowing applicants to commence the application process in Hong Kong is that trust can be rebuilt. In fact, it is often reported on the Mainland that in the process of vetting and approving OWP applications, there is a phenomenon of OWPs being marketable at good prices. This phenomenon of OWPs being marketable at good prices is the cause of worries to the public, who query whether the vetting and approval of applications by the Mainland can really bring to Hong Kong the Mainland spouses of the Hong Kong residents who genuinely need family reunion.

The question of the second level is more important. When new immigrants come to Hong Kong, can the Government grasp the information of these new arrivals concerning their needs and the living pressure faced by them? According to the Government's reply, the authorities actually completely fail to understand the situation. What channels on which the Government relies to obtain the information? It relies on two surveys conducted after these people are granted permission to move to Hong Kong. The first survey is conducted by the Immigration Department ("ImmD") when these people enter Hong Kong via the Lo Wu control point in order to learn about their family compositions and backgrounds. And then the second survey is conducted by the Home Affairs Department on new arrivals from the Mainland who are aged 11 or above and have arrived in Hong Kong for less than one year when they apply for their Hong Kong Identity Cards at ImmD's Registration of Persons-Kowloon Office.

In other words, these surveys are conducted after they have come to Hong Kong. The surveys conducted after their arrival have exactly given rise to a gap in our planning procedure of all policies, resulting in mismatch of resources or deficiency in preparation in regard to public policies for the entire community. Not only is this unfair to all the people living in Hong Kong, but is even more unfair to the new arrivals who are about to integrate into the Hong Kong society. Anyway, after their arrival in Hong Kong, they need to gradually understand and face different issues in the Hong Kong community. In order to cope with this situation, corresponding policies need to be put in place, otherwise, a great deal of controversy will be aroused in the community.

Concerning the third point that I wish to mention, why are we not treating all family reunion cases equally? Let me repeat Secretary John LEE's response to our question. He says that the people who apply to come to Hong Kong for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7791 the reason of family reunion should not be treated unfairly but should be treated equally. However, under this equal treatment, a distinction is drawn between the Mainland and other regions (i.e. regions outside Hong Kong). It means we will adopt different criteria to deal with applications from the Mainland and applications from other regions, even though they are for the same reason of family reunion.

If a person from another place, whether it is Macao, Taiwan, Southeast Asia or other international cities, applies to come to settle in Hong Kong for the reason of family reunion, he is subject to the dependant restrictions. For example, can he live independently without relying on social welfare in Hong Kong, and can his family members in Hong Kong provide him with basic living arrangements? Therefore, when we say that the applications for the reason of family reunion should be treated equally, I highly agree that this concept should not only be applicable to the Mainland applicants. As an international city, members of the public in Hong Kong have the right to get marry in other places. From this perspective, if the overriding guiding principle is family reunion, the Government should be more conscious in treating their applications equally.

Hence, in the course of this motion debate today, I would like to highlight that the questions of these three levels are the highly important considerations, and among them, the question of the greatest importance is: Why is the SAR Government not willing to make a request to the Central Government, striving to be involved in dealing with the applications of settling in Hong Kong by Mainlanders as part of the entire admission policy? If the Government is unwilling to raise this request or fight for its right, we can hardly expect it to effectively handle the social conflicts in respect of new immigrants in Hong Kong.

Finally, I very much hope that the Central Government and the SAR Government can understand that in regard to the vetting and approval of OWP applications, we actually want to resolve the problem in a practical manner. But what is most important is to have a trustful mechanism, especially when the OWP application procedure can commence in Hong Kong SAR, as a foundation to build mutual trust between Hong Kong and the Mainland. Otherwise, when new immigrants come to Hong Kong, (The buzzer sounded) … they will face greater difficulties. Thank you, Deputy President.

7792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, your speaking time is up.

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I always agree that the immigration policy and the One-way Permit ("OWP") system in Hong Kong can be improved and revised based on actual circumstances. But any improvement or revision should be founded on Hong Kong's population policy, economic development and social capacity with the backup of comprehensive studies. As long as we have concrete justifications, we may hold discussions with the Central Authorities and strive for their support. Nevertheless, any attempts to ascribe all social problems to the OWP system and demonize new arrivals are actually mere political orchestration aiming to stimulate social conflicts and in turn discredit the Government. They are simply not intended for resolving any problems for Hong Kong.

At the same time, I must bring up one point. Any conflicts among social groups or races may produce very serious consequence. We must learn a lesson from the various incidents involving bloodshed in various places of the world in recent years. While the topic for discussion today is "Reforming the immigration and admission policies", the main focus is still on OWP entrants. Are OWP entrants really a burden to Hong Kong? Or, have they also made contribution to Hong Kong? I think the community should sort this out through discussion before it can pass a judgment.

According to many people in society, OWP entrants are mostly Mainland women married to grass-roots people in Hong Kong. They say that their education level is not very high, and they occupy our public housing and live on Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") after moving to Hong Kong. Actually, most OWP entrants are indeed grass-roots people. But today, those with a low education level who live on CSSA are only in the minority. According to the Government's survey, 90% of the adult OWP entrants to Hong Kong in 2018 had middle school qualifications, and 23% possessed university qualifications. Their median age was 33, and around 60% of them indicated that they prepared to seek employment in Hong Kong. Those who did not intend to do so were mostly homemakers. Members should be clear about the social contribution of homemakers. Besides, some have contended that new arrivals come to Hong Kong for our welfare benefits. This is not true either. The survey found that only 5.5% of the respondents were recipients of government financial assistance.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7793

The above figures show that OWP entrants from the new generation are mostly young and vibrant, and their average education level is also on the rise. While they are new forces for elementary jobs in Hong Kong, their contribution to Hong Kong's economy is evident to all. Over the past 20 years, around 1 million OWP entrants have come to settle in Hong Kong. But Hong Kong's overall population has recorded a net growth of only 220 000 people. Without new arrivals, Hong Kong would have lost 400 000 workers in the labour force. Members can come to imagine this. If our various industries, such as retail, catering and service industries, are stripped of these workers, the repercussion will be inconceivable indeed. At the same time, due to the persistent ageing of Hong Kong's population, we will need large numbers of elementary workers to provide services in Hong Kong in the future.

In fact, 98% of the OWP entrants come to Hong Kong for family reunion. While Hong Kong people are certainly entitled to the right of abode in Hong Kong, family reunion in Hong Kong is also a basic human right for the spouses or parents of Hong Kong people, one which is protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the past, whenever political issues were discussed, the opposition camp would hold this international covenant up high. But in our current discussion on new arrivals, they have forgotten all about it. If they even hold double standards in human right discussions, how can they possibly convince others? The opposition camp has also argued that they may go to the Mainland to reunite with their families. This is totally unreasonable. Suppose the father of a family works in Hong Kong. How can he possibly go to the Mainland to reunite with his family?

Another important issue is precisely the length of wait. As also mentioned by the Government, overseas family members of foreigners married to Hong Kong people simply need not join the queue, and they may apply directly for residence in Hong Kong as long as they meet the requirements, such as receiving support from a sponsor. Usually, it takes six weeks to complete the vetting and approval process. But the Mainland spouses of Hong Kong people have to wait a couple of years before they can move to Hong Kong under the OWP system. Today, some Members have proposed to introduce a similar sponsor requirement for the OWP system. But at present, most of the OWP entrants are not CSSA recipients. After the introduction of the sponsor requirement, OWP applicants may move to Hong Kong forthwith as long as they fulfil the relevant requirements, just like family members of foreigners married to 7794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Hong Kong people. The quota system cannot possibly exist anymore; or else it may give rise to discrimination. I believe this is something that the opposition camp will hate to see even more.

As for those Mainland talents who have moved to Hong Kong under various talent admission schemes, they are actually facilitators of Hong Kong's economy, and their contribution does not compare less favourably with that of overseas talents in Hong Kong. Many people in Hong Kong adhere to one mentality, thinking that Hong Kong is still "a goose that can lay golden eggs", and it does not need any contribution from outsiders. This kind of celestial mentality is in fact totally erroneous. Hong Kong has long since relied on its established strengths to maintain its very survival. It is prosperous on the surface, but its competitiveness is actually dwindling, and it only relies on financial and real estate services as support for its whole development. Therefore, we are in dire need of talent importation and also the Greater Bay Area for increasing our competitiveness and expanding the market respectively.

Furthermore, some have argued that OWP entrants have robbed us of our social resources, and that they are even the main culprit for the overload on our hospitals. This assertion is indeed questionable. According to media information, those who seek treatment at Accident and Emergency Departments are mostly elderly people, and the main cause is population ageing. The median age of OWP entrants has stood at 33 in recent years. While some OWP entrants are also in their sixties, the number of such OWP entrants is within the range of a few hundred and some 2 000 a year, and they merely account for a few percentage points of the overall number of OWP entrants. Even though middle-aged or young people may likewise get sick, it is still impossible to say that OWP entrants, who are mainly middle-aged and young people, are precisely the main culprit for the overload on our hospitals. As reported, the Government is now compiling comprehensive statistics. We may look at the figures in the future before passing a judgment.

Besides, some have also contended that the relevant reclamation projects are mainly intended for constructing housing for new arrivals. This assertion is simply a ridiculous exaggeration. Even if new arrivals apply for public housing upon settling in Hong Kong, they must still queue up behind the existing several hundred thousand applicants in the line. How can they possibly say that our reclamation projects are aimed to provide public housing to these people in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7795 future? It is impossible that they can receive public housing allocation before others. Hong Kong people are always smart. They know deep down their heart which government policies are for the good of Hong Kong people.

Several years ago, Members kept saying how they were envious of the public housing system in Singapore. Our reclamation projects today are precisely modelled on Singapore's example. Initially, this was a big piece of good news, as everybody would be provided with housing in the future. But now, some have nonetheless told people that we should not proceed with reclamation, lest new arrivals may benefit. As a result, everybody will be stripped of any housing. All such assertions are indeed extremely ridiculous. Instead of envying Singapore, we should follow its example of creating land through reclamation, so as to provide housing with better living conditions to everybody in the future.

I so submit.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in recent years, various public services and the welfare system have successively been overloaded. The lengthening of the waiting time for public housing, the overstretched public health care system, the overcrowded public transport―all of them have affected the daily lives of the Hong Kong public. There are views that the overloading of public services in Hong Kong stems from the massive influx of migrants to Hong Kong every day after the reunification. Certainly, the daily quota of 150 new immigrants coming here on One-way Permits ("OWPs") is the most controversial among others. It is thus an opportune moment for Mr Gary FAN to propose this motion on "Reforming the immigration and admission policies" for a debate on the policy on new immigrants in the Legislative Council. It enables this Council to paint a picture of the actual situation through the debate. The following is my personal view.

Indeed, it is not easy to discuss issues about the policy on new immigrants, especially when it involves the political relationship between China and Hong Kong. It is a time when politically, China and Hong Kong have long been on an unequal footing, and the "high degree of autonomy" once promised to Hong Kong by the Mainland has become more and more distorted and deformed. With the persistent erosion of the long-existing core values, civilized system and unique culture of Hong Kong, people fear that new immigrants will "dilute" our population, making Hong Kong fully "Mainlandized". Such fear is mingled 7796 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 with various concerns and even some conspiracy theories. At one time, there may emerge an allegation of the Mainland rigging votes by sending people to migrate to Hong Kong. Then at another time, there may be a suggestion that the Government seeks to carry out a "cultural colonization" plan, hence its repeated refusal to reduce the OWP quota. Given the uncertainty in the political relationship between China and Hong Kong, I can understand why there exist such fears and suspicions. Hong Kong people are the victims under this kind of unequal relationship between China and Hong Kong, and yet I am still not convinced by these fears and suspicions that it is a particular group of people that is to blame for the various problems in Hong Kong at present.

Many people have attributed the overloading of our public services and welfare system to resources being snatched away by new immigrants coming to Hong Kong and therefore seek to target new immigrants by advocating a reduction in the relevant quota. I think this is a conclusion made as a result of misapprehension and the failure to grasp the crux of the problem. As a matter of fact, owing to the extremely low birth rate in Hong Kong and the rapidly ageing population, new immigrants are the main source of population growth in Hong Kong. The median age of new immigrants from the Mainland is 33.9, which is 10 years lower than that of the Hong Kong population of 44.3. If this is to be described as "dilution", I think this is a "dilution" of the ageing population of Hong Kong by new immigrants and they maintain an adequate labour force in Hong Kong. The new immigrants from the Mainland has greatly replenished the supply of elementary workers for Hong Kong and provided cheap labour for enterprises. Working for long hours and receiving low wages, they are already the exploited ones, but today they are still being targeted as the scapegoat for the problems in society. To me, this is something unacceptable.

Further, critics of new immigrants very often only criticize poor grass-roots new immigrants for using our public resources, but forget about, or even deliberately avoid discussing investment immigrants and talent immigrants. As mentioned by the Secretary, Hong Kong has in place the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme, the Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals, the Immigration Arrangement for Non-local Graduates, the Capital Investment Entrant Scheme, the Technology Talent Admission Scheme, etc. While these immigrants will likewise use the public resources, land and housing in Hong Kong, these critics display a different attitude―welcoming and receiving the rich but rejecting and expelling the poor. In the final analysis, this is class discrimination and has nothing to do with facts and reasons. The majority of the new immigrants are parents, spouses and children of Hong Kong people. If we LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7797 want to implement policies that "put Hong Kong people first", priority should be given to enabling these Mainland immigrants to reunite with their Hong Kong families. It should be noted that Hong Kong currently has various immigration and admission policies allowing different people to enter and stay in Hong Kong on the strength of an employment visa, a student visa or a dependent visa, and every day, there is a large number of Mainland and overseas tourists coming to Hong Kong on various visit visas. Many of these people are not immediate family members of Hong Kong people, but will also use the resources of Hong Kong. If the principle of "putting Hong Kong people first" is to be put into practice, the arrangements about these immigration or admission policies should be dealt with first.

Deputy President, what must be admitted is that the massive influx of immigrants to Hong Kong will accordingly lead to an increase in the demand for various public services, and this calls for government planning for different basic ancillary facilities. Unfortunately, the Hong Kong Government has attached little importance to planning since the reunification. Despite a continuous accumulation of public reserve, it has turned a blind eye to the shortage of public services and ancillary facilities. Let us just take the overloading of public health care services in recent months as an example. Some doctors put the blame on new immigrants, saying that they are the culprits for the overloading of health care services. Indeed, such comment by the doctors is not completely unjustified as the inward migration of new immigrants is the major source of our population growth, and the corollary of such growth is an increase in the demand for health care services. But we must note that the new immigrants are relatively young, while the group of people who are in the greatest need of health care services are those aged over 65; and meanwhile, the number of hospital beds under the Hospital Authority has been reduced by 500 from 29 432 in 2000 to 28 929 in 2018. In the face of population growth and population ageing, the number of hospital beds has, however, been reduced. This is what Hong Kong's public service planning is like―the so-called "規" (planning) is probably "虧" (a debt owed) as in the term "虧欠" (to owe a debt to someone)―and it affects not only the new immigrants but all Hong Kong people.

The same also happened to social services. Previously, the Government abolished the population-based planning ratios for elderly care services, thus prolonging the waiting time for such services. The independent child care centres for infants aged zero to two are always filled to capacity, but still failing to meet the demand for the service.

7798 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Deputy President, I agree that Hong Kong should put in place a local vetting and approval system to enable the SAR Government to exercise the power to vet and approve entry for immigration. The Government can also make policy planning with the statistics obtained through the vetting and approval process. I also concur with the proposal to conduct investigation into the overseas assets of applicants for various social welfare at the vetting and approval stage. However, insofar as OWP quota is concerned, I support conducting a review as there have been unused quotas over the years. Moreover, I hold the view that there is ample room for Hong Kong to improve its measures for supporting new immigrants to adapt to the system and culture of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Government should take an active role in providing new immigrants in Hong Kong with various education and supporting services to facilitate their adaptation, instead of maintaining its policy of non-intervention. Thank you, Deputy President.

DR PIERRE CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in respect of the motion on "Reforming the immigration and admission policies" and its amendments, Members will also mention the "explosion" in our public health care services. I would like to talk about my views from this perspective.

Hong Kong and other mature economies are facing the same problems of ageing population and inadequate labour force, and it is particularly due to the low birth rate in Hong Kong that natural growth alone is not sufficient to supplement young population. On the other hand, Hong Kong is a small place with limited capacity. Hence, the Government must have forward-looking policies and planning to cope with population growth and to avoid overburdening of various kinds of public services. Why do we have this motion? It is precisely because of the planning problems with the Government that new immigrants are being put on the opposite side of the local situation in Hong Kong.

When the frontline health care personnel of public hospitals staged a protest in January this year, they were holding the placards with the word "explosion". Unlike what many people say, the "explosion" is not caused by inadequate manpower which can be resolved simply by increasing the number of doctors and nurses. I am the first one to point out the root of the problem, which is the lack of space in wards to accommodate hospital beds and therefore overall LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7799 inadequacy in hospital beds. The increase in manpower will thus be useless, and it is indeed too exhausting working in a hospital. It is basically impossible to work in a ward crowded with hospital beds, and is not safe either. Because of that problem, health care personnel could not help bursting with anger about the pressure. Other people do not pay attention to their situation and just say that manpower needed to be increased, but this is not a solution to the problem.

The first major reason for the overutilization of hospital wards is in fact the lack of hospital beds. Why are the beds inadequate? It is because the authorities are in lack of forward looking planning. In accordance with the Hong Kong Annual Digests of Statistics―in fact, I am the first one to check the Hong Kong Annual Digests of Statistics for these 30 years to find out the numbers of hospital beds in respective years―in 2003 before the outbreak of SARS, there were a total of 29 539 beds in public hospitals and at that time, the wards were already too full to cope with the demand. Five years after the outbreak of SARS, a total of 2 667 beds were cut. I believe this was a kind of precaution against infection as the distance between beds was increased and certain wards were converted into isolation wards. For instance in a certain hospital, a ward in which there were originally 40 beds was forced to be refurbished into one with only 10 beds. As at 2017, the number of hospital beds was merely increased to 28 335. Mr SHIU Ka-chun just asked why the number of beds was decreased instead of increased over these 10 to 20 years. Up till this moment, the number of beds has not been restored to the level before the outbreak of SARS, but during this period, there was an increase in population of 660 000 people and also an ageing population.

Population growth and ageing population will not occur overnight, and the Government should have enough time for preparation and planning. Over a period of 20 years, the previous commissioning of a new hospital took place in 1999 and it was the Tseung Kwan O Hospital. Are there any new hospitals after the commissioning of the Tseung Kwan O Hospital? They are the North Lantau Hospital commissioned in 2013 and the Tin Shui Wai Hospital commissioned in 2017. That means during a period of 17 to 18 years from the commissioning of the Tseung Kwan O Hospital in 1999 to the commissioning of the Tin Shui Wai Hospital in 2017, not a new hospital was built in Hong Kong. The North Lantau Hospital and the Tin Shui Wai Hospital are medium-sized hospitals which can only provide 300 to 400 beds. How can they make up for the 2 000-odd beds which were cut previously?

7800 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

As a matter of fact, if it is not because of lack of planning, the Government should have predicted the growth in population much earlier. With the growth in population, there is a need to construct hospitals, schools and increase the number of hospital beds. This is a very simple rule that even a child will know, but this is precisely the question that Hong Kong is facing. At present, a large-scale hospital can on average provide 1 700 to 2 000 hospital beds. At this moment, we should have the commissioning of at least two new large-scale hospitals or five medium-sized hospitals similar to Tin Shui Wai Hospital in order to just meet the demand and make up for the earlier reduction of 2 667 hospital beds. This is exactly the lack of planning problem of the Government that I pointed out earlier.

Although there is a 10-year Hospital Development Plan at present, it will take 10 years from the planning to the commissioning of a hospital. The hospital that will be commissioned soon is the Kai Tak Hospital, which hopefully can provide service in 2025. But this hospital is not an additional hospital, as it is built for the relocation of the health care services of Queen Elizabeth Hospital. It is thus not an additionally built hospital. When will there be extra hospital beds? We really have to wait with even more patience, as the question lies in the lack of planning on the population growth by the Government and the Hospital Authority.

I have searched for the information of other areas like the Kwun Tong area. Over the past decade, seven public housing estates were built in Kwun Tong district, including On Tai Estate, On Tat Estate, Choi Fook Estate, Choi Tak Estate, Sau Mau Ping South Estate, Choi Ying Estate and Yau Lai Estate. According to the population by-census conducted by the Census and Statistics Department, in the period from 2006 to 2016, the population has grown by 61 118, and over 17 000 of them were people above 65 years of age. However, the United Christian Hospital has remained unchanged at all, worse still, its number of beds in the medical wards is even reduced while the number of beds in the paediatric wards remains the same.

Therefore, the present problem of medical wards being too full is due to the fact that Hong Kong is small with limited capacity. It needs pragmatic immigration and admission policies and the Government also needs to be committed in its planning, otherwise confrontation between relevant parties will be resulted. The Government has the responsibility to pay attention to its capacity problem and discuss with the Mainland Government in order to study LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7801 how the One-way Permit ("OWP") system can be revamped to assist the Government in planning its various public services, so that the needs of the Hong Kong residents, being accorded with priority, can be satisfied in the allocation of public services in Hong Kong. Besides, since the social welfare and subsidized housing resources in Hong Kong are limited, any abuse should be effectively prevented. It will be much helpful if the assets of the applicant outside the territory can be verified.

In sum, no matter whether it is in prior planning of its services to cope with population changes or in communication with the Mainland Government in respect of the OWP quota and vetting and approval of OWP applications, the Government must bear the responsibility. I so submit.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I would first of all like to confirm that as a mover of an amendment, should I also be given 10 minutes to speak?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Yes, you may speak for 10 minutes.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Thank you, Deputy President.

Before I talk about the issue under discussion and my amendment, let me first quote a few lines from an article written recently by Mr Kevin LAU, the former chief editor of Ming Pao Daily News. In this article entitled "With Hong Kong turning into a pressure cooker, successive explosions are expected", he says, "The public transport system of mass transit network is not the only public service provider which has been overburdened and has shown a sign of collapse, our public housing system, public health care system, education system, elderly care system and even public burial service system have all been overburdened in recent years and have shown a sign of collapse. Although the entire city of Hong Kong is still operating as usual now, it is actually overloaded. If the Government keeps on turning a blind eye to these problems, refuses to adjust the number of inward migrants, and blindly supports all kinds of regional development plans, Hong Kong will turn from a pressure cooker to a time bomb very soon." With regard to the question of whether Hong Kong is on the verge of collapse and our problems on various fronts, we can note from this article 7802 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 written by Kevin LAU that some public intellectuals and professionals who are very moderate do consider this an issue that we must face squarely, and this is an important premise and starting point of this motion debate.

However, there are now many different views in our society. For example, with regard to the problem raised by Dr Pierre CHAN concerning the heavy burden on our health care system, some people opine that it is caused by an increasing number of new immigrants, while some others suggest that the root cause is the ageing population, as evidenced by the fact that half of the patients admitted into hospitals are elderly persons. I would say that it is not completely correct to say so, although this is really the case. It is true that when people of a certain age group are in greater need of medical services, a burden will be imposed on the system, but they do have a genuine need of such services. Nevertheless, in the current debate, we have to judge from the final outcome, and try to understand why Hong Kong has got into such a mess. I think the problem does not lie in erroneous planning as suggested by Dr Pierre CHAN, but perhaps in certain more deep-rooted logical fallacies.

As we can imagine, the first logic I am going to talk about is political integration. One of the very important main themes in the future changes of Hong Kong is the proposal frequently mentioned by fellow colleagues of the pro-establishment camp to go settling down in the Greater Bay Area. Therefore, it does not matter even though we find it difficult to continue living in Hong Kong, and we can always choose to leave this city if we do not find the systems of Mainland China agreeable. Dr Junius HO has diplomatically described the idea as "blood exchange" just now, and during this process, not only the people of this city will be replaced but this place of Hong Kong, according to the pro-establishment camp and Beijing, will also be ultimately crossed out. In other words, we will not be able to maintain the inherent uniqueness of our culture, and should not even imagine that we can decide our own future, because we have to live and act according to the policies of Mainland China, and our community group should therefore be "broken up".

When many fellow colleagues of the pro-establishment camp and the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong talk about the development of the Greater Bay Area, they are not merely referring it as a base for business development like Mr CHAN Kin-por does, but are suggesting the building up of a "Hong Kong village" there. Deputy President, you have also indicated support for this idea. With regard to the population problem, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7803

Hong Kong will in fact be integrated into China against this background, and the final goal in the future is to completely do away with the city of Hong Kong. This is the first logic. We should therefore examine the problems with the One-way Permit system and other immigration issues against this background. Although we should not discuss all issues under one single policy, there is still a need for us to adopt a holistic approach to examine the problems.

The second issue we need to holistically consider is a report released by the United Nations on the problem of low birth rate in Hong Kong. Although the report is seldom discussed by fellow colleagues in this Council, some Members did mention it just now. As the birth rate in Hong Kong is extremely low, the United Nations set up an expert group in 2015 to examine the problem. In this briefing note entitled "Can Hong Kong escape the low-fertility trap?", one of the significant points made is worth exploring because it suggests that there is now a great motivation for the Hong Kong Government to reduce social expenditures, be they in the areas of health care, welfare and education. Why should expenditures in these areas be reduced? The aim is to suppress the need to increase tax. This is the reason why the business sector and many powerful persons here have kept indicating that Hong Kong must maintain a low tax rate policy, and should avoid increasing public expenditures. Under such circumstances, the problems raised by Dr Pierre CHAN will persistently exist, and according to such a logic, administering Hong Kong is just like managing a company, where efforts have to be made to keep the cost down as far as possible. The crucial point is that whenever a problem arises, we should follow the logic of the business sector and outsource the services concerned to other places. Hence, what we are trying to do now is to outsource our elderly care services to the Greater Bay Area, so that elderly persons will be admitted into residential care homes in the area, and will even receive elderly benefits provided there.

Health care services will be the next. As Hong Kong people have to queue up and wait for a long time to receive medical treatment now, it is simply suggested that hospitals should be set up in the Mainland by universities of Hong Kong, so that Hong Kong people can be encouraged to seek medical services provided in the Mainland. After all, they are trying to turn Hong Kong into a company, which will be run on business principles. They have failed to regard every person as a member of this city, and treat everyone living in this city equally, so that they may enjoy the right to settling down for good in this city. We will not be able to identify the root cause of the whole problem until due importance is accorded to such aspirations.

7804 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Deputy President, my amendment seeks to expand the coverage of the so-called "lift theory", which is now being widely discussed in our society, and discuss the problems raised just now from a wider perspective, including working out the possible scenarios we are going to face in Hong Kong generally under the major strategy adopted by the Hong Kong Government to tie in with all policies implemented by Beijing. This is the approach we should adopt when examining the issue under discussion, so as to explore the scenarios we are going to deal with. I have pointed out in my amendment that although the general population growth from 2016 to 2066 is very mild, the Hong Kong Government intends to maintain a very low birth rate, and has thus failed to come up with any specific measures to assist Hong Kong people to have the confidence in living and working in peace here. Hence, there will be a natural decrease of 1.49 million in the local population and a net inward migration of 1.88 million over the entire projection period of 50 years. Although there will be no marked increase in our population in the next 50 years on the surface, there will be a difference of approximately over 300 000 between the net inward migration and the natural decrease in the local population. We can then better understand what Dr Junius HO was trying to say when he described the whole thing as "blood exchange".

I would conversely like to put a question to the authorities: Apart from reviewing the immigration policy, how can the Government genuinely deal with the core issue of building up confidence among Hong Kong people in the education system, housing policy and the rule of law in this city, so that they can put their mind at ease, settle down and raise their children here in Hong Kong? This can actually convey a symbolic meaning. If the Government has given no consideration to the above question, but has on the contrary tried in every way to achieve the objective of keeping the cost down as far as possible, and kept outsourcing its services when administering the city, this will only serve to, as asserted by many fellow colleagues just now, incessantly intensify the internal conflicts of Hong Kong.

I so submit.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I think that apart from the real indigenous inhabitants, including Mr Kenneth LAU or others in this Council, everyone in Hong Kong actually belong to immigrant families, with the only difference being which generation of immigrants to Hong Kong they fall into.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7805

Hong Kong has developed from a fishing port to today's … I used to enjoy watching a television drama called The Good Old Days because my grandfather and my parents found their own shadows in this drama. My grandfather moved to Hong Kong at the young age of 17, and my parents were born in Hong Kong. The achievements of Hong Kong today are attributed to the great efforts made in Hong Kong by generation after generation of immigrants. Which generation of immigrants do we fall into? While we are enjoying today's accomplishments of Hong Kong, we develop exclusionary thoughts to pin on new immigrants the blame for the numerous problems facing Hong Kong society today. The new immigrants under discussion today are those who have come to Hong Kong in a lawful and orderly manner, as permitted by law.

Nowadays, we often talk about the ageing of population. We should seriously face the reality. From the 1950s to the 1960s, Hong Kong had a baby boom, so today, almost six decades afterwards, there is a de facto "elderly boom". In fact, Hong Kong is not alone in facing the problem of increasing proportion of elderly population. We can see from the television programme As Long As You Live that many European countries and even the whole world face the same problem. Therefore, even if we seek accountability, few can be blamed for it. Hong Kong had immigrants in the 1920s. After 1949, there were large numbers of immigrants. In the 1960s, there was also a large group of immigrants. From the 1980s to the 1990s, the Mainland embarked on reform and opening up, and another group of immigrants followed. Why could we absorb them and make good use of such manpower, resources and talents to promote the development of Hong Kong, including historical, urban, geographical and land development?

I grew up in Tsuen Wan at a time when the planning of the Tsuen Wan new town was implemented. I have many friends who grew up in Sha Tin because of the development of the Sha Tin new town at the time. Hong Kong has ground to a halt. For a long time, there have been no more such new towns or satellite cities. Why? Perhaps some Members should ask themselves whether it is because of their anti-development theory and hatred theory that, under unnecessary circumstances, many developments cannot be initiated at all.

I hold that the present reality is definitely not, as Mr CHU Hoi-dick said, that there is no "one country, two systems" or that the Mainland is eager to eliminate "two systems". Why the trouble? It gives no advantage to the Mainland. I have pointed out many times that the best scenario for China is that both capitalist and socialist systems are equally successful. That will be the 7806 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 ultimate greatest achievement, while stifling Hong Kong is not. In my view, some Members, including Mr CHU Hoi-dick, should not always exhibit persecutory delusional disorder. I do not mind them often holding such delusional thoughts, but they talk about this, that and the other all the time, both inside and outside the Chamber, so much so that a kind of societal autism has emerged in Hong Kong. Take what they have just said as an example: "The ongoing discussion is about nothing but the issue of political integration." I wish to ask them: what is wrong with political integration? Could it be that fighting all day long is a good thing?

The reason why the efforts made by our last generation could lead to today's achievements of Hong Kong is precisely the relatively high level of their integration. Which generation of new immigrants did not have the problem of cultural conflicts upon arrival in Hong Kong? There were even age conflicts. This morning, I heard TAM Hoi-pong speak, and it turns that he considers the 45-year-olds to be elderly and hence unpopular. In Hong Kong today, many members of the workforce are over 45 years of age, and on television one can see 88-year-old elderly people still doing cleaning work. I have great respect for these trades. Today, cleaning jobs, construction jobs and many unfavourable back-breaking jobs are, in fact, industriously done by people over 50. Take kitchen jobs as an example. Who would do such back-breaking jobs? It is downright impossible to hire employees, because young people are reluctant to get into the trade. Where can we find people to do the jobs?

In fact, this phenomenon is common around the world, not just in Hong Kong. These jobs are often performed by new immigrants who can work legally in the locality. They are willing to endure hardship because they want to work for the next generation. In fact, this is also the way many cities and developed countries have evolved, and all the more so for Hong Kong. Employers are very clever. If asked about it today, employers are willing to recruit people over 55 in order to hire suitable staff, not to mention those over 45, because those employees cherish their jobs for the sake of the next generation, and are particularly disciplined. As they cherish their jobs, they do particularly well at work. My office has also hired several staff over 60. Do not say that 45-year-olds are elderly persons. This remark is too harsh to the ears. It discriminates against not just legal immigrants from the Mainland, but also the elderly and even middle-aged people, namely the young to middle-aged people as some Members referred to earlier.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7807

Therefore, I hold that Hong Kong should never be exclusionary, much less advocate such autistic ideas in Hong Kong. That is not the way in which Hong Kong has succeeded. On the contrary, I think the scheme can be improved. We are not trying to eliminate or reduce the OWP quota. Instead, we can set up a "return mechanism", as well as a mechanism for mutual immigration, including the entitlement for Hong Kong people with spouses in the Mainland to enjoy their retirement benefits after returning to the Mainland for retirement, given that they have legal spouses in the Mainland. This "return mechanism" will also make it easier to find a solution for those who have just come to Hong Kong for settlement but have found afterwards that Hong Kong is not so good as expected and hence wish to return to the Mainland. I believe that as long as good planning is done in this respect, Hong Kong does not need to be an exclusionary city. Instead, it can go one better to be not just the "Pearl of the Orient", but also the "Pearl of the World" … (The buzzer sounded) …

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, population policy is a top priority for society. After all, a society is made up of people. Hong Kong's fertility rate has stayed below the replacement level of 2.1 for a long time, reaching 1.1 to 1.3 in recent years. If this situation drags on, the elderly dependency ratio will soon touch 2:1, or even lower. The problem of population ageing in Japan is clear to all. Despite having a designated minister to deal with the issue, there is no solution whatsoever. The European Central Bank has also given strong warnings that we will hit a dead end soon, and called on countries to make early response. When a society has entered a stage where consumption is fast and production is slow, no measure is likely to be effective.

According to the figures of the Security Bureau, since the reunification and up to last year, a cumulative total of more than 1 030 000 people have come to settle in Hong Kong on One-way Permits ("OWP"). In other words, one out of every seven Hong Kong people is a new immigrant. As the public housing system, public health care, education and elderly services in Hong Kong have been overburdened in recent years, the emergence of a negative social perception of new immigrants is understandable. The Government has the responsibility to straighten out this problem, otherwise small issues will become big and good deeds will turn bad. A cake not properly baked will become a bomb.

7808 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

In thinking about this issue, I have taken a cue from the migration policies of Mainland cities, as well as those of other countries. I summarize this issue into two points: first, who has the power of approval, and secondly, what conditions will normally be considered. In Beijing, for example, if a Hongkonger or Guangzhouese married to a Beijinger wants to apply for household registration in Beijing, the procedure dictates that the applicant must first have documents issued by the public security authorities in the place of domicile, and then obtain approval from where the hosting spouse's household registration is located. In other words, migration between Mainland cities is subject to dual approval. Secondly, a general condition is the basic financial capability. In order to get household registration in Beijing, one must first have paid social insurance for seven consecutive years, so as to ensure future welfare. In addition, the applicant should have no criminal record. Apart from these basic conditions, there is also a points-based household registration process. Regarding the scoring method for 2018, I cite a few examples: 1 additional point is awarded to those having property in Beijing and lived there for 1 year; 15 additional points are awarded to graduates holding a bachelor's degree; and 6 additional points are awarded to those who have paid personal income tax for 3 consecutive years, amounting to more than RMB100,000. Last year, the minimum score for applicants to successfully settle in Beijing was 90.75. This scoring method is completely different from the practice of Hong Kong in that it contains elements that are selective in nature.

I understand very well that family reunion is indeed a very important reason. It is entirely unobjectionable that Hong Kong people have to take care of their Mainland relatives who want to live in Hong Kong, but we should also strike a balance, as is the case for anything in society. While realizing the rights of some people, we should not disregard the rights of others to remain unaffected. I am not asking OWP applicants to have very high educational attainment or be talents in innovation and scientific research, nor even asking them to contribute to the coffers of Hong Kong, namely to pay tax, but should they or the persons caring for them have at least reasonable conditions for self-sufficiency? I do not need to ask them to help lift the gross domestic product, nor ask them to pay tax, but should they not increase the overall welfare burden of Hong Kong?

How to deal with the inbound population is a complicated issue. In addition to economic factors, ethics, law, feelings and morality also play a part. Any measure, whether lax or strict, will certainly have problems and arouse opposition. In recent years, this has become almost the biggest common issue in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7809

European elections. A measure will be criticized as inhumane if it is too strict, and will increase public expenditure if it is too lax, but we cannot say that those holding this view are wrong. Merkel, who has led Germany to become the top power in Europe over the past decade, is also plagued by this problem and has recently announced that she will not seek another term of office. To be honest, every coin has two sides. If properly implemented, the OWP policy may mitigate, to a certain extent, the problems of population ageing and labour shortage, otherwise it will become one of the destabilizing factors in society. If there was a country with unlimited resources to help all those in need, it would certainly be ideal, but in reality this is impossible. Therefore, I believe that the prospect of the inbound population being self-sufficient by relying on themselves or their carers is a reasonable balance.

Lastly, I very much agree with one point mentioned earlier by Mr CHU Hoi-dick: our whole discussion should not focus on immigration policy, but rather on the need for Hong Kong to have a long-term overall population policy, including how to reduce fertility barriers to local people and raise the fertility rate of the local population. This point has been skirted around in every term of government. Since the reunification, everything has been discussed. Now, a solution has supposedly been found for even the abolition of the "offsetting" arrangement under the Mandatory Provident Fund Scheme. The same goes for the reclamation. So, given that a solution previously unimaginable has also been found for the co-location arrangements, for example, what is not yet resolved? The issue of legislation on Article 23 is not. But what are we doing with the population policy? So far, every term of Government has baulked at touching the issue and failed in its duties, giving no thoughts whatsoever to what kind of place Hong Kong should be and what the demographic structure should be in the future. This is a common topic nobody dares touching. I really cannot stand it, so I have to make my voice heard.

There are no problems with new immigrants, provided that some conditions are imposed, but births given by local mothers are also necessary, right? I told the Financial Secretary that I had heard many views during the events that I held in the district. Deputy President, when a couple attended Uncle TIEN's event with their child, I said that the child is very cute and advised them to have one more child. The parent said: "Will you believe I do not want to? The problem lies in the financial burden." Everybody was talking about the financial burden. Not so many told me about school or health care problems, other than the financial burden. "How can I have one more child when the 7810 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Government's tax concession is so little?" I asked the Government to give a helping hand by deducting tax for those who have given birth to one more child. The Financial Secretary said no, because there are no resources of this kind to support (The buzzer sounded) …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, your speaking time is up.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the keyword of the motion debate today is "One-way Permit" ("OWP"). I will try to "reveal essence from the phenomenon" when analysing this issue.

Hong Kong is now facing a lot of problems and challenges. It takes five or six years to wait for a public rental housing unit. On public health care, inpatient beds fill up hospital corridors and the waiting time for specialist services is extremely long. Education places are inadequate and public spaces in the city are overcrowded. How are we going to resolve them? Many people have held the instinctive perception that far too many people are competing for resources and hence some consider that OWP quota should be reduced. I can understand this instinctive perception. But then, it is sorrowful, in this open society of Hong Kong, to see new arrivals become a target of attack and a tool for distracting people, while some disgusting remarks emerge in the community, such as the "diluting theory" and the "locust theory".

Members who are present here should have a more in-depth and far-reaching understanding of public policy. I find both the suggestion of significantly reducing OWP quota and that of the so-called "introducing means test" mechanism impractical, unworkable and unable to resolve the problem. "Population reduction at source", which is often suggested by the opposition, is indeed unachievable; it is only a fallacious prescription and a kind of hype in identity politics. Using the 150 daily OWP quota as a one-size-fits-all villain to generate discrimination will only create more unfairness and conflicts, while prolonging more social problems.

First, I would like to respond to the so-called "means test" mechanism. Many opposition Members have confused the OWP scheme with the dependents system, and the Secretary has explained this just now. Mr CHU Hoi-dick suggested bringing the OWP scheme on a par with the systems for reunion with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7811 overseas spouse and children. Does he realize that many of these applications are approved very leniently? If the applicant has a simple job and a place to stay, the application will basically be granted in a few months' time. I would really like to ask those colleagues who raise this view: Do you think this approach will let more new arrivals come to Hong Kong earlier? I hope they can be more practical when putting forth suggestions.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

Secondly, if we take a look at the statistics, we will know that the ratio between those under employment and those receiving Comprehensive Social Security Assistance among the new arrivals is similar to that among the other Hong Kong people. Moreover, the majority of them willingly take up positions in cleaning, catering and construction work, jobs which are tough and unpopular among the locals. Many of them respect and enjoy their work, are self-reliant and make significant contribution to society. Moreover, it is most likely that the means test suggestion contravenes Article 24(2)(3) of the Basic Law which accords permanent resident status and the right of abode to children born to Hong Kong people.

In fact, the major purpose of enforcing the OWP scheme is to lay down rules for family reunion and let Mainlanders come to Hong Kong in an orderly manner. These Mainlanders come to Hong Kong with the applications filed by Hong Kong people. They are not sent to Hong Kong by the Mainland authorities, as claimed by certain people. This is a basic fact which must be clarified. The great majority of Mainlanders coming to Hong Kong for reunion are involved in Hong Kong-Mainland marriages. Members present here probably do not have any objection against freedom of love and marriage. It should also be a basic right for people to choose to live with their partners in Mainland or in Hong Kong after getting married.

Indeed, cross-border marriages between Hong Kong and Mainland China amount to more than 22 000 cases a year and these couples also beget children. Hence, there is little room for reducing the relevant quota. Of course, one can still find some room for reduction, as only 116 people were allowed to come to Hong Kong on a daily average last year in 2018. These new arrivals who come for family reunion, be they spouses or children, make up over 90% of all OWP 7812 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 holding arrivals in Hong Kong last year. If the quota must be slashed, this can only be done if we ignore the principle of family reunion or if we do not mind lengthening the waiting time unreasonably―now it takes four to five years to wait for an OWP quota. Alternatively, if someone comes up with a solution which ensures all Hong Kong people can find their ideal partners locally: women can easily find good husbands and men can find good wives here, then the quota can be reduced. Of course, given the freedom of love and marriage, this is also impractical and unachievable. Please let me know if there are any other solutions.

I consider the significant reduction of OWP quota a false proposition, a bogus proposal, and a deceptive and specious argument. Honestly, apart from satisfying certain public opinions, earning political chips, diverting attention from social issues, this can resolve hardly any genuine problem. Hong Kong's fundamental problem is that the speed of our growth and system renovation cannot meet the needs arising from social development. We need more forward-looking social planning all the more.

Among the amendments, I will support the one raised by Mr Steven HO, as it stresses stringent gatekeeping, ensuring correct and accurate application information and combating bogus marriages. In this respect, I believe the Hong Kong Immigration Department can tell Hong Kong people what they are doing and adopt an even more proactive attitude. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions has recently handled a case in which a woman who joined a wedding planner training course was cheated and dragged into a bogus marriage. The Government should alleviate public worry and misunderstanding on OWP and set up a return mechanism to accommodate those who fail to adapt to living in Hong Kong. These are the correct attitudes to take when facing problems and resolving problems. Thank you, President.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, speaking of the two motions for this meeting, while the first motion appears to have nothing to do with this one, there actually exists an intricate relationship between the two.

The first motion is about the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"). As Members all know, the main purpose of developing the Greater Bay Area is to eradicate Hong Kong people's identity. So, what has this got to do with the Permit for Proceeding to Hong Kong and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7813

Macao the (One-way Permit ("OWP")) issued by the People's Republic of China? To some extent, OWPs … Members should have noticed the development on the Mainland. In 1997, some remarked somewhat jokingly that if one wanted to know what would become of Hong Kong 20 or 30 years later, one might look at the case of Tibet and Xinjiang. Some 20 years ago, people thought that this was groundless and totally irrelevant as Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong were not related to one another in any way.

Some 20 years have passed since Hong Kong's reunification, and figures are self-explanatory. Of the 7 million people or so in Hong Kong―let me put aside those talents admitted under other … Members can never imagine that the "Princess" of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. is actually a Hongkonger. Besides, when various corrupt officials were arrested, they all produced a Hong Kong identity card. All this has enabled people to understand why Hong Kong faces this problem today. Since 1997, over 1 million new arrivals have come to Hong Kong on OWPs. This is a fact. In many places, including Xinjiang which we all know, the proportion of Han Chinese population was initially very low in 1949, but it has increased to over 8 million these days. Not only this, the Mainland has purportedly deployed 1 million public officers to Xinjiang and encouraged them to marry Uygur women there, in an attempt to eliminate the entire race within the time frame of a few generations.

Some people argue that Hong Kong will not face the same situation because Hong Kong is dominated by Chinese people, who are also of a Han Chinese ethnicity. But most regrettably, the greatest difference between Hong Kong and the Mainland is that the growth environment of Hong Kong people is not autocratic or oppressive. Hong Kong people have been taught freedom, democracy and civil rights ever since childhood. But all these values are definitely intolerable on the Mainland, and our more vigorous propagation of such values will breed greater fear among the people in power on the Mainland. To them, it is best to have 100% control, brainwash everybody and turn everybody into "artificial human beings". Under these circumstances, encouraging Mainlanders to settle in Hong Kong by issuing OWPs is indeed a major policy.

Some may rebuke me by saying that the system cannot be changed. But this is not true. Article 22(4) of the Basic Law stipulates, "For entry into the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, people from other parts of China must apply for approval. Among them, the number of persons who enter the 7814 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Region for the purpose of settlement shall be determined by the competent authorities of the Central People's Government after consulting the government of the Region." This provision states categorically that the Mainland Government must consult the SAR Government before determining the number of people concerned. Why have we heard the Chief Executive of various terms (including incumbent Chief Executive "777"―Carrie LAM) say that Hong Kong cannot possibly do anything about it? They certainly would have tried their best if they had really taken account of the well-being of Hong Kong people. But as we all know, they are only "yes-men" of the Chinese Government, so we should not expect anything from them.

Let me make concession and look at Hong Kong's capacity. The waiting time for public housing has increased from 3 years in the past to 5.5 years today. The situation will only get worse and certainly will not improve. In our projection, people will soon have to wait seven years before receiving public housing allocation. Over 200 000 people in Hong Kong live in inadequate living conditions, including subdivided residential and industrial units. People now face many difficulties. Why should the Government refuse to examine the issue concerning the vetting and approval of OWPs? Obviously, the Government does not regard this as its intrinsic duty. On the contrary, the Government's mission is to obscure the Hong Kong identity as much as possible, so as to bring the very existence of Hong Kong to an end certain years later, turn those Hong Kong people initially with a clear sense of Hong Kong identity into Greater Bay Area people, and eliminate people of the new generations who cherish democracy in Hong Kong. This is rather its most important task. While we are unable to change the overall development, we at least hope that we can take back the power to vet and approve OWP applications.

I do not believe anyone will try to hinder others in reuniting with their families. In 1998, Mainland children aged between 0 and 17 who were born to Hong Kong people amounted to 32 439, and the number already dropped to 9 600 in 2018. In other words, less than one fourth or one fifth of the over 50 000 OWP applications involved children of Hong Kong people. As for other categories, I am unable to tell. But I have heard about a corrupt official in Hebei called ZHANG Yue, who is also known as "King of Politics and Law". In collusion with an influential official called ZHOU Yongkang at the time, he offered an OWP for sale at $1.5 million to $2 million. ZHANG's deeds were definitely not an isolated case. Perhaps this is very prevalent across the country, only that such deeds were more brazen in the past, and they have gone LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7815 underground now. But as Members all know, Hong Kong has been kept in the dark under the OWP policy, and it is not in a position to raise queries. This explains why Hong Kong people or the Legislative Council must strive to take back the vetting and approval authority today. If we are even unable to verify the truthfulness of OWP applications and investigate whether anyone has offered OWPs for sale, how can we possibly safeguard the basic rights and interests of Hong Kong people? How can we possibly face those who work in hospitals or await public housing allocation every day?

Speaking of discrimination against new arrivals, I must certainly mention the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB"). Members can certainly recall that Mr CHAN Han-pan or some in DAB have proposed to bar new arrivals from receiving welfare benefits. This is precisely how they have tried to stimulate hostility, but we have not done so. Our mere hope is that Hong Kong can maintain its own status (The buzzer sounded) … and vet …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, please stop speaking immediately.

MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, having listened to some Members' speeches, I notice that they have confused several respects. First, the Permit for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao (the One-way Permit ("OWP")) issued by the People's Republic of China; second, visitors; and third, whether people have come to settle in Hong Kong through the OWP system or other schemes. Their discussions on these several respects are quite confusing. I think people should distinguish these few aspects from one another when listening to Members' speeches.

Just now, Dr KWOK Ka-ki mentioned the "King of Politics and Law in Hebei". What is wrong if a Mainlander is truly married to a Hong Kong woman and then comes to settle in Hong Kong? Speaking of people who come to settle in Hong Kong under talent admission schemes, it is a fact that their cases must be processed by the Security Bureau. But this is not the main point I am driving at. My emphasis is that Hong Kong is an immigrant city, and we should not use such expressions as "population replacement". I say so because the entire "population" of Hong Kong comprises people who have come to settle in Hong Kong over all these years.

7816 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

I wonder if the Secretary has ever heard of the "TamJai accent" or viewed this video clip featuring this "TamJai accent". Perhaps he has not patronized "TamJai Mixian" for quite some time, I believe. How does the "TamJai accent" sound? Let me do an illustration for Members: "ngaau4 juk6, ngaau4 jin5, ji4 fu6, cuk1 saang1; daai6 laat6, zou2 gou2, zaa1 go3 pei4 daan2; dung3 caa4 siu2 tin4, lai4 do1 haak3 zaa3 zaan3. jau5 mou4 ci4 taa1 syu1 jiu3 ne1 sin1 saan1?"1

I wonder why people from this generation will give a knowing smile upon hearing this kind of accented Hong Kong Cantonese. In fact, this kind of accented Hong Kong Cantonese has long since existed in various places such as public markets. I say so because a large part of Hong Kong's population is composed of immigrants―well, Mr Kenneth LAU is an exception. My mother entered the territory illegally from Dongguan in the 1980s. While her Cantonese is characterized by a Dongguan accent, the Cantonese spoken by some people is even accentuated by a Chaozhou accent or Fujian accent. Who speaks Cantonese without an accent? Even the orthodox Cantonese spoken in Guangzhou may sound awkward to us. From this, we can see that "forced population replacement" or "population replacement" does not exist in Hong Kong.

Yesterday, the Secretary for Security said that 1 030 000 people had come to settle in Hong Kong since the reunification. But a majority of our 6 million population before the reunification was composed of immigrants. Why should Members pick on those new arrivals who have come to settle in Hong Kong after the reunification? Why is there no discrimination against those who came to settle in Hong Kong before the reunification? Why are they not dismissed as troublemakers? In my view, we must deal with such questions and offer a clear explanation. When we point one finger at a group of people who have come to settle in Hong Kong and accuse them of bringing problems to Hong Kong, there are actually four fingers pointing back to ourselves. We should not ascribe Hong Kong's overall problems to this group of people. Social problems should be resolved by the community. A Member accused us of smearing new arrivals. Actually, he was smearing himself and me. The reason is that even if he himself is not a new arrival, I believe his family members from the previous generation or

1 Translator's note: This is an imitation of the "TamJai accent" based on the romanization of individual Cantonese characters from the Chinese Character Database developed by the Chinese University of Hong Kong. It means: "Sliced beef, beef balls, fish curds and bamboo mushrooms; very spicy, no leek, plus a century egg; iced lemon tea with less sugar, and also a small dish of minced pork sauce. Anything else, Sir?" LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7817 even the generation before it are immigrants from the Mainland. Reprimanding new arrivals or shirking the responsibility to them is actually as ridiculous and pointless as putting the blame on a baby born in Hong Kong.

I think Mr Gary FAN bears some resemblance to Donald TRUMP in proposing this motion. But it may be a little bit flattering to him if I call him "Donald TRUMP of Hong Kong" because he is not a state president after all. The persistent propagation of this populist or "higher-class Chinese" mentality in the Chamber has created misconceptions about some people. The problems faced by Hong Kong, or the problems associated with the immigration policy or new arrivals, including those with health care, land resources and housing, actually should not be attributed to the immigration policy; neither can they be dealt with through "quota reduction at source". Mr FAN, all such problems stem from planning errors rather than the immigration policy.

So, I do not think that the Secretary for Security should be the one to give a reply on this motion because this issue has nothing to do with the Security Bureau. Problems are mainly found in health care, housing and land resources. In my view, social planning in Hong Kong is not satisfactory, so Members should not shirk the responsibility to immigrants or those acting as gatekeepers who determine their entry or otherwise. They have nothing to do with all such problems. Hong Kong is honestly plagued by livelihood problems. Speaking of primary health care and land resources, through the many population censuses, the Hong Kong Government should be well aware that our population is ageing, when a baby boom occurred, and when baby boomers will retire. But why has the Government failed to make early proper preparations and health care planning all along for dealing with the ageing of baby boomers? Well, perhaps it has done so. But due to the dwindling of the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme, pressure has been brought to bear upon public health care. As a result, our public health care has become overloaded.

Another problem is land planning. In my view, the Hong Kong Government still faces one problem: it has not formulated any planning for regions in the north of the Shenzhen River, in total disregard for the changes brought about by the development of our neighbouring cities (notably Shenzhen) to Hong Kong. Those who have studied basic geography will know that downtown areas―or business districts―and their surrounding regions can be developed based on a concentric model. It means that the region surrounding a business district can be developed into a business-cum-residential area, and the 7818 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 region beyond this area can be developed into a pure residential region. As the Government did not have any idea about what was going on to the north of the Shenzhen River, so it zoned Sheung Shui as a residential area. But Sheung Shui should obviously have been a central business district located in the vicinity of Futian and Luohu. This residential area is simply unable to cope with or withstand the commercial activities brought by both places. Does the Hong Kong Government have any intention to formulate planning afresh to deal with the existing situation? President, I cannot see any.

So, Members should not shirk the responsibility to those Mainland people who have come to settle in Hong Kong, especially those who have done so on OWP, because they have nothing to do with the problems at all. But the Security Bureau can do something―formulating a "return mechanism".

In 2014, FTU already proposed to formulate a "return mechanism" at the "Two Sessions". The existing mechanism should not be unilateral. Any Mainland people who fail to adapt to the way of life in Hong Kong should be allowed to return to their original places of residence. As for the question of whether the Hong Kong husbands of those women who have come to Hong Kong for family reunion should also move to the Mainland, we may give further thoughts. But under the existing unilateral mechanism, Mainland people are unable to return to the Mainland after coming to Hong Kong. This is actually not quite so desirable. We should let them choose where they want to live. This is something that can be done by the Security Bureau (The buzzer sounded) … I hope … Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, please stop speaking immediately.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, I speak in opposition to the original motion. The wording of the entire original motion gives the impression that all Mainlanders coming to Hong Kong with One-way Permit ("OWP") and all new arrivals are creating burden to Hong Kong society. This is obviously misleading. We should clarify a notion first. The policy objective of OWP is for family reunion which is a basic human right. More importantly, we should not see these people negatively and overlook their contributions to society by saying that new Mainland arrivals are using public services and facilities in Hong Kong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7819

Hong Kong has been a migrant society since day one. At the beginning of the 20th century, about 60% of Hong Kong's population had come from Mainland China, particularly Guangdong, and the number was significant. After several massive migrations which took place during the post-war period, the founding years of the Country and the Cultural Revolution, more than 2 million Mainlanders came to live in Hong Kong in the 50 years from 1961 to 2016. By inference, about 85% of the existing population in Hong Kong consists of either Mainland arrivals themselves or descendant of Mainland arrivals. The economic take-off of Hong Kong owes to these Mainland arrivals who see Hong Kong as their home. They have provided enormous labour, capital and skills and have performed various functions in various trades at various times, making great contributions to Hong Kong's economy. Urbanization and population growth will necessarily lead to demands for public services such as housing, education and health care. It is definitely unfair for us to put all the blame on OWP holders or other new arrivals for these social problems.

President, given the close relationship between Hong Kong and Mainland China, the vetting and approval of OWP application are more stringent than those from other countries and areas. After the reunification, the Mainland's Ministry of Public Security began to grant the 150 daily quota and implemented a point-based system which has effectively kept the number of OWP holders arriving Hong Kong under control. As the economy of the Mainland develops, the waiting period for applications under the spousal reunion category has gradually shortened from 15 years to 4 years now. However, foreigners married to Hong Kong persons, along with their children, can come to Hong Kong directly as dependents. They do not have to wait and are subject to fewer restrictions. In comparison, the system is obviously unfair to the Mainland spouses and children of Hong Kong people. As the 150 daily quota is not fully utilized, the authorities should discuss with Mainland's Ministry of Public Security and consider further relaxation to relieve the plight of prolonged separation suffered by these families.

President, overpopulation is not a challenge facing Hong Kong now. Instead, the challenges are low birth rate, the ageing population and insufficient labour supply. According to the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States, Hong Kong sits at the bottom fourth place in the global birth rate rankings, outperforming only Singapore, Macao and Taiwan. If we rely on natural growth alone, population ageing in Hong Kong would have been more serious, for sure. It is largely due to the replenishment from OWP holding new arrivals that Hong Kong can now maintain the productive young labour force at a reasonable size, 7820 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 especially at the grass-roots level. According to government statistics, Hong Kong today should have lost 740 000 people in population and 400 000 people in labour force if not for the 960 000 OWP holding new arrivals coming to Hong Kong in the last 20 years. Natural growth in local population alone definitely cannot meet the demand of the local labour market and the needs arising from social and economic growth. With the gradual popularization of tertiary education, local young people generally attain higher levels of education and many are unwilling to work in positions requiring much physical labour, such as those in catering, security, elderly services and transport. Nowadays, even the hotel industry meets difficulties in recruitment for a number of job types. OWP holding new arrivals provide sizable labour supply which nicely meets the needs of these trades, preventing them from contracting due to manpower shortage.

As for the impact brought about by new arrivals on Hong Kong's social welfare, a government survey shows that the percentage of new arrival families who rely on salaries as their primary source of income has risen from 64% in 2013 to 83.3% in 2018. Meanwhile, the percentage of these families receiving government subsidies has fallen from 15.2% to 5.4% during the same period, showing a consistent decline in new arrivals' reliance on social welfare. In terms of education, the percentage of new arrivals from Mainland China who have received tertiary education or above has risen from 17.5% to 21.3% at present. From these we see that alongside the surge of economic and education levels in Mainland China, the profile of new Mainland arrivals has undergone profound changes and their contribution to Hong Kong society is getting increasingly significant. Hence, Mr Gary FAN's suggestion of slashing half of the OWP quota is utterly impractical.

Mr FAN has further suggested allowing the Special Administrative Region Government to take back the initiation power in the OWP policy. In fact, in as early as 1999, when the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress interpreted the Basic Law in relation to the NG Ka-ling case, it provided a clear explanation of Article 22 of the Basic Law: Mainland residents who wish to enter Hong Kong for whatever reason must apply for approval in accordance with the relevant national laws and administrative regulations. It is clear that the authority of vetting and approving such quota has all along been rested with the public security authority in the Mainland. The SAR Government has no legal ground to vet and approve OWPs. Therefore, Mr FAN's suggestion is infeasible.

President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7821

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, the discussion today is about Hong Kong's population policy. My late grandfather was an immigrant from the Mainland. I am just like many Hong Kong people, in the sense that we are all descendants of immigrants. As an immigrant or refugee descendant, how will I look at the topic for discussion today? We should not hold any discriminatory views or make any discriminatory remarks because all this will stimulate social conflicts. I do not agree to labelling Mainland immigrants as "locusts" and stigmatizing them as pure robbers of our resources. I do not agree to all this.

In the course of my district work in Sheung Shui, I have met many new arrivals who have just come to Hong Kong from the Mainland. They are all hardworking, in a bid to nurture their next generation. As many of them are not well educated―this is true―they can only take up elementary jobs. But the job types concerned also contribute to Hong Kong one way or another. Whether speaking of waiters in Chinese restaurants, cleaning workers, security guards or construction workers, we should not disregard their contribution.

Some Members in this Council contend that as Hong Kong is an immigrant city, it should continue to welcome Mainland people. Actually, I for one also held this view in the past. But my view has changed in recent years. Why? Not so much because I agree to the discriminatory remarks I quoted just now, but because I have noticed some social changes in recent years and also the differential treatment accorded by government policies.

First, as Members can see, social tension has turned increasingly serious in recent years. The resources for housing, health care and people's livelihood are already insufficient to meet the needs of existing local people (including new arrivals and home-groomed Hong Kong people). When various social problems begin to emerge, shouldn't we pause a little while and slightly adjust the quota for immigrants―I do not mean to ban the entry of immigrants―to one which is bearable to the local community and can also cater for family reunion needs?

The second point concerns the right of family reunion, and the Government must give a reply. There are actually two mechanisms at present, one for Mainland people, and the other for people from regions other than the Mainland. Under the latter mechanism, the applicant, who is in Hong Kong, must prove that he is financially capable of supporting the future living of the new arrival in Hong Kong. This is a kind of financial test. But there is no such requirement under 7822 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 the mechanism for Mainland people. In the case of the mechanism for people from regions other than the Mainland, I know that it is stripped of a queuing system for One-way Permit holders applying for family reunion. There is this difference.

If Members recognize that family or spouse reunion is a basic human right, then the Government should adopt the same standard in treating immigrants from the Mainland and those from regions other than the Mainland. It should not adopt completely different standards in treating this human right of Mainland spouses and that of spouses from Macao, Indonesia, the Philippines or other overseas countries.

Some Members argue that the root cause of the existing problems in Hong Kong is policy planning blunders in Hong Kong rather than immigrants. A problem may be caused by more than one factor. Community planning is certainly problematic, but population growth has worsened such planning problems. I believe this is undeniable.

Furthermore, the lack of transparency in the Mainland's vetting and approval mechanism for One-way Permit applications has aggravated the problem of bogus marriage. We have noticed that in many cases, not only the spouse of a bogus marriage has come to Hong Kong, and after coming to Hong Kong, she has even applied for the entry of her old parents and even other family members into Hong Kong. All such problems have intensified the grievances of Hong Kong people and also conflicts between both places.

Therefore, I think that as social resources are getting tight, a reasonable adjustment of the quota, along with a review of the immigration and population policies, is justified.

I so submit.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in opposition to Mr Gary FAN's original motion. But before speaking on this topic, I must give a reply on Mr CHU Hoi-dick's earlier remarks about the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. According to him, our proposal to set up a "Hong Kong town" or "Hong Kong village" somewhere on the Mainland and provide the Hong Kong people there with the relevant welfare LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7823 benefits offered in Hong Kong is aimed to export Hong Kong's problems to the Mainland or force Hong Kong people to move to the Mainland. This is a sheer slander and misconception.

Members must realize that a few hundred thousand or as many as 1 million Hong Kong people live on the Mainland. They move to live on the Mainland out of personal reasons. Some Fujian people also hope that they can return to live on the Mainland more often because they may enjoy much more activity space and reunite with their friends and relatives. While returning to live on the Mainland is a matter of personal choice, they are also Hong Kong people. So, it is definitely reasonable if the Government can formulate a portability system for welfare benefits, so as to enable those living on the Mainland to also receive welfare benefits offered in Hong Kong. Do Members think that they should be stripped of the right to those welfare benefits offered in Hong Kong? What he said is a sheer slander. The policy advocated by us is aimed to bring convenience to Hong Kong people living on the Mainland. It is totally reasonable and justified, and it should not be smeared.

As regards the motion proposed by Mr Gary FAN today, I wish to point out that its wording or contents are filled with discrimination and stigmatization of "new arrivals". I am also a new arrival, and I came to Hong Kong with my parents at the age of two. My two elder brothers waited 15 years before they could come to Hong Kong and reunite with our whole family. If the power of vetting and approving applications for the Permit for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao (the One-way Permit ("OWP")) issued by the People's Republic of China is tightened as they have proposed, I wonder if my elder brothers can possibly live together with us in Hong Kong today.

New arrivals, or newcomers to Hong Kong, can be classified into two categories. The first category covers professionals who contribute to Hong Kong with their professional skills upon arrival. The other category entails those who come to Hong Kong for family reunion as frequently mentioned in the legislature at present. All along, our perception may be that those new arrivals who come to Hong Kong for family reunion are usually involved in cases of "an old husband and a young wife". But with the progress of the times, I have found that the husbands of many Hong Kong women are Mainland professionals or Mainlanders. Numerically, cross-boundary marriages account for one third of the marriages registered in Hong Kong, and the proportion is definitely not small. The tightening of the quota for family reunion as proposed by Mr Gary FAN is not in the interest of Hong Kong people. 7824 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Recently, the Society for Community Organization sent me an email. It states that if the quota on OWP is reduced from 150 a day to 75, the waiting time for family reunion will double and increase from the existing 4 or 5 years to over 10 years. Is this humanitarian? Is this a violation of human rights? Besides, the existing daily quota of 150 is the limit, and the Government has also said that the quota will not be fully utilized. In other words, not all the applications will be approved, and Mainland departments will play the gate-keeping role. Furthermore, have the Hong Kong authorities played the gate-keeping role? Yes. The Immigration Department is vested with the ultimate vetting and approval power, and it may decide whether to permit an applicant to come to Hong Kong. It will also strictly enforce the Immigration Ordinance.

As pointed out by the Secretary in the oral question session yesterday, if they discover that a person who came to Hong Kong on an OWP is involved in bogus marriage, they will immediately revoke his permanent resident status and repatriate him to the Mainland. The figure in this respect is not small, and there have been 10 or so such cases. So, how can Members make the sweeping statement that the OWP system has given rise to bogus marriage or crimes? They should not say so.

Another situation that has often been exaggerated is that new arrivals have taken up our public resources. I think the earlier speeches of two Members were very objective. The first one is Mr SHIU Ka-chun, a representative of the social welfare sector. His viewpoint is that we should not ascribe the pressure on our social welfare to certain people. This is a fact. And, I do not believe that Members who are now present can be more familiar with our social welfare system than Mr SHIU because Mr SHIU is an industry representative. Just now, Dr Pierre CHAN argued that the pressure on our health care was long-standing, and it was not solely caused by new arrivals. Their explanations are already very clear.

I wish to bring up some figures here. According to the Hong Kong Poverty Situation Report 2016, new-arrival poor households were self-reliant. For instance, the rate of new-arrival poor households in employment was 67%, and it was higher than that of poor households in other categories. This means that they engaged in employment after coming to Hong Kong. The proportion of those receiving Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") is not as alarming as the community has asserted. Statistics in 2016 show that 23 000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7825 new-arrival households were eligible for CSSA, but merely 26% of them were CSSA recipients. This figure is far lower than the figure for local households.

President, I have a photograph on my bench. I believe many Members have already displayed it. We can see from it that pan-democratic Members are against ostracization and discrimination while supporting family reunion as a basic human right. I have no intention to tease pan-democratic Members, only that I wish to remind them that they put forth a very important viewpoint at the time (I quote): "In our view, the Hong Kong community should treat new arrivals with the principles of inclusion and justice rather than regarding them as a burden or looters of Hong Kong's resources." (End of quote)

I hope pan-democratic Members can join hands with us in opposing Mr Gary FAN's motion because the aforementioned proposal was put forth by them back in 2013. I urge pan-democratic Members not to forget their initial stance.

Thank you, President.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, there are quite a number of differences in the concepts contained in the original motion and its five amendments under discussion in this debate, but they do share some common points, and I also see the merits of some measures proposed. I would like to speak specifically on the power to vet and approve entry for immigration.

In my opinion, a relatively important viewpoint concerning our discussions on the reform of the One-way permit ("OWP") system is set out in paragraph (1) of the original motion moved by Mr Gary FAN, who suggests establishing a vetting and approval mechanism for OWP, so that the SAR Government can exercise the power to vet and approve entry for immigration, and serve the gatekeeping role on the population policy of Hong Kong.

President, it is stipulated in Article 22 of the Basic Law that, (I quote) "For entry into the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, people from other parts of China must apply for approval. Among them, the number of persons who enter the Region for the purpose of settlement shall be determined by the competent authorities of the Central People's Government after consulting the 7826 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 government of the Region." As it is clearly provided here, relevant departments of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") may offer advice on the matter. The HKSAR Government does have a role to play, and it is not true that there is nothing it can do.

However, under the current circumstances, I think the SAR Government also admits that all matters concerning the issuing of OWPs are handled by the relevant Mainland authorities. The acceptance, vetting and approval of OWP applications as well as the issuing of OWPs are all within the remit of the Mainland authorities, and the main role of Hong Kong is merely to provide assistance and support. Have the Mainland authorities seriously consulted the SAR Government during the whole process in issuing OWPs? We know nothing about it, but very obviously, the SAR Government has certainly been put in a rather passive position in the entire issuing procedures.

We all understand that the OWP system has been implemented for Mainland residents to enter Hong Kong in an orderly manner for family reunion through approval by the Mainland authorities in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Mainland, and Hong Kong is their final destination for settlement. OWP quota is now available for application by five categories of family members of Hong Kong residents residing in the Mainland for reunion with their spouse, taking care of their children and parents, etc. If Hong Kong does not have the power to vet and approve such applications, or does not even have a say on such issues, how can decisions be made to tie in with our policy and the future planning of manpower resources? Nor will it be possible for the SAR Government to verify the identity of OWP holders to ensure that they meet the eligibility criteria under the "points system" implemented in the Mainland.

I therefore consider it necessary for the governments of both sides to enhance the transparency of the vetting and approval of OWP applications, so as to ensure that all OWPs are issued to people with genuine need for family reunion. It would be most desirable to give the SAR Government and the competent authorities of the Mainland equal power and status for determining through negotiations the number and categories of OWPs to be issued, thereby adjusting the OWP quota timely in accordance with the policy of Hong Kong and our planning of manpower resources. A more reasonable arrangement in the entire process is to let the SAR Government take on a final gatekeeping role and have the ultimate power to vet and approve entry for immigration.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7827

It is also proposed in the original motion that a study should be made on the introduction of a "return mechanism", under which people coming to Hong Kong on OWPs will be allowed to retain their household registration in the Mainland for a specified period of time. They will thus be allowed to return to Mainland China for resettlement if they cannot adapt to the life in Hong Kong or consider their life in Mainland China better and prefer going back. In the absence of such a mechanism, they will be left with no alternative but to stay in Hong Kong. They will only be filled with more grievances when their life here does not meet their expectation. This will not be beneficial to these people nor to Hong Kong; it will only result in a lose-lose situation. I therefore consider the proposal worth supporting.

Efforts should be stepped up to combat cross-boundary bogus marriages and to verify authenticity of supporting documents submitted by applicants in order to prevent lawless persons from obtaining documents needed for making an OWP application by way of false marriages or by using forged documents on family relationship. Committing immigration frauds by engaging in bogus marriages and using forged documents have already constituted fraudulent and corruption offences.

According to the information provided by the Security Bureau, successful prosecutions have been instituted against a total of 606 persons in the past five years for engaging in bogus marriages. However, the figure may only represent the tip of an iceberg because we can in no way grasp the actual number of such offending cases. Yet, persons convicted are often given a light sentence by the court, and in most cases, the sentence imposed is much more lenient than the maximum imprisonment term of 14 years as stipulated in the legislation. It is worth exploring whether the imposition of a relatively light sentence would induce such unlawful acts.

It is noted that a large number of entrants among those coming to Hong Kong on OWPs belong to the category of reunion with spouses, and since reunification, about 50% of the OWP holders came to Hong Kong for reunion with their spouses. However, people coming to settle in Hong Kong by way of bogus marriages have not only been granted the right of abode, some of them have even applied for public housing and social welfare benefits, thereby consuming the valuable resources of Hong Kong. Syndicates arranging bogus marriages have also furnished false information and documents and committed the offence of conspiracy to defraud with the objective of obtaining unlawful pecuniary benefits. These are offending acts against which stringent and stepped-up enforcement actions should be taken.

7828 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

President, during our discussion, special emphasis should be put on the need to extend equal treatment to all people coming to settle in Hong Kong through lawful channels. We do not agree that we should treat any individual persons in a discriminatory manner. As workers in the education sector, we are facing students with different backgrounds. Some of them are local residents born in Hong Kong, some of them have migrated to Hong Kong with their parents and do not speak Chinese, while some children have come to Hong Kong from other countries. We should adhere to the humanitarian spirit and extend equal treatment to all of them.

I so submit.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, the subject under discussion today is "Reforming the immigration and admission policies". Some Members try to raise the issue for discussion today mainly because an increasingly heavy burden is imposed on our public services and facilities, but I think this is not the whole story. The inadequacies of public services in Hong Kong can be attributed to many factors, especially improper land planning, slow progress of public housing construction programmes and the problem of "fattening the top at the expense of the bottom" in social welfare organizations under the Lump Sum Grant Subvention System. The recent initiative made to raise the eligible age for elderly Comprehensive Social Security Assistance is another example. Although it is announced in the Budget that a financial surplus of $16.8 billion is recorded this year and our financial resources are ample, an initiative is still made to reduce elderly benefits. This is in fact a problem with the governance of the Government. The Hong Kong Government has no lack of resources, but many of them are reserved for the implementation of many infrastructural projects and projects to promote political integration, while public resources have never been invested in response to many livelihood aspirations. The situation is aggravated by new immigrants and population factors, resulting in serious problems and conflicts in the distribution of resources.

Even though new immigrants and entrants have consumed the health care and housing resources of Hong Kong, I will not assert that they are the source of trouble and other people have nothing to do with it. However, population policy is an aspect we cannot neglect because it has indeed created a heavy burden on our community, which is already plagued with problems. I therefore concur that there is a need to reform the immigration and admission policies of Hong Kong, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7829 including taking back the power to vet and approve One-way Permit ("OWP") applications. Many Members propose amendments to the motion moved this time, and it has specially come to my attention that both Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Mr Steven HO have mentioned in their amendments a rather interesting viewpoint which is seldom discussed, that is, how heavy should a place rely on inward migration.

According to Mr Steven HO, new immigrants are important manpower resources, contributing to the promotion of economic development and alleviating the problem of ageing population, but Mr CHU Hoi-dick is of the view that our population policy has put too much emphasis on inward migration and neglected the importance of encouraging childbirth among local citizens. I would not deny the contributions made by new immigrants and entrants to Hong Kong, as in the case of foreign domestic helpers, who have assisted local families in taking care of their elderly and children. This is the reason why most Hong Kong people are very understanding towards foreign domestic helpers when they ride on the MTR and gather at parks and footbridges during holidays, and will not criticize them for occupying public spaces. Besides, many jobs in the transport, construction and catering industries are now being taken up by ethnic minorities. I therefore believe that new immigrants coming to Hong Kong for family reunion have also made a lot of contributions to the community of Hong Kong as many other migrants here.

However, this does not mean that Hong Kong's manpower demand can be totally met by inward migration. The Government has once proposed the importation of foreign labour such as carers to cater for the needs of elderly service development, but the suggestion was met with opposition from the Labour Advisory Board and the labour sector, which considered it necessary to meet the employment needs of local carers first. This exactly is the contradiction involved in the subject under discussion today. The State Council has promulgated the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, and suggests the promotion of mutual recognition of qualifications of social workers in the Greater Bay Area, but the idea has been regarded as a wild dream by members of the social welfare sector. The social welfare systems operated in Mainland China and Hong Kong are different, and because of some political reasons, there are also disputes concerning the definition given to the value of social work. Pursuing social justice is a requirement laid down in the code of practice for social workers in Hong Kong, but this is not applicable elsewhere, not even in Macao. Hence, we 7830 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 should not take it for granted that new entrants can become the new blood for the working population in Hong Kong, and consideration should still be given to the institutional differences between the two places.

Therefore, although Mr HO maintains that manpower resources are very important, attention should be given to the huge discrepancies between Hong Kong and overseas places in respect of our systems, values and languages. It is not a good thing for Hong Kong to encourage inward migration blindly.

In conclusion, the influx of entrants is caused by a host of reasons, such as marriages, admission of talents or technical workers, and promotion of inward investment, and this is of course justifiable to a certain extent. In this age of globalization, we understand that it is impossible to insist on excluding new immigrants completely from the population composition of Hong Kong, and this is also an unrealistic approach. However, the problem now is that the Government has put too much emphasis on inward migration but it has utterly no power to vet and approve entry for immigration under the OWP system. This has resulted in general distrusts among the people. Apart from the absence of power to vet and approve entry for immigration, the figures provided in the replies to the questions raised by Mr WU Chi-wai and Ms Claudia MO today are also derived from information voluntarily furnished by people coming to Hong Kong on OWP. Are there people refusing to furnish information? If so, do they belong to some other categories of persons in our population? A black hole like this is exactly the source of distrust among Hong Kong people. On that basis, many cultural conflicts and disputes concerning languages and living habits have arisen, which could work greatly to the disadvantage of social cohesion.

It is therefore my opinion that the Government should increase the resources for housing provision, health care and transport services, lest social conflicts will be further intensified. Besides, support should also be granted to people in need. More importantly, efforts should be made to encourage childbirth among local citizens so as to gradually address the problem of over-reliance on inward migration. The Government should also avoid tackling the relevant problem in a piecemeal manner by admitting talents on a sector-specific basis. If the Government refuses to implement democratic planning, allows local economy and planning to keep tilting towards financial, real estate and tourism businesses in the long run, and chooses to support the development on the Mainland blindly, the contradiction between Mainland China and Hong Kong will only be further intensified. This may even give rise to many conflicts in people's daily life and in the community. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7831

The setting up of tourist areas will aggravate the contradiction between Mainland China and Hong Kong, and similarly, having no power to vet and approve entry for immigration under the OWP system is also a very important issue. After all, in this world there can be no hatred without a cause, and by spreading hatred, our society as a whole will ultimately suffer. I hope the Government can heed our well-intentioned advice, implement democratic planning and proactively improve people's livelihood instead of trying to cover up its incompetence in governance by letting different social groups confronting and opposing each other.

MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): The subject of the motion moved today is "Reforming the immigration and admission policies", and there are several fellow colleagues proposing amendments to the original motion. I cannot agree with the viewpoints raised in the original motion and by some Members in their amendments, because generally speaking, I think their proposals will create a labelling effect.

These viewpoints have placed new immigrants on our opposite side, especially in the original motion, where a suggestion is made to reduce One-way Permit ("OWP") quota by half. It aims to reduce the number of new immigrants coming to Hong Kong, thereby alleviating the pressure on health care services, subsidized housing, social welfare and educational resources. It seems that new immigrants have become the focus of attention and the subject of criticisms. They are regarded as the root cause of all problems, and these problems can all be resolved as long as they do not come to Hong Kong. These underlying meanings, together with news reports in these few days, have given me an impression that it would be best for Mainland people not to come to Hong Kong. This, however, is absolutely not conducive to the benefit of Hong Kong, and will also create contradiction and division.

Among the proposals put forward, there is one point which makes me feel very uncomfortable. Ms Claudia MO proposes in her amendment to provide "language and cultural support, including learning Cantonese and traditional Chinese characters," to Mainland residents, "so as to avoid Hong Kong people having to deliberately accommodate them due to language and cultural differences, with a view to safeguarding Hong Kong from 'Mainlandization'". It occurs to me that the suggestion is strongly discriminatory in nature, and with 7832 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 some deeper thoughts, I cannot help but relate this proposal to the efforts made by many fellow colleagues here to assist ethnic minorities. When rendering support to ethnic minorities, these colleagues also agree that assistance should be provided for them to learn Cantonese and traditional Chinese characters. However, they would certainly not say that this should be done to safeguard Hong Kong from "foreignization" or "internationalization". I cannot agree with such remarks which are of a discriminatory nature, and which have indeed made people feel very uncomfortable.

President, I am a District Council member of the Sham Shui Po, and have been serving the district for over 10 years. Sham Shui Po District has also been described as one of the districts with the highest number of new immigrants in Hong Kong, and I have served a large number of new immigrants personally in the past 10-odd years. As a frontline worker, I can strongly feel that many new arrivals are making untiring efforts to adapt to their life in Hong Kong, for they love and earnestly hope to contribute to the city. Many housewives we know are not only busy taking care of their children during daytime but are also proactively fighting for every job opportunity. Apart from working diligently, they have done their best to take care of their family, husband and parents-in-law.

With the shrinkage of our working population, new entrants have in fact taken up many jobs that Hong Kong people generally find extremely toilsome and are reluctant to take up. When we can comfortably enjoy a delicious meal in a restaurant at a relatively cheap price, we should bear in mind that this is perhaps made possible by many new immigrants who have taken up such posts as cleaning workers, dishwashing workers, helpers and waiters in the restaurant. New immigrants have thus contributed greatly to Hong Kong.

The remarks made in the original motion to suggest that new immigrants have imposed a burden on educational resources are also not totally agreeable to me. For example, many children in Sham Shui Po District are hard-working students who wish to create a better future for themselves, enhance their competitiveness and improve the financial situation of their family through education. Many of them are also superior to local children in the sense that they show a better ability of taking care of themselves, knowing very well that Hong Kong is their home and wishing to exert themselves to a full extent. I therefore cannot agree with the allegation that they will impose a certain degree of pressure on our community.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7833

On the other hand, many fellow colleagues have also opined that apart from the impact on social welfare and educational resources, new immigrants have also created a very heavy burden on health care services. As evidenced by actual figures, a number of colleagues have already pointed out today that the imbalance in the health care system of Hong Kong is caused by the problem of insufficient doctors and hospital beds, as well as an ageing population, while the increasing number of new immigrants is not the sole reason. Numerically, the average age of members in families with new immigrants is 33 years at present. I wonder who at the age of 33 would frequently queue up and wait several hours for Accident and Emergency services in public hospitals. Hence, the pressure on the health care system is not mainly caused by new immigrants, and such an assertion is definitely not agreeable to me.

President, the original intention of the OWP policy is to facilitate Mainland residents to come to settle in Hong Kong for family reunion. This is the most important objective, and is also an arrangement made on humanitarian grounds. As for how we can achieve optimal use of the daily OWP quota, improvements can be made through discussions. These include adopting the principle proposed by Mr Steven HO in his amendment to safeguard people's right to family reunion, shortening waiting time for reunion with spouses and tackling certain associated problems. Secretary, I agree that there is indeed a need to tackle the problems of bogus marriages and abusive use of resources if they really exist. However, we cannot put all the blames on new immigrants simply because something undesirable has been identified.

President, I was invited to receive a petition letter from the Society for Community Organization at the entrance of the Legislative Council Complex yesterday. I have met with quite a number of people, including some women participants who have brought their children along with them. I noticed during our conversation that in order to attend the event, they had taken a few hours off and had to rush back to work after the gathering. I cannot help but feel that they have actually fallen prey to the whole thing, because they are members of the community and have also contributed to Hong Kong, but their coming to settle in Hong Kong has been used as an excuse to achieve political ends, such that a debate is held here to discuss whether they should be admitted. I think this is indeed grossly unfair to them, and Hong Kong has really not done them justice.

President, I so submit.

7834 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I wish to respond to the criticisms and ungrounded accusations against me by Dr KWOK Ka-ki of the Civic Party.

As a matter of fact, the policy of the Civic Party on new immigrants or new entrants has been very ambiguous, as if they are schizophrenic. On the one hand, Dr KWOK Ka-ki says that people should not discriminate against new immigrants; but on the other, he says that new immigrants will destroy the younger generation in Hong Kong who fights for democracy. Does he mean that new immigrants cannot fight for democracy? Or, these new arrivals will make people undemocratic? This kind of direct attribution or distorted thinking is outrageous.

And then Dr KWOK Ka-ki questions why the Government does not provide any welfare and public housing for the new entrants, saying that this will create social conflicts. As a matter of fact, new entrants are required to wait for seven years to be eligible for public housing and welfare application. Individual cases may be considered under exceptional circumstances. This is the present welfare policy in Hong Kong. In a forum, Dr KWOK said in front of the new immigrants that they should be allowed to apply for public housing and welfare immediately after arrival in Hong Kong without any restrictions. But he said differently in public, opining that housing is inadequate and Hong Kong people have to wait for a long time because all the housing units are snatched by the new entrants.

Hence, Dr KWOK's logic is very confusing. What is his target? His target is to be vote-oriented. Dr KWOK and I were both invited to the forum. Interested Members can go to my Facebook. I will later upload the video for Members' viewing. He said one thing in front of the new immigrants. And today, he said the opposite. Worse still, he criticized other political parties. This is outrageous indeed.

Hong Kong is actually a city of immigrants. This is the reason why people around the world can also come and take root in Hong Kong, and to contribute to society with their expertise and play their part in creating the glorious Hong Kong today. However, global anti-immigrant notions have been rapidly spreading over the recent years. We all know that. However, I still hope that Members can be clear that the situation in overseas countries is very different from that in Hong Kong. People elsewhere may move to other countries out of other reasons, but the new entrants come to Hong Kong mainly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7835 for family reunion. This is a basic human right. They have to wait for four years before they are allowed to apply for resettlement in Hong Kong. Certainly, however, I do think that the Government should seriously combat problems such as bogus marriages and face this problem squarely. The system should not be abused.

If people say they stand by human rights but on the other hand undermine human rights, we should be cautious about these double-faced people. In fact, all politicians in the world may over-abuse the issue of immigrants, or even use the immigration policy to create social conflicts and racial conflicts. This is very dangerous. New Zealand is one such example that has learned a bloody lesson. A group of people believed in what the politicians said and became extremists under their instigation. Hence, politicians can abuse the immigration policy, but they should stop before going too far and not to lead society to the extreme.

In recent years, many people tend to blame the policy on new immigrants to vent their social grievances. In fact, the lack of housing is the result of land planning mistakes in the past. The Government has not set aside any land reserve for years, and resulted in the inadequate supply of housing today. Just look at the past record. There has been a long time in which no public rental housing and Home Ownership Scheme housing was built and no land was set aside as reserve. That is why people have no housing to live in today. What we should do now is not to stop applications for family reunion, nor conduct the so-called culture test mentioned by Mr Vincent CHENG. These are all discriminatory acts.

What we should do now is to expeditiously find land for housing construction. We should not blame the new immigrants, saying that without the quota of 150 new entrants, Hongkongers will not have any problem. Does it mean that we do not need to construct any housing if the quota is scrapped? We still need to find land. Hong Kong people still need to improve their living condition. Hence, I hope that these people will not directly attribute these problems to the new immigrant policy. Over the years, hundred-odd people came daily to Hong Kong for settlement. How come we could tackle this issue in the past but not now? This is due to the absence of housing construction and land reserve in the past period of time. The Government had an utterly wrong focus and thus applied the wrong remedy, and that is why Hong Kong has been sick.

7836 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Hence, I hope that the Members who put forth some extreme proposals today will think twice, and I also hope that Hong Kong people can think about this problem again and not to fall into their trap. President, I so submit.

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): President, today we discuss the motion on "Reforming the immigration and admission policies" proposed by Mr Gary FAN. First of all, we need to know whether the daily quota of 150 One-way Permits ("OWPs") that people often mention is the only admission policy in Hong Kong. And the answer is certainly in the negative. As explained by the Secretary for Security just now, we have different admission schemes for talents and professionals, including the General Employment Policy, the Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals, the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme, the Immigration Arrangements for Non-local Graduates, the Admission Scheme for the Second Generation of Chinese Hong Kong Permanent Residents and the Technology Talent Admission Scheme. I believe Jack MA obtained his Hong Kong Identity Card through one of the above admission policies.

But are wealthy people or highly-skilled talents the only persons allowed to come to Hong Kong? Not necessarily, I believe. If that is the case, apart from the talents we want, how do the spouses of Hongkongers, who live in other places come to Hong Kong? And how do people who wish to reunite with their parents in Hong Kong come here? I believe these people are the focus of the discussion today. That is, the daily quota of 150 OWP entrants. According to the latest data of the Government, cross-boundary marriages account for one third of the marriages in Hong Kong. In other words, among the marriages in Hong Kong each year, one in every three marriages is between a Hong Kong resident and a Mainland resident. I believe Members can roughly get the number in their heart.

Although the discussion today is about the immigration policy, as many Members pointed out just now, the motion seems to target at and discriminate against the new immigrants. Let us first talk about the positive or negative impacts of the daily quota of 150 new immigrants on Hong Kong. Some Members claim that they have a great impact on our health care system, housing system and the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") system.

On health care, as mentioned by Dr Pierre CHAN and even Dr Fernando CHEUNG, over 65% of the hospital beds are occupied by local elderly persons; LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7837 and that over 80% of the new immigrants from the Mainland are below the age of 45. I thus think that it is unfair to accuse the new immigrants for using our health care system.

As for CSSA, some people question that many new entrants apply for CSSA. Take the data in 2017 as an example. About 336 000 people in Hong Kong received CSSA payments, with 4.5% of local residents and 4.8% of Mainland immigrants being CSSA recipients, showing the percentage of the latter is slightly highly than that of local residents by 0.3%. If we put ourselves in their shoes, and if these Mainland immigrants are single mothers or small children who are unable to go out to work or are not well-off, should we not provide assistance to them? Do these CSSA recipients account for a large percentage? We can see from the data above that local residents accounted for 4.5% and new immigrants accounted for 4.8% only.

When it comes to housing, this is an old trouble of ours. If we insist on no reclamation, the problem cannot be solved no matter how hard we try to find land because this is an overall problem for Hong Kong. Hong Kong only has a small amount of land. If we wish to resolve the housing problem, I believe the Lantau Tomorrow Vision can be a good option. If members of the public wish to resolve the housing problem, they should look nowhere and pledge their full support to it.

Some people question that new immigrants will become a burden to Hong Kong. However, I wish to talk about the ways they can help Hong Kong. The long-term unemployment rate of Hong Kong is 2.8%. The labour market is almost in full employment. For the job vacancies in 2018, for example, the market was in short of 78 340 people, covering vacancies in finance, transportation, insurance, manufacturing, logistics, retail sales, cleaning services, etc. All these industries need to employ people. Some Members say that there were 1 million immigrants to Hong Kong in the past 20 years. They occupy many spaces in Hong Kong. But despite these 1 million new immigrants, our labour market still needs about 78 000 people. Without this 1 million people, and considering our low birth rate and the Government's refusal to import labour, how is Hong Kong going to develop?

Today, every five young persons in Hong Kong have to support one elderly person. In the years after 2040, every two young persons will have to support one elderly person. How do we find support for Hong Kong? Can we ask 7838 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Hong Kong people to bear more children? How do we supplement our population? Not all new entrants are Jack MA. Can you ask Jack MA to work as a retail salesman, or a transport worker or logistics worker? We need a labour force. All places need to develop. We need new labour. Among this 1 million people, over 90% of them aged below 60. People who come for reunion with their parents only account for 2% to 4%. So, this is an important means for Hong Kong to strengthen its labour force.

I wish to remind Members who emphasize the conflicts between Hongkongers and Mainlanders about one thing. They will definitely fail and they are definitely wrong if they take this approach. In 2013, 22 Legislative Council Members came to the forth and declared that Mr Gary FAN and Ms Claudia MO did not represent them. I hope they will still hold fast to this position today.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, Mr Gary FAN's moving of the motion today is an unadulterated manifestation of schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder for the opposition to stir up controversy about the power to approve One-way Permits ("OWPs"). We all know that human rights, equality, democracy and freedom are universal values, but this motion tramples all over them. Perhaps the opposition go to the United States so often to discredit Hong Kong that they have come under more influence from Donald TRUMP to cast aside all these universal values. In fact, Mr Alvin YEUNG had wanted to move the motion before, but he missed the chance to do so because of absence. Mr Gary FAN just picked up the slack today.

President, many colleagues have mentioned that 22 opposition Members co-signed on 1 November 2013 a statement entitled "Anti-discrimination, Anti-exclusion, Anti-division", which mainly noted that "new immigrants should not be seen as looting local resources, and the relevant quota should not be reduced". But part (2) of Mr Gary FAN's motion today seeks to reduce the OWP quota. That means he takes the lead in discrimination, exclusion and division.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7839

At present, families split between Hong Kong and the Mainland already have to wait a very long time before coming to Hong Kong, that is to say at least two to three years for approval. Once the quota is reduced, the current applicants will have to wait twice as long or even longer before being able to come to Hong Kong. Is this not trampling on the fundamental right to family reunion? The opposition will certainly argue that they do not mean to obstruct Mainland-Hong Kong marriages or the reunion of those families, but just want to take back the power to approve OWPs. However, the question is: What is to be approved after the power of approval is taken back? If the power of approval was taken back to approve nothing, then it would be a misnomer. What is to be approved with the power of approval in other countries? Quite simply, first, they assess the applicants' wealth. Wealthy people are welcome, and poor ones are not. Secondly, they assess whether the applicants possess expertise or professional qualifications. But then a question arises: With the imposition of so many conditions, is it still in compliance with the fundamental right to marriage and human rights? Obviously not.

In addition, in part (3) of the original motion, the opposition calls for formulation of an immigration policy that takes into account the dependents. In other words, when an application is submitted for the Mainland dependents to come to Hong Kong, firstly, the applicant in Hong Kong should be able to afford their living costs; secondly, the dependents in the Mainland should have no adverse record; and it is also necessary to prove the relationship between them. The aforesaid three points are the keys. However, from our understanding, if Hong Kong applicants from grass-roots families, rather than wealthy ones that can afford the costs of the dependents, are ineligible for application, then are we trampling on their rights? By the same token, if applications for cross-boundary marriage are subject to asset tests, and otherwise cross-boundary marriage is out of the question, is this extrapolation reasonable? How would Mr FAN respond?

In fact, marriage is the most basic right. Article 19 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights provides that: "(a) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State"; "(b) The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognised." Today, the opposition is obviously advocating against human rights by completely ignoring the need for family reunion.

President, what is more tragic is that the opposition often plays the "Mainland-Hong Kong family reunion" card to hamper the administration of the SAR. For example, the reclamation in the Central Waters is clearly aimed at 7840 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 developing a land reserve to prevent a future gap in land supply and avoid subjecting Hong Kong to the sway of the existing land-hoarding developers. However, the opposition not just provokes division and discrimination, but also most likely aims to hamper the administration of the SAR and create a crisis of governance in Hong Kong. We must pay attention to this situation and not condone the entrenchment of such sophistry in society.

President, quite simply put, if screening is applied to the Waiting List for public housing, so that poorer people can get into public housing earlier while no clue on the timing may be available for those without particular needs, is it fair and equal? Or else, can we achieve the highest degree of equality by letting all the applicants wait in the same queue and be regularly allocated public housing units? If we let the mentality of taking back the power of approval and conducting screening take root in society, I believe it will provoke more contradictions and divisions.

In addition, President, I would like to emphasize that I dealt with a number of cases 20 years ago in which the Hong Kong applicants died during the application period but the relevant approval procedures were ongoing. Less than one month afterwards, the four children of an applicant came to Hong Kong. Despite the numerous problems to be solved at the time, we tried our best to find solutions based on the applicant's circumstances. Nevertheless, looking back, I feel some consolation in the fact that the four then primary and secondary school students have now grown up and contributed to society. Therefore, what we care and hope for is that the relevant procedures should be compatible with humanity and human rights.

Lastly, here I expect the opposition to no longer make everything difficult for new arrivals. They should adopt a receptive and tolerant attitude, instead of a resistant, repulsive and smearing attitude with which they fabricate slanders or put the blame on others for their failure to fulfil responsibilities. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, do you wish to speak?

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, Mr Gary FAN moves the motion on "Reforming the immigration and admission policies" today and the emphasis is on the first point: "establishing a dual vetting and approval LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7841 mechanism for One-way Permit ("OWP") … whereby the SAR Government can exercise the power to vet and approve entry for immigration and taking back the initiative in the policy on OWP, so as to serve properly the gatekeeping role on the population policy of Hong Kong". I cannot understand why any Hong Kong people will oppose this major principle. We are now fighting on behalf of the Hong Kong Government for the right to be involved in the vetting and approval of OWP applications, instead of fighting for this right for us or the democratic camp. It is because if the Hong Kong Government does not have the right of vetting and approving OWP applications, it basically cannot play a deciding role in Hong Kong's population policy. But perhaps the Hong Kong Government never has a genuine population policy.

In fact, the principle is very simple. I have no idea how long the President has not squeezed into a bus or an MTR compartment. Let me use the analogy of waiting for a bus at a bus stop. When the bus arrives, the people at the bus stop will hope that they can squeeze themselves into this bus, and it is better that they can get on this bus rather than the next bus. However, after getting on the bus, some passengers will think it the other way round. Since they are already on the bus, they wish that the bus can skip the following bus stops or not too many people will be allowed to get on so that the bus will not be too crowded. If there are still a lot of vacant seats on the bus, the attitude of the people who are aboard will be reversed. They would wish to prevent people from boarding or push the people who are about to board back to the bus stop. They would think it is better that the bus skips the following stops. You can say that they are selfish and discriminate against others. But how about this "bus" of Hong Kong? It is crammed full of passengers and is nearly in a state of "explosion".

At present, we are striving for the right of the "driver" in deciding the number of people to board with regard to the crowdedness of the bus, and this is a question about regulating the number of passengers. If a passenger asks a driver to check the space inside the bus before deciding whether to stop at the bus stop for people to get on, can this be regarded as discrimination? This definitely is not discrimination. If the driver keeps on allowing people to get on the same bus, the bus will be overloaded with passengers some day and an accident will happen. Hong Kong is exactly this bus while the SAR Government is the "driver" who does not have the power to control the number of people getting on the bus. At present, over 100 people cram into this bus every day. We dare not say that no one is allowed to board, not to mention refusing anyone to board the bus from now on. We are only asking for the right to decide the pace of 7842 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 allowing people to board the bus. For example, can the pace of boarding the bus be slower, the number of people smaller, or the passengers in the bus move in deeper so as to vacate more space for more people to board? This is a very reasonable and humble request.

I do not understand why people will be strongly against this proposal and even float the conspiracy theory that the proposal aims at provoking social conflict and social confrontation. Conflict and confrontation surely exist and do not need anyone to provoke. This is just like a very crowded bus whose driver is regardless of the passengers but continues to allow people to cram in the bus. Conflict between the newly boarded passengers and the existing passengers will naturally occur, and a bigger conflict emerges when it is found that the newly boarded passengers use fraudulent means to squeeze into the bus, which will then be filled with anger, hatred and grievances.

The Government is to blame for this situation. It is because of the Government's lukewarm and couldn't-care-less attitude, incapability and helplessness that the grievances of the people will shift to the Government. I quote a very simple example. I have moved a motion at the Panel on Housing meeting, asking the Government to spare no efforts in investigating into suspected cases and severely punish those public housing applicants and residents who fail to declare their properties outside Hong Kong. My motion was passed without any objection from the pro-establishment camp, as the content is similar to the principle of "My mother is a woman". I wrote a post on Facebook and got 1 500 Likes and 500 Shares in only one night. The concern and anger of Hong Kong people in regard to this issue are not made up by us, but can be felt by us at the living level every day. Because we often hear that our neighbours are new arrivals who can move quickly to public housing units, but they have their own fields and land sites in their home villages. I am not sure whether these are individual cases or only form a tip of the iceberg, but the Government has the obligation to tell the truth to the public, and if this situation does happen, it is obliged to deal with it by all means. However, the Government just appears to be powerless to do anything. It seems to say that "If that person has properties all over the world, am I supposed to ask all the governments in the globe about his properties?" What we are saying is that many new arrivals come from the Mainland. Is the Government bold enough to ask the Mainland Government whether the applicant concerned has any property or land on the Mainland? If the Government dare not make that move and when Hong Kong people see and hear these stories, they will naturally feel very angry.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7843

Our Chief Executive, Mrs Carrie LAM, always says that the OWP arrangement is for the purpose of family reunion and family reunion is a kind of human right. When Mr Gary FAN asked the Government to take back the right of vetting and approving OWP applications, the Government asked him whether he had any sympathy. I felt very angry upon hearing that remark. Does our SAR Government really attach importance to family reunion? If it does, why did the Immigration Department reject the dependent visa application from QT, a British, to come to Hong Kong to join her same sex partner? Why was she only permitted to come to Hong Kong after the Government has lost in her appeal case lodged with the Court of Final Appeal? Family reunion is a kind of human right, but I do not even have the right to form my own family. I also agree that family reunion is a kind of human right, but now we are discussing the place of reunion, and whether reunion can be done in an orderly manner and at a reasonable pace, and more reasonable conditions can even be laid down to deal with this issue. Our request is really rational and sensible indeed.

Even Singapore has its own immigration policy. Singapore, with an ageing population and a shrinkage of its Chinese population, has admitted a large number of new immigrants from the Mainland, who accounted for one third of all the new immigrants, but the citizens have rather strong reaction about this. Although the People's Action Party of the Singapore Government will surely win in the election, it still needs to deal with this issue at the request of citizens. As the opinion poll shows that the hike in new immigrants is one of the five grievances of the citizens, the Singapore Government needs to tighten its population policy and sets an immigration threshold to balance the proportions in population. On the contrary, we see that the SAR Government is currently doing nothing. We have put forward a lot of proposals and we can discuss which measures are easier to be implemented and more effective, or which measures may not be feasible. But for our proposal of asking the Mainland Government whether Hong Kong can be involved in the vetting and approval of OWP applications, the SAR Government says that it is unable to ask and is unwilling to ask. That is why Hong Kong people are so angry and is also the biggest reason for the intensification of conflicts between China and Hong Kong.

MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): President, we are debating the motion on "Reforming the immigration and admission policies" today. I agree with what Mr Steven HO says in his amendment that the immigration and admission policies have to be reformed under the following four principles which include: 7844 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 first, adhering to the principle of "putting Hong Kong people first" in safeguarding Hong Kong people's right to family reunion; second, ensuring the sustainable development of manpower, public services and resources of Hong Kong in the future; third, addressing the population ageing problem; and fourth, taking into account the carrying capacity of Hong Kong. He also comes up with a few specific measures.

In early 2018, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region announced some figures showing the trend of Hong Kong people getting married and divorced, as well as the year on year increase of Hong Kong-Mainland cross-boundary marriages. During the 20 years after Hong Kong's reunification, the accumulated number of cross-boundary marriages stands at 488 000, which is a very large figure. Of course, we are not talking about the figure of marriages today, but cross-boundary marriages have already accounted for 20% of the total number of Hong Kong households.

Many people are concerned that in the past Hong Kong-Mainland cross-boundary marriages, many Mainland spouses were young women who could only wait for the approval of their One-way Permit ("OWP") applications to come to Hong Kong in the form of family reunion. They mainly took care of children at home and only a few of them worked in society. They would join the labour market only when their children have grown up. However, alongside with the highly rapid economic development on the Mainland in recent years, the education level and working capabilities of people have also greatly enhanced, and Mainland spouses, after coming to Hong Kong, tend to join the labour market to give play to their talents and contribute to the Hong Kong society.

Can Hong Kong take back the initiative in the policy under the entire OWP mechanism? It basically is not feasible according to the Basic Law. It is stipulated in Article 22(4) of the Basic Law, as quoted also by many Members today, that "For entry into the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, people from other parts of China must apply for approval. Among them, the number of persons who enter the Region for the purpose of settlement shall be determined by the competent authorities of the Central People's Government after consulting the government of the Region." The provisions of this Article, in accordance with the interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in 1999, mean that Mainland residents "who wish to enter the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for whatever reason, must apply to the relevant authorities of their residential districts for approval in accordance with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7845 the relevant national laws and administrative regulations … before they can enter the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." Of course, since OWPs are the documents produced and issued by the Mainland authorities, the handling, vetting and approval as well as issuance of OWPs are under the remit of Mainland authorities. Therefore, I think it is basically not feasible to take back the initiative in the policy.

Can the OWP quota be reduced? Mr CHAN Chi-chuen just mentioned the theory about getting on a bus. This bus originally has 20 seats, but there are now less than 20 passengers, with only 15 passengers. Will we say that we do not need this bus but only need a bus with a carrying capacity of 15 passengers? This approach basically shows a lack of compassion and is not feasible. During these days, the OWP quota on the Mainland has not been used up and the Mainland spouses have to wait for at least four years before they can be qualified to come to Hong Kong.

Some Members express concern over the cases of bogus marriages among the applications. Does the Immigration Department ("ImmD") have any measures against bogus marriages? Or are the existing preventive measures practicable or can they achieve sufficient deterrence? During the period between 2013 and 2017, there were 2 744 suspected cases of bogus marriages and 606 successful prosecutions. If you ask me whether this number of successful prosecutions is satisfactory, I would say it is really a difficult question to answer, as we know that ImmD has spent a lot of manpower and resources in the investigation, and encountered many difficulties in collection of evidence. Will home visit be required in each case? As I mentioned earlier, there are 488 000 or nearly 500 000 cases of cross-boundary marriages. Is ImmD required to investigate into each and every one of the cases? In fact, this is really not realistic or possible. How can the roles of the Mainland authorities and ImmD be enhanced? Will ImmD have a mechanism under which ImmD can take the initiative to liaise with the Mainland authorities and furnish information about the intermediaries or suspected cases of bogus marriages? Can ImmD review the reporting mechanism together with the Mainland authorities? How can certain benchmarks be determined? For example, when should the Mainland authorities inform ImmD of some suspected cases that warrant certain verification? Should random inspections be stepped up in this aspect? I hope that the role of ImmD can be enhanced in this regard so that the entire vetting and approval procedure of OWP applications can be more smooth and accurate, and there will not be so many suspected cases of bogus marriages.

7846 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

I also agree that the Government should grasp the relevant information of OWP applicants so that it can make more planning on the supportive measures, such as the provision of public services and manpower training, for new immigrants in Hong Kong. I learn that ImmD has been conducting surveys at the Lo Wu control point. These are statistical surveys on the employment, health care and education of new immigrants when they enter Hong Kong. However, only conducting statistical surveys at this stage is not enough, as they will have subsequent development after settling in Hong Kong. For example, which schools do they go to and which districts do they live? I think it is necessary for the Government to obtain more information in this aspect. In fact, Dr Pierre CHAN has raised a question concerning health care, but the Government said that it did not have the relevant information. I hope that in the policies concerned, the Government can pay more attention to the supportive measures to new immigrants after coming to Hong Kong. It should be concerned about, for example, their living environment and how to face our problem of ageing population. According to the information provided by the Government to a previous question, many new arrivals are in the age range from 18 to 59, and each year, over 30 000 new arrivals are in this age range. How are we going to face the ageing problem in the future? The Government has the need to face it squarely.

In my view, this discussion of us (The buzzer sounded) …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms YUNG, please stop speaking.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, you may now speak on the amendments. The time limit is five minutes.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): I would first of all like to thank 28 Members for speaking on the motion, and five Members for proposing amendments to the motion. With regard to the proposed amendments, I agree with Ms Claudia MO, who proposes in her amendment that the Government should provide language LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7847 and cultural support to Mainland residents who are granted the right of abode in Hong Kong through various talent admissions schemes and the One-way Permit ("OWP") system. Over the past 10-odd years, the cultural and language variations are in fact one of the factors leading to intensified clashes and conflicts between Mainlanders and Hong Kong people. Moreover, I also consider it necessary for the Government to promote civic awareness among new arrivals, thereby Minimizing social conflicts. This is actually a "melting pot policy" that we should put in place as shown by many overseas experiences.

As for Mr Alvin YEUNG's amendment, I also agree that the Government should establish an office of population policy, and its areas of work should include examining various factors affecting population growth in the short and medium term. We should keep pace with time and revise the population policy on an ongoing basis, and a review may need to be made once every two years or once every year. Hence, quantitative analyses will have to be included also during the decision-making process, so as to acquire the specific data needed.

With regard to the amendment proposed by Mr Steven HO, as I have mentioned when I spoke for the first time, in order to relieve the pressure on the carrying capacity in terms of public resources brought about by the increase in population, we should adopt a three-pronged approach of "drawing a line", carrying out investigation and combating frauds. What has Mr Steven HO proposed in his amendment? He has deleted the proposals of establishing a vetting and approval mechanism for OWP, as well as reducing OWP quota in the original motion. However, if we draw reference from the practices adopted in the United Kingdom and Australia whose governments enjoy a complete power to vet and approve entry for immigration, we will understand that only by exercising such a power can data research be made to investigate into and combat cases involving bogus marriages and immigration frauds.

However, according to the amendment proposed by Mr Steven HO, the proposals of stepping up efforts in combating cross-boundary bogus marriages and against immigration frauds in the original motion are retained, but under the OWP application system, applications are now vetted and approved by the Mainland authorities. Hence, immigration frauds committed on the Mainland will also be handled by the Mainland authorities, and the SAR Government will only have a passive role to play. If the SAR Government does not have the power to vet and approve OWP applications, it simply cannot obtain the information needed for investigating into and combating cases involving false 7848 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 declaration of overseas assets, bogus marriages and frauds at source. Mr HO's amendment is thus tantamount to maintaining the status quo, which I will express objection.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick proposes in his amendment that Hong Kong should model on the policies of advanced countries to promote childbirth, thereby reducing the weighting of inward migration, but I would like to point out that as a matter of fact, promoting childbirth will also lead to an increase in Hong Kong's population, and careful consideration should be given to this issue. I have to once again draw Members' attention to the issue of the carrying capacity of public services, because the increase in local population has already created a heavy burden on various public services and facilities, such as health care services, housing and social welfare. This is the reason why I have proposed in my original motion that the Government should exercise the power to vet and approve entry for immigration, and take back the initiative in formulating population policy under the OWP system, so as to slow down the pace of population growth. Failing to do so will make it difficult for us to serve the gatekeeping role on the population policy, and in turn formulate a long-term and comprehensive policy in this respect.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG has mentioned in his amendment the chaos and problems resulted from the Government's serious planning blunders in the past 10-odd years, and all of these have become real, but one of the major reasons for such chaos and problems is the persistent increase in Hong Kong's population and the number of inward migration, which has undermined the governance of the Government. Furthermore, the Government has all along been lethargic in formulating a comprehensive population policy, which has rendered it even more difficult to improve the already unsatisfactory resources planning. The Government often uses the anticipated decrease in working population as the ground for its policy on the importation of labour, but it is actually a wrong estimation which in turn affects the overall population planning, resulting in the continuous blunders in the resources planning of Hong Kong. Hence, with regard to the amendment proposed by Dr CHEUNG, I still consider it necessary for the Government to take back the initiative in the policy on OWP, reduce OWP quota and timely "draw a line" to restructure the population policy of Hong Kong, with a view to effectively planning the use of public resources in such areas as health care services, housing and social welfare.

In view of this, I hope Members will support my original motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7849

UNDER SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, before I respond to the original motion and the motion amendments, as well as Members' views expressed in the debate, I wish to share with Members the stories of two One-way Permit ("OWP") holders.

We learn from community centres that the majority of the new arrivals have quickly adapted to the life in Hong Kong under the care of their family members here. They go to community centres mainly to seek help on job placement, showing that many new arrivals are proactive in finding jobs. They are a new workforce for Hong Kong.

A social worker recently shared with me the story of a lady who had come here for years. The lady originally worked as a nurse in Zhanjiang and managed to obtain a job as health worker in an elderly care home here using her knowledge and experience in nursing. She all along refuses to apply for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA"). She later went on to study a training course in post-natal care worker. The social worker is happy to see that the lady has become the most popular post-natal care worker soon after graduation, and she was even interviewed by a magazine. The lady's daughter is also a good girl and has graduated from a local university.

The person in another story is a new arrival who came here from the Mainland with an OWP at the age of 12 to reunite with his father. In the beginning, due to his inaccurate Cantonese pronunciation, he was discriminated and misunderstood by others. His family was not well off, but he did not give up on himself. He studied very hard and managed to get into a local university by his own efforts. He worked diligently after university graduation and established his own public relations company before the age of 30. He founded a social enterprise a few years ago, providing cheap but quality daily commodities for grass-roots people as a service to the community.

In fact, similar stories and examples can be found everywhere. If we pay more attention, we can easily find examples in newspapers of new arrivals who excel in study or work and actively contribute to society. These real examples precisely show that OWP arrivals contribute to Hong Kong society with their hard work. They are family members of Hong Kong people. They come to Hong Kong to reunite with their family here and integrate into our society. They are a member of Hong Kong people and work together with the rest of the people to take forward the development of Hong Kong. As pointed out in Mr Steven HO's amendment, many people among us whose previous generations 7850 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 came from the same places that the present OWP applicants come from. They worked quietly and diligently after coming to Hong Kong and together they created this pleasant home today.

President, some Members who spoke mentioned "taking back" the authority to vet and approve OWP applications. Ms Claudia MO even suggests in her amendment to "in the long run, (vest) in the SAR Government the full responsibility for vetting and approving OWP applications". I must reiterate that the implementation of the OWP system is to enable Mainland residents to come to Hong Kong in an orderly manner for family reunion. According to Article 22 of the Basic Law and the Interpretation made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in 1999, Mainland residents who wish to settle in Hong Kong for family reunion must apply for an OWP from the Exit and Entry Administration Offices of the Public Security Bureau of the Mainland at the places of their household registration. OWPs are documents issued by the relevant authorities in the Mainland. The application, approval and issuance of OWPs fall within the remit of the Mainland authorities. The Mainland authorities have laid down open and transparent criteria on the vetting and approval of OWPs. The Immigration Department ("ImmD") facilitates the processing of OWP applications by the Mainland authorities at case level. We do not intend to change the present operation of the OWP system.

President, some Members also mentioned the category of OWP application for settlement in Hong Kong under special circumstances. I wish to take this opportunity to point out that the vast majority of OWP entrants come to Hong Kong to join their next of kin. "Next of kin" refers to parents, spouses and children. For individual cases in which the entrants have no next of kin in Hong Kong, there are examples of unsupported elderly people coming to join relatives other than next of kin, and special cases of, among others, single mothers on compassionate grounds. In fact, in the past five years (i.e. 2014 to 2018), for example, these cases only accounted for 0.15% of all OWP entrants; and in 2018, these cases only accounted for 0.03%.

Moreover, quite many Members' speeches and some Members' amendments call for a reduction in the OWP quota and inward migration. There are different views in the community on the 150 daily quota for OWPs, including views for maintaining and reducing the quota. There are also views that call for early family reunion with Mainland family members of Hong Kong residents in Hong Kong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7851

I wish to point out that the 150 daily quota for OWPs is the upper limit. The Mainland authorities will issue OWPs in accordance with the actual number of eligible applications submitted. In the past two years, the average daily numbers of arrivals from the Mainland on OWPs were 129 and 116 respectively, indicating that in processing the applications, the Mainland authorities have strictly followed the eligibility points laid down in the vetting guidelines and had regard to the actual number of applications. The Mainland authorities may not necessarily use up the 150 quota.

The overall usage of OWP quota depends on various factors. Cross-boundary marriages now make up about one third of locally registered marriages, and there is no sign of decline in the trend in the long run. At present, Mainland spouses are still required to wait for at least four years before becoming eligible to come to stay in Hong Kong. As such, there is a continued need for the OWP scheme to allow separated spouses and their children born in the Mainland to come to Hong Kong for family reunion.

Some Members request reviewing the quota for various admission schemes for talents and professionals. As stated by the Secretary for Security in his opening remark, these admission schemes are mostly market-oriented. There is no quota on them. Moreover, these talents and professionals who came under these admission schemes are financially self-sufficient to support their own or their dependents' daily needs and living expenses in Hong Kong without the need to live by public money.

President, some Members are concerned that the persistent increase in Hong Kong's population may become a burden on public services and facilities in Hong Kong. They also request the Government to strive to reduce the OWP quota and review the quota for various admission schemes, so as to alleviate the burden on public health care services, subsidized housing, social welfare and education resources posed by an increasing population in the future, so that priority can be accorded to meeting the needs of Hong Kong people in the allocation of public resources in Hong Kong. I wish to provide the following information for Members, so that we can have a better understanding of the positive impacts brought by various types of new arrivals on the long-term development of Hong Kong.

To begin with, the new entrants who came under various talents and professionals admission schemes possess special skills, knowledge or experience of value to and not readily available in Hong Kong to meet our economic needs; 7852 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 or they are highly skilled or talented persons, and their settlement in Hong Kong can enhance our human capital and maintain our competitiveness.

As for the OWP entrants, they are one of the main sources of population growth for Hong Kong. They can help delay the upcoming drop in our population and labour force. The Census and Statistics Department ("C&SD") projects that in terms of natural population growth, the number of deaths will exceed that of births in Hong Kong from 2026 onwards. It means that the population will start to drop in seven years' time. The net inward movement, including OWP entrants, helps to fill in the drop in our population. The average age of recent OWP entrants is about 11 years younger than the average age of Hongkongers. Hence, OWP entrants constitute an important part of our working population.

As a matter of fact, the education level of OWP entrants is rising and their median age all along is lower than that of Hongkongers. According to statistical reports, among the OWP entrants who aged 15 or above, the proportion of those with a secondary school or higher level of education has been increasing from 58.0% since the handover in 1997 to 90.0% last year. This percentage is very close to the percentage of Hongkongers with the same education level in 2018, which is 91.9%. The OWP entrants with a tertiary or above education level also increased from 5.7% in 1997 to 23.0% last year. Moreover, the median age of the OWP entrants in 2018 is 33, which is 11 years younger than that of the general Hongkongers.

I very much agree with Mr Steven HO's amendment in that OWP entrants contribute to the promotion of social and economic development in Hong Kong. I hope that Members and the public can develop a proper understanding of the contribution that OWP entrants have made to society and eliminate their misunderstanding against OWP entrants.

President, for a long time, C&SD has been updating population projection statistics every two to three years taking into account the latest developments of the population, so as to provide a common basis for reference by the Government for formulating policies in housing, health care, education, social welfare, etc., as well as in planning public services and facilities. In addition, ImmD and the Home Affairs Department ("HAD") have been respectively conducting surveys on OWP holders to identify their profile and needs. The survey results of the data collected from the two surveys are distributed to relevant government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7853 departments and non-governmental organizations ("NGOs") in the form of quarterly reports on the Internet, so as to provide them with more useful information in planning their services for new arrivals.

Therefore, the SAR Government has in hand the relevant information on the increased population, including the new arrivals. This helps the SAR Government in considering the overall demographic situation of society, so as to ensure that the planning, facilities and service provision aspects are in line with the sustainable and positive development of Hong Kong.

President, Ms Claudia MO's amendment calls for the provision of language and cultural support for various new entrants. At present, HAD entrusts the provision of support services for new entrants to NGOs. These support services include two schemes, namely District-based Integration Programmes, and second, the Ambassador Scheme, to help new entrants to get to know Hong Kong and integrate into the community.

District-based Integration Programmes mainly organize workshops and seminars to help participants to know more about the language and culture in Hong Kong, the education system, work culture and social resources and to establish their support networks. The Ambassador Scheme arranges predecessors of similar backgrounds and experience as ambassadors to proactively get in touch with new arrivals for experience sharing, and cases may be referred to relevant Policy Bureaux and departments for follow up when necessary.

Moreover, the Integrated Family Service Centres operated under the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") have a series of different activities and services for new entrants from the Mainland, including induction programmes, employment counselling, language courses, sharing sessions, visit programmes, etc. Latest information on district-based activities is uploaded onto the HAD website on a quarterly basis for interested parties' retrieval.

Mr Gary FAN and other Members have requested, respectively in his original motion and in their speeches, the SAR Government to negotiate with the relevant Mainland authorities for a study on introducing a "return system", so as to allow people coming to Hong Kong on OWPs to temporarily retain their Mainland household registration and return to the Mainland for resettlement if they cannot adapt to the life in Hong Kong. There has been ongoing negotiation 7854 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 between the SAR Government and the Mainland authorities on this subject, with a view to enabling OWP holders to resettle in their Mainland residence due to their individual situations. The resettlement arrangement has been part of the Mainland household registration policy. The SAR Government will continue to exchange views with the Mainland authorities on the related matters, including operational arrangements, and will make timely announcements when the related details are confirmed.

Regarding childbirth promotion, Mr CHU Hoi-dick's amendment requests the Government to launch policies to encourage childbirth to boost Hongkongers' desire for childbearing. Hong Kong's total fertility rate has been lower than the replacement level of 2.1 for more than three decades. It has remained between 0.9 and 1.3 since mid-1990s. This trend is similar to other developed economies in Asia such as Japan, Singapore and South Korea. A decreasing marriage rate, as well as delayed marriage and childbearing are the main reasons leading to our low fertility rate. As these factors are essentially a matter of personal choice and lifestyle preference, relying on government policy alone can hardly fundamentally revert this general social trend. Childbearing, after all, is a major family and personal decision.

The Government strives to provide better support for couples who wish to have children, including strengthening child care and after-school support services, encouraging employers to adopt family-friendly measures, proposing an extension to the statutory maternity leave, making all-out efforts to provide appropriate and affordable housing to the public, etc. These measures seek not only to help working parents to take care of both family and work, but also to help reduce the pressure of raising children and create a desirable environment for childbearing.

Mr Gary FAN's original motion and some of the Members are concerned about the people, who come to Hong Kong through various admission policies/schemes for talents and professionals and the OWP system, applying for social welfare and subsidized housing. They hold that we should step up investigation into these new entrants' overseas assets. I must point out that different social welfare schemes have different means test requirements. People who wish to apply for financial-tested social security payments (including CSSA payments), or wish to apply for public rental housing ("PRH"), whether or not they are new arrivals, are required to declare their financial status, including all assets owned by them in and outside Hong Kong, in a true and accurate manner. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7855

It is a criminal offence to wilfully make false statements or withhold information for the purpose of obtaining social security payments or PRH. The applicants concerned will lose their eligibility for social security payment or PRH allocation, and may be liable to prosecution. SWD will conduct case reviews, random checks and data matching with other government departments and organizations. The Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") will also conduct case reviews and random checks on PRH applications. Upon receipt of reports or complaints, HA will conduct follow-up investigations and, when necessary, conduct data matching with government departments and organizations or request information from overseas organizations, so as to ensure that PRH is allocated to people with genuine housing needs.

Mr Gary FAN's original motion says that some people use documents obtained through bogus marriages or by other fraudulent means to obtain right of abode. This is a criminal offence. This can happen in cases involving different documents, including fraud cases involving passports, automatic teller machine cards, credit cards. His argument is based on a wrong causal relationship, thus making his criticism against the present immigration system illogical. Under the present practice adopted by the authorities in the Hong Kong SAR, enforcement departments will initiate investigation in suspected marriage cases, no matter the couples concerned are in the process of marriage registration or have already completed the marriage registration. Once evidence is gathered, the departments concerned may take enforcement actions and initiate prosecutions at any stage of the registration, and the documents concerned will be cancelled upon conviction. This has been an effective means in combating the relevant crimes and in ensuring that the offenders are criminally penalized, including imprisonment. In addition, the Hong Kong resident identity obtained through fraudulent means will be cancelled and the offenders repatriated.

The SAR Government will continue to step up enforcement actions and combat bogus marriages through a multi-pronged approach. Specific measures include stepping up immigration examination on arrivals, combating illegal workers, stepping up operations against intermediaries, stepping up checking of doubtful marriage registration cases, exchanging intelligence and cooperating with Mainland authorities, as well as stepping up promotion activities. Upon finding suspected bogus marriage cases, ImmD will initiate an in-depth investigation into the case, and immediately notify the Mainland enforcement authorities of the suspected cases to enable strict scrutiny of the applications for exit endorsements of the related persons, so as to prevent people from coming to 7856 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Hong Kong through bogus marriages or making arrangements for others to come here through this means. ImmD will also timely notify the Mainland and the enforcement authorities of the investigation results and status. ImmD will continue to receive intelligence and collect evidence through various channels and investigate cases of alleged fraudulent OWP applications.

Before I close my speech, I wish to thank Mr Steven HO for his views in his amendment. And due to the reasons I just said, I call on Members to vote down Mr Gary FAN's original motion as well as the amendments proposed by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Dr Fernando CHEUNG.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Ms Claudia MO to move an amendment.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Gary FAN's motion be amended.

The amendment moved by Ms Claudia MO (See the marked-up version at Annex 7)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Ms Claudia MO's amendment be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7857

Mr Steven HO rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

7858 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted against the amendment.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Mr AU Nok-hin abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 25 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment and 22 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 11 were in favour of the amendment, 16 against it and 2 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Reforming the immigration and admission policies" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7859

Ms Claudia MO rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

(While the division bell was ringing, Ms Claudia MO stood up and spoke to the President)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The division bell is ringing.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, do you wish to cast your vote?

(Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok cast his vote)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Prof Joseph LEE and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted against the motion.

7860 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Dr Pierre CHAN abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted for the motion.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr AU Nok-hin voted against the motion.

Mr Gary FAN abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 25 were present, 21 were in favour of the motion, 2 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 24 were in favour of the motion, 4 against it and 1 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion concerned or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7861

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, you may move you amendment.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Gary FAN's motion be amended.

The amendment moved by Mr Alvin YEUNG (See the marked-up version at Annex 8)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr Alvin YEUNG's amendment be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Steven HO rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

7862 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Functional Constituencies:

Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted against the amendment.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Mr AU Nok-hin abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 25 were present, 2 were in favour of the amendment and 22 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7863 through direct elections, 30 were present, 11 were in favour of the amendment, 17 against it and 2 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, you may move your amendment.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Gary FAN's motion be amended.

The amendment moved by Mr Steven HO (See the marked-up version at Annex 9)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr Steven HO's amendment be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Steven HO rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

7864 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Prof Joseph LEE, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted for the amendment.

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7865

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 25 were present, 20 were in favour of the amendment and 4 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 15 were in favour of the amendment and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, you may move your amendment.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Gary FAN's motion be amended.

The amendment moved by Mr CHU Hoi-dick (See the marked-up version at Annex 10)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr CHU Hoi-dick's amendment be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Gary FAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

7866 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Prof Joseph LEE, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7867

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 25 were present, 5 were in favour of the amendment and 19 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 15 were in favour of the amendment and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, you may move your amendment.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Gary FAN's motion be amended.

The amendment moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG (See the marked-up version at Annex 11)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Dr Fernando CHEUNG's amendment be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Alvin YEUNG rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

7868 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Prof Joseph LEE, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Jeremy TAM voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7869

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 25 were present, 5 were in favour of the amendment and 19 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 10 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and 5 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, you still have 2 minutes 17 seconds to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, I am grateful that totally 33 Members have spoken on my motion and amendments have been proposed to it. This has thus enriched our discussion about Hong Kong's immigration policy and population policy, regardless of standpoint.

I am still of the view that both the One-way Permit ("OWP") and the dependant systems are parts of the population policy, and will result in population growth in Hong Kong in general. OWP holders choose to settle in Hong Kong in pursuit of a better living. They will make various financial decisions such as whether to work or to look after their families. Therefore, people coming to Hong Kong for settlement under OWP system are very much the same as those migrating to Hong Kong under other admission schemes. All of them are economic migrants. Certainly, their economic activities will inevitably have an impact on Hong Kong's productivity, living standard and resource allocation. When they increase in number, the impact they create will be greater. For this reason, while vetting and approving these applications, it is necessary to impose a condition that applicants must be able to support themselves financially. This is a reasonable approach that is in line with the international practice.

Some Members have cited some figures in an attempt to prove that immigrants will not add to our burden. Likewise, I would like to cite some figures in concluding my remarks. Between 2012 and 2017, the number of new 7870 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 domestic households in Hong Kong was 149 000, representing an increase of 6.2%. In the same period, the number of permanent housing units in Hong Kong merely increased by 5.6%, whereas there was only an increase of 4.3% in the number of hospital beds under the Hospital Authority. So, this is where the crux of the matter lies: the rate at which public services and facilities are increased fails to catch up with the growth in population. This problem of inadequate social carrying capacity is precisely what Hong Kong people are about to face.

President, there are limits to planning but none to population growth. When there are too many people on board, the ship will sink. With this in mind, we must take back the power to vet and approve OWP applications and reduce OWP quota, so as to gain room and time to plan for the future and in turn heal the rifts in society over the years, and make up for the inadequacies of the public health care system and other public services.

I hope Members will vote for my motion. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Gary FAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Gary FAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7871

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the motion.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the motion.

Dr Pierre CHAN abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the motion.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted against the motion.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Mr AU Nok-hin abstained.

7872 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 25 were present, 1 were in favour of the motion, 22 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 12 were in favour of the motion, 16 against it and 2 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 27 March 2019.

Adjourned accordingly at 2:11 pm.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7873

Annex 7

The marked-up version of the amendment moved by Ms Claudia MO (Translation)

That, Hong Kong's population continues to increase, between mid-1997 and end 2017, there had been an annual average entry of 48 300 One-way Permit ('OWP') holders into Hong Kong, giving a cumulative inflow of 990 000 people; as at 2018, more than 1.03 million people have come to Hong Kong on OWPs; moreover, between 2013 and 2017, an annual average of some 53 500 non-local professionals were allowed to work and settle in Hong Kong under three major talent admission schemes; as there have been strong views in the Hong Kong community in recent years, expressing concern that the persistent increase in Hong Kong's population has created a heavy burden on public services and facilities in Hong Kong, and that some of the entrants have committed immigration frauds (including concealing overseas assets outside Hong Kong, using false identities, forging documents, engaging in bogus marriages) to obtain right of abode and social welfare, this Council urges the SAR Government to safeguard Hong Kong from 'Mainlandization', and to reform the immigration and admission policies by adhering to the principle of 'putting Hong Kong people first' and taking into account the local carrying capacity; specific measures include:

(1) establishing a dual vetting and approval mechanism for OWP first in accordance with Articles 22 and 154 of the Basic Law and the Immigration Ordinance whereby the SAR Government can exercise the power to vet and approve entry for immigration and taking back the initiative in the policy on OWP, so as to serve properly the gatekeeping role on the population policy of Hong Kong; in the long run, vesting in the SAR Government the full responsibility for vetting and approving OWP applications;

(2) striving for reducing OWP quota by half to 75 per day and reviewing the quota for various talent admission schemes, so as to alleviate the burden on public healthcare services, subsidized housing, social welfare and educational resources posed by an increasing number of immigrants and entrants in the future, so that priority can be accorded to meeting the needs of the Hong Kong people in the 7874 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

allocation of public resources in Hong Kong; if the quota cannot be reduced by half across the board, considering to first reduce OWP quota in a progressive manner to 100 to 120 per day;

(3) reforming the OWP application system to make it on a par with the dependents system of various talent admission schemes by incorporating the approval conditions on financial means, to be complemented by a points system, so as to make early identification and selection of immigrants having long-term means to live at a standard well above the subsistence level to settle in Hong Kong;

(4) negotiating with the relevant departments of Mainland China in respect of the OWP system for a study on the introduction of a 'return mechanism' to allow people coming to Hong Kong on OWPs to temporarily retain apply for restoring their household registration in the Mainland and return to Mainland China for resettlement if they cannot adapt to the life in Hong Kong;

(5) regarding people who are granted the right of abode in Hong Kong through various talent admission schemes and the OWP system, stepping up investigation into their overseas assets outside Hong Kong if they apply for social welfare and subsidized housing in Hong Kong, so as to plug the loopholes in the existing policy;

(6) stepping up efforts in combating cross-boundary bogus marriages by, among others, drawing reference from the practice of the United Kingdom, extending the period for the issue of a Certificate of Registrar of Marriages if the Registrar of Marriages has reasonable suspicions of non-local people planning to get married in Hong Kong engaging in bogus marriages, so that government departments can have more time to conduct investigations and take enforcement actions to prevent fraudsters from obtaining through bogus marriages the requisite documents to apply for settlement in Hong Kong, and the Immigration Department should compile statistics on the number of bogus marriages in Hong Kong annually; and

(7) stepping up efforts against immigration frauds at the local and international levels by, drawing reference from the practices of the United Kingdom and Australia, establishing an inter-departmental LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7875

dedicated team to tackle organized immigration crime to carry out, focusing on applications suspected of using false identities, forging documents, making false statements, etc., strict verification of supporting documents, and participating in the global cooperation on immigration fraud prevention;

(8) providing language and cultural support, including learning Cantonese and traditional Chinese characters, to Mainland residents who are granted the right of abode in Hong Kong through various talent admission schemes and the OWP system, so as to avoid Hong Kong people having to deliberately accommodate them due to language and cultural differences, with a view to safeguarding Hong Kong from 'Mainlandization'; and

(9) setting up a high-level inter-departmental steering committee to conduct studies on measures to reform the immigration and admission policies, and expeditiously formulating a timetable in response to strong public concerns.

Note: Ms Claudia MO's amendment is marked in bold and italic type or with deletion line.

7876 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Annex 8

The marked-up version of the amendment moved by Mr Alvin YEUNG (Translation)

That, in recent years, there has been a rapid growth in Hong Kong's population, between mid-1997 and end 2017, there had been an annual average entry of 48 300 One-way Permit ('OWP') holders into Hong Kong, giving a cumulative inflow of 990 000 people; moreover, between 2013 and 2017, an annual average of some 53 500 non-local professionals were allowed to work and settle in Hong Kong under three major talent admission schemes; as there have been strong views in the Hong Kong community in recent years, expressing concern that the persistent increase in Hong Kong's population has created a heavy burden on public services and facilities in Hong Kong, and that some of the entrants have committed immigration frauds (including concealing overseas assets, using false identities, forging documents, engaging in bogus marriages) to obtain right of abode and social welfare, this Council urges the SAR Government to reform the immigration and admission policies by adhering to the principle of 'putting Hong Kong people first' and taking into account the local carrying capacity; specific measures include:

(1) establishing a dual vetting and approval mechanism for OWP in accordance with Articles 22 and 154 of the Basic Law and the Immigration Ordinance whereby the SAR Government can exercise the power to vet and approve entry for immigration and taking back the initiative in the policy on OWP, so as to serve properly the gatekeeping role on the population policy of Hong Kong;

(2) striving for conducting a universal consultation on reducing OWP quota by half to 75 per day and reviewing the quota for various talent admission schemes, so as to alleviate assess the burden on demand for public healthcare services, subsidized housing, social welfare and educational resources posed by an increasing number of immigrants and entrants in the future, so thereby ensuring that priority can be accorded to meeting the needs of the Hong Kong people in the allocation of public resources in Hong Kong;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7877

(3) establishing a mechanism for communicating with the Central Government in accordance with Article 22 of the Basic Law in order to regularly make recommendations to the Central Government on the OWP quota according to the policy needs of Hong Kong, and consulting the Legislative Council on the adjustment of the quota every time before making recommendations;

(3)(4) reforming the OWP application system to make it on a par with the dependents system of various talent admission schemes by incorporating the approval conditions on financial means, to be complemented by a points system, and when vetting and approving such applications, comprehensively consider various factors such as family reunion, financial means and humanitarian need, so as to make early identification and selection of immigrants having long-term means to live at a standard well above the subsistence level to settle in Hong Kong;

(4)(5) negotiating with the relevant departments of Mainland China in respect of the OWP system for a study on the introduction of a 'return mechanism' to allow people coming to Hong Kong on OWPs to temporarily retain their household registration in the Mainland and return to Mainland China for resettlement if they cannot adapt to the life in Hong Kong;

(5)(6) regarding people who are granted the right of abode in Hong Kong through various talent admission schemes and the OWP system, stepping up investigation into their overseas assets if they apply for social welfare and subsidized housing in Hong Kong, so as to plug the loopholes in the existing policy;

(6)(7) stepping up efforts in combating cross-boundary bogus marriages by, among others, drawing reference from the practice of the United Kingdom, extending the period for the issue of a Certificate of Registrar of Marriages if the Registrar of Marriages has reasonable suspicions of non-local people planning to get married in Hong Kong engaging in bogus marriages, so that government departments can have more time to conduct investigations and take enforcement actions to prevent fraudsters from obtaining through bogus marriages 7878 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

the requisite documents to apply for settlement in Hong Kong, and the Immigration Department should compile statistics on the number of bogus marriages in Hong Kong annually; and

(7)(8) stepping up efforts against immigration frauds at the local and international levels by, drawing reference from the practices of the United Kingdom and Australia, establishing an inter-departmental dedicated team to tackle organized immigration crime to carry out, focusing on applications suspected of using false identities, forging documents, making false statements, etc., strict verification of supporting documents, and participating in the global cooperation on immigration fraud prevention; and

(9) establishing a standing office of population policy and its areas of work include examining various factors affecting population growth in the short and medium term, especially the OWP system, dependents system and various talent admission schemes, making timely recommendations to the Chief Executive on the immigration and admission policies and coordinating the work of the relevant government departments, with a view to avoiding the overloading of Hong Kong's public services and facilities as a result of a persistent increase in population.

Note: Mr Alvin YEUNG's amendment is marked in bold and italic type or with deletion line.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7879

Annex 9

The marked-up version of the amendment moved by Mr Steven HO (Translation)

That, among the over 7 million Hong Kong people or their forefathers, many of them are Mainlanders coming to Hong Kong for settlement; between mid-1997 and end 2017, there had been an annual average entry of 48 300 One-way Permit ('OWP') holders into Hong Kong for family reunion, giving a cumulative inflow of 990 000 people; moreover, between 2013 and 2017, an annual average of some 53 500 non-local professionals were allowed to work and settle in Hong Kong under three major talent admission schemes; all the aforesaid persons who have immigrated to and entered Hong Kong are important manpower resources for Hong Kong now and in the future, contributing to the promotion of social and economic development, and even alleviating the problem of ageing population in Hong Kong; as there have been strong views concerns in the Hong Kong community in recent years, expressing concern that the persistent increase in Hong Kong's population has created a heavy burden on public services and facilities in Hong Kong, and that some of the entrants have committed immigration frauds (including concealing overseas assets, using false identities, forging documents, engaging in bogus marriages) to obtain right of abode and social welfare, this Council urges the SAR Government to reform the immigration and admission policies by under the following four principles: (1) adhering to the principle of 'putting Hong Kong people first' and in safeguarding Hong Kong people's right to family reunion; (2) ensuring the sustainable development of manpower, public services and resources of Hong Kong in the future; (3) addressing the population ageing problem; and (4) taking into account the local carrying capacity of Hong Kong; specific measures include:

(1) establishing a dual vetting and approval mechanism continuing to perform the gate-keeping role stringently for OWP and various talent admission schemes in accordance with Articles 22 and 154 of the Basic Law and the Immigration Ordinance whereby the SAR Government can exercise the power to vet and approve entry for immigration and taking back the initiative in the policy on OWP, so as to serve properly the gatekeeping role on the population policy of Hong Kong, including ensuring that the information submitted by 7880 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

applicants is correct and accurate, issuing Certificates of Entitlement to the Right of Abode to children of Hong Kong permanent residents, and rendering assistance, when necessary, in verifying the authenticity of the supporting documents submitted by OWP applicants and their claimed relationship with relatives in Hong Kong;

(2) striving for reducing OWP quota by half to 75 per day and reviewing the quota for various talent admission schemes, so as to alleviate the burden on public healthcare services, subsidized housing, social welfare and educational resources posed by an increasing number of immigrants and entrants in the future, so that priority can be accorded to meeting the needs of the Hong Kong people in the allocation of public resources in Hong Kong in the light of the facts that at present the Mainland authorities have, as warranted by the actual circumstances, approved on average fewer than 150 Mainlanders coming to Hong Kong on OWPs per day, and that the SAR Government has continuously implemented various talent admission schemes, assessing the impact of the relevant system and schemes on Hong Kong's population structure, so as to make proper planning to cater for the demands for various services and facilities of Hong Kong residents;

(3) reforming continuing to ensure that the OWP application system to make it on a par with the dependents system of various talent admission schemes by incorporating the approval conditions on financial means, to be complemented by a points system, so as to make early identification and selection of immigrants having long-term means to live at a standard well above the subsistence level to settle in Hong Kong is in line with the objective of family reunion, and stepping up investigation into the family and financial conditions of OWP applicants, so that the SAR Government can grasp the relevant information as early as possible to make longer-term planning on public services and manpower training;

(4) negotiating with the relevant departments of Mainland China Mainland departments in respect of the OWP system for a study on the introduction of a 'return mechanism' to allow people coming to Hong Kong on OWPs to temporarily retain their household LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7881

registration in the Mainland and return to Mainland China the Mainland for resettlement if they cannot adapt to the life in Hong Kong;

(5) regarding people who are granted the right of abode in Hong Kong through various talent admission schemes and the OWP system, stepping up investigation into their overseas assets if they apply in accordance with the existing policy and criteria applicable to all Hong Kong people, scrutinizing stringently the eligibility of people coming to Hong Kong for settlement in their applications for social welfare and subsidized housing in Hong Kong, so as to plug the loopholes in the existing policy ensure that they have truthfully declared all their assets in and outside Hong Kong;

(6) stepping up efforts in combating cross-boundary bogus marriages by, among others, drawing reference from the practices of the United Kingdom, extending the period for the issue of a Certificate of Registrar of Marriages if the Registrar of Marriages has reasonable suspicions of non-local people planning to get married in Hong Kong engaging in bogus marriages, so that government departments can have more time to conduct investigations and take enforcement actions places outside Hong Kong to prevent fraudsters from obtaining through bogus marriages the requisite documents to apply for settlement in Hong Kong, and the Immigration Department should compile statistics on the number of bogus marriages in Hong Kong annually; and

(7) stepping up efforts against immigration frauds at the local and international levels by, among others, drawing reference from the practices of the United Kingdom and Australia, establishing an inter-departmental dedicated team to tackle organized immigration crime to carry out places outside Hong Kong, and carrying out, focusing on applications suspected of using false identities, forging documents, making false statements, etc., strict verification of supporting documents, and participating in the global cooperation on immigration fraud prevention.

Note: Mr Steven HO's amendment is marked in bold and italic type or with deletion line.

7882 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

Annex 10

The marked-up version of the amendment moved by Mr CHU Hoi-dick (Translation)

That between mid-1997 and end 2017, there had been an annual average entry of 48 300 One-way Permit ('OWP') holders into Hong Kong, giving a cumulative inflow of 990 000 people; moreover, between 2013 and 2017, an annual average of some 53 500 non-local professionals were allowed to work and settle in Hong Kong under three major talent admission schemes; as there have been strong according to the Hong Kong Population Projections 2017-2066 published by the Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong's population will increase from 7.34 million in mid-2016 to 7.72 million in mid-2066 and the average annual growth rate is 0.1%; general population growth is mild on the surface, but given the extremely low birth rate, there would be a natural decrease of 1.49 million in the local population and a net inward migration of 1.88 million over the entire projection period; there are views in the Hong Kong community in recent years, expressing concern that the persistent increase in Hong Kong's population has created a heavy burden on public services and facilities in Hong Kong, and that some of the entrants have committed immigration frauds (including concealing overseas assets, using false identities, forging documents, engaging in bogus marriages) to obtain right of abode and social welfare that the Government's population policy has all along put too much emphasis on inward migration and neglected the need to encourage childbirth by improving people's living environment, and at the same time, the Government has systematically expedited the integration between Hong Kong and the Mainland and relegated Hong Kong's system and culture, making it difficult for Hong Kong people to have steady development of a sense of community, worse still, the fear of being 'diluted' has intensified the conflicts between local residents and inward migrants; in this connection, this Council urges the SAR Government to reform the immigration and admission policies by adhering to the principle of 'putting Hong Kong people first' and taking into account the local carrying capacity with the objective of reducing the weighting of inward migration; specific measures include:

(1) modelling on the policies of advanced countries to promote childbirth by providing affordable housing, long maternity leave and sound child care services for childbearing families, with a view LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7883

to boosting Hong Kong people's desire for childbearing and thereby reducing the weighting of inward migration;

(1)(2) establishing a dual vetting and approval mechanism for OWP in accordance with Articles 22 and 154 of the Basic Law and the Immigration Ordinance whereby the SAR Government can exercise the power to vet and approve entry for immigration and taking back the initiative in the policy on OWP, so as to serve properly the gatekeeping role on the population policy of Hong Kong;

(2)(3) striving for reducing OWP quota by half to 75 per day and reviewing the quota for various talent admission schemes, so as to alleviate the burden on public healthcare services, subsidized housing, social welfare and educational resources posed by an increasing number of immigrants and entrants in the future, so that priority can be accorded to meeting the needs of the Hong Kong people in the allocation of public resources in Hong Kong changing the policy direction of overstressing inward migration and reducing correspondingly the number of inward migration, including but not limited to reducing the daily quota for OWP;

(3)(4) reforming studying, under the principle of being on a par with the systems for reunion with overseas spouse and children, to incorporate into the OWP application system to make it on a par with the dependents system of various talent admission schemes by incorporating the approval conditions on 'no adverse record' or financial means, to be complemented by a points system, so as to make early identification and selection of immigrants having long-term means to live at a standard well above the subsistence level to settle in Hong Kong (such conditions not applicable to Mainland-born children of Hong Kong Permanent Residents), and to require the Hong Kong residents concerned having the means to support the dependents' living at a standard above the subsistence level in Hong Kong and provide adequate accommodation; and discussing with the Chinese Government to strive for allowing people coming to Hong Kong on OWPs to temporarily retain their household registration in the Mainland, so that they can return to Mainland China for resettlement if they cannot adapt to the life in Hong Kong;

7884 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

(4) negotiating with the relevant departments of Mainland China in respect of the OWP system for a study on the introduction of a 'return mechanism' to allow people coming to Hong Kong on OWPs to temporarily retain their household registration in the Mainland and return to Mainland China for resettlement if they cannot adapt to the life in Hong Kong;

(5) regarding people who are granted the right of abode in Hong Kong through various talent admission schemes and the OWP system, stepping up investigation into their overseas assets if they apply for social welfare and subsidized housing in Hong Kong, so as to plug the loopholes in the existing policy;

(6) stepping up efforts in combating cross-boundary bogus marriages by, among others, drawing reference from the practice of the United Kingdom, extending the period for the issue of a Certificate of Registrar of Marriages if the Registrar of Marriages has reasonable suspicions of non-local people planning to get married in Hong Kong engaging in bogus marriages, so that government departments can have more time to conduct investigations and take enforcement actions to prevent fraudsters from obtaining through bogus marriages the requisite documents to apply for settlement in Hong Kong, and the Immigration Department should compile statistics on the number of bogus marriages in Hong Kong annually; and

(7) stepping up efforts against immigration frauds at the local and international levels by, drawing reference from the practices of the United Kingdom and Australia, establishing an inter-departmental dedicated team to tackle organized immigration crime to carry out, focusing on applications suspected of using false identities, forging documents, making false statements, etc., strict verification of supporting documents, and participating in the global cooperation on immigration fraud prevention.

Note: Mr CHU Hoi-dick's amendment is marked in bold and italic type or with deletion line.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7885

Annex 11

The marked-up version of the amendment moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG (Translation)

That between mid-1997 and end 2017, there had been an annual average entry of 48 300 One-way Permit ('OWP') holders into Hong Kong, giving a cumulative inflow of 990 000 people; moreover, between 2013 and 2017, an annual average of some 53 500 non-local professionals were allowed to work and settle in Hong Kong under three major talent admission schemes; as between 2013 and 2016, some 6 500 non-local professionals obtained right of abode each year on average; the carrying capacity of public services and facilities in Hong Kong has seriously eroded due to the Government's serious planning blunders on various fronts, including, on the housing front, the abolishment of the public housing production target and cessation of the production of Home Ownership Scheme flats in 2002, and implementation of land sale by the Application Mechanism in place of traditional regular land sale in 2004 had resulted in reduced housing supply, soaring property prices and increasingly long waiting time for public rental housing; on the healthcare front, at present, the reduced number of hospital beds under the Hospital Authority between 2003 and 2010 has yet to be restored to the level of 2003, the Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme introduced in 2002 led to the departure of over 1 000 nurses and around 100 doctors, and the development of the medical services industry proposed in 2009 to encourage private healthcare caused a wastage of healthcare staff of public hospitals; on the social welfare front, the abolishment of the population-based planning ratios for elderly services and facilities in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, and failure in increasing the number of places for home care services to keep pace with the growth of the elderly population; in addition, there have been strong views in the Hong Kong community in recent years, expressing concern that the persistent increase in Hong Kong's population has created a heavy burden on public services and facilities in Hong Kong, and that some of the entrants have committed immigration frauds (including concealing overseas assets, using false identities, forging documents, engaging in bogus marriages) to obtain right of abode and social welfare, this Council urges the SAR Government to reform the immigration and admission policies by adhering to the principle of 'putting Hong Kong people first' and taking into account the local carrying capacity; specific measures include: 7886 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019

(1) establishing a dual vetting and approval mechanism for OWP in accordance with Articles 22 and 154 of the Basic Law and the Immigration Ordinance whereby the SAR Government can exercise the power to vet and approve entry for immigration and taking back the initiative in the policy on OWP, so as to serve properly the gatekeeping role on the population policy of Hong Kong;

(2) striving for reducing reviewing OWP quota by half to 75 per day and reviewing and the quota for various talent admission schemes, so as to alleviate the burden on public healthcare services, subsidized housing, social welfare and educational resources posed by an increasing number of immigrants and entrants in the future, so that priority can be accorded to meeting the needs of the Hong Kong people in the allocation of public resources in Hong Kong;

(3) reforming reviewing the OWP application system and studying whether to make it on a par with the dependents system of various talent admission schemes by incorporating the approval conditions on financial means, to be complemented by a points system, so as to make early identification and selection of immigrants having long-term means to live at a standard well above the subsistence level to settle in Hong Kong;

(4) negotiating with the relevant departments of Mainland China in respect of the OWP system for a study on the introduction of a 'return mechanism' to allow people coming to Hong Kong on OWPs to temporarily retain their household registration in the Mainland and return to Mainland China for resettlement if they cannot adapt to the life in Hong Kong;

(5) regarding people who are granted the right of abode in Hong Kong through various talent admission schemes and the OWP system, stepping up investigation into their overseas assets if they apply for social welfare and subsidized housing in Hong Kong, so as to plug the loopholes in the existing policy;

(6) stepping up efforts in combating cross-boundary bogus marriages by, among others, drawing reference from the practice of the United Kingdom, extending the period for the issue of a Certificate of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 21 March 2019 7887

Registrar of Marriages if the Registrar of Marriages has reasonable suspicions of non-local people planning to get married in Hong Kong engaging in bogus marriages, so that government departments can have more time to conduct investigations and take enforcement actions to prevent fraudsters from obtaining through bogus marriages the requisite documents to apply for settlement in Hong Kong, and the Immigration Department should compile statistics on the number of bogus marriages in Hong Kong annually; and

(7) stepping up efforts against immigration frauds at the local and international levels by, drawing reference from the practices of the United Kingdom and Australia, establishing an inter-departmental dedicated team to tackle organized immigration crime to carry out, focusing on applications suspected of using false identities, forging documents, making false statements, etc., strict verification of supporting documents, and participating in the global cooperation on immigration fraud prevention.

Note: Dr Fernando CHEUNG's amendment is marked in bold and italic type or with deletion line.