LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10457
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 14 May 2015
The Council continued to meet at half-past Two o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.
10458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10459
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P.
10460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10461
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE
THE HONOURABLE GREGORY SO KAM-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MR GODFREY LEUNG KING-KWOK, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
10462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
BILLS
Committee Stage
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now continue to examine the Schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2015. We will now continue with the fifth debate. I will invite Members who have proposed amendments in this debate to make their last speech.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2015
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, the emptiness of the Chamber seems unseemly; please summon Members back in accordance with Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong seldom has so few Members present.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please speak.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, it is better to have more Members present, as they bring vitality and dynamism to the Chamber. Yesterday, the least number of Members present was only four.
Chairman, I would like to make my concluding remarks on the various policy areas involved in the fifth debate, including commerce and industry, economic development, financial affairs, information technology and broadcasting, as well as maritime and aviation transport. Before making my concluding remarks, I would like to first talk about my Amendment No 499. It seeks to reduce head 148 by $1,736,400, which is equivalent to the estimated LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10463 expenditure on the annual emoluments of Principal Assistant Secretary (Financial Services) 3 of the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (Financial Services Branch).
Chairman, I have no grudges against the person holding this post, but I believe that many Hong Kong people, particularly wage earners, are utterly dissatisfied with the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) for eroding their hard-earned money. They even have a feeling of being exploited. Chairman, Principal Assistant Secretary (Financial Services) 3 oversees policy and legislative matters over the MPF schemes and the occupational retirement schemes. His portfolio covers all MPF-related matters, including the housekeeping matters of the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority.
Over the years, it is an ironclad fact that the rate of return of MPF is on the low side, which affects every MPF contributor. Since the introduction of the MPF schemes, the rate of return is around 4%. Most MPF funds do not pay dividends and the average charging rate is as high as 1.65%, the amount involved is significant given that the funds involved in MPF amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. Since its establishment, the Tracker Fund of Hong Kong has an average rate of return of 3.8%, its annual dividend rate is 3% at the very least, and the rate of management fees is only 0.1%. By comparison, we will see the unreasonableness and the level of exaggeration of MPF.
It is thus clear that MPF is characterized by high rates of management fees and very poor rates of return. As such, there is no reason to mandatory require, by way of legislation, every Hong Kong people to continue giving money to investment organizations and finance companies that manage MPF funds. This practice is extremely unreasonable. When a comparison is made, we can discern the absurdity involved. If we look at one single item alone, we may be misled or deceived by technical officials and by the honeyed words of investment organizations that we deem as "swindlers". When it comes to retirement management, the Government should allow members of the public to make decisions on their own, rather than forcing them to give money to these plutocrats, and allowing these "brigands" to exploit the hard-earned money of our taxpayers, ordinary citizens and particularly the working class.
Basically, the overall operation mode of MPF can be described as a direct channelling of interests to the financial sector and bigwigs. In March 2015, total MPF assets already amounted to $540 billion, and the profits receivable by the 10464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 financial sector amounted to $8.9 billion on the basis of an average charging rate of 1.65%. Certainly, some expenses have to be deducted from the profits, but the figure itself is already very alarming and it keeps increasing. As the number of MPF contributors keeps increasing each month, their contributions will enlarge the total MPF assets, and a higher charge is imposed. This is just throwing someone to the wolves.
Over the past 15 years, the criticisms of low rate of return and high level of fees have become platitudes, and all MPF contributors have been greatly dissatisfied. In response to public discontent, the level of fees might be slightly adjusted downward. Very often, the downward adjustment might be due to the robust market conditions, or due to the increasingly large amount of the total asset. However, the adjustment may not have great bearing on the total amount of fees. Given the huge base, even if the charging rate is lowered slightly, the total revenue is still considerable. If the overall operation of MPF is still regulated by a bureaucratic regime, ordinary citizens cannot be benefited whatsoever. Certainly, this problem is related to the enactment of legislation years ago. So long as there is the legislation, enforcement must be executed. As such, the deletion of this post can impede the operation of MPF, and we can in turn express our discontent, with the hope of bringing about some changes.
Over the years "Long Hair" and I have emphasized time and again the need to implement universal retirement protection. Prof Nelson CHOW had already completed a study commissioned by the Government on universal retirement protection. However, the Government has been procrastinating and impeding, so as to sustain the benefits of the bigwigs. As long as no changes or reforms are made, an annual management fees in the amount of $8 billion to $9 billion can still be collected from the total assets of $500 billion to $600 billion. We might say that this is gaining great profits without any cost. Legislating on MPF is like presenting a money printing machine to plutocrats. In this connection, through deducting the relevant expenditures, I would like to express my dissatisfaction with the MPF system and with government officials for failing to safeguard public interests when dealing with this issue.
Chairman, in this debate I have already made comments in various areas regarding the Civil Aviation Department, the Marine Department, as well as the Policy Bureaux that oversee economic development and financial affairs. Speaking of public expenditure pertaining to the various policies and their overall social impacts, the policy areas involved in the fifth debate can be described as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10465 one of the major disaster zones. Under the leadership of "Secretary Name-card" Gregory SO, numerous policies can be described as disasters, including the problems with tourism, television licensing, as well as maritime and aviation transport that I have just talked about. Maritime and aviation transport not only concerned with the economy, but also have a direct bearing on people's livelihood and public health, because pollution and noise problems are all related to aviation and maritime transport. That said, Chairman, few people have paid any attention to such problems, particularly noise and air pollution problems arising from aircraft that I have talked about time and again, and the problem with air pollutant emissions from vessels that I raised yesterday.
When some problems have been revealed through the research reports of certain education institutions, the executive department responsible for formulating policies should show concern about the various problems that affect members of the public. That is what a responsible government should do. Even though adjustment cannot be made policy-wise, the Government should, in terms of information dissemination, express its understanding and concern about the problems and conduct relevant studies. In dealing with numerous problems, many government departments, in particular the Civil Aviation Department and the Marine Department, are extremely conservative, feudal and restrictive, harbouring and shielding each other. The investigation into the maritime disaster off Lamma Island has pointed out the problems with the Marine Department, indicating that key problems that clearly posed threat to people's life had been handled with gross negligence. In fact, the maritime disaster off Lamma Island is not an isolated incident; the problems identified from the disaster can reflect the thinking, tradition and mode of operation of the Marine Department. The Audit Commission has recently identified the misconduct of the Civil Aviation Department regarding the air traffic control system, and its excessive focus on its own interests and the lack of monitoring regarding the spending of public money on its new headquarters.
Regarding financial affairs, Chairman, I have also raised various amendments, including Amendment No 468 and Amendment No 469, the former relates to the deduction of the annual estimated expenditure on the salaries of staff of the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (Treasury Branch). The main reason for the deduction lies with the unprofessional performance of this department in public finance management. Why do I say that it is not professional? In some cases it is not merely the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau that should be held accountable, and I believe most staff of the 10466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
Bureau discharge their duties conscientiously. Regarding the grossly erroneous financial projections over the years, the Financial Secretary is certainly the main culprit, and we have therefore proposed to deduct the annual emolument of the Financial Secretary, but the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau also has unshirkable responsibility. When assisting the Financial Secretary in preparing the Budget, the Bureau has provided erroneous statistics on revenue and expenditure year after year. Unless the statistics offered by the Bureau were distorted by the Financial Secretary, or the Financial Secretary simply refused to adopt the rationale or information provided by staff of the Bureau, I find it hardly acceptable that the subordinates of a negligent Financial Secretary should not be held accountable in any way.
In addition, the Budget invariably tilts toward bigwigs every year. We have criticized time and again the offering of tax rebate and rates waiver as proposed in the Budget every year. People familiar with public finance are well aware that the offering of tax rebate and rates waiver implies the channelling of benefits to bigwigs, returning money that should be received by the Treasury to wealthy people, large consortia, highly profitable companies or high-income earners. As we have pointed out time and again, while the Government has returned a total of $200 million to a real estate company within three years due to rates waiver, it has rejected downright our request to distribute $10,000 to every member of the public. Due to the channelling of benefits and the display of partiality, we have proposed a number of amendments with the hope of winning Members' support.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO, do you wish to speak again?
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have proposed two amendments to the two items under subhead 700 of head 55 in this debate session. These two items have bypassed the scrutiny by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, one of them is the provision of $80 million to the Hong Kong Design Centre in the coming four years, and the other is the provision of $200 million to the Film Development Fund in the coming five years.
In fact, I am supportive of the above two provisions. However, as the Government has bypassed the scrutiny by the Finance Committee, I thus propose amendments so that my opinion can be put on record. Secretary Gregory SO LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10467 happens to be present now, and my two amendments are related to his portfolio. It is a pity that the Secretary did not attend the meeting yesterday, otherwise he could respond to our views in the reply session for public officers. However, he cannot speak today. I would like the Secretary to give a response on other occasions after hearing our concluding remarks. I would also like to ask the Honourable colleagues not to vote in favour of the two amendments as such provisions will be beneficial to the cultural industries of Hong Kong, in particular the provision for the Film Development Fund. If there is no such Fund, it will be impossible to attract newcomers to join the film production crew, and neither will it be possible to produce some highly acclaimed blockbuster films. When I spoke earlier, I have mentioned some films such as The Way We Dance, Bends and La Comédie humaine, all of which are outstanding films financed by the Film Development Fund.
Chairman, I always say that the Government is somewhat deficient in its promotion of creative industries and hence, the resources cannot be well utilized to get good results. The above problem lies in the macro environment, the land policy, as well as the detailed arrangement such as how to use the two provisions. As the Government has failed to do certain work, the development of our cultural and creative industries lags far behind that of Korea, the development of which is a lot faster than us with more desirable progress.
First of all, I will talk about the macro environment concerning social culture. In fact, if the cultural industry is to succeed, a suitable environment is a must, that is, aesthetic education. Aesthetic education includes all sorts of buildings which we can see in a city. They should not look grey and gloomy. Yet, buildings in Hong Kong are infamous for their unpleasant outlook. Besides, the signboards on the streets ― sorry, we do play a part in destroying the environment ― are not attractive at all, without any sense of design. Moreover, such signboards have often been destroyed, giving people the impression of signs of violence in the streets instead of a sense of beauty. Do not even mention buildings attaining the golden proportion of 1.618:1. In fact, there is no such building in Hong Kong. In spite of this, we can still see many plants and insects in rural areas, maintaining the natural golden proportion, enabling us to know what is meant by harmonious proportions. However, when you walk along the streets in the city, it is sad that you will not be able to get in touch with anything nice. The city is getting more and more noisy, noise pollution is rampant, and even children tend to speak in a loud voice. People talking on the street are virtually shouting to each other, which is even more serious than the situation in 10468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 this Chamber. As people fail to see harmony or hear harmonious rhythm, they cannot get hold of the visual effects in respect of design, film production or television drama production. The production quality is unsatisfactory.
Besides, to encourage creative industries, one must have living space and leisure time, only then can he has certain demands in life. Why are some cups selling at $7 while some selling at $170? Frankly speaking, in terms of real value, there should not be a difference of $163. But you can tell the difference once you hold them in your hands. The cup selling at $170 may be easy to hold, and you will not feel the heat even if it is filled with hot water. Your middle and ring fingers can easily lift up the entire cup. Furthermore, when you pour water to a cup of good quality, the water will not come out from the edge because the angle is well measured; water will not spilled out from the cup and wet the table. On the contrary, I am not quite sure about the quality of the cup selling at $7. Speaking about the real value, both cups can be used to drink water. Yet, if we do not have any expectations for our lives and if product designers do not give more considerations, we can never make a cup selling at $170. For this reason, one should have living space and leisure time; he should also be meticulous and make judgments from different perspectives, all of which make up the living environment that is conducive to product design.
Equally important is freedom of speech and expression enjoyed by the community. When we talk about innovation, it is necessary to break the tradition and challenge the existing practice. Should there be no such room for us to discuss innovative ideas, our creativity will also diminish.
What is the case for television drama and film production? Members of the production crew should be astute and sensitive to all the happenings in this world. Be it television drama or film production or even furniture design, if the producers or designers are not astute and sensitive, they fail to see the needs in daily lives. What is more, they must have keen observation in order to create a beautiful product that better meet our daily lives and that can deeply arouse our feelings. Regrettably, the circumstances of Hong Kong are so bad that many people would rather sleep than understand the actual situation. They adopt an evasive attitude to face the pressure of life and nasty political disputes, which is really a great pity. Our creativity is stifled by such social and cultural environment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10469
With regard to land policy, Chairman, I have pointed out a number of times that it is very important to set up production operations for the innovative technology or design industry. In this connection, the Government should allocate land for developing the manufacturing industry, such that designs can all be turned into real products from ideas and sketch, thus making it possible for mass production. This will create more employment opportunities for the grassroots, and for promoting the development of design, we also need logistics base for production operations. However, whenever revitalization of industrial buildings is mentioned, some major owners will immediately indicate their interest in redeveloping the industrial buildings into three-star hotels, thus pushing up the rent instantly. Furthermore, the legislation governing industrial buildings is interesting in the sense that if a designer wishes to move into an industrial building but his work does not involve any production process, his operation will then be regarded as incompatible with the uses of industrial buildings. Against this background, some photographers engaging in the creative industry will place a sewing machine in their large studios, or else they cannot meet the statutory requirement in their use of industrial buildings. In fact, all such requirements are grossly ridiculous.
Regarding PMQ, which is revitalized from the old Police Married Quarters on Hollywood Road, its aim is to allow designers to develop the creative industries, but what is its current use? It is only used for retail business or marketing. In selecting the contractors of PMQ, we have advised that the production process should be involved. People engaging in the design or manufacturing industry or even customers should be able to observe the production processes. Such processes are very thought-provoking. I have found many restaurants operating at PMQ now, it seems that the business environment there is quite good. However, designers only showcase their products in shops without showing the production process, which is the most appealing part. PMQ is like a shopping arcade selling products at cheap prices, which not only fails to attract designers to become tenants, but also fails to achieve a synergy effect.
As for the film industry, how are our creative industries stifled by real estate hegemony and the land policy? In this year's Policy Address, it is pointed out that there are no cinemas in the new towns, and shopping arcades in the new towns will not reserve any space for cinemas. If the grassroots wish to watch a film, they have to spend a few dozen dollars to go to a cinema in the urban area. At the Hong Kong Film Awards Presentation Ceremony, the masters of ceremony 10470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 said jokingly that an award-winning film could only be shown in Europe. Do you really think the film was shown in Europe? The film was actually shown in a remote cinema the name of which contains the word Milan and London. The film which won the Best New Performer Award was also unable to be shown in cinemas in urban areas. Many new towns do not have cinemas at all, and residents have to travel to urban areas if they want to watch a film. This being the case, the number of our film audience is very limited and it is difficult to inspire the younger generation to join the film production industry.
Chairman, the two sums of provisions that I would like to talk about next are directly related to both the design and film industries. The two provisions will be used for organizing exhibitions, competitions, international exchanges (that is investment promotion). But similar to the cultural policy concerning the West Kowloon Cultural District, no resources will be allocated for the production of any arts criticism publication. At present, not even one quality publication on film commentaries can survive in Hong Kong, and the last issue of City Entertainment Magazine was published quite some time ago. Chairman, I guess people of our age might have read the Chinese Student Weekly before. This weekly publication had a dedicated page on films, including film commentaries of very high standards. The commentaries did not simply give a rating of five or four stars to films or tell readers which film was worth watching or which was simply a waste of time, they also focused on analysing the film language and the director's approach of every film in great detail, which would arouse your interest to watch the films. In those days, there was a studio called Studio One at the City Hall. Once people read film commentaries published in the Chinese Student Weekly, they would queue up at the City Hall to watch such classic films, that is, the French films as mentioned by the Financial Secretary. However, he forgot that the Italian films of realism were also well-received at that time, but he only likes watching French films targeting the petite bourgeoisie, which are not comprehensive enough.
Let me return to the subject. Regarding the provision for the Hong Kong Design Centre or the Film Development Fund, the authorities do not have any plan to put aside resources for the production of arts criticism publication, which will not only help the audience appreciate the films from a dynamic and pluralistic angle, but will also enable counterparts in the design industry to know new product developments for the purpose of emulation and experience sharing.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10471
Lastly, Chairman, if we are to export our creative industries, Hong Kong should maintain its own characteristics and cultural identity, which certainly has to do with the local culture. A kung-fu movie star who is a delegate to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference said earlier this year that, "From now on, there will only be Mainland films but not Hong Kong films". I find this remark totally disgusting. It is true that the market for Hong Kong-Mainland co-productions is huge and can bring in enormous box office receipts, but if we want to nurture successors to the Hong Kong film industry, we must maintain the local culture. There is a dialogue in a recent film called Helios ― which was also mentioned by the Deputy President in his speech this morning ― "Do not forget we are Hong Kong people". It is necessary for us to maintain our cultural identity such that Hong Kong's cultural and creative industries will be able to attract people from other places.
Thank you, Chairman.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, this session can be considered the most important part even though the issue about Financial Secretary John TSANG is not on the agenda.
Actually all the things we have been talking about are related to the government policies, the so-called "foundation" or "economic foundation". I have always criticized the Government for making wrong calculations, for bypassing the Legislative Council to engage in privatization, or bypassing the Legislative Council to carry out large-scale constructions, to build "white elephant" structures, or to make itself an international laughing stock in respect of the tourism industry by counting the mobile population as tourists. People of the three countries, namely Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg, in the European Union always commute from one country to another, but they would not be counted as tourists. They only go to the neighbouring countries to shop for daily necessities, just like people crossing the German border to shop in the Netherlands and they would not be counted as tourists.
Does this reflect that Hong Kong people are especially stupid? That is not true. It is only that they are blinded by greed and driven by power. They have this mentality in all their acts. What is the general direction of Hong Kong's economic development? From TUNG Chee-hwa to the incumbent Chief 10472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
Executive, no one has proposed a way forward, even though they have talked about certain possibilities. As a matter of fact, just by surfing the Internet, we can see what can be possibly done. Why do the authorities not take any actions?
It was an open secret that TUNG Chee-hwa listened to everything LEE Ka-shing said. I have heard such a story: someone told TUNG Chee-hwa to do certain things and he asked, "What would Mr LEE think about it?" He followed LEE Ka-shing's lead in everything. In the era of "Greedy TSANG", now we all know whom he served, just by looking at what he ate, we would know the answer. As a western saying goes, "You can tell what a person is by what he eats," which is very true. Now, Hong Kong is ruled by a member of the Communist Party of China (CPC). LEUNG Chun-ying is a corrupt CPC member, with ZHOU Yongkang being his master. He covets fame as well as wealth. With him at the helm of the government, how can the governance not lose the balance? Because he covets fame and wealth and he has to hide from the Central Government's supervision, he has a gang of bad people by his side to serve as his "secret agents". As a matter of fact, there is little difference between today and the Ming Dynasty. He has a gang of "LEUNG's fans" as his secret agents to monitor the civil servants and even the accountability Directors of Bureaux. For those who are not his followers, they will be monitored by secret agents, as in the case of the Ming Dynasty.
Chairman, I …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you should speak on the theme of this debate.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): … I will speak now. I speak on the theme now. Without a direction for economic development, the six major industries bear no fruit; and the Innovation and Technology Bureau that LEUNG Chun-ying is talking about will not bear any fruit either. None of the Policy Bureaux is accountable for the large-scale construction projects. Those projects cost over $400 billion, with over $100 billion in overspending. Of course, he is not the only one to blame but he continues with the construction projects and overspending, and even speeds them up. Isn't this part of the economic policy? Can people be hurt having $400 billion more to spend? Over $400 billion is equal to over €40 billion. If this money is given to Greece, it will be much better-off.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10473
The economic policies concerning the stock markets, such as the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect or whatsoever, all aim to benefit the rich in the Mainland. Even Secretary Prof K C CHAN and Financial Secretary John TSANG seem to have lost their mind and said stupidly that there were no bubbles in the world. To hell with them! No bubbles! Just stir the water, there will be bubbles. People are now stirring troubles in our water.
It is also the same with our taxation system. For example, the stamp duty has reduced from 0.8% during the British-Hong Kong era to 0.2%, with the buyer and the seller each paying 0.1%. While people were obviously speculating on our properties, he still reduced the tax on private equity funds. These private equity funds involve Mainlanders, and Antony LEUNG also gets involved. Every policy, including rate waivers, reduction in profits tax and refusal to levy tax on dividend income, is for the benefit of the rich. The rich are so fat that they cannot even put on their socks but the Government let them bloat up. How about the poor? The poor are moaning in pain. Had we not thrown objects at John TSANG or had public grievance not boiled over … The most formidable is Financial Secretary John TSANG. I once said that we should not say it was no use striving in this Council. In 2008, John TSANG injected $6,000 into the Mandatory Provident Fund account of each employee with a monthly income lower than $10,000 and in 2011 he played the same trick again. When he attempted to use this tactic the second time, we of course fell out with him. After we hurled objects at him, pro-establishment Members went to talk to him. Secretary, you also know about this incident. You might find it funny then because the Financial Secretary could be threatened. I believe that Mr TSANG might have gone to speak with him too. Chairman, did you take a photo with him that day? Talking about supporting the Government today …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have digressed from the subject.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): You cannot say that. These are my round-up remarks. If I do not speak on every topic, how should I speak?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The round-up remarks should still relate to the amendments covered in this debate.
10474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Very simply … Yes, I mention everything, including Secretary Prof K C CHAN misleading his superior and the people. In 2011, we acted like the final scene of Cantonese movies with everyone singing a song to celebrate a happy ending. Everyone celebrated about a happy ending, disregarding how many people died. After all, people can still have some contentment in life. But we had to hurl objects at the officials to get it.
In 2008, Mr WONG Yuk-man was just elected as a Member of this Council. Donald TSANG told this Council that there was not much room to increase the "fruit grant" as he had to balance the budget. To hell with him! After we had thrown things at him, he immediately increased the "fruit grant". Even Mr TAM Yiu-chung said that it was a bit … a bit … Well, I had better not repeat what he said …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have digressed from the subject.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am doing a round-up. Therefore, none of the accountability officials has the well-being of Hong Kong's ordinary people in mind. The taxation, the economic policy, the population policy and also the distribution of resources are not for the benefit of the people. They would rather have "white elephant" projects, they would rather have the useless stones than give benefits to the public. They spent over $400 billion and will spend $230 billion more. This John TSANG, the boss of K C CHAN, … K C CHAN should be the first one to take the blame, shouldn't he?
He still wants to … I asked him when he would implement universal retirement protection, which has been said for many years. Prof Nelson CHOW said that such a scheme could be implemented. Now he has even withheld $230 billion, one third of the annual surplus. All government departments should have 1% of their expenditure deducted. What kind of Government is this? That is the result of our Chief Executives being designated by the CPC. In the past, the CPC selected 400, 800 and 1 200 people from among 220 000 people to form a committee to select the Chief Executives. We were told that the Chief Executive selected commanded public respect and support and he is a person of high calibre; otherwise, he would not have assumed the office. If anyone accuses the Chief Executive of incompetence, that person must be conspiring to topple the Government. We used to hear this kind of remarks all LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10475 the time but now they have changed their tone and they say, "Go and topple the Government quickly. 'Pocket it first' and you stand to gain by having 'one person, one vote'." We have suffered the pain for 17 years. In the 17 years after the reunification, I have stood here for 11 years. I have witnessed everything, I have condemned the authorities both in speeches and in writing, I have been imprisoned, and I have seen them all. Before I was elected a Member, I shouted in the public gallery …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have digressed from the subject. Please speak on the theme of this debate.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): This session is for us to round up our speeches. I have talked about all government measures. You told me not to go too much into detail. I have also talked about the airport expansion plan, the fraud about the "Traumatology and Technology Bureau", maritime and air transport …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If you have finished, you may stop speaking and sit down.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Buddy, no, not so. I still have to do my round-up.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, this is the eighth time that you speak.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Buddy, when you are writing the proofs of a geometric problem, someone tells you, "You have deducted half of the proofs and I guess you are capable of proving the problem. I am very clever and I think you can definitely do it." But you are only halfway through. How can you write "QED"? Do you teach mathematics like this? You should tell your student to deduce the proofs slowly, step by step, and it is alright if he does it wrong because the most important thing to learn is the deduction of proofs. The Chamber …
10476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I will tell students that it is logic that matters in deducing the proofs of a geometric problem.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes, but this has nothing to do with you.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I did not find any logic in your speech just now.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, you have not kept up with the times and do not know what fuzzy logic is. It is what drives human beings to start revolutions. Do you understand?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I understand fuzzy but I did not hear any logic.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): This is my speaking time. The world will have a fair judgment.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You should not digress.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I have not digressed.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please speak on the amendments covered in this debate.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I do not consider K C CHAN's blunders warranted capital punishment because I have witnessed all kinds of strange phenomena in the political arena over the past 17 years. Incidentally, 17 years have passed from the founding of the People's Republic of China to the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution. The reactionary movement of the bourgeoisie lasted 17 years. History is a sequence of coincident events.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10477
Honourable Members, today I cast my personal honour aside to filibuster here. What I strive for is very little but the Government wastes so much. Chairman, this alone is sufficient to prove that K C CHAN and Gregory SO should be hacked. We only ask them to improve the management of broadcasting matters to provide a wider platform for us. The people have no political power; neither can they get any resources or wealth. The Government "spends 5 cents to help the poor but $500 to save the rich". It should at least provide us with a platform to give us more television channels to choose from. Even if it is to "brainwash" us, the Government should do it in a more advanced way, not just giving us an "idiot box". It is not even able to give us a few more television stations. Chairman, shouldn't they be damned?
Do they understand the policy of mollification and improvement of the British-Hong Kong Government? At first there was only the Rediffusion Television Limited in Hong Kong but the Government was not able to control it and subsequently it set up Radio Television Hong Kong and the Commercial Radio Hong Kong later. Even the corrupt British-Hong Kong Government knew that it could not only rely on government-owned station, and it thus issued more and more broadcasting licences. Now, whether it is out of his personal interests or because he has to follow the Central Authorities' order or both, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, LEUNG Chun-ying, only allows us to have one free television station only. No one in any international cosmopolitans in the whole world would tell the public, "You are very fortunate indeed. There is only one free television station available. You do not have to think too much, you can save your time to do other things or you simply do not watch television at all." Who would benefit from this kind of policies?
Chairman, I will have to say it even if you killed me. You have also served three terms of Chief Executives. First it was Mr TUNG and during his era it was businessmen ruling Hong Kong or LEE Ka-shing ruling Hong Kong; during Mr TSANG's era, it was property developers ruling Hong Kong, which was a little fairer; and now it is even fairer for Hong Kong is ruled by property developers and all tycoons in the Mainland. Chairman, I always tell the pan-democrats that if their fight for universal suffrage is a fight over beliefs, they need not fight at all but just go on with their own business. However, sorry Chairman, I have been here for 17 years and I can tell whether an election by universal suffrage is genuine or not because for the past 17 years, we … You do not allow me to say it because it is a very long story, just like the long and stinky foot binding cloth of an old woman, and I am aware of that. Chairman, the critical moment is round the corner. The pan-democrats keep talking about 10478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 universal suffrage. What is the use of universal suffrage? Universal suffrage is to stop the continuous deterioration of our present situation. Hence, any elections by less than 100% universal suffrage will not be able to stop the further deterioration of these already rotten circumstances. Fake universal suffrage will turn the goal that we have been fighting for in the past 17 years from dog dung to gold.
Chairman, do you think I am a moron? Even in a Chief Executive election that is free from screening, we, the poor, will always lose out to the rich. This needs no mentioning. We only need to look at the United States. But at the very least the Government should let us have our dignity as human beings, this is the first point. Second, if a government truly needs the mandate of its people, at least it will not go too far in its reaction and will not stir up a Cultural Revolution again like the one we are having now. Wake up Hongkongers! "Pocket it first"? Chairman, everything in this Chamber is cold, pre-made and precast. I now announce it aloud: the phenomenon I have talked about in my eight speeches yesterday is substantial, which is, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." It is that simple. The nepotistic capitalism under the one-party dictatorship is the corruption of corruption. A mummy dressed in official clothes given by the king will not turn into a living person. It will only reek of decay and corruption.
Chairman, I do not demand the reduction of their emoluments but I demand their public apologies for their mistakes. I demand K C CHAN's apology to the public.
Chairman, I will stop speaking now. I have cast my personal honour aside. Thank you for allowing me to finish these remarks.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, this is my last time to speak in the fifth debate and I am also the last Member to speak in this debate session. Chairman, congratulations, this scene will finish ahead of the schedule. You estimated that it would finish by 4.30 pm but as many Members did not make concluding remarks, this scene will finish ahead of time.
In this session, I still have not dealt with the problems of many departments, but certainly I cannot deal with them now. One of the examples is the Civil Aviation Department, of which many colleagues have talked about LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10479 enthusiastically. Its mistakes are countless and I have on hand a script half an inch thick about the department. Chairman, owing to your debate schedule, I have no chance to talk about the Marine Department and the Government Property Agency. This is my last chance to speak in this session and I will concentrate on the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau. If we want to hit, we have to hit the "leader". Hence, I will focus my speech on reducing the annual emolument of Prof K C CHAN, the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury. I have proposed Amendment No 476, which seeks to reduce the $3.58-million annual estimated expenditure on the emolument for the Secretary Prof K C CHAN. As a matter of fact, all Directors of Bureaux, be he Secretary Gregory SO or Secretary Prof K C CHAN, they all have the same amount of emolument, which is $3.58 million annually, excluding other items.
Secretary Prof K C CHAN is guilty of a number of offences. All issues related to financial services and gatekeeping of the Treasury will first be handled by Secretary Prof K C CHAN before submitting to Financial Secretary John TSANG. The first sin of Secretary Prof K C CHAN is the withdrawal of all items that should be scrutinized by the Finance Committee (FC) of the Legislative Council. Surely we can recall that the Government had earlier removed 25 funding items that should be examined by the FC and incorporated them into the Budget, so as to make way for the funding application of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, but it was to no avail in the end. At the meeting, Secretary Prof K C CHAN denied that the Government had bypassed the Legislative Council but he admitted that it was the first time since 1985 the Government broke away from the usual practice for the past 30 years and included non-recurrent expenditure commitments in the Budget. The Government has set an extremely bad precedent.
In its application for funds under vote on account, the Government also incorporated four agenda items withdrawn previously, including the purchase of fire service equipment, the injection into the Hong Kong Film Development Fund and the development of Hong Kong Disneyland Phase 2, into the Budget to be examined together. By incorporating these agenda items that should have been discussed separately in various Panels and the FC into the Budget in a bundle, the Government has, in disguise, deprived Members of the power to veto them one by one. In so doing, it has bypassed the monitoring of the Legislative Council.
Thanks to the Labour Party's amendments to each of these items, we have more time to discuss these items one by one at the Committee stage. But how is this different from scrutinizing these items at meetings of Panels and the FC? 10480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
First, no government officials will respond, that is, Members will just give their views but no officials would respond afterwards. Under such circumstances, no matter it is Secretary Gregory SO or any other Secretaries sitting at the opposite side, they will not make any response to individual amendments of Members. Apart from getting no response from the officials, we cannot vote against individual items to make known our position. Although we can vote on each amendment, it is different from the voting conducted at meetings of the Panels and the FC. We need not fool ourselves. Here, even though we can vote on the amendments one by one, the Budget will not be vetoed. If it is vetoed, the entire Budget will be withdrawn and the Financial Secretary will have to redo it. Who has the guts to bear this responsibility?
Secretary Prof K C CHAN has to bear responsibility for this. Of course, the culprit is LEUNG Chun-ying who tried to push through the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau. To achieve that, officials have to exploit every loophole, including withdrawing four agenda items in January, which leads to today's situation. According to the funding application procedure, every item can be discussed by the relevant Panel for at least one hour 45 minutes. Among the 25 items added to the Budget by the Government, many involve the replacement of old facilities. At the meetings to discuss the Budget, though Members can ask questions on various aspects, each Member is allowed to speak for about three to four minutes. Even if they can speak for another round, they only have two more minutes, and it is impossible for them to get a detailed answer for each item. Besides, everyone knows that for items supported by the relevant Panels, it only means that the Panels agree to refer the items to the Public Works Subcommittee, the Establishment Subcommittee or the FC for further discussion. When an item is referred to the FC for discussion, it does not necessarily mean that it will be passed. In a Panel, a decision is made by only 10 Members or so, while in the FC, a decision is made by 68 or 69 Members. The meaning is absolutely different. However, in a debate to examine the Budget, just like the one today, there are only five major themes and Members hardly have the chance to examine each funding item in depth. If Members veto the Budget on account of certain individual items, they will be criticized by the Government and also the public for impeding the payment of salaries, causing a financial crisis and even becoming an enemy of the people. Hence, Members are compelled to vote in favour of the items, or they can only abstain from voting to indicate their stance. The Government must admit that this erodes the power of the Legislative Council to examine individual funding items.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10481
Moreover, I must also criticize Secretary Prof K C CHAN, who poses as the Financial Secretary, and repeatedly resort to "verbal manoeuvres" to openly discredit and threaten Members who actively speak in this Council. He even wrote to the Legislative Council directly to exert pressure on the President to disallow Members to propose amendments to the Budget, for the sole purpose of pushing through the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau. Under the principle of separation of powers with check and balance, the Government, as an executive authority, is responsible for preparing the annual Budget and major bills and submit them to this Council for voting; at the same time Members of this Council have to exercise their constitutional duty to monitor the Government and to debate on the Budget, examine it, propose amendments to it and finally vote on it. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for Members to proactively ask questions about the Budget to ensure that public money is properly spent instead of being wasted. This reminds me of Secretary "K C's" attempt to limit the number of questions raised by Members at the special FC meeting, citing that most of the questions were raised by the same 10 Members. These Members raised so many questions because they were diligent in discharging their duty. How come that would become their sin? He tried to limit the number of questions asked by Members, accusing them of raising too many questions, but his attempt was to no avail in the end. Afterwards, he set a quota and answered a number of questions first, leaving others to be answered later. I have mentioned earlier that I raised more questions in the second batch than the first batch because when I received the answers to the second batch of questions, the special FC meeting was over and I missed the deadline for proposing amendments. Hence I was unable to propose amendments to the Government's answers to my second batch of questions. That has also weakened our power to monitor the Government's Budget.
On the day before the Budget was released, K C CHAN wrote to the President of the Legislative Council again, criticizing that large number of amendments would hinder the Government's enforcement of the ordinances that had been passed by the Legislative Council and affect the Government's delivery of public services and hence no amendments should be allowed. He also said that continuous filibustering would only impede the implementation of poverty alleviation measures such as an extra month of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance payment, electricity subsidy and rent allowance for public rental housing tenants. Instead of reflecting upon why the Government has performed so poorly in its everyday work and why its policies are not transparent, he used people's livelihood issues to force Members to give in to the Government's 10482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 demand. K C CHAN cited that last year the President had ruled that 909 amendments were sequential, trivial, frivolous and meaningless and accordingly disallowed Members to propose them; hence, by the same token, he considered that no amendments should be allowed this year. What was he talking about? I have to commend the President for being brilliant; at least he has not totally sided with the Government. Although he has reduced Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's 3 000-odd amendments to only 63, he has approved all 555 amendments proposed by the other 16 Members. He ruled that a total of 618 amendments can be proposed and now we have proceeded to the second last debate.
I have repeatedly said that the decision was unreasonable ― Chairman, it was your decision too ― and illegal. The question is whether we are in a position to fight with you till the end and seek judicial review against your ruling. However, K C CHAN, as a Secretary, has resorted to "verbal manoeuvre" to threaten the public and oppose filibustering. He has also stated that all consequences would have to be borne by the Members who filibustered, and in so doing, he would shirk all responsibilities of the Government for the mistakes committed over the years. Also, he has created a false financial crisis and kept saying that there was a "fiscal cliff" and the funds under vote on account would be used up in May in order to force you, Chairman, to complete the deliberations on the Budget before the end of May. Chairman, you once said that the above factors were not your consideration and you would consider the issue from the perspective of this Council's operation, rather than whether the Government's funds would be used up. I must point out that the Government is entitled to apply for funds under vote on account for a second time or if it foresees that the Budget will not be passed within its anticipated time, it can apply for extra funds under vote on account.
I must also criticize the Government's "scrooge style" financial management principle, namely the "0-1-1" scheme and the cost recovery principle. Last year the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) forecast a slight decrease of 0.3% in tax revenue in 2014-2015, but the provisional statistics published last week showed that the IRD's forecast was seriously wrong. Last year's total tax revenue amounted to $319 billion, exceeding the previous year by $58.4 billion, a significant increase of 24%, and it also set a new record.
What I want to say is that the Government has huge tax revenues every year and the Treasury is flooded with money; yet owing to wrong forecast, the Government has to apply the principle of cost recovery on trivial livelihood items LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10483 such as the cremation fee, and increase it from the present $1,000-odd to $6,560 in three years. At the meetings of the relevant Panel, Members from various political parties and groupings unanimously objected to this increase. Let us see how the Secretary will respond. The Government's application of the cost recovery principle actually forces various departments to be the "bad guy". The Food and Health Bureau is most obedient. It immediately applies to the Legislative Council for raising the cremation fee and even the slaughtering fee. Our criticism against Secretary Prof K C CHAN also includes this point.
My speaking time is almost up. Lastly I wish to talk about one of the duties of the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, which is to supervise the regulatory agencies including the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), the Insurance Authority, the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority and the Financial Reporting Council. It is required that financial actors must disclose their personal interests and make a disclaimer on the relevant risks when expressing their views on radio or television. I wonder if Members have noticed that recently a female host of a financial programme on television read out a 130-word disclaimer in merely 15 seconds in order to comply with the Guidelines on Marketing Materials for Listed Structured Products. I do not know whether this is within the ambit of Secretary Gregory SO and if the Office of the Communications Authority can do something about it. Obviously, reading out a Chinese disclaimer of more than 100 words in merely 15 seconds was not meant to be heard and the disclaimer flashed on the screen for a few seconds was not meant to be seen. Let me demonstrate how the disclaimer was read. I would ask the simultaneous interpreter and sign language interpreter to be excused because they will not be able to catch up with me: "The above guests are HKMA and SFC licensees, and the aforementioned structured products are uncollateralized. In case of insolvency or default of issuers, investors may not be able to recover the receivables, in whole or in part. The price of structured products may fall in value as rapidly as it may rise and holders may sustain a total loss of their investment. Past performance figures are not indicative of future performance. Prospective purchasers should therefore assess the risks with reference to the listing documents and seek professional advice before they invest in the products." I was not too fluent but my version is clearer than that of the female host. Everyone has heard it. I wish to take this chance to call upon Secretary "K C" and the SFC to step up the review on how those people treat this disclaimer. People may find it very amusing to hear it, but this is not a joke but a tragedy.
10484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
The Government and the SFC have set down rules and required the marketing materials of listing structured products to carry a disclaimer, but the television stations just perfunctorily follow this rule with the host reading out some 100 words in merely 15 seconds. Actually, the written disclaimer shown on the television screen immediately afterwards stipulates that the disclaimer should be prominent and legible or audible as appropriate, but no one cares about this requirement and the host has discharged his duty by reading aloud the disclaimer. I do not know whether Secretary "K C' or the Communications Authority should bear responsibility. I urge the authorities to take serious action against the radio or television stations' perfunctory treatment of the disclaimers. As a matter of fact, they are treating the investors as fatheads. Whatever the investors buy is their own problem and they have to bear the risks; and they treat the disclaimers as a mere lip-service and they have already done their part by reading it aloud. But is this the Government's intention? In this respect, Secretary "K C" should also be held accountable, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Members who are present and have proposed amendments have all spoken for the last time, this debate now ends.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Heads 53, 63, 70, 90, 95, 156 and 190.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to the sixth debate. The debate themes are "Population, Education, Manpower, Youth, Arts and Culture and Sports".
The respective policy areas covered in this debate are: Population Policy; Education; Manpower; Youth; Arts and Culture; and Sports.
Eleven Members including Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Dr Helena WONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Dr Fernando CHEUNG have respectively given notice to move a total of 86 amendments to reduce the various sums for seven heads, including the heads which have been read out. The contents of their amendments are all relevant to the areas of this debate.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10485
I will first call upon Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to speak and move Amendment No 134 as set out in Appendix 1E to the Script, to be followed by Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Dr Helena WONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Dr Fernando CHEUNG to speak respectively; but they may not move amendments at this stage.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move Amendment No 134 as set out in Appendix 1E to the Script. Today we have commenced the sixth debate which is the last joint debate. Chairman, how many hours will you allow us to speak in this debate? At present, there are only six Members in this Chamber, but I am not requesting a headcount. I wish to speak first, but I also hope that Members who intend to speak will return to the Chamber as soon as possible and get ready to speak.
As the Chairman said earlier, the policy areas covered in this debate are population; education; manpower; youth; arts and culture; and sports. In relation to this debate, I have proposed a total of 35 amendments, among which 17 are related to the Home Affairs Bureau, nine are related to the Immigration Department and the other nine are related to the Education Bureau. I often wonder why the Immigration Department (ImmD) is grouped under this debate session. Is the ImmD not under the purview of the Security Bureau? Perhaps matters concerning the ImmD are included in the policy area of manpower, and hence it is to be discussed under this session. Anyway, I will talk about the areas of work of the ImmD later. While the ImmD is a law-enforcement agency, many things which happened in the past year warrant the explanation of the ImmD, such as matters concerning the Marriage (Amendment) Bill 2014. Yesterday, a person who has obtained same-sex partner status overseas with a resident in Hong Kong applied for judicial review because of being denied entry into Hong Kong.
Nevertheless, I would like to speak about the Education Bureau first. I have proposed nine amendments regarding the Education Bureau, including Amendment Nos 546, 548, 549, 550, 556, 560, 563, 565 and 566. Most of the amendments seek to deduct the salaries of the officials of the Education Bureau. But, as the saying goes, "every grudge can be traced to its source and every debtor has a creditor", my demands are mainly related to the Secretary of Education. Amendment No 556 seeks to deduct an amount approximately 10486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 equivalent to the estimated expenditure on the annual emolument of the Secretary of Education, which is $3.58 million, and this amount is the same for every Director of Bureau. I am not the only Member who have proposed such an amendment; Mr WONG Yuk-man, Dr Kenneth CHAN and Dr Helena WONG have also proposed similar amendments to deduct the estimated expenditure on the annual emolument of the Secretary of Education. Therefore, Members will hear many stories about Eddie NG this afternoon.
The Education Bureau is a government department which receives the most government funding every year, second only to the Social Welfare Department. The estimated expenditure for the Education Bureau this year exceeds $51.3 billion, which covers all aspects of education in Hong Kong, including primary, secondary and university education; special education and vocational education. However, what kind of a Director of Bureau is Secretary for Education Eddie NG? He is a "negative equity asset" of the SAR Government. Since he assumed office, his popularity has all along been low. Although Eddie NG's ranking was a little bit higher than that of Paul CHAN, "Secretary Sub-divided-units", he came second last and was dubbed "Secretary No-good NG". We are not the only ones who are dissatisfied with his performance, many pro-establishment Members also think that he is "no good". If we compare Eddie NG with Paul CHAN, the latter has problems of integrity, such as problems of "sub-divided units", drink driving and land hoarding and many marks have thus been deducted from his score. Although we have not identified any problem of integrity with Secretary Eddie NG, his work performance has been riddled with problems, he thus came second last in popularity ranking.
According to the recent study on the popularity of Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux conducted by the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong, the net popularity rating of Paul CHAN was negative 32.7% while that of Secretary for Education Eddie NG was negative 26%. These two persons are competing for the lowest position. There is no bad performance, only worse. In the face of such a low popularity ranking, I do not think the Directors of Bureaux will reflect on their blunders; they will only repeat their mistakes, make new mistakes and found themselves in the news every day.
What is the most recent sin committed by Eddie NG? He urged the education sector (including school principals) to pocket the constitutional reform proposal first while his words of "the school setting should not be politicized" still LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10487 rang in our ears. As a result, he was criticized for politicizing schools. Eddie NG argued that people should not interpret his appeal as coercing the principals to support the constitutional reform proposal. He only encouraged the principals to give their support to the constitutional reform proposal during a discussion conducted under their consent. Members would know what a threat is. Chairman, if I telephoned you and said, "President, watch out. I show great concern of your family members. I know someone has got hold of some 'black materials' about you and they want to disclose them. You had better be careful. I am not threatening you; I am only concerned about you". Is that a threat? I think Members know the answer.
Secretary Eddie NG further explained that in the past, he said that schools should not be politicized because some students had participated in unlawful activities which affected their own safety and the law and order of Hong Kong. Therefore, he hoped that students would consider the matter from different perspectives. Regarding his appeal to the education sector for supporting the proposal of electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, he only presented the proposal to the attendants of the meeting (including school principals); he had not coerced or enticed them into supporting the proposal, he simply encouraged them to give their support. If your supervisor encouraged you to sign in support of the constitutional reform proposal and democracy, was it really an encouragement? If your supervisor encouraged you to assist him in setting up a street booth during the weekend and said it would be alright if you could not make it and he was not forcing you, would you go nonetheless? I urge the Secretary not to talk like that anymore. Being in such a high position, how could he claim that he was merely encouraging the principals? The more he claims that his words are encouragement, the more they become coercion; the more denial, the more certainty. Explanation becomes an excuse.
Let me repeat. He claimed that he only encouraged but not coerced the principals to support the constitutional reform proposal, and the principals could make their own choice. Certainly, I believe the principals can still have freedom of choice and I think Eddie NG would not be so vicious as to force the principals to sign Robert CHOW's form. The principals are really caught in a difficult position, and so are public officials. Some public officials do not truly support the constitutional reform proposal; who are those officials? They are the ones who would not sign at the street booth in a high profile manner. They do not know whether LEUNG Chun-ying will step down, or whether the situation will change abruptly, by then a state leader may come forward and announce that the 10488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 constitutional reform proposal is really not feasible, it is a fake universal suffrage and should not be supported. "Tailgating" can be tragically fatal, am I right? Let me advise the principals. If they are afraid of reprisals and at the same time, worried that tailgating may be fatal and cause embarrassment, they can sign online at home and take a photo. If in future, someone complained that they had not signed, they can produce the photo to prove that they had signed. Chairman, I think I have gone a bit too far.
Since school principals are professionals who can make up their own minds, Eddie NG thinks that the saying of coercion does not exist. I do not know if the Directors of Bureaux have been coerced. Since all Directors of Bureaux are willing to enter the "hot kitchen", they should have acted on their own volition. However, the fact that Eddie NG, as the Secretary for Education, had publicly urged members of the education sector to support the constitutional reform proposal would exert some kind of pressure. This is an indisputable fact.
Another sin committed by Eddie NG is his attempt to revive national education. In 2012, the national education crisis had successfully compelled the Government to shelve ― Members may use any other word they like ― the curriculum guide of the Moral and National Education subject. Back then, the issue of national education had caused an uproar in Hong Kong. The Government was accused of trying to brainwash the next generation by requiring them to learn to love the country and Hong Kong. After staging many protests and public demonstrations, more than 100 000 students, parents and protesters besieged the Central Government Offices day after day and night after night to demand for the withdrawal of national education. After the demonstrations, Eddie NG said in a radio interview that there were actually more people who supported national education. According to him, there were 400 000 primary school students, and if parents were also included, there were almost 1 million people who did not join the demonstration, implying that they did not oppose national education. If we accept his logic, we would say that despite the 1 million or 2 million signatures collected by Robert CHOW in support of the "pocket-it-first" proposal, there are still 5 million people who oppose the proposal. I do not know whether the Secretary truly believed in his own words or he had merely resorted to sophistry, but he should be ashamed of what he had said. Although the issue of constitutional reform proposal has nothing to do with the Secretary, his logic cannot be so confusing. He should learn a lesson as he may be ridiculed for the rest of his life for such confusing logic.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10489
The Parents' Concern Group on National Education has criticized the Secretary for being selective in listening to views and indifferent to public opinion. They argued that if 1 million people took to the streets, could we say that 6 million people actually supported the Government? Eddie NG's handling of national education reveals his incompetence. We think he is incompetent, and the Communist Party of China which requires him to promote national education also considers him incompetent. His performance in this area failed completely; worse still he added fuel to the fire, not only failing to facilitate discussions but also instigating greater public indignation and complaints. After the national education incident, "Secretary No-good NG's" popularity has gone from bad to worse without any hope of improvement. He is a Secretary with negative popularity ratings. I think his popularity ratings will remain negative until the day he leaves the Government. I will bet a meal with you on this. Therefore, I think Eddie NG should take the blame and step down. A few days ago, Eddie NG refused to admit failure and said that the curriculum guide has not been deleted and the authorities have been working on the development of national education. Thus, he was berated for trying to revive national education.
After the Occupy movement, the Beijing authorities have repeatedly asked LEUNG Chun-ying Government to introduce "brain-boosting national education" to students. Since we have "brainwashed" students in the Occupy movement, the SAR Government has to "brain-boost" students with patriotic ideologies and national education. The Government has proposed a number of "brain-boosting" projects, including the projects so heatedly discussed at the Panel on Education a couple of days ago that we almost got into a fight. They include forming sister schools, organizing exchange visits to the Mainland, sponsoring students to study on the Mainland and introducing modern history into the curriculum of the Chinese History subject. The Education Bureau has not stopped its work in this area and its prime mission is to introduce national education. As the Education Bureau failed to market national education in Hong Kong, it has to re-package it. Anyway, Hong Kong students do not love their country enough; they do not love the Communist Party of China enough; they lack a sense of identity with their country and they are not moved to tears upon seeing the raising of the "Five-star Flag". The Education Bureau has actually not stopped its work in promoting national education; it is reducing it into smaller components to sell them off.
Since 2004, through liaison with the Mainland education authorities, the Education Bureau co-ordinated the pairing up of primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong with those in Shanghai Municipality, Beijing Municipality, Ningbo 10490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
Municipality, Sichuan Province, Zhejiang Province and Fujian Province as sister schools. In addition, since 2005, the Education Bureau has started to arrange the pairing up primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong and Guangdong Province as sister schools based on schools' preferences. In the past, the Education Bureau only played the role of a match-maker, but things are different this year. The Chief Executive announced in the 2015 Policy Address to launch a three-year pilot scheme from the 2015-2016 school year through which financial and professional support will be provided to schools that have formed sister schools with the Mainland. A non-recurrent grant of $120,000 per annum will be provided to schools to organize exchange activities at various levels, including school visits, lesson observation, lesson evaluation, lesson demonstration, variety shows, cultural studies, debate competitions, parent seminars and student pen pal schemes, and so on. The number of Hong Kong-Mainland sister schools is expected to increase progressively to about 600 in three years and it is estimated that $200 million will be required for the whole scheme. In fact, as we have said in a discussion at the Panel on Education, giving each school $120,000 is not a huge sum, but the Education Bureau intends to make schools compare themselves with the others. If you are the principal of a school and the school next door has formed sister schools with a Mainland school which is also a famous school, you will consider doing the same, won't you? You will try to find "a wife", pardon me, "a sister" to form sister schools with your school (The buzzer sounded) … I will speak again in the next session. Chairman, I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please speak.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I hope this summoning bell is not a death charm, causing Members to suffer from heart attack.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10491
The sixth debate session today is related to a number of problems concerning the Home Affairs Bureau. First, I will discuss sports funding so that Honourable colleagues would understand the logic and reasons behind the amendments. We have already given many reasons but Members, the Secretary and the Government have turned a deaf ear. Today, I would like to have my views put on record for future reference, so as to prove that we have informed the Government of these problems long ago. Similarly, five years ago, I said that the negligence and excessively hasty ground investigation work of the Express Rail Link would inevitably lead to significant changes in design, as well as a substantial increase in construction costs. It has been proven today that what I said five years ago was right.
Chairman, in the past 10 years or so, I have discussed on various occasions, especially at meetings of the Panel on Home Affairs, problems related to sports organizations. I have repeatedly made criticisms during policy debates and motion debates in the Legislative Council. In fact, it can be said that Hong Kong has remained unchanged in the past decades in this regard. Sports organizations in Hong Kong can be described as a hotbed of filthy practices and numerous problems have arisen. In terms of transferring interests within small circles, mutual harbouring and shielding, as well as ugly administrative practices, we can say that sports organizations are exemplary. In a nutshell, sports organizations are riddled with problems. Chairman, my comments on sports organizations are as follows: first, black-box operation lacking in transparency; second, lack of monitoring mechanisms; third, specialists led by laymen, while most management and administrative staff lack professional knowledge; fourth, serious abuse of power by the management and the fundamental rights of members are not protected; fifth, manipulation of powers for personal ends, and inappropriate use of resources of national sports associations (NSAs) and public funds; sixth, nepotism; seventh, ageing leadership; eighth, underhand secret dealings and unfair selection system; and ninth, bureaucratic and inflexible handling of sports-related issues by the Government.
Under such circumstances, Chairman, I propose Amendment No 148, that head 53 be reduced by $19,859,000, an amount equivalent to the annual subvention from the Home Affairs Bureau to the Sports Federation and Olympic Committee of Hong Kong, China (SF&OC). It can be said that the Olympic Committee, international sports federations and the SF&OC are the root causes of all problems. I will analyse the problems with these organizations and the amounts involved. In fact, the annual subvention provided by the Hong Kong 10492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
Government to the SF&OC amounted to tens of millions of dollars. The subvention in previous years had exceeded $18 million and the amount this year is close to $20 million. The amounts keep increasing.
While the Government provides subvention to the SF&OC, the SF&OC has to perform specific duties, which include implementing an anti-doping programme, enforcing policy and regulation; providing support to retired athletes for pursuing higher education and career development; managing and maintaining the Hong Kong Olympic House; and developing and promoting sports in society. Under the existing mechanism, the SF&OC is required to submit expenditure breakdown and receipts quarterly to the Home Affairs Bureau for reimbursement of funds on accountable basis. These are the funding criteria and arrangements. In addition, the SF&OC is required to submit audited annual financial report on government funding. In determining the appropriate level of subvention to be provided to the SF&OC, the Government will consider the operational needs in specific funded areas, but not the other assets under the management of the SF&OC. Actually, the Government will decide the level of subvention according to the needs and the areas to be funded.
However, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the common problem of sports organizations in Hong Kong is black-box operation, and the SF&OC is no exception. The SF&OC receives an annual subvention of over $18 million from the Government, and this year's subvention is even close to $20 million. Nevertheless, we have looked up the records and we found that, up till today, the SF&OC has never made public its financial situation, expenditure details, subventions, fundraising sources and amounts … On the whole, we have not been provided with any relevant information.
"Master FOK" is rich and his family can pay all the expenses of the SF&OC, we also believe that members of the SF&OC have spent a lot on meals and arrangements for activities. They are willing to pay out of their own pockets and they can afford to do so, and their expenses may even exceed government funding. Yet, this does not mean that the SF&OC does not have to give the public an account of its financial situation. It can be said that this bad practice is the characteristics of Hong Kong. The situation of coterie manipulation, mutual harbouring, mutual flattering and support can also be described as the characteristics of functional constituencies and the Chief Executive election in Hong Kong. Such characteristic is fully exposed in the sports sector.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10493
I have repeatedly criticized the Kai Tak Sports City project. When Timothy FOK supported "Old TUNG" in the Chief Executive election, "Old TUNG" in return promised that the Kai Tak Sports City would be constructed. This is an open secret. I find it hard to prove that this is an exchange; if I can do so, I would have reported these two persons to the ICAC.
Concerning the mode of operation of the SF&OC, there is a lack of financial regulation, which is absolutely unacceptable, and I very much hope that the Audit Commission would make a comprehensive assessment in this connection. In fact, I have made this appeal more than once but it seems that it is difficult for this fortress to be shaken. Since the sports sector has quite a lot of votes and it is harboured by some functional constituency Members, the Chief Executive and senior officials, black-box operation still exists and public money is regarded as private property. This mode of operation must be condemned in today's debate.
Chairman, similar to many other NSAs, the SF&OC has gradually become the private club of the offspring of the rich. The SF&OC was originally controlled by wealthy people, but when these people become old after having been in control for more than two to three decades, their grown-up children will take over.
Chairman, let us look at the election of the Olympic Committee Council. All athletes in Hong Kong do not have the right to vote individually and there are only corporate votes. The athletes do not have the right to vote to elect members of the SF&OC. Only 31 of the 75 NSAs under the SF&OC have the right to vote. This is screening, which is a very special arrangement for the privileged class. Why would specialists be led by laymen? Why can the dignitaries control everything? This has something to do with its constitution and the whole system. Regardless of how outstanding the athletes are or how much contribution they have made to sports, they do not have the right to vote, and only specified NSAs have the right to vote. Even though these 31 NSAs have the right to vote, they only have corporate votes. This is the characteristic of functional constituencies. The mode of operation of the 31 August Decision of Standing Committee of the National People's Congress really coincides with that of the NSAs. We can see that the entire mode of operation is very similar to and consistent with the political climate in Hong Kong.
10494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
Thirty one NSAs have corporate votes and each of them has two votes, so as to strengthen their influence. The President, the Secretary General, the three Deputy Secretary Generals and the Treasurer of the SF&OC have one vote each and there are a total of 68 votes. These 35 votes can decide everything and elect 14 members of the Council. In the last election ― the result has been disclosed ― "Master FOK", Timothy FOK, continues to serve as the President and the Honorary Secretary General is Ronnie WONG. They have served for two to three decades, and the second-generation Kenneth FOK (the offspring of Timothy FOK) is the Honorary Deputy Secretary. I will not read out the names of other candidates.
The negative image of the NSAs that I mentioned at the outset of my speech can precisely be reflected by these candidates. More ridiculously still, when Kenneth FOK was elected the Honorary Deputy Secretary in 2009, he was basically not eligible to stand for election. The authorities even went so far as to "move the goalpost" and change some provisions, so that Kenneth FOK could be elected. At that time, some members of the sector urged Timothy FOK, the President of the SF&OC, to persuade Kenneth FOK to consider withdrawal, so as to make others acceptable. Nonetheless, what subsequently happened told us that there were tailor-made arrangements. Such "enclosed" mode of operation of the SF&OC where the organization is governed by families and the second generation of the rich can inherit everything from the older generation was fully disclosed in the last election. For this reason, the sports industry in Hong Kong is enveloped in darkness and has come to a standstill. To a certain extent, this mode of operation of the SF&OC is not much different from that of the Hong Kong Football Association; thus, the status of Hong Kong football has also plummeted.
The problems of ageing membership and rigid operation of the SF&OC are also extremely serious. I will comment further on the mode of operation of the SF&OC later.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to speak on head 156 and my proposed Amendment No 558, which seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure on the annual emoluments of the Secretary for Education, Eddie NG, in the amount of $3.58 million. Having made a total of 21 outbound visits over the 30 months following his taking office, the Secretary for Education is berated by many for failing to attend to his proper duties, and he is dubbed "Secretary for Sightseeing" in the official circle. His total expenses on LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10495 sightseeing amount to some $3.7 million. This year his outbound visits have been most frequent, 10 visits have been made so far, and he is not in Hong Kong for several days almost every month. His outbound visits cover the Mainland as well as countries in Southeast Asia, Europe and America, including leading personally many students' "brainwashing tours" to the Mainland, and exchanging views on education policies in Indonesia. The effect of the frequent outbound visits by the Secretary for Education is doubtful. We also fail to see that he has drawn on foreign experiences and introduced appropriate measures in Hong Kong to improve the quality of local education.
The expenses on Secretary Eddie NG's outbound visits are five times more than his predecessor, Secretary Michael SUEN when he was the Secretary for Education in 2011-2012 financial year. For the time being, I would not talk about whether spending so much money by the Secretary can effectively promote local education reform or improve local education; instead, I would like to talk about the various problems with local education. When it comes to problems with education, I can by no means finish speaking within 15 minutes, but I will try my best.
First of all, I would like to talk about the discussion held at the meeting of the Panel on Education attended by Secretary Eddie NG recently, that is, the expansion of the sister school exchange programme as proposed by LEUNG Chun-ying in this year's Policy Address. The programme is a copycat version of the brainwashing national education, and some $200 million has been reserved for its implementation. We have detected some big problems from the document submitted by Secretary Eddie NG when attending the meeting of the Panel on Education recently. The Government boasts of allocating funds to schools under the programme, so that schools will have resources to engage in exchange activities on the Mainland or invite Mainland sister schools to come to Hong Kong for exchanges, and the targets of exchanges not only include school management personnel, but also teachers, students and their parents.
The Government makes it clear that each school joining the sister school exchange programme can receive $120,000 every year, and it can receive $360,000 if it joins the programme for three consecutive years. Any primary or secondary school in Hong Kong, be it public school, Direct Subsidy Scheme school or special school, can link up with a primary or secondary school on the Mainland before engaging in exchange activities. The inducement is that each school joining the programme can receive $120,000 every year and $360,000 for three years. Teachers, principals, students and school management personnel in 10496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
Hong Kong are sent to the Mainland for exchanges. What is the purpose of the exchanges? We do not have the slightest idea. Do we send our students to the Mainland purely for sightseeing, so that they would appreciate the magnificent landscape, history and culture of our Motherland? Or are there any other purposes? What are they supposed to see? Are there only packages A, B, C and D available for selection?
We can see from the relevant document that the programme, which has been in force since 2004, is not new, and 300 schools have joined the programme to exchange with sister schools on the Mainland. The Education Bureau has all along been subsidizing the leftist Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers (HKFEW), the political background of which I believe the Chairman is well aware of. From September 2010 to August 2015, the Education Bureau offered a total of three contracts by way of tender, and the successful bidder invariably turned out to the HKFEW. Under the three contracts, $1.71 million was allocated to the HKFEW for assisting local schools in liaising with Mainland schools.
According to the document provided by the Secretary for Education when he attended the meeting of the Panel on Education of the Legislative Council, of the provision of $200 million, apart from providing each school with $120,000 every year and $360,000 for three years for exchanges, some money will be reserved for professional support. The document has not specified the amount involved, and only after my questioning did the Government indicate that $8 million out of the $200 million would be reserved for professional support. If a school does not know which school on the Mainland it should pair up with as a sister school, it can consult the associated agency, which acts like a matchmaking agency. If you do not know which to choose among packages A, B and C and you do not have any idea, the associated agency will probably advise you to select package A. That said, the entire document has not clearly stated how to identify an associated agency, why we must approach an associated agency, what is the role of the associated agency, and whether Mainland exchange activities are not possible in the absence of an associated agency.
Government officials indicated at Legislative Council meetings that the Government has ensured its impartiality through the tender process, only that the successful bidder invariably happened to be the HKFEW. Following the logic of the Education Bureau, I believe that the said $8 million will again fall into the pocket of the HKFEW. The HKFEW will be the successful bidder for sure, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10497 because the programme has been in place since 2004, and the HKFEW has since 2010 joined the programme upon obtaining the funding from the Education Bureau. How can any other organizations compete with the HKFEW? Is this an alternative form of transfer of benefits, where the Government provides public money to an education organization with a clear political stance and entrusts it to organize a brainwashing national education project? Is there any competition after all? Why is there only one associated agency? If there is only one associated agency that is well versed in arranging student exchange tours to the Mainland, must it be the intermediary in any event? After raising these questions, we very much query whether this is a brainwashing national education project. Can students go to the Mainland and visit the Tiananmen Mothers? Can they go to Shanghai and visit rights activist lawyers? Will the HKFEW make arrangements in this regard? I am sure such exchanges are not covered by packages A, B, C, D and E. Can schools in Hong Kong make their own decision to exchange with such groups? The Education Bureau has given no replies to such questions.
The Government has allocated large amounts of public money to the programme, but the Secretary for Education arbitrarily allocates funds to schools joining the programme and gives money to the HKFEW for accomplishing the mission to increase the number of participating schools from the existing 300 to 600. The programme, monopolized by the HKFEW, and implemented by the injection of large amount of funds, is actually a cross-boundary brainwashing national education project. If the Education Bureau really wants to implement the sister school exchange programme, it should allow schools in Hong Kong the autonomy to decide, by engaging students and parents, whether exchanges would be conducted, rather than inducing schools to join the exchange programme as in the present case. If exchange activities are to be held, schools, students, their parents and teachers should make their professional decision as to where to go, what to see and whom to meet, rather than following the itinerary imposed on them by the HKFEW. For this reason, I strongly oppose the existing sister school exchange programme.
Apart from the problematic sister school exchange programme, we are recently very concerned about a Basic Law teaching resource package produced by the Education Bureau, which includes an audio-visual component and several books. Some people have already begun reading the contents of the package. Obviously, the Education Bureau intends to make use of the package to publicize the contents of a white paper on "one country, two systems" published by the State Council last June. The contents of the package have been severely 10498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 criticized, including its description of the relationship among the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The messages in the package are confusing, stating the co-operation among the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. While a system underpinned by the co-operation among the three branches of government is implemented on the Mainland, Hong Kong has long been implementing a tripartite political system. While we must earnestly safeguard an independent judiciary in Hong Kong, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary enjoy a harmonious and co-operative relationship on the Mainland.
I have heard Dr Elizabeth QUAT criticizing the Court for releasing students who had participated in Occupy Central and subsequently arrested by the Police. She was very unhappy about that. Dr Elizabeth QUAT is already poisoned by the Communist Party of China, truly believing in the co-operation among the three branches of government. In her view, the persons arrested should be "beheaded", or imprisoned for life, or sentenced to ten or eight years' imprisonment as in the case of LIU Xiaobo. There is no reason why they should be released so soon. Dr Elizabeth QUAT is not present at this moment. As a Legislative Council Member, she fails to understand that Hong Kong implements a tripartite political system of checks and balances. We have an independent judiciary, but a Legislative Council Member has surprisingly criticized the judgment of the judiciary on the release of individual persons. Does she really intend to Mainlandize Hong Kong to enable the co-operation among the three branches of government?
As a teacher, how should I teach students with such a package? I can only tell students that the Mainland implements a system of co-operation among the three branches of government, and the biggest defect the Mainland judicial system is that it is not independent of the party state, resulting in many cases in which people are unjustly, falsely or wrongly charged, many rights activists are arrested, and many grievances are not properly addressed. This is exactly the weakest point of the legal system of China. We should never allow Hong Kong to move in this direction. In fact, it should be the Mainland that needs to learn from Hong Kong. Why must Hong Kong, on the contrary, learn from the co-operation among the three branches of government on the Mainland?
There is a picture in the package which explains that Hong Kong enjoys independent judicial power. Is this not a confusing message? Since we have an independent judicial power, how come there is co-operation among the three branches of government? I therefore think that the package is not up to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10499 standard. If the Education Bureau delivers copies of the package to schools, teachers do not really know how to teach. They do not know if they should base their teaching on page 1 or page 10 of the package, given that the viewpoints are contradictory. As such, in my view, instead of constantly going on sightseeing tours, the Secretary for Education should seriously sort out what kind of teaching resource packages the Education Bureau has produced, and what kind of education policy has been formulated for Hong Kong.
Chairman, the blunders of Eddie NG may not be described in full even over a span of three days. Let me talk about his third blunder, and that is, teaching Chinese in Putonghua. Some foreign friends of mine asked me, after seeing my Facebook pages, what was meant by teaching Chinese in Putonghua, which they had never heard of. I explained to them that teaching Chinese in Putonghua means using Putonghua as the medium of instruction to teach the Chinese Language in schools. The Secretary for Education has without cause or reason indicated at the Panel on Education that teaching Chinese in Putonghua should be set as a long-term target of teaching the Chinese Language in Hong Kong schools. This is a recommendation made by the Standing Committee on Language Education and Research. Has the Government ever made any public consultation on whether Putonghua should be used to teach the Chinese Language? Even if the Secretary has failed to launch any extensive consultation on the implementation of teaching Chinese in Putonghua, he should at least provide us with some scientific analyses and statistics, and tell us about the benefits of teaching and learning Chinese in Putonghua. Will it be conducive to mastering the Chinese Language? Will our learning the Chinese Language be compromised if Cantonese instead of Putonghua is used as the medium of instruction? Or is it the other way around? Since the Government has failed to provide any scientific statistics, teaching Chinese in Putonghua has ultimately become (The buzzer sounded) … a very deceptive act.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, please stop speaking.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this debate session, I have put forward a total of six amendments, which cover the Operations Consultancy for the Multi-purpose Sports Complex (the Complex) at Kai Tak as well as the Auditorium of Kwai Tsing Theatre and the Hong Kong Museum of History under the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. I think I can explain the six 10500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 amendments in two speeches, with the first focusing on sports and then the second on the Auditorium of Kwai Tsing Theatre and the Hong Kong Museum of History.
First of all, I will speak on the Operations Consultancy for the Complex at Kai Tak, and the relevant amendment proposed that head 53 be reduced by $14 million in respect of subhead 700, which is roughly equivalent to the estimated expenditure of item 897. I rarely see eye to eye with the incumbent Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, except for this item. The Complex, occupying an area of 27 hectares, was last proposed when bidding for the hosting of the Asian Games, but the bid was unsuccessful. The Government proposed to build a large-scale stadium for hosting major international sports events. According to some recent papers, this large-scale stadium provides 50 000 seats and the entire Complex covers 27 hectares, which is even bigger than half the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD). Soon after LEUNG Chun-ying took office, he frantically looked for land to increase housing supply. He once proposed to abolish the building of the Complex and use the site for residential purpose. The Labour Party holds that this idea can be further discussed and considered, especially after the details of the Complex were released, as we now see a greater need to revise the Project to allocate at least one lot for public rental housing (PRH) or Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) development.
The Complex covers an area of 27 hectares. Chairman, you are too far away and may not see clearly, but you can refer to the playback. This "large egg" is the huge stadium with 50 000 seats whereas those two "small eggs" are the sports ground and indoor multi-purpose sports centre available for use by ordinary people to promote sports for all. The "small egg", which can accommodate 4 000 persons, are available for hiring by schools for organizing athletic meets or for holding local football events with fewer spectators. Its ancillary hall is also open for public use. The indoor sports centre may address the shortage of sporting facilities consistent with planning standard in East Kowloon.
The "large egg", meaning the stadium with 50 000 seats, is indeed another "white elephant". We doubted if this large-scale sporting facility can genuinely serve the purpose, and develop Hong Kong into a venue for international sports events and encourage ordinary citizens and young people to become athletes. We have serious doubt about its effectiveness. If the neighbouring pedestrian connectivity is also included, this large stadium accounts for about 30% of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10501 entire Complex. We totally agree to allocate 30% of the 27-hectare Complex (which is 9 hectares) for residential development, so long as it is not the development of expensive luxurious flats but PRH or HOS for application by members of the public. We will fully support it. Therefore, LEUNG Chun-ying cannot say that we oppose everything that he is doing. So long as it is not the development of luxurious flats, we agree to allocate one third of the site for residential development.
What is the cost of the Complex that has been made public? It is $25 billion, as at September 2014. We have recently learnt too many lessons from the Government. The initial cost of the Express Rail Link (XRL) project was $67 billion, and in response to our enquiries during the meeting, the then Secretary Eva CHENG assured us that there would not be cost overrun and thus application for appropriation from the Legislative Council would not be necessary. In the next 12 months, if the executive authorities apply for appropriation or obtain private funding through MTRCL's fare increase to pay for the amount of cost overrun of the XRL project, we will see how they account for it. All the cost estimates provided by the Government to this Council were inaccurate, with cost overrun of about 40% or 50%, or the cost turned out to be twice the estimates as in the case of the XRL project. Although the cost is now said to be $25 billion, I wonder how much it will become upon completion.
I want to reiterate that we strongly support the building of a sports ground and an indoor sports centre with some 4 000 seats to promote sports for all, so that members of the public can stay healthy. We also fully support the allocation of a major part of the Complex for building a park, which will become the city lung of East Kowloon. Our prime concern is that the "white elephant" stadium having 50 000 seats should not be built. Unfortunately, the project was recently passed by the Public Works Subcommittee and Members from the Labour Party do not have enough votes to veto this "white elephant" project.
In fact, before casting our opposition votes, we did communicate with and consult the Government. In the paper provided by the Government, it has set out the major events intended to be organized in Hong Kong but cannot take place due to the absence of suitable venue, which include concerts by Jay CHAU and Mariah CAREY that had taken place at the Singapore Sports Hub; the Speedway Grand Prix World Championships that cannot be held in the proposed stadium and the three-day electronic music festival held at Commerzbank Arena, Frankfurt.
10502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
Furthermore, according to a public officer, the Government had thought of inviting the renowned Canadian female singer Celine DION to perform in Hong Kong. However, after her manager learnt that the largest stadium in Hong Kong could only accommodate some 10 000 persons, he said she was reluctant to come because it was unlikely to recover the costs even if she gave 10 performances. The Government reckoned that with the stadium providing 50 000 seats, it is possible for Hong Kong to organize world-class concerts. I then went further to ask the Government how many commendable and popular world-class singers were expected to come to Hong Kong on invitation every year. The Government replied five. What will be the revenue of the Government if these five world-class singers will stage two concerts each and 80% of the tickets are sold? It will be some $90 million only, less than $100 million. But how much is the construction cost of the stadium for holding those 10 concerts in a year? If the revenue is less than $100 million a year, how many years will it take to recover the cost? For cost, I only mean the construction cost and has yet to include the land cost.
If the stadium is built because there is no venue for those events, we will have to ask how frequent the stadium will be used upon completion, how much economic benefit can it bring about and whether the opportunity cost is even higher. If our capital and land is used for the production of PRH or HOS units but not building this 50 000-seat stadium, the social benefits gained may far exceed the 20% revenue (that is, $100 million) that we get from the sale of tickets each year.
From the information provided by the Government, we can see the kind of events that had been held in the Hong Kong Stadium in the past, which I think the number of participants certainly outnumbered the number of seats available. These events include the fund-raising event "Help with a warm heart", Hong Kong Welcomes the Delegation of Shenzhou-6 Manned Space Mission Variety Show and the HKSAR 10th Anniversary Reunification Cup. This was a very attractive event with the battling of football teams such as the FC Bayern Munich and the China National Team, and had attracted a full-house audience. Nonetheless, we heard that the tickets were mostly given away and the event was not open to football fans at large. For the Celebratory Gala for the 10th Reunification Anniversary, the Mainland Olympic Gold Medalists Extravaganza, the Hong Kong Welcomes the Delegation of Shenzhou-6 Manned Space Mission Variety Show and the Hong Kong Welcomes the Delegation of Shenzhou-7 Manned Space Mission Variety Show, we are aware that even more tickets were given away. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10503
There is an even more weird event that is worth to be further pursued. It is the "English Alliance 2012/13 ― Create Our Own Reading Records!" held at the Hong Kong Stadium on 23 April 2013. We have to ask: If the stadium is not dedicated for holding sports events but may also hold social events, national celebrations or special events, how many days in a year will it be utilized? Should we devote such considerable sum of public money and large piece of land for these vanity projects or educational events? Is it necessary for educational events to be held in a stadium with seating for 50 000 persons? Can they be held in the Hong Kong Stadium or other outdoor venues? The WKCD will provide an outdoor venue in the future and the open space adjoining the Tamar Park can also accommodate 20 000 to 30 000 people. Why can't we hold the events in these places but have to invest huge capital to build the stadium?
Chairman, there are also some petty odd things about the Complex: Tourist facilities can be found. The consultant engaged by the Government will study whether a hotel should be built within the Complex. According to the paper, the hotel is dedicated for housing visiting athletes, support staff and even spectators. As I have just asked, how many special events will be held in a year? How many nights will this hotel be used to house people taking part in the concerts or sports events in a year? Even if the answer is 20 nights, how about the remaining 11 months? It is actually a three-star hotel, so it should not be built within the Complex and the hotel rooms concerned should be included under other plans.
Apart from the hotel, the paper submitted to the Public Works Subcommittee has also outlined other odd things found in the Complex, such as a Grade A office building of no less than 10 000 sq m. Even if it is used as the base of various sports associations, an area of 10 000 sq m is still far too much. If Grade A office building has already been erected elsewhere in East Kowloon, why should we build one in the Complex? Will it be turned into a base of certain organization in the end?
In relation to hotel, a hostel is also found in the Youth Square in Chai Wan, occupying two blocks. Initially, the hostel was built to facilitate international youth exchange activities. However, as subsequently pointed out in a report published by the Audit Commission, the hostel was rarely used for international exchanges, less than one month. For the rest of the time, it is normally a three-star hotel for ordinary tourists at a cost of less than $1,000. We should avoid mixing tourism facilities with cultural and sporting facilities.
10504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
Apart from office space taking up 10 000 sq m, there is also commercial space of at least 31 500 sq m to accommodate retail and food and beverage outlets. As clearly described here, this is another shopping mall for consumption. In view of the different types of planning, the Government should not build tourism facilities under the disguise of sporting facilities. We absolutely disagree with this.
Chairman, the Labour Party has voted against the proposal at the Public Works Subcommittee. We now put forward an amendment to call on Members to reconsider voting down the consultancy fee, which has been bundled together with the Budget. Although it only involves a small sum of $14 million, the Government must undertake to abandon the construction of the 50 000-seat stadium before Members approve the relevant funding. Thank you, Chairman.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I want to discuss "Head 90 ― Labour Department (LD)" of Amendment Nos 216 and 219, which certainly include Amendment No 218. Amendment No 216 proposes to reduce an amount which is roughly equivalent to the LD's annual estimated expenditure for supporting the Standard Working Hours Committee and the related work (excluding expenditure on staff emoluments). In other words, staff will continue to get paid. This is an improved version. Hong Kong people, having no sense of humour, thought that I propose to reduce their salaries. Honestly speaking, Chairman, even if $0.1 is reduced, the Financial Secretary will have to rewrite the Budget again.
I put forward this amendment because the LD should have specific objectives. So should the Labour Advisory Board (LAB), to which NG Chau-pei belongs. I have asked questions about the LAB in this Council, but there was no reply. Traditionally, all proposals concerning the interests of employers and employees would be referred to the Government for a decision on enacting legislation or proposing a resolution after a tripartite consensus was reached at the LAB. Since this "disabled freak" was created by the Hong Kong-British Government, we have no choice but to keep it. Nonetheless, with the enactment of the Constitution, the LAB basically does not have any role to play. I have asked time and again whether the Legislative Council or the LAB is more "draconian", but so far no one has answered. Even Matthew CHEUNG refused to answer.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10505
We now have another committee, and that is, the Standard Working Hours Committee. Chairman, you should remember that the Minimum Wage Commission was established by Donald TSANG. At that time, I was just elected as a Member of the Legislative Council and the President told me passionately that there was no standard in this world. This was nothing but a political issue. Chairman, you were right in saying that this was a political issue, and with such foresight, you should assume the post as the Chief Executive. At that time, you said in the Chamber that this was a political issue and there was no standard at all, depending on what the majority preferred. Yet, Chairman, you are wrong. Under the existing system, the majority in society are very poor and do not have any power, it is therefore natural for their interests to be jeopardized.
The current situation is quite similar. It was the Minimum Wage Commission back then ― Matthew CHEUNG was the Permanent Secretary then and now he has been promoted ― I applied for judicial review but lost. Chairman, do you know how cunning the Government was? It argued that action would soon be taken and the relevant committee was established, so I lost the lawsuit. Nonetheless, this is worthwhile to seek judicial review because the Government had presented a legitimate expectation to the Court. If implementation is still not in place and I resort to judicial review again, the Government will certainly lose.
Chairman, by the way, the Government needs to be berated from time to time, so does LEUNG Chun-ying. When we asked whether a certain decision was made by "one single man", the Government's reply was "no comment". When we further asked for the views of other Executive Council Members, the Government replied that the minutes of meetings of the Executive Council could not be disclosed. In that case, LEUNG Chun-ying should be the "one single man". Chairman, you should remember how cunning LEUNG Chun-ying was. He asked me to sue him instead of invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (the Ordinance). He said with righteous indignation and vowed to be frank and transparent, but nothing was true. What magical trick has he employed? He would rather lose the lawsuit. Chairman, since we had battled in a lawsuit, you should know that you won the case because you kept explaining that you invoked Rule 73(1) and (2) and the Court accepted your views. In other words, the Court will weigh the views expressed by the two sides and then rule in favour of the better side, which is different from the handling of criminal offences.
10506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
Chairman, LEUNG Chun-ying would rather lose the lawsuit than utter a word. What was the judgment handed down for Ricky WONG? The Court invalidated the last decision and requested a re-examination. I have never seen such a despicable person. We may throw questions at him by invoking the Ordinance, but lawsuit is a different matter. He does not care if he loses the case because public money is abundant. Furthermore, with Rimsky YUEN as his barrister, he can refuse to give statement even at the risk of losing the case. Although it is ruled that re-examination is required, no one knows what can be referred to. Do Members agree that this person is very despicable? I just want to mention this in passing, and that is all I have to say. Chairman, you need not look at me in this way.
I want to illustrate that the Government is a cheater and LEUNG Chun-ying follows the established rules. When Secretary Matthew CHEUNG was the Permanent Secretary back then, I sued the Government and he provided the affirmation. He said the process had been ongoing since 1932. When I asked why he did not comply with the 1932 legislation, he replied that the Labour Party legislation was provisional in nature. Chairman, just now I was referring to the Labour Party of the United Kingdom. Was he expecting me to file a lawsuit again? When my hair was cut last time, I spent $870,000. Am I supposed to spend the last penny I have to file another lawsuit? He may have to testify before the Court by then, arguing that the work is in progress and this is nothing but an attempt of Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung to create trouble. The Government has even vowed to recuperate with the community and work for Hong Kong people. Come on! In the community of Hong Kong, workers make up the largest clique. All workers in Hong Kong, regardless of whether they earn more than $100,000 or less than $14,000 per month, do not come under the protection of standard working hours.
Chairman, many people said to me, "'Long Hair', why should we bother about the working hours of people earning a lot of money? Chairman, it is not right to say so because if a person does not work voluntarily, then working beyond the standard working hours may cause death from overwork. Ms Claudia MO, do you get it? Regardless of whether workers are provided with overtime compensation or work reluctantly, the formulation of standard working hours will legitimize death from overwork. Honourable colleagues, do you get it? Members blame me for tiring them out with the filibuster, but the fact is Members may refuse to work disregarding the Chairman's order. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10507 provision of overtime allowance does not solve the problem because once standard working hour is introduced, a threshold will be set and beyond which compensation must be paid by whoever is responsible.
Chairman, if a worker can pursue his rights to be well supported when alive and bury when dead, should we introduce a legislation on standard working hours using this as the scale? "Without a pair of compasses and a set square, it is hard to draw a perfect circle and a square", so how can a reform be taken forward if the Government does not take the initiative? Chairman, honestly speaking, you may sue me if you suffer any disability as a result of my filibustering. I do not want to work but I am ordered to work, and overtime allowance is insufficient to compensate the suffering caused by disability. This is precisely the case of Japan. Yet, the Government still refused to do so. After numerous discussions and repeated requests for a threshold, the Government is still taking measures without regard to changes in circumstances.
Chairman, should we approve the funding proposals? I have a painful experience of paying $1 million after losing the lawsuit. Is this going to happen again? I hope that the former Permanent Secretary (who is now the Secretary) will feel pity for all living things. As I have said, there is no way we can implement the minimum wage if we cannot ascertain the number of working hours of local workers. The Chairman used to teach Mathematics, so he should know that. It is meaningless to have the ratio of X and Y alone, we must have the value. This is Mathematics or a kind of algebra.
I raised this point back then but was teased in the former Legislative Council Building. This is tantamount to the saying "After taking pig's blood, one will discharge black excrement". Chairman, I once cited the following example. A tram driver of the Hong Kong Tramway Workers Union said, with a mournful face, that the Occupy Central movement had affected his work. He had taken pre-emptive action even before his boss blamed us. He said, "I used to work overtime, but this is no longer necessary given the traffic gridlock." Is he pitiful? Workers have to work overtime to make money from sweat and blood. There are three stages for workers: "from a healthy guy to a frail elder; from a frail elder to a beggar; from a beggar to a dead man". The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) used to provide very influential class education, but not anymore, because FTU members are now leading a very cozy life. While some live in Central Mid-Levels, some live in the middle-class districts on Hong Kong Island with an area of some 800 sq ft. Some are even 10508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 car owners. This is an actual example. The discussion of minimum wage would be meaningless if the working hours of a normal worker are not known, and this is precisely the case.
Chairman, enacting legislation on standard working hours is a good case in point in which LEUNG Chun-ying talked off the top of his head to win the vote of the FTU. At that time, the FTU was the first to indicate support for LEUNG Chun-ying, am I right? "Brother Elephant" was the first brave man to stand up to support LEUNG Chun-ying. He had not negotiated for benefits and all he said was "I trust you". Dr CHIANG Lai-wan might have negotiated with LEUNG Chun-ying for benefits or supported him for other reasons, for example, his experiences made her thought that he was a talent.
The FTU has apparently been rewarded, which was well deserved. After all, the handing out of rewards by Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying to the group being most seriously trampled is the truth of politics. But regrettably, LEUNG Chun-ying is the kind of person who will greet you by saying "How are you?" when he actually means "How come you are still alive?" It is a pity that I have just taken his manifesto back to my office. His manifesto is indeed a promissory note and I am going to ask him to make good on his promises. Secretary, have you maintained contact with him? Has he asked you to update him on the progress every day? Is he as determined as in the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau? Has he begged? Absolutely not. It is no use to indulge in empty talks without any practical action. He will do whatever is favourable to him and his team even if it is not written in the manifesto, but he will go back on his words and refuse to do what has been stated in the manifesto even if it is beneficial to the public. No one would feel pity for his demise and he should not make his presence here. This is not my remark. Miss CHAN Yuen-han once said this to his face, but he simply smiled and attacked at the back. He dared not say "I cannot help laughing" because he only has the guts to bully me. Would he dare to say "Miss CHAN Yuen-han, I really cannot help laughing because you believe in my lies"? I cannot help laughing now.
Chairman, all Chief Executives have their own manifesto, but since the opportune time for hurling criticism at him has passed, I can only hold his subordinates accountable. Will LEUNG Chun-ying think of standard working hours throughout the day from brushing teeth in the morning to lunch, to taking a bath at night, and even when he is answering the call of nature? Has he reiterated the relevant part of the manifesto to Matthew CHEUNG through WhatsApp every day? Miss CHAN Yuen-han has exposed his secret rather than LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10509 provide guidance to him. Secretary, has your boss done so? He is merely wasting time. He planned to go to Nam Shan Estate to distribute leaflets when he is besieged on all sides, but the trip was then called off after learning that there are public protests. So, how can I ask him to make good on his promises? Secretary, do you expect me to seek judicial review again so as to urge the Government to give an undertaking before the Court?
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this time's Budget, $800 million is allocated to promote the Native-speaking English Teacher (NET) Scheme. We are talking a good $800 million. Admittedly, nowadays when a budget is measured in "hundred million dollars", it often amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars. If "hundred million dollars" is used as a unit, $800 million is only a "single-digit figure", which seems to be no big deal. However, as far as English language education in Hong Kong is concerned, this is a very significant investment.
Basically, the NET Scheme is just a token gesture made by the Education Bureau to embellish our ineffectual English language education. This is nothing more than window dressing. Is it not good to have NETs in schools? Well, if you visit a school in person and really talk with the school principal, teachers and students, you will know that this scheme … I dare not say that the effectiveness of this scheme is nil, as it must have a few percentage points of effectiveness, but is it worthwhile to allocate $800 million for this? A more critical question is: would it be better if this $800 million was re-allocated for local English teachers? We can train our own English teachers and let them see that teaching English in Hong Kong is a very important job.
It may seem vulgar to talk about money when it comes to education, which is a long-term commitment. As the saying goes, "It takes ten years to grow trees, but a hundred years to educate people." But then, money is still a very important element. Let us look at some figures about the NET Scheme. The monthly salary together with allowances of a newly recruited NET may reach $47,000, with a maximum pay point of as high as $90,000 per month, on a par with that for many secondary school principals, whereas the starting salary of a local graduate English teacher is about $25,000. In schools having both NETs and local English teachers, such a situation of "one school, two systems" will reduce the teachers' desire to compete and perform better.
10510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
In the 2014-2015 school year, the sum of public money spent on a NET in a primary school was about $850,000, while that on a NET in a secondary school reached $980,000, close to a million dollars, including not only the annual salary but also many other expenses. Never mind the annual salary, which includes Mandatory Provident Fund contributions as in the case of every employee; but under "one school, two systems", the fringe benefits enjoyed by NETs are beyond imagination. They are entitled to a contract gratuity, a housing allowance … The housing problem in Hong Kong is really … They are offered an additional housing allowance. Of course, the housing allowance is only available to NETs from overseas, but it is still a special benefit for them. Also, as expected, they are entitled to medical insurance. Other benefits include passage and baggage allowances; the amounts involved are certainly not huge, but this raises a question of principle. What is the point of doing so many things and offering so many benefits to attract NETs, particularly those from overseas? The provision of this $800 million is made simply in the hope of giving good education to our primary and secondary school students, so that they can learn good English and talk to foreigners in English at ease without feeling nervous or anxious.
Nonetheless, this $800 million is indeed being put to bad use. According to the findings of an opinion survey conducted by the Civic Party about three months ago, 36% of the respondents considered English language education in Hong Kong a failure; nearly half of the respondents considered the NET Scheme not very effective; and as many as 17% of the respondents considered the scheme totally ineffective. I believe that those who considered it totally ineffective were mostly school principals, teachers and even students. More than half (53%) of the respondents opined that the resources devoted to the NET Scheme should be re-deployed to the training of our local teachers. I hope that the Government can pay heed to these opinions.
I have enquired of some teachers responsible for teaching English … In the past six or seven years, at the invitation of the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, I visited hundreds of primary and secondary schools to basically talk on topics like "learning English is fun", in the hope that the students would not be afraid of or anxious about speaking English. The teachers responsible for such activities were all English teachers. They said that NETs were not completely useless of course, but if local teachers were to take back the role, there would not be any big difference on the upside … sorry, I got it wrong. What they meant was that if local teachers were to take the place of NETs, there would be almost LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10511 no difference on the downside in terms of teaching or education effectiveness, but on the upside, our children would find their teachers more approachable, and more career opportunities would be opened up for local teachers.
Under the existing scheme, any foreigner, no matter whether he or she is Australian, Indian, American or even Japanese, can come and work as a NET as long as he or she is a native English speaker who has obtained the qualifications required to be an English teacher. The authorities reckon that as long as a NET is present, there is an English language environment; is it not often argued that there is no English language environment in our schools? It is not like that. For traditional prestigious schools, the so-called English language environment is just a nice-to-have, as the English of their students is bound to be good. But in ordinary schools, the children will only think that it is funny to have a foreigner as their teacher. As NETs do not speak Cantonese, nor are they required by the authorities to be able to speak Cantonese, there is a communication gap between NETs and students in many cases. With such a high salary and so many benefits, they also want to do a good job, but it is hard for them to do so. Local English teachers and NETs have to share the same staff room where they see each other day after day. If I were one of those local English teachers, I would really feel aggrieved: I teach English as NETs do, but why is their salary more than double my pay? Assuming that my annual salary is around $400,000, their annual salary can reach as high as $900,000-plus to nearly a million dollars. What a fortune! Are their qualifications much better than mine? No. It is just that their mother tongue is English.
It cannot be like this. In the old days, the local teachers who taught my generation English merely spoke English as their second language. Why is it necessary to do these things now? Obviously, the Education Bureau thinks that since our English level has been criticized as being on the decline despite Hong Kong's status as an international metropolis and Asia's world city, it must do a lot of things and use foreigners as an adornment to dress our "shop window", but as to the quality of our "goods", it pays no attention to it.
Many NETs do not renew their contracts for they feel dispirited. When local teachers go out together for lunch, they do not bother asking a NET to join them, because if they do, they will have to talk in English for the sake of the NET, and this is too much trouble. NETs actually feel lonely. Of course, there are exceptions. There is a NET who has been teaching at one school loyally for many years, but as far as I know, this foreign teacher is a Hong Kong permanent 10512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 resident who lives in Cheung Chau. However, as for other NETs, particularly those from overseas, we have to pay for their round-trip air tickets as in the case of employing foreign domestic helpers. This is really outrageous.
But then, I have heard Mr Michael TIEN complain about the poor English of the present teachers of his alma mater, which I believe is Diocesan Boys' School if my memory serves me right. He said that in his secondary school days, he once asked his teacher in class what gravity was, and his teacher simply answered him in English, "What goes up must come down." That is it, full stop. But that is correct, isn't it? Isn't gravity just like that? It is just because of gravity that we can stand here and you can sit there right now. That said, if we really think that the English of Hong Kong teachers is not as good as we expect, we should then allocate more resources to train our new generations. Teachers should not teach in a rigid way. For example, suppose a student was taught 10 new words this week and got full marks in a dictation of these words next week; if this student did not actually use these 10 new words after learning them, he or she would forget them completely in a year.
The English section of the annual Inter-School Debating Competition, for which I am an adjudicator, will take place tomorrow. I lament the same thing every year. Students from Direct Subsidy Scheme (DSS) schools, international schools and English Schools Foundation schools outshine not only university students but even adults in terms of English proficiency, as if English is their mother tongue. In contrast, the English level of some senior secondary students from ordinary traditional schools is found to be lower than that of Primary Six students. Are we now implementing "one Hong Kong, two systems" in our English language education? The differences in English levels among students from different schools are totally beyond imagination. At the end of the day, it all boils down to money. To be frank, as soon as their children are born, parents will consider it best to enrol them in those kindergartens, primary schools and secondary schools that use English as the medium of instruction; alternatively, parents may arrange their children to change schools because of their obsessive wish for their children to learn English. Parents who are relatively well-off will enrol their children in DSS schools; those better off will enrol their children in international schools; and those even richer, such as many top officials, will invariably arrange for their children to go to the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada or Australia in their early teens to study in the boarding schools there. What for? For learning good English.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10513
Learning good English certainly has nothing to do with worshipping foreign things. As a matter of fact, English is an international language spoken worldwide. Good English is a passport to the world. In other countries, no one will ask you if you speak Japanese, Swahili or Dutch; people will ask you if you speak English. Everyone knows in their heart of hearts of how important English language education is. Each year, we allocate hundreds of millions of dollars to education, which accounts for almost one fourth of the total Budget expenditure, nearly the largest share of it. The funds devoted to education this year roughly amount to 22% or 23% of the total Budget expenditure.
One very important focus of education is on the hope that our children can learn good English, which will enable them to have more choices in future and broaden their horizons. If one can master a language, one can have a good grasp of a culture and even a civilization. In addition, good English is a passport to the world, and a tool for making a living. What the Government has been doing so far is getting us nowhere. The Government thinks that it can resolve the issue by recruiting NETs on a continuous basis. Although it has introduced a number of measures such as the English Enhancement Scheme, it has made only a little effort, failed to build on what it has achieved, and acted perfunctorily. It could not care less whether students can learn good English. Chairman, I really hope that the Government, particularly Secretary Eddie NG, can think things over and properly train our own English teachers in Hong Kong.
MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): Chairman, under Rule 69(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council, I propose Amendment No 564, which reads: "Resolved that head 156 be reduced by $51,000,000 in respect of subhead 700".
(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
This is the sum of the allocation of funding for item 848 "Implementation of the Fourth Strategy on Information Technology in Education" under the Education Bureau. I seek to reduce the expenditure on this item because in my view, this item should be discussed afresh by the Finance Committee (FC) rather than hidden as part of the whole Budget to avoid being monitored by the Legislative Council. On the grounds that the relevant meetings of the FC held last year were too frequent, too lengthy and too procedurally cumbersome, the 10514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
Government has incorporated 25 items originally required to be discussed by the FC into this year's Budget. This has damaged the usual practice adopted by the Legislative Council for scrutiny of policy funding, and is an attempt to evade our monitoring. As the FC is bypassed like that, members of the public are also deprived of the opportunity to gain a better understanding of the grossly inadequate support and funding from the Education Bureau for schools to implement information technology (IT) in education at present.
As stated by the Government in the consultation document on the Fourth Strategy on IT in Education (ITE4), "education is an important investment, as well as an indispensable commitment, as it is the most critical determinant that equips our next generations for success in future." I agree with the view that the integration of IT elements into teaching can facilitate students' learning, and the use of IT to assist in teaching can also foster interaction and communication between teachers and students. Thus, I support the approval of funding by the Legislative Council for implementing the aforesaid item as a basic policy. That said, IT in education can come into full play only with the support of adequate hardware and software. It is not necessarily in the interests of all students and teachers to bulldoze through the funding proposal.
In order to implement IT in education, it is of paramount importance that schools must be sufficiently equipped with WiFi connectivity. According to government information, some surveys on IT in Education conducted in 2012 and 2013 revealed that only less than 10% of public sector schools were sufficiently equipped with WiFi connectivity in classrooms. The Government mentioned in the consultation document on ITE4 that it would provide WiFi access in all public sector schools, so as to enable teachers and students to browse different websites through WiFi in every classroom on the school premises. Hence, in early 2014, the Government disbursed $35 million as a one-off grant to 100 public sector schools under the Support Scheme for e-Learning in Schools for setting up the necessary WiFi environment on their school premises. But, in its reply to the Finance Committee in respect of this year's Budget, the Government says that it will earmark a total provision of $105 million to provide funding to the remaining 900 public sector schools under ITE4 for enhancing their WiFi infrastructure in the coming three school years starting from 2015-2016. Paradoxically, the Government also says that the estimated expenditure on this item for 2015-2016 is $51 million, including $40 million as a one-off grant for 400 schools which are prepared to use e-textbooks or other e-learning resources in the 2015-2016 school year to acquire mobile computing devices.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10515
In other words, after the allocation of funding this time around, only $54 million will be left in the commitment for the 900 schools to enhance their WiFi infrastructure; that is, each school can be granted $60,000 on average, far less than the average grant of $350,000 under the Support Scheme for e-Learning in Schools. Moreover, it has been reported that at present, some schools are still using the fibre optic backbones installed 10-odd years ago, which are in an old format and simply cannot satisfy the need of a large number of students to use the Internet for assistance in learning on a frequent basis. If teachers and students access the Internet via WiFi, the network speed will decrease and this will affect the teaching progress. In this regard, what plans does the Government have to ensure that all public sector schools can be sufficiently equipped with WiFi connectivity? And how can the WiFi infrastructure of schools be improved, so that ITE4 can be promoted and implemented? Unfortunately, as we now cannot put questions and get answers in the way we do at a FC meeting, we have no chance to discuss and understand these matters.
Besides, the subscription of WiFi services involves the issues of privacy and risk. The Government has recommended schools to procure total solution services including WiFi access, cloud computing and maintenance from suppliers. However, quite a number of members of the education sector have relayed that the procurement of such services will involve the issues of copyright, privacy and information security concerning school information (such as that on classroom teaching and assessment activities). A case in point was the massive hacking attack on the PopVote server of "Occupy Central with Love and Peace" last year. If the services of some cloud service providers are disrupted and, as a result, a large number of schools are in need of emergency repair services, will the external commercial companies and management companies be able to cope? As opposed to setting up an internal server, if a school relies on cloud services to store information, it is difficult to prevent hackers from intruding and stealing its information, and the risk is higher than if hardware maintenance was carried out internally by the school itself. According to the findings of a questionnaire survey on ITE4 conducted by the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union (HKPTU) in June last year, 60% of members of the education sector did not agree that "since cloud services procured externally are safer than internal servers of schools, there is no cause for concern about privacy and information leakage". The Government should pay more heed to the opinions of the education sector by allowing schools the flexibility to choose whether to subscribe for WiFi services, rather than luring schools and causing divisions among them by pecuniary means.
10516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
In addition, with respect to the cost of funding, teaching opportunities and security and technical issues involved in the Government's promotion of the use of mobile computing devices, the Government has pointed out that as e-learning has become a general social trend, schools can consider encouraging students to use mobile smart devices for e-learning. Therefore, in this year's Appropriation Bill, a provision of $40 million has been made as a one-off grant for some 400 schools to acquire mobile computing devices (that is, about $100,000 per school), and it has been proposed that the money saved by using mobile computing devices should be spent on procuring cloud services. Nonetheless, a grant of $100,000 may not be enough for a school to buy a sufficient quantity of mobile computing devices, and the proliferation of mobile computing devices in the community at present has yet to reach the level where every student can have one such device. Will this policy of "putting schools on a drip" lead to a waste of public money?
If the Government is to replace traditional desktop computers with mobile computing devices in the long run, it is necessary to provide schools with funding for buying mobile computing devices on a long-term basis. Otherwise, only schools whose students have a relatively high socio-economic status will be able to implement teaching methods based on replacing traditional desktop computers with mobile computing devices, while schools for grass-roots students will hardly be able to achieve the outcome that the Government expects. This will result in an ever-deepening education chasm between the rich and the poor, as well as an unequal starting line which is unfair to students. More importantly, according to the HKPTU's survey, 87% of teachers considered that after the adoption of mobile computing devices, it would be more difficult to check whether students in class were browsing information irrelevant to their studies, such as social networking websites or online games; there would be a lot more counselling work to do for sure; and it would give rise to concerns about security, theft, the vulnerability of such devices to damage, the difficulty of claiming compensation, and so on. It seems that the education sector does not see eye to eye with the authorities on the use of mobile computing devices. The authorities need to take it seriously and should not high-handedly brush aside the opinions of teachers, so as not to make the outcome of education more a loss than a gain.
Actually, as far as the education sector is concerned, the most important policy which is most capable of improving IT in education is the establishment of a permanent post of IT Coordinator. Although the Government allocates a Composite Information Technology Grant of over $300 million to 1 000 schools LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10517 across the territory each year to cover their expenditure on IT, very little of the grant is left after their spending on the acquisition and maintenance of software, hardware, network services, and so on. The schools can only hire novices to be their IT Coordinators, or procure the services of private companies. However, as the IT management and maintenance services provided by private companies vary greatly in quality, and most of them are not very familiar with the operation of schools, it is often the case that they cannot provide the schools with suitable services. Even if the schools are able to hire IT Coordinators on their own, they often fail to recruit experienced individuals familiar with the operation of schools due to a limited budget. What is more, given that IT Coordinators are not on the permanent establishment, and they are not entitled to annual salary increments and have no promotion prospects, the turnover of them is very high. In view of this, the scourge of one-off grants plays havoc with not only the social welfare sector but also the education sector; both of them are suffering from the same ill effects. Inadequate funding for schools to recruit IT Coordinators capable of providing suitable services certainly has a bearing on IT in education.
Moreover, the improvement of remuneration packages for IT technicians is very important to the information security of schools. Confidential information must be handled by reliable IT technicians in schools, and must not be entrusted to others. In fact, the lack of IT Coordinators has been a problem besetting schools for years. If the Government expects schools to integrate IT elements into teaching on a large scale in future, the demand of schools for IT management and maintenance services is bound to increase significantly. So, in the long run, the Government cannot avoid the issue of including the post of IT Coordinator as part of the permanent establishment. Should schools fail to retain competent staff, we will only get half the result with twice the effort in implementing our strategy on IT in education.
The last point I wish to make is about the issue of allowing more students in need to use IT. The Government has mentioned that our education has to be student-centred, and that there should be clear guidelines for schools on how to support comparatively disadvantaged students, including ethnic minority students and those with special educational needs, when implementing IT in education. We hope that the Government can really put its words into action. Given the seriously inadequate adjustments and support for integrated education at present, if the Education Bureau does not provide more support for promoting learning with IT, the disparity between disadvantaged students and mainstream students in terms of their learning ability will only be further widened. This time around, 10518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 by singling out this item and incorporating it into the Budget for discussion in one go, the Government has made it impossible for Members to express more views when scrutinizing this item. If the Education Bureau fails to provide guidance and make adjustments properly in future, thereby affecting the education for disadvantaged students, it will only defeat its own purpose.
Deputy Chairman, I so submit.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in my previous speech, I mentioned the question of standard working hours, this is head 90. I will now speak on Amendment No 217, regarding the omission of meal breaks and rest days requirement under the minimum wage regime. As the Deputy Chairman may be aware, it has been some time since the enactment of the legislation on minimum wage, but there are some outstanding issues which the Government has not followed up. One of them is the question of paid meal breaks and no consensus has yet been reached. Different trades have different stances on this issue as employers have different attitudes towards their employees. This situation is surely unsatisfactory. When the legislation was enacted back then, Members (myself included) had neglected this point, and I am not sure if you, Deputy Chairman, had neglected it too. Though a long time has passed and we are about to legislate on standard working hours, this problem remains unresolved.
We know that some big enterprises will make concessions under pressure. Since they have to deal with the public directly, they would avoid mass pressure. Take Café de Coral as an example. If there are still disputes on paid meal breaks, the business would surely be adversely affected as customers can choose not to patronize it. This phenomenon is actually an outcome of market mechanism. In other words, the business operators will consider the individual circumstances of the trade and act accordingly. Frankly speaking, if an enterprise needs not deal with the public directly, such as a logistics company, the clients of which are not the general public and it does not engage in retail business, it would not care about the reaction of the public.
On this issue, I think the Labour Department, which is responsible for the publicity and promotion of minimum wage, should at least be held responsible for two matters. First, listen up, Secretary, the Labour Department should disclose the facts faithfully. What do I mean? After the implementation of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10519 minimum wage for some time, the Labour Department should disclose how the industries and enterprises have handled the question of paid meal breaks. This approach will surely be conducive to reforming paid meal breaks by the Government. What are the reasons for this? Deputy Chairman, opinion polls or public opinion are popular nowadays, and they are equally important in handling this issue. If most enterprises can resolve the problem of paid meal breaks in an appropriate way or through negotiation with employees, without the need to resort to violence, a trend will be formed and other enterprises will follow suit.
Simply put, as leader of the fast food trade, Café de Coral has set an example in handling the issue. If other fast food shops do not follow suit, they will certainly feel the pressure as consumers, in considering that they treat employees badly, will not patronize them. This is an example. With regard to the promotion of minimum wage, the Government has really made no achievements. Deputy Chairman, as you are a businessman too, may I ask you if you have heard of a survey or a report which provides information on the number of enterprises that have resolved the problem of paid meal breaks and the nature of their business?
As Members would be aware, the Government plays a leading role to a certain extent. Let me give you an example. After TUNG Chee-hwa had been severely reprimanded by me back then, he suggested stipulating standard working hours for outsourcing workers of the Housing Department or the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. Organizations with group purchasing power will have no choice but to reform if they are under pressure. How far will the leaders of the trade go to set an example? They need to tell the public the actions they have taken. Furthermore, have the statutory bodies or the subvented organizations funded by the Government taken any action as employers? Deputy Chairman, measures would have been put in place for non-outsourced posts, but what about outsourced posts? Have these organizations also taken care of the interests of outsourced workers, like what Mr TUNG did back then? Mr TUNG was even willing to give additional money to outsourced workers back then in order to be re-elected as the Chief Executive.
Has the Government taken such actions? If it has not, I may have accused the people wrongly. The reason is that if the Government has not taken any action as a leader, what can be done by the Minimum Wage Commission? If a student got a "black pig" in certain examination, he would surely not mention 10520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 anything about it, buddy. Similarly, if I asked my goddaughter whether there was any test at school and she replied in the positive, she certainly got a "white rabbit"; if she got a "black pig", she would say that there was no test.
Deputy Chairman, as a member of the business sector, you should ask the Government about the progress of this matter. Let me tell you, the minimum wage rate has already increased for the second time to $32.5. The difficulties have been surmounted and a way out lies ahead. The outstanding question is: has the Government resolved the problem with practical measures? Has the Government consulted the Labour Advisory Board (LAB)? Before consulting the LAB, has the Government been fully prepared? If it had provided a paper to the employers, indicating that 70% of the public funded employers had taken care of the matter and only 30% of them had not, then it would be a waste of time even to discuss the matter. Certainly, in that case, employers, employees and public officials would sing a song together to celebrate a happy ending, as in the final scene of old Cantonese movies. But, that is not the current situation and that is why I find it unbearable.
Frankly speaking, according to the statistics in April 2011 ― I am not trying to settle old scores now; I am only explaining the situation to the Deputy Chairman ― 40 000 employees working for outsourced contractors of the Government did not have paid meal breaks. Time flies and four years have passed in the blink of an eye, may I ask the Secretary whether the 40 000 employees have paid meal breaks now? The Secretary said that fast results would be achieved, but facts speak louder than words.
There is another problem concerning the outsourced contracts of the Government, which is a disaster area. The contractors alleged back then that the Government's sudden implementation of the minimum wage had given rise to the problem of paid meal breaks. When they signed the contract, there was no provision for paid meal breaks and they could do nothing about it. One of these contractors was the Environmental Services Contractors Alliance (HK), the members of which included the cleaning contractors of the Government. It put forward a specious argument, alleging that they would not ask for trouble when signing the contract, and they did not foresee that problem would arise immediately after the introduction of the minimum wage. Therefore, some contractors refused to provide paid meal breaks unless subsidies were given, and others provided paid meal breaks with a mourning face. A long period of time has passed, has the Government resolved the problem faced by these people who LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10521 claimed to be victims and appear to be victims? In other words, has the Government acted in accordance with the inclination of the Legislative Council when entering into new contracts with them? This problem has to be handled, though different people may handle it in different ways. Actually, the officials who are guilty of dereliction of duty in this respect may not be those whose salaries I am asking to reduce today, but the supervisors of these people may be guilty of dereliction of duty, am I right?
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, which amendment are you speaking on?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I have already read it out.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You said earlier that it was Amendment No 217, which is not concerned with emoluments, but reducing the estimated expenditure on publicity.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): That is correct.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): But you talk about reducing the expenditures on emoluments. Please speak on the relevant amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Sorry, it is a slip of the tongue. I meant expenditure. After listening to your teaching, I would not talk about reducing salaries, instead, I will talk about reducing the expenditure. I will follow your advice, Deputy Chairman, I am sorry. Operating expenditures and salaries are two different things. Thank you for correcting me. Now I forget what I was going to say after being interrupted by you. Reducing the expenditure is a kind of punishment to those who have not done the work, isn't it? Perhaps some people want to do the work, but they cannot do so because the Government has to follow its policies. Deputy Chairman, what you said is most correct and it is a good reminder.
10522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
Deputy Chairman, let me mention another point. On 8 December 2014, it was reported that 7 000-plus Model Scale 1 Staff did not have paid meal breaks. That was the climax of the drama. Buddy, I do not know why the Government has taken the lead not to provide paid meal breaks to employees. Frankly speaking, how can the Government convince the people? Café de Coral is even better than the Government. Buddy, isn't that ridiculous? Café de Coral is a profit-making organization, since it engages in retail business and fears that it may close down if there are no customers, it accepts good advice and offers paid meal breaks to its employees. However, of the 7 000-plus Model Scale 1 Staff, 99% did not have paid meal breaks and only 1% had paid meal breaks. Deputy Chairman, only 40 out of 7 000-plus employees had paid meal breaks. The chance of getting payment is similar to that of attaining the first place in the imperial examination in the old days. Do Members find it funny? An entitlement which every employee should enjoy has been turned into something like a consolation prize of Mark Six in the hands of the Government. Buddy, who else should I hold accountable if not the Government?
In another report published in 2014, it was pointed out that the Government might have adopted an approach of "three nots" towards its employees. Deputy Chairman, I think you would be aware of the Government's approach towards firemen. It is an approach of not affecting the services provided, not providing any additional resources and not providing any compensation allowance. How can employees work under the "three nots" approach? Therefore, Deputy Chairman, in relation to this issue, I think reducing all of the expenditure would force Secretary Matthew CHEUNG to finish the outstanding work which has been put off for too long. I expect that the Government will, as a leader, take the lead to pay back the 7 000-plus Model Scale 1 Staff their paid meal breaks. The first step is always the hardest; after the payment, the Government can state its position righteously. It can then tell others that Hong Kong is a metropolitan city and a humane society; if there is an omission in the legislation, the benefit should go to the more vulnerable members of the society. Is that understood? As in the case of voting in the Legislative Council, President Jasper TSANG should act the other way round. If the respective number of votes for and against a motion is similar, the President should support the opponents. That is the principle. Therefore, if there is any ambiguity in the legislation, the weaker party, not the stronger party, should be leniently treated. The employer is the strong party, if the Government does not help the weaker party under the strong party, how can we request the commercial organizations, which do not have to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10523 assume political responsibility and does not need to care for the weaker party, to take action? Therefore, Deputy Chairman, the authorities should be spanked and it is right to reduce its expenditure.
Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I am speaking on Amendment Nos 555 to 558 which seek to resolve that head 156 be reduced by $3.58 million in respect of subhead 000. The sum is roughly equivalent to the annual emolument of the Secretary for Education.
Deputy Chairman, I have spoken in this debate session during the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill over the past two years. When I leaf through the previous speeches, I find that most of the points raised therein are still applicable today. Though it may sound convenient to reuse the old script, I feel dejected because it means that the Government and the Secretary have not made much progress in these two years despite the strong voices and various demands made by Members inside the Legislative Council and the education section in the community. The Education Bureau led by Secretary Eddie NG still insists on acting stubbornly and turns a blind eye to the urgent demands made by the education sector and the community. Meanwhile, some funding allocation have suddenly been proposed in relation to policies that have yet to be discussed by the education sector in detail, such as the allocation of $480 million for setting up a scholarship scheme for outstanding local students, as well as the recently proposed Pilot Scheme on Promoting Interflow between Sister Schools in Hong Kong and the Mainland. These are not the most urgent items requested by the education sector and the community, but why have they surpassed other urgent items and become the focus of our education policy?
What then are the items urgently needed by the education sector? In December last year and February this year, I published two submissions, respectively entitled "Way forward on the Policy Address" and "Way forward on the Budget in relation to education policies". In the submissions, I summarized the long-standing core demands of the education sector, including improving the establishment of teachers, increasing the Government's recurrent expenditure on education, establishing the permanent posts of Information Technology (IT) Coordinators in primary and secondary schools, providing subsidies to schools in relation to the English Enhancement Scheme and enhancing the support and 10524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 subsidies in relation to the subject of Liberal Studies, so that the ongoing initiatives can be continued. Yet, to the great disappointment of myself and my fellow colleagues in the education sector, all these demands have failed to materialize for the third consecutive year.
I was often asked by the media what could be done to improve Hong Kong's education. Incidentally, I was asked the same question today, and here is my reply. In my view, it would be most important to have the right person as the Secretary for Education who should be a capable person with commitment and vision. Most importantly, he should have integrity and be genuinely and deeply concerned about education and students. Previously we heard a lot about the strengths of Secretary Eddie NG, for example, he is an expert in human resources management and well-conversant with handling human resources issues. However, he is not holding the office of the Secretary for Human Resources, but the Secretary for Education. The Education Bureau is responsible for handling education issues. Is this duty the same as human resources planning? As we all know, education is a people business. The Secretary for Education must be a cultivated person with special qualities. Most importantly, he must have a close affinity with people, especially children and young people.
As we recall, the popularity rating of Secretary Eddie NG has always been low after he assumed office. As shown by the survey findings on the popularity of the Chief Executive and principal officials released by the Public Opinion Programme of The University of Hong Kong over the past two years, Secretary for Education Eddie NG and Secretary for Development Paul CHAN always have the lowest support rates. Except for his first month in office with a positive net support rate, Eddie NG has been registering negative popularity ratings in more than two years ever since, ranging from negative 17 points to negative 43 points. In the past two months, his support rate stood at negative 33 points and negative 26 percentage points. Clearly, he constantly gets negative support rates. Of course, we hope that his popularity rating can hit a positive figure someday, so that the education sector may have renewed expectations of him. But, for the time being, it is still a negative figure.
The Secretary for Education should safeguard the rights and interests of the education sector, but throughout my tenure as a Member representing the education sector over the past two years or so, I have never sensed any feeling of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10525 concern from the Secretary towards the education sector or local students. On the contrary, some of his direct or indirect actions or statements have actually undermined the education sector, much to our surprise. For example, Eddie NG made the following open statement recently (and I quote), "Whenever I attend a meeting, I would raise the matter and request the attendees to give support, regardless of whether he is a Member, a school principal or a deputation representative." (End of quote) What is "the matter" he was talking about? Of course, he was talking about the constitutional reform proposal. What is the keyword? It is the word "request". Is it proper for him to make such a "request" as the Secretary? The next day, he explained through his press secretary that his so-called "request" was nothing more than an appeal for support for the constitutional reform proposal. There is a huge difference between "request" and "appeal". He has certain powers as the Secretary. If he makes such a request, he would be exerting pressures on the principals of primary and secondary schools, by virtue of his powers. Nonetheless, it is a political issue. Is he in a position to "request" the principals of primary and secondary schools to support the constitutional reform proposal? This is the same Secretary who once said that politics should not be brought into the campus. I believe that when he made the previous statement, he would also disprove of the present statement. But why did he still do so?
The Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union and I strongly condemn Eddie NG for openly requesting school principals to support the constitutional reform proposal. As far as the controversy over constitutional reform is concerned, the Director of Bureau in charge of education policies should put education first, instead of giving people the feeling of partiality. Although Eddie NG signed the petition to support the constitutional reform proposal in his personal capacity, he immediately reverted to being a public official when requesting school principals to support the "pocket-it-first" proposal. As an accountability official, he should act and speak prudently. Moreover, he should not abuse his powers while promoting the constitutional reform proposal indiscriminately, such that pressures are felt by the teachers, principals, school sponsoring bodies or schools. As we all know, as the Secretary for Education, Eddie NG can impact on resources allocation and policies. When he made an open request to school principals and management, he was exerting pressures by virtue of his public powers. Yet such public powers must never be abused. Deputy Chairman, I truly hope that the Secretary will concentrate on tackling the most important education issues from now on.
10526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
We have some good news today. According to the latest study findings released by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) by comparing previous test scores of students from different places and countries around the world in various international assessments such as the Programme for International Student Assessment, Hong Kong's basic education ranked the second, just behind Singapore. Notwithstanding such good news, I would like to tell Members that Hong Kong was already placed in the top as early as the 1990s from various international benchmark assessments on mathematics and science scores. Throughout the last decade or so, Hong Kong has maintained its top position in different surveys and studies conducted by the OECD on the subjects of mathematics, science and language. Obviously, one of the reasons for this achievement is the culture in Eastern Asia, and due regard must also be given to the long-term efforts made by our education workers.
The past decade or so has been an age of turmoil for Hong Kong's education system, with systems and practices changing overnight as a result of various reforms, and the education sector as a whole has become disoriented. Nonetheless, we still manage to achieve good results under the circumstances. We hope the Secretary for Education can implement policies which help and support teachers in seeking even better results, rather than holding them back. Hence, if we support the funding provision in the Draft estimates for his emoluments from now on, he should do better so that we will happily pay his salary.
What he should do then? It is very simple: No more chop and change. Take for example the recent issue about the curriculum of Chinese History. Under the current practice, there are specific time allocations for the teaching of ancient history as well as modern history under the curriculum of the junior secondary subject of Chinese History. While this practice is not unchangeable, changes must only be introduced after the forging of consensus through detailed discussion as well as the making of full preparations. Surely changes can be made under these conditions. But the Government's current proposal involves substantial changes to the proportion of course contents, not to mention that the new arrangement will take effect in September. Even though the textbooks are not ready and the teachers have no time to make preparations, the Government still insists on making such a major change and pays no heed to the good, bad and some even painful experiences gained over the past two decades of curriculum reform in Hong Kong. The Secretary for Education should seriously examine the proposed arrangements with his professional colleagues and strive to improve LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10527 the teaching quality of Chinese History, instead of pursuing curriculum reform hastily for some unknown or shady reasons. I do not know what has driven the Government to implement this curriculum reform proposal in September when consultation was only conducted in May.
Secondly, apart from having no more chop and change, the Secretary must seriously listen to the demands from different sectors in society, including both teachers and parents. Many relevant demands have been raised, and we have already submitted a consolidated list to the Education Bureau. The Secretary must listen and respond to these demands, so that our problems can be resolved practically. What are those problems? For example, in respect of the need of students, many students studying in self-financed institutions are still paying exorbitant tuition fees. Can some assistance be provided by the Government? Many teachers are also facing great difficulties. For instance, as a result of the hardships they faced when joining the profession, young teachers can hardly upgrade themselves and accumulate experience. In the end, the entire education sector will be plagued by succession problems.
We also have expectation on another important matter. News has it that the review report on the provision of 15-year free education will be released by the end of May. We have already stated our three principal demands clearly, namely, the salary of kindergarten teachers must be competitive, and a salary scale for kindergarten teachers should be put in place; due consideration should be given to whole-day kindergartens; long-term planning should be made for the professional development of early childhood education. We hope that the Secretary for Education will not disappoint us again. Otherwise, we would propose the same amendment next year.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, my last speech was about the funding application relating to the Operations Consultancy for the Multi-purpose Sports Complex (the Complex) at Kai Tak. But I still have an important point to cover and hence, I have to say a bit more about it.
The Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying may think that the pan-democrats are always standing in his way. It is wrong to think so because our target is the matter and not the person. Hence, when he suggested, upon assumption of office, that the Complex at Kai Tak be scrapped so that the site could be used for housing construction, we supported at least one third of his proposal, that is, the site for the mega sports complex be converted for housing construction.
10528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
However, does LEUNG Chun-ying always get what he wants? As we can see clearly from this case, even he must bow to the functional constituencies (FCs). Notwithstanding strong public support in society for the construction of more public rental housing units and Home Ownership Scheme flats, the Chief Executive must yield when the FCs opposed the scrapping of the Complex at Kai Tak. It is a clear example that should the Government's constitutional reform proposal be passed, the Nominating Committee will be formed on the basis of the existing Election Committee which is dominated by FCs. In that case, the Chief Executive's second master will be the Nominating Committee, and Hong Kong people will only come third. Moreover, if there is conflict between the wish of Hong Kong people and the FCs, the FCs shall prevail.
Deputy Chairman, I will now speak on item 850 "Replacement of stage automation system at the Auditorium of Kwai Tsing Theatre" under subhead 603 of head 95, as well as the renewal and maintenance of four museums under subhead 700 of head 95.
Deputy Chairman, regarding the item "Replacement of stage automation system at the Auditorium of Kwai Tsing Theatre", the situation is quite appalling. According to the paper provided by the Government, the stage automation system (the System) was installed since the theatre's opening in 1999, and upgrading is required to enhance technical efficiency and ensure stage safety. As the item has not been scrutinized by the Finance Committee or its Public Works Subcommittee, Members do not have the opportunity to enquire with the Government how safe or, more importantly, unsafe the stage is now.
Under this renewal project, the System which consists mainly of a fully computerized flying system for stage scenery and lighting will be upgraded. The situation described by the Government is very frightening, as if the stage scenery will just fall off any minute. If The Phantom of the Opera is to be staged in the Kwai Tsing Theatre (KTT) Auditorium, I would imagine that the scenery and lighting could fall down naturally, without the need for any special operation by the stage crew.
When examining the draft Estimates, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan asked a relevant question on this item. In its reply (Serial No. HAB230), the Government mentioned that, "… major spare parts will become obsolete in 2016-17. In view of the increasing risk of system failure which may cause disruption to or cancellation of performances …". If it is true, the situation is extremely LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10529 worrying because it is 2015 now. We have no idea why the Government is so certain that major spare parts of the System will definitely become obsolete in 2016-2017 and hence, substantially increasing the risk of failure, yet it can still be used for the time being. In fact, if the situation is so dangerous, funding should of course be made available as soon as possible. But before funding allocation, we must ask whether, given such potential risks of the System, the KTT Auditorium should be closed temporarily? If the decision is taken against temporary closure, who should be held responsible in case the assessment is wrong and safety incidents happen prematurely?
Deputy Chairman, apart from the System, there are actually other matters requiring upgrading in the KTT. I do not know if you have ever visited the KTT. Here, I am holding a seating plan of the Auditorium. The seating layout is mind-boggling, to say the least. Unlike the layout in the Cultural Centre or the City Hall with each row of seats divided into three sections, seats in the same row of the KTT Auditorium are joined together. How many seats are there in each row? For stall seats, the shorter rows are in the front with 28 seats while each row at the back has 47 seats on average. In the balcony, each row has 52 seats. Deputy Chairman, if you are invited to attend an event in the KTT as an honoured guest, I hope you can get seated in Numbers 25 or 26. Otherwise, you may have to walk pass 25 people in the same row if you need to use the toilet later on. It is not only an inconvenience for you, but also a nuisance for those 20-odd people sitting on your side. No theatre built these days would adopt the same layout of joining all seats in the same row together. It does sound ridiculous, right?
I once attended a performance in the KTT and got seated in the middle. Throughout the performance, I felt nervous that I might need to use the toilet suddenly and created nuisance for others. Can the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LSCD) review the matter from the perspective of the audience? Apart from upgrading the fully computerized flying system for stage scenery and lighting, can the seating layout be revamped at the same time? As the Auditorium would be closed temporarily during the renewal of stage facilities, I call on the authorities to take the opportunity and revamp the existing seating layout so that the rows with 47 or 52 seats joining together can be divided into three sections. Interestingly though, the last row in the stalls (and only the last row) has what we now call a more humanistic design, and is divided into sections. With only about 11 or at most 12 seats in each section, an audience sitting in the middle can go out by just walking past five people.
10530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
Such a crazy seating layout will not be found in any modern theatres. Hence, I call on the Government to revamp the seating layout whilst the System is being upgraded. Moreover, the space between each row of seats is quite narrow, and even a short person like me would have to sit slightly sideways. If an audience is as tall as Mr James TIEN, he may run into deep trouble. Perhaps he would have to buy tickets for the same seat in two consecutive rows, or his knees can easily hit the back of the seat in front as he moves around, causing angry stares from the audience concerned.
If the Government is serious about the nurturing of audience, there is no room for shoddiness when it comes to the construction of theatres. It would be most important to provide the best internal facilities. Apart from creating inconvenience for taller Members ― Mr Martin LIAO is looking at me; he would also find it a nuisance. Although not of a strong build as Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr LIAO will also get "set" in the seat, more or less like a diamond, and can hardly move around. If the Auditorium has these problems, it would be difficult to attract members of the public to attend the performances there.
Deputy Chairman, I will now speak on the estimated expenditure for the renewal of facilities in museums under subhead 700 of "Head 95 ― Leisure and Cultural Services Department". The four museums are, namely, Hong Kong Museum of History (History Museum), Hong Kong Heritage Museum (HKHM), Hong Kong Science Museum (Science Museum) and Hong Kong Museum of Coastal Defence (Coastal Defence Museum). The relevant expenditure for the Science Museum is the most value-for-money. Given the interactive nature of its exhibits, many visitors, both students and adults alike, would queue up and play with them. As a result, most of the exhibits have deteriorated, and some even broken down. Given the large number of exhibits of an interactive nature provided in the HKScM, we absolutely support the provision of $4 million for the renewal project. Separately, we support the commitment of $250,000 for the Coastal Defence Museum this year. But more precisely, we should focus on the total expenditure for these museums over the next few years.
According to the paper provided by the Home Affairs Bureau on this matter, the renewal, maintenance and upgrading of facilities in the Science Museum will be completed by 2020, and the estimated cost of the project is $76 million. As the project covers the maintenance and renewal of various facilities, as well as the replacement of old and damaged exhibits of an interactive nature over the next few years, the cost is very reasonable.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10531
Under the renewal project of the HKHM, the Orientation Theatre will be revamped into a Jin Yong (Louis CHA) Gallery in 2019 as a permanent exhibition. The martial arts novels of Dr CHA Leung-yung, pen name Jin Yong, have an enormous impact on Hong Kong's popular culture. It is estimated that the revamping will cost $43.5 million, including the production of multimedia programmes, and so on. In my view, the project cost of $43.5 million is appropriate for multimedia programmes will be designed and produced to recreate various ethereal scenes and fantastic martial artistry as portrayed in the novels. Separately, the renewal project of the Coastal Defence Museum is expected to complete by end-2018, at an estimated cost of $30.8 million. Major cost items include the design and production of interactive and multimedia programmes, and so on.
However, we are most baffled by the renewal project of the History Museum. Deputy Chairman, the estimated cost of this single project is $466 million, or about 10 times that of $30 million or $40 million for renewal works in other museums. Notwithstanding the need to upgrade a large number of facilities in the Science Museum, the estimated project cost is only $76 million. The cost of renewal works for the History Museum is almost seven times that amount. Why is the renewal project of the History Museum so expensive? Although the History Museum, which occupies an area of 7 000 sq m, is the largest of the four museums, why does it cost several times more than others as the project does not involve a complete overhaul of all facilities in the museum?
The Government has only given one reason in its paper, which I can hardly accept. According to the Government, "As a reference, the Imperial War Museum in London has recently revamped its permanent exhibition on the First World War with a cost of £40 million. These two projects are similar in scale." But no explanation has been given as to why a renewal project at a similar scale is needed for Hong Kong. Given the United Kingdom's role in the First World War in terms of the long years at war and the substantial military involvement, £40 million is spent to keep a historical record of the First World War.
But what wars have Hong Kong gone through? During the Second World War, Hong Kong fell into enemy hands after a week or so. What is there to record? Had the Government explained clearly that the project meant to record the history about the three years and eight months of Japanese occupation of Hong Kong, the underground activities of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in Hong Kong before the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, the influx of refugees from the Mainland to Hong Kong several years after 10532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 the founding of the PRC, the conflicts between the Kuomintang and the CPC in colonial Hong Kong several years after the founding of the PRC, as well as the measures taken by the British Government to iron things out, such as the enactment of evil laws including the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance to prevent the two parties from stirring up troubles in Hong Kong, and so on, I might have understood the reason for seeking the provision of $466 million.
Deputy Chairman, Hong Kong has not really taken part in any war. Yet the Government has drawn a comparison with the spending of £40 million by the Imperial War Museum in London to record the activities and military involvement of the United Kingdom in the First World War. In my view, this is not a comparison of like with like. In every place, I think there should be a heritage museum to record its past, its topography as well as the lives and culture in society, which ultimately form the root of its people and allow them to understand the past and look into the future. However, the Government has only given us a sloppy explanation in its paper. Moreover, the Government has tried to justify the funding application for the renewal of the History Museum by comparing it with the United Kingdom's participation in the First World War. This is something I can never accept. But regrettably, Members cannot follow up this matter in the Finance Committee or the Public Works Subcommittee. That is one of the important reasons why we have been demanding genuine universal suffrage and the democratization of the Government, so that Hong Kong people can monitor the Government's governance.
Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, before speaking on the amendment proposed by me, I would like to briefly respond to Ms Cyd HO's observations about museums. Of course, we are angry at the Government because the funding applications, which could have been thoroughly discussed by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, have been incorporated in the Budget this year. We believe that the Government adopted this approach, which runs contrary to the established practices and procedures, to facilitate the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau. We express our strong dissatisfaction with this approach.
(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10533
If members of the public watching the live broadcast are interested, they may visit the museums to find out more about the display and their themes as mentioned by a Member earlier. They may consider visiting various museums this weekend (16 May and 17 May), as they can take advantage of the free entry arrangement on the Hong Kong International Museum Day to admire the collections of various museums and actively express their views. As elected Members, we also have the responsibility to discuss with the public how museums in Hong Kong can further strengthen their collections and exhibition contents, as well as how to deepen the community's understanding of and reflection on local history and culture.
Chairman, I have only proposed one amendment in this session, and it is Amendment No 557 on "Head 156 ― Government Secretariat: Education Bureau", which is to reduce $3.58 million in respect of subhead 000, an amount equivalent to the expenditure of the Education Bureau on the annual emolument of the Secretary for Education.
Who is the Secretary for Education? Needless to say, I believe we all know that the Secretary for Education is Eddie NG. Why do we have to deduct $3.58 million, an amount equivalent to the expenditure on the annual emolument of Secretary Eddie NG? Do we need further discussion? Upon hearing his name, we may already find him incompetent, and it is time to ask him to leave. Let me remind Members again, since he took office … please look at the trend of the opinion polls. In this diagram, the red line, representing the number of people asking him to leave, has all along been on the high side, while the blue line, representing the number of people asking him to stay, has all along been on the low side. Among three Secretaries of Departments and 12 Directors of Bureaux, his net popularity rating has always been the lowest, and he is running neck and neck with Secretary Paul CHAN.
Some from the Education Bureau said jokingly that these people will not leave because they serve to make LEUNG Chun-ying look better. If they do leave, nobody will shield LEUNG Chun-ying. They have a very important function of covering up the low popularity rating of LEUNG Chun-ying. However, is it worth spending taxpayers' hard-earned money to keep employing these principal accountability officials with low popularity and not so effective performance? They have even been criticized for being unfamiliar with their policy areas.
10534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
Various sectors and industries, including the university where I am teaching, frequently assess employees' performance. The university assesses our teaching performance, research performance, community involvement and performance in serving the university. A number of key performance indicators (KPIs) are used in the assessment. Has the Government used KPIs to assess the performance of three Secretaries of Departments and 12 Directors of Bureaux? If it has, popularity as I have mentioned just now should be a very important indicator.
Secretary Eddie NG is an accountability official; is it worth paying emolument to him every year or even increase his emolument? When Eddie NG took office, his annual emolument was $2.54 million, and with annual increment, the amount was increased to $3.3 million in 2013-2014, and then further increased to $3.42 million in 2014-2015. It is estimated that his annual emolument this year will be increased to $3.58 million. Marvellous! How many taxpayers or wage earners in Hong Kong can earn $3.58 million a year? Is it worth spending money to nurture or train a person who is evidently "no good" and allow him to continue to serve as the Secretary? He is "no good" in respect of education policies, work performance and language expressions.
Of course, Eddie NG has expertise in human resources management and he used to be the person-in-charge of a human resources management company. As regards public posts, he once served as the Deputy Chairman of the Council of a tertiary institution and Chairman of the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. But these public posts and his terms of reference as the Secretary for Education … Frankly speaking, his terms of reference include tertiary institutions, as well as the inclusion of kindergarten education in 15-year free education, an issue that has been much discussed. In fact, education policies can be described as a large forest, including many areas and challenges, as well as many difficulties that should be addressed and carefully resolved. Are we not certain about his competence?
Although learning is more than scoring, he is a Secretary. We have already given him three years on trial employment, is that not enough? As I have mentioned, people working in government departments told me that Mr Eddie NG has a very sharp learning curve, meaning that he learns new things very quickly. Is he still learning hard? Should we continue to allocate $3.58 million in this year's Budget to pay his tuition fees? Do the education sector and taxpayers think it is worthy to do so? I think it is not worthy at all.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10535
We should recall that we had moved two motions of no confidence in Mr Eddie NG, asking him to leave. One of the motions is related to the national education crisis. Soon after the current-term Members joined the Council, the first motion they had to deal with was related to the national education crisis. Members clearly asked him to step down in that motion debate. Under the separate voting system, even if there were strong public sentiments and the public were gravely dissatisfied with him, and some even wished that he would leave expeditiously, he was eventually saved. This kind of motion is not binding and it just allows us to express, on behalf of the public, their views and dissatisfaction. In the face of motions of no confidence, if a Secretary can still shamelessly sits in this Chamber, probably feeling complacent, then I, as a teacher, would think that this student has limited introspection capability. Perhaps too many people around him have told him, "You have done an excellent job, just hang on".
Do they include LEUNG Chun-ying? As I said at the very beginning, he wanted to keep those Secretaries with extremely low popularity in position, so that they can shield him. He has been in office for less than four years but Members had moved two motions of no confidence in him. This is not our prejudice, Chairman, and the general public really want to say him, "Leave, that's the popular demand". Yet, he still shamelessly stays in his post. What exactly has he done these few years? In the past few years, many Honourable colleagues have asked a lot of questions at the special Finance Committee meeting on the Budget, they were particularly concerned about the Secretary's travelling around the world.
The Secretary has, so far, spent 87 days on overseas visits; it can be said that he travels around the world in 87 days. Of course, he would say that he has handled many businesses: he had meetings during these visits, he had introduced the education policies in Hong Kong, and he had exchanged views and experiences with leaders in the education sector from various parts of the world. However, we really need a "stationed" Secretary to discuss with us and deal with various education policies, as well as issues arising in the course of policy implementation. It is interesting to note that he occasionally leaves Hong Kong. He has spent 87 days on overseas visits. The Secretary said that he had met many people in these 87 days; he had seen a lot of things, had exchanges and shared experiences. How well does he understand our education system, the education policies and their effectiveness, as well as the views of parents, 10536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 teachers and students? He said that "stones from other hills may serve to polish the jade of this one", and he is willing to share the good things he brought back from those places. What should we do?
As I teach at the university, I also have to visit different places to attend academic conferences; but I certainly would not spend 87 days within three years on overseas visits. Even department heads, deans or principals will not spend 87 days on overseas visits. Maybe staff the Education Bureau hope that the Secretary would leave Hong Kong, so that they can work quietly. Without the presence of the Secretary, they will have clearer minds as the Secretary will not disturb them and they do not need to explain to him what has happened. Hence, just let Mr Eddie NG have more overseas visits since he likes to travel around the world.
After every overseas visit to attend meetings or carry out some work for the university, we must submit a report. We have to tell colleagues, students and the employer, that is, the university, what we have done. The same applies to primary and secondary schools. After participating in exchange tours, exchange programmes and study tours, reports should also be submitted to expound on what has been done and learnt. Perhaps some people may find the visit a waste of time and suggest that no such visits should be conducted again. The Secretary's speaking notes are written by civil servants; he reads these notes on the plane and delivers his speech after arrival; he then attends meetings for a few days. Is it most effective for the Secretary for Education with an annual emolument of $3.58 million to carry out such work? Has the value-for-money factor been taken into account?
If Secretary Eddie NG wants to prove that his travelling around the world in 87 days can really help to address a range of issues mentioned by us, I hope he would provide specific answers to the questions on the Education Bureau raised by me and my Honourable colleagues in this debate session, so that we can work together to resolve, handle and sort out these issues. I am sorry to say that despite our repeated questions every year, we still fail to understand how these visits are conducive to the effective implementation of our education policies.
Apart from delivering speeches in different places, making friends and catching up with old friends, what has the Secretary achieved in overseas visits? The total expenditure on these visits amounted to $2 million to $3 million, paid LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10537 by taxpayers' hard-earned money. Are the visits really necessary? What benefits do they have? We do not know the answers. Most members of the Panel on Education have teaching experience. I have never left the education sector and I started teaching in a university upon graduation. Therefore, I know what has happened. If the Secretary wants to have overseas exchanges and visits, he should consider clearly the importance and benefits of such visits to his work. Instead of arranging the Secretary to attend overseas visits in person, can other officials attend the visit on his behalf? In fact, the Secretary does not have to attend such overseas visits in person every time; it seems that his numerous visits do not have any substantive result.
Since the Secretary for Education does not come from the education sector, he is not very familiar with the philosophy of the education sector. When he attends meetings, he needs other officials to be around to remind him or answer questions on his behalf. He has spent so much public money in the past three years, yet owing to his popularity and actual work performance, as well as his habit of making regular overseas visits, we have the impression that he is simply not up to standard and he is not qualified to be the Secretary for Education. He seems like a semi-retired person who just wants to spend several years travelling around the world and have fun. He is not the Secretary for Education we need. I will discuss other issues later.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, my amendment in this debate session is about the Pilot Projects on Career Exploration and Related Experiences for Students with Specific Learning Difficulties and Non-Chinese Speaking (NCS) Students in Secondary Schools implemented by the Education Bureau. Under our education system, students with specific learning difficulties or with special educational needs (SEN) and NCS students belong to the disadvantaged group and they have to face considerable difficulties. As we are now considering the implementation of 15-year free education, pre-primary education is very important to NCS students and students with SEN. If NCS ethnic minority students want to learn Chinese well, integrate into our society, compete with others, move up the social ladder and have their own career, Chinese language education is of vital importance.
NCS ethnic minority students should not only start learning Chinese at the primary school level, the earlier they receive such education, the better. Many education experts, foreign and local studies have pointed out that NCS ethnic 10538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 minority students should receive Chinese language education at the pre-primary stage. Similarly, studies have indicated that ages zero to six are the golden years for students with special learning needs. I will also speak on students with SEN later but I would like to talk about ethnic minority students first.
While 15-year free education will soon be implemented in Hong Kong, NCS ethnic minority students still have a lot of difficulties at the kindergarten stage. Unison conducted a study a few days ago on interview of over 200 kindergartens, and the result showed that 60% of kindergartens conduct interviews in Cantonese only. As we can imagine, young NCS children are not familiar with Cantonese as they live in an ethnic minority environment. According to 60% of kindergartens, if NCS children want to be admitted but they cannot speak Cantonese, they will not even be interviewed. Furthermore, 80% of kindergartens indicate that even if NCS children are admitted, if their parents do not understand Chinese, the school will not provide them with translated versions of school newsletters and basic information in English or other languages.
Many years ago, Unison also conducted a study and found that the greatest difficulties of ethnic minority children attending kindergartens and child care centres were language and cultural barriers. At this stage, children's language competence, especially Chinese language competence, varies greatly. How can we develop their language competence? Nobody cares. Owing to the difficulties in communication between parents and schools, parents cannot help their children outside school, especially in the family environment.
It seems that the Education Bureau has not made effort in this respect and it has remained indifferent. The Education Bureau believes that all Chinese-speaking and NCS students in Hong Kong should be integrated into society and they should learn Chinese well in the mainstream environment. What if they have special needs? It seems as though this issue has nothing to do with the Education Bureau and the Bureau has shifted the responsibility onto the children.
At this stage, ethnic minority children have varying standards, and they have to make a choice before entering primary schools. Should they study in schools especially for ethnic minority and NCS students or should they study in mainstream schools? Mainstream schools have a better Chinese language environment, and these students can learn Chinese together with mainstream LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10539 students. However, if they have weaker Chinese language competence and their family environment does not facilitate Chinese language learning, they will very soon find that they cannot catch up with the progress in the mainstream environment. In addition, Chinese is still an important learning media; if they have weaker Chinese language competence, they will easily be lagging behind in other subjects. Although they can learn Chinese well in mainstream schools, they very often fail to catch up with the progress. They may be eliminated and suffer from frustration or failure.
If they choose to study in a non-mainstream environment, that is, the designated schools in the past, as these schools teach in English, the students will be lagging far behind in Chinese language learning and they will have difficulties in social integration. So, it is rather difficult to choose between the two. The problem is that we have not supported them at the basic pre-primary stage, such that they do not have the same starting point as local Chinese-speaking students at the primary school stage. We have repeatedly raised these questions over the years. Although 15-year free education will soon be implemented, the Government has not yet adopted any strategies.
The situation of children with SEN is equally or even more serious. There are currently about 12 000 children aged zero to six with SEN but less than 40% of them are receiving services, with the remaining children still on the waiting list. For example, over 7 000 people are waiting for the services of the Integrated Programme in Kindergarten-cum-Child Care Centre, special child care centres or early education and training centres, but there are only some 4 000 places.
The Hong Kong Institute of Education conducted a study last year and it was found that there were about 12 000 children aged zero to six with SEN, yet they only took up half of the actual number; in other words there were about 12 000 more children. According to some kindergarten teachers they interviewed, the needs of around 12 000 children had not been identified. The study of the Institute of Education indicated that there were actually over 24 000 children aged zero to six with SEN.
Can we imagine that only a small number of these children can receive services? The Government implements integrated education in primary and secondary schools but the Education Bureau has not made commitment in respect of early childhood education. At present, the services of the Social Welfare 10540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
Department only meet the needs of about 36% of children whose conditions have been confirmed, while other children who are in need will have to wait. The subsidies provided by the Community Care Fund cannot be comparable to full-time services. Only half of the students with confirmed conditions can receive services, Chairman; I think this is a catastrophic situation.
While we are going to implement 15-year free education, how can we implement integrated education in this regard? How can early identification or support, two of the five pillars of integrated education, be implemented? I wonder if the authorities are just making empty talks or can they really do so? Have the authorities made any commitment to provide support to over 24 000 children in course of implementing 15-year free education? In what way will support be provided?
It is mentioned in the recently published Policy Address that the authorities will allocate funds from the Lotteries Fund to subsidize non-governmental organizations in providing welfare services. To be honest, we do not know the details about financing and operation at this stage. It is a pity that Secretary Eddie NG is not present today; the responsible official has surprisingly disappeared when we discuss such an important issue before approving the funding applications.
The Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre (the Centre) has just released a study on "Developing child support services on all fronts: To facilitate both parenting and employment". The report stated the inadequacies of the existing child care services. First, inadequate service supply; second, lack of commitment to child care services by the Government; and third, lack of foresight towards the concept of child care services. Mr LAU Ming-wai, Vice Chairman of the Centre, has just been appointed as Chairman of the Commission on Youth. He does not oppose the Government; on the contrary, he strongly supports the Government. According to the Centre, Hong Kong lags far behind other regions in terms of early childhood education services. In 2011, there were 100 000 children under two years of age but there were only 1 735 places in Hong Kong providing services to these children; in other words, 59 children were fighting for a place on average.
We ask the Government to formulate labour policies to encourage women to join the workforce and to create a friendly environment for Hong Kong people to form and raise families. The Commission on Poverty found that there are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10541 several hundred thousand working poor families having to take care of infants or young children. In such families, only one person can go out to work while the other person has to stay home to take care of the children. These families have low income, and they live below the poverty line. Do they have any choice? We can follow foreign practices to provide subsidies to families with children. Members of low-income families can choose to stay home to take care of children or go out to work. Foreign countries provide subsidies to families having to take care of children and also provide subsidies to children. Yet, so far, no such subsidy has been provided in Hong Kong.
Some officials from the Education Bureau think that it is unnecessary to send children to child care centres or kindergartens prematurely. Kindergartens operate on half-day basis as they think that long hours of early childhood education are not required. However, they do not know that grass-roots families have no choice. If one family member has to take care of children, and only one family member can go out to work, and if he is a low-income worker, the whole family would fall into poverty. If the Government provides child care services, the carer would feel at ease to go out and work, so as increase the household income; by then they can have the opportunity to get rid of poverty.
Nonetheless, some middle-class officials asked why these people do not hire a helper to take care of the children? Why not arrange more parent-child activities? Why do they arrange their children to stay in child care centres for long hours? These officials will not admit that they have the responsibility to provide long whole-day child care and education services. Today, the framework and concept of 15-year free education still do not include whole-day kindergartens. In the past, children only attended kindergartens and primary schools for three hours a day. If grass-roots families have the choice, attending school for three hours is certainly desirable. Unfortunately, they would not be able to make ends meet.
Hence, our basic philosophy has been wrong and education officials have not made any commitment. The report of the Centre stated clearly that the Government lacks commitment and foresight. It is not aware of the real situation and it is not clear about the way forward. It only considers the needs of all people from the perspective of the middle class. Chairman, this is Hong Kong's misfortunate and I hope the officials of the Education Bureau would engage in deep introspection. I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.
10542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, the Labour Party has proposed an amendment in this session regarding the Hong Kong Museum of History (History Museum) and other museums. As we always say, and Ms Cyd HO has also mentioned just now, the main reason for us to propose an amendment to this item is that it has not been discussed by the Finance Committee (FC).
Let me take the History Museum as an example to explain the difference between discussion by the FC and discussion here. First, as I always say, the officials attending this meeting are just cardboard people who will not make any response. Gregory SO will not answer any questions concerning the Home Affairs Bureau or the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), will he? However, if this item needs the approval of the FC, representatives from the Home Affairs Bureau and the LCSD will have to attend the FC meeting and participate in debates and discussions. Elizabeth TSE once said that these items had been discussed by the Panel on Home Affairs. But the papers provided by the Government for the Panel simply asked for the funding of $466 million. Why do other museums only need several ten million dollars but the History Museum needs over $400 million? How will this money be used? What are the problems with this "white elephant" Museum? Chairman, no one knows.
When I read the paper, I found the saying that we are making history very interesting. I think history is very important, and history is written by those in power. Chairman, history is very sensitive. If we do not know what are exhibited in the History Museum, people may really be brainwashed, but this is outside the topic of this discussion. I just found out that the History Museum is holding an exhibition titled "The Majesty of All Under Heaven: The Eternal Realm of China's First Emperor".
It is interesting that I have mentioned ZHAO Gao quite often lately. I have studied the history about ZHAO Gao. Does anyone know how powerful and influential ZHAO Gao was? ZHAO Gao was a eunuch of Qin Shi Huang (the First Emperor of the Qin Dynasty). After the death Qin Shi Huang, he was succeeded by Qin Er Shi (the Second Emperor of the Qin Dynasty). ZHAO Gao once pointed to a deer and told everyone that it was a horse. His lackeys immediately echoed that it was a horse. At that point, Qin Er Shi also thought that it might be a horse. Even Qin Er Shi, the emperor, had to echo that it was a horse. This well reflected how fierce and intimidating ZHAO Gao was. Hence, we will wait and see how the History Museum will comment on the history about ZHAO Gao. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10543
In my view, history has treated Qin Shi Huang rather unfairly. In fact, Qin Shi Huang had some great achievements. For example, he unified the currency, and the weights and measures units, and he cracked down on the restoration of the king by feudal princes. Of course, his reputation was stained by his acts of burning books and burying Confucian scholars alive. However, we might need to ponder upon whether Confucianism deserved such high regard. As Qin Shi Huang revered the Legalists, when Confucian scholars wrote the history, would they not condemn the many sins committed by Qin Shi Huang? From the perspective of the feudal princes who wished to restore the king, would they not condemn Qin Shi Huang as well? Therefore, many people describe Qin Shi Huang as a tyrant but they may not be fair and that is an important aspect of history.
Chairman, what I want to say is that history is written by those in power. After the Qin Dynasty had been toppled, how did those in power write the history of Qin Shi Huang? In retrospect, we may find that Qin Shi Huang was quite unfairly treated. Members should read a book titled The Great Qin Empire published recently. The whole book consists of seven volumes. Although the book may not contain official historic facts, it has made some very insightful analyses.
Chairman, what about Hong Kong? Why does the History Museum require over $400 million? How will the money be spent? No one knows. According to the authorities, the work to be carried out involves commissioning academic research, revamping the design and layout of the exhibition, fabrication of exhibits, development of interactive exhibits and multimedia programmes, as well as other related removal, fabrication and installation works. The work will commence in 2015 and is expected to complete by mid-2021. Marvellous! It takes six years to revamp the History Museum.
In these six years, how much money will be spent on academic research and what are the research items? Will research be conducted on the leftists' fight against the despotic rule during the British-Hong Kong era? How will the history of that period be depicted? Will researchers interview you, Chairman, and ask you to relate your experience as a participant? Or will TSANG Tak-sing volunteer to give an oral account of the history during that period that he witnessed as a participant? We do not know what kind of academic research will be conducted. Or will a research be conducted on the history of the Basic Law? There are many aspects in relation to the Basic Law that can be written 10544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 about. For example, why the promises made by LU Ping then are now completely distorted. LU Ping once said that after 1997, the Central Government would not care how Hong Kong changed its constitutional system and everything would be decided by the Legislative Council. Why have all these turned sour? Will they record that in history? Chairman, how will the history of these events be written? This is very important. The scholars may leave out these facts in their writing; LU Ping's promises and many of the promises made by the Communist Party of China (CPC) might also be deleted. How will the history of that period be written? No one knows.
Whether the academic research will cover these topics, I do not know. Chairman, does anyone know? If none of us know, how can we approve the funding for the History Museum? No one knows what the academic research will cover. It is very dangerous for those in power to study history. Of course, they may say that the research will be done by a group of people or a committee. I also believe that will be the case, but very often even though the research is conducted by a committee, the person in charge plays a decisive role. For example, how will the research work be outsourced, who will be invited to conduct the academic research when tendering out the research work, and will the researchers be neutral? As we all know, "LEUNG's fans" have been placed in various committees. I dare not say all members of various committees are "LEUNG's fans" but "LEUNG's fans" have a leading position in various committees. What will be written by the committee? Can anyone answer my questions? No one can answer because no officials will respond in this debate.
I do not know how much will be spent on academic research. The authorities say that the design and layout of the exhibition will be revamped. What specifically will be revamped? What is the design? How much is needed to fabricate the exhibits? Of course, what I am concerned about is not the presentation as I believe everyone wishes to present the exhibits in the best way and hence professional designers should take up the work. For example, we also hired architects to design the June 4th Museum. I believe the History Museum will also be designed by experts in this field. The contents of the exhibition are more important. Who is to decide the contents of the exhibition? Will they be decided by an academic research committee? How will the contents be compiled and edited? How will the materials be presented in a so-called interactive way? There are hazards involved in the process of interaction because people can easily be brainwashed. I do not want to act like what people often say, "See, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan is criticizing again, saying that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10545 people will surely be brainwashed." Chairman, it is not that I like to criticize but I have no idea and no one can tell us how the History Museum will be revamped. While we are examining a Budget involving hundreds of billions of dollars, we are asked to approve a funding item amounting to $460 million without knowing the reason. The authorities are aware that Members have no idea about the whole project and the royalists do not care, they thus incorporated the $400-odd million funding item into the Budget sneakily and ask us to approve it.
I have no idea how history will be distorted. Some say that the Sino-Japanese War Victory Day has been distorted with the CPC claiming the credit. But the fact cannot be distorted because everyone knows that the Japanese surrendered to the Republic of China. At that time, as the People's Republic of China was not founded yet, the CPC could not claim the credit. A book entitled A Historical Revelation has collected articles published in the Liberation Daily and Xinhua Daily of which ZHOU Enlai was the chief editor during the Japanese invasion of China. Will these articles be exhibited in the History Museum? Will we have the chance to learn how these articles commented on the right to elect and the right to be elected in the Party, and how they criticized that without the right to be elected, the people would be reduced to voting machines? Will the History Museum display such information? These are very interesting historic facts. Before the CPC seized political power and became the ruling party, it was very democratic. Will the History Museum display these records for us to have a look? I have no idea. How will the History Museum describe the history of Hong Kong under the century-long colonial rule, what conclusions will be made and how will it comment on the implementation of rule of law by the British in Hong Kong and the impact on Hong Kong? Will the History Museum portray how the British betrayed Hong Kong's democracy before 1997? Of course, the British betrayed Hong Kong before 1997; and after 1997, it was the CPC which betrayed Hong Kong. Will these historic facts be mentioned? Chairman, no one knows.
In respect of the $466 million to renew the History Museum, I think a breakdown of each expenditure item is necessary. Chairman, papers submitted to the FC will clearly list out all expenditure items, such as the amount of each item and who will be in charge, and so on. Information such as how to conduct academic research, and which period of history should be covered in the research should be listed out in the paper submitted to the FC.
10546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
Frankly, I do not understand why the Panel on Home Affairs discussed the History Museum along with other museums. As the time for discussion is just half an hour to one hour, it was impossible to have an in-depth discussion and many questions were left unanswered. Therefore, it is extremely unfair to us if we are asked to approve the funding for the History Museum at this moment but are not given the chance to ask questions. Worse still, however, even if we single out this item, we do not have sufficient votes to negative it. In the end, it will still be passed and we will never get the answer.
We are all familiar with the Government's practices. Chairman, you know it best. When the Government needs your help, it will surely give you the information you ask for. Therefore, it would be best for funding applications to be discussed by the FC, the Public Works Subcommittee and the Establishment Subcommittee, as the Government needs Members approval, it will surely provide information. However, when the Government does not need Members' vote to approve the funding, it disregards our demands. Of course, when conducting the Council meeting, the Chairman always says, "There is no time to discuss these issues. Please follow up at the level of the Panels." Chairman, you always make this statement, but as you have been a Member for years, you are well aware that the Government will not provide you with any information if it does not seek your help. If it needs your vote, it will respond to your demand and provide you with more information. This is the experience I have gained over the years in scrutinizing various items in this Council.
Nevertheless, we do not have the chance to discuss this item, not only this item but also 25 other items, such as the funding for water cannon vehicles. We do not have the chance to raise questions. When the Government does not need our votes, it will not bother to respond to us, just like the present situation. Since it knows it has enough votes to pass the Budget, it needs not answer the questions concerning the History Museum raised by Ms Cyd HO and me.
Chairman, I wonder what advice you would give me. Perhaps you are also frustrated because everyone knows that the Government has bypassed the Legislative Council and over $400 million will thus be wasted on revamping the History Museum which spans six years from 2015 to 2021. We will not be able to hold anyone responsible because the Government would say that the Budget was approved by us. If in future people ask us if we knew the details of the items that we passed, I would tell them I did not know and we only knew that it was a project that cost over $400 million.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10547
Ms Cyd HO has just mentioned that one of reasons given by the Government is that the British Museum spent a similar amount of money on revamping the exhibition on the First World War. However, Chairman, there is no relevance between the two. How many history museums in the world have been revamped? The British Museum spent over £40 million to revamp its exhibition on the First World War. How much did the museum in France spend? How much have other museums in other countries spent? They just cannot be compared in this way. We cannot only make reference to the highest cost. Besides, why do other museums spend so much money? How do I know? When other museums have spent a certain amount of money, does it mean that Hong Kong has to follow suit? If a museum has spent over £40 million, does it mean Hong Kong also has to spend over $400 million?
Chairman, I find the reason provided in the paper for the Panel on Home Affairs absolutely absurd. From this incident, we can see that the Government is increasingly reluctant to be accountable to the Legislative Council. In the past, the Government would respect the FC and provide it with the information as required and answer our questions. But now no answers will be provided. After we make these speeches today, there is still no answer. In the next six years, the Government will spend over $400 million for no good cause. After the History Museum has been revamped, if people have queries, we will have nothing to say as we do not have the chance to ask.
Thank you, Chairman.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, initially, I wanted to continue with my discussion on labour issues because those are the core issues. But after listening to the historical issues mentioned by Ms Cyd HO and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, I feel so distressed that I must talk about them.
First, I think they are politically incorrect. For example, one of them said that the British Museum spent a huge amount of money in revamping its exhibition on the First World War, therefore the Hong Kong Government is now seeking a similar amount of funding. Are the Members cursing the Communist Party of China (CPC)? Buddy, Britain started to fall from power after the First World War, didn't it? After the War, the power of Britain had waned. What kind of people are they who talk like that? Do they have any knowledge in history? Can they give other example? Mind you, the Government has just 10548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 announced that it would give us an extra day of holiday to bring good luck to Hong Kong. People turned a war which they had not participated into a war they had fought. Do they think that history is like a Christmas tree on which they can freely put greeting cards; or a little girl whom they can dress up? Even if they can, the history as recorded by them will look very pale.
Chairman, $460 million is fair amount of money. In fact, whether it will be wasted is not important. What I mean is, a knife costing $10 can kill. Although $10 is a small amount, it can cause serious harm. It is meaningless to consider whether $460 million is a large or a small amount, but the funding application has revealed the truth that some people want to turn the Hong Kong Museum of History (History Museum) into a prototype or a foundation stone. If Members want to see exhibits of history, Chairman, they can simply go to the British Museum. Certainly, many of the exhibits there are spoils. Hence, we get the impression that the greatness of the British Museum is related to "stealing, cheating, deceiving and lying".
Certainly, there were outstanding British people who had contributed to mankind and we have our own assessments of them. Let me give a simple example. There was an outstanding but unvirtuous man called Francis BACON in the British Empire. He said that "knowledge is power". His fellow countryman, George ORWELL made fun of him after many years. In his book Nineteen Eighty-four, he said that the autocrats have three mottoes. One of them is "Ignorance is power". Certainly, the other two are "War is peace" and "Lies are truths". These mottoes are prototypes, aren't they? In other words, a corrupt regime will be as corrupt as it can be.
Some Members do not understand why the Government has to spend $460 million to revamp the exhibitions of the History Museum, but I do. Chairman, in fact you have received this kind of training too, haven't you? One who controls the past controls the present, one who controls the present controls the future. Why do people attach so much importance to history? The reason is that the history of a place represents the legal foundation of its political power. In other words, studying the past will help one gain insights into the present. What happened in the past may happen in the future, and we are living at the point on the timeline between the past and the future. In particular, when people do not enjoy freedom of thought and cannot choose their own government by exercising their equal political rights, the situation will be similar to that under the governance of the Holy See. If you understand what God says and you say that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10549
God says that one person must die in a particular year and that person is called "Long Hair", I have to die because that is the interpretation of the Scripture. Similarly, supporters of the Confucian teachings and advocates of trivialism in Western philosophy will infer meanings of some old teachings after they have read a few books. In fact, the Scribes were the ones who demanded to put Jesus to death.
Why do these things happen? That is because the SAR Government believes in the Confucian orthodoxy of sovereignty. People believe that it was unrighteous for Britain to forcibly occupy the small fishing village called Hong Kong back then. Therefore, when China decided to take back the sovereignty of Hong Kong, something inexplicable happened. Needless to say, even Mrs Margaret THATCHER "stumbled to … on the street" ― I cannot mention that word. In other words, she fell down. I suspect that Chairman, you might have used those words in your mind back then too. The Confucian orthodoxy presumes that the Chinese is the rightful ruler of this piece of land, but why can't the Confucian orthodoxy convince the people now? After the return of Hong Kong's sovereignty to China, the Chinese people in Hong Kong do not consider China as the ruler, and so the Government has to amend history to contrast our past bitterness with present sweetness. In other words, it is saying, buddy, without the Communist Party of China, Hong Kong will not be the way it is today. Therefore, Hong Kong people should be grateful. The Government has decided to designate a public holiday to mark the 70th anniversary of the victory of the war of resistance against fascism, do you think such an act is taken for no reason? It wants to make Hong Kong people grateful, do you understand?
Chairman, you would know about the Jiusan Society, many members of which are also members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. The Jiusan Society was vehemently denunciated during the Cultural Revolution, but the situation has changed now. If someone proposed to commemorate the Jiusan Society during the Cultural Revolution, he would be questioned if he missed the Kuomintang. The situation has changed now. Actually, this example I just quoted is too insipid. Let me give another example. History is like a prostitute who is raped by someone powerful and sells herself to him. Chairman, who makes history? Certainly, people make history. Our founding father ― not Dr SUN Yat-sen, but MAO Zedong ― also said so, didn't he? According to historical materialism, what is the factor that promotes historical development? It is class struggle. Class 10550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 struggle often continues until it reaches a pivotal point at which everyone in society, including the ruling class, suffer under the social and economic systems. Changes will follow after this pivotal point in the struggle.
In the better cases, there will be a way out. A new system which can better take care of the interests of the whole society will emerge. Buddy, how sad it is to see how the Communist Party of China, which was originally formed on the basis of historical materialism, has now manipulated the ideology. Now I understand that our history has developed in this way because we are Chinese people and because there were a few outstanding Chinese people. One of them was called MAO Zedong, the other was called LIU Shaoqi who was killed …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have digressed from the subject.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): No, buddy. Members talked about history in a similar way. I have digressed when I talk about the painful experience of the CPC, and other Members have not digressed because they have not touched on this subject, am I right? Buddy, can you show a little kindness? Everyone was talking foolishly …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): When the two Members spoke earlier, they clearly talked about the estimated expenditure of the Hong Kong Museum of History.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, you do not understand and you are wrong. I have to explain what historical materialism means before I can prove that when those people fail to make history according to the principles of historical materialism, they will be wasting money. In particular, when they did that in a country ruled by the CPC, they deserved to be put to death. But, things have changed now; if they make a mistake, they can correct it. Can anyone discuss history without talking about a conception of history? If I cannot talk about a conception of history, I can at least talk about some historical facts, can't I?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10551
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I do not think the conception of history is relevant to the subject under discussion.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Buddy, why is it irrelevant? This is the first time that I speak on this subject; how can I discuss about the History Museum without talking about a conception of history?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, this is the third time that you speak.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Alright, let me ask you: how should the curator of the History Museum be selected …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I remind you not to digress anymore and I have already warned you.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Okay, I will not digress … you have interrupted my speech once again. We cannot look at history in that way. Since the hero rescued the nation and as the lyrics go, "The east is red. The sun is rising. China has brought forth Mao Zedong", the history of China could be rewritten. Chairman, during the Cultural Revolution, 700 million people actually had to say that. That is history, isn't it? Later, things were set right. A chain-smoker emerged and he was DENG Xiaoping. The Chinese people had to be grateful again because of him. That is the history in the first 30 years and the second 30 years after the establishment of the People's Republic of China …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, how are the things you are saying now relevant to the amendment concerned?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I think it is not right to amend history in this way.
10552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): How has history been amended?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I do not know either because he has not told us. Chairman, do you think that things are in a muddle now? If he had told us, I would have the information to tell you. Buddy, he was secretive and he said that history had to be amended in any case. However, when people asked him why 60 million people died, he replied that the British Empire had amended history in that way too. Therefore, he …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please finish your discussion about history, or else I will stop you.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I know you would stop me. Okay, I will accede to your demand. Frankly speaking, in order to discuss this amendment which involves $460 million, we have to understand the history of Hong Kong; in order to understand the history of Hong Kong, we have to understand the history of China and the history of Britain. In the history of China and the history of Britain, apart from the Opium War, the most important event is what happened in 1997. Why did things turn out that way in 1997? In fact, I have also mentioned in the past why things have developed in that way in the 17 years since 1997.
Certainly, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan is right in saying that we should not write our own history because that will be cheating. But Chairman, I am worried that the Government will be doing so, do you understand? Those people do not even have a basic understanding of history. The Government can write press releases and announcements, but it cannot write something about the historical events of this period and treat it as history. Therefore, I object to writing the history of the 4 June incident, but I think we can discuss about it. At present, we are not sure about the facts, but the Government wants to get things done hastily.
Chairman, I want to ask you a question and you can answer me later. I think you already know the answer. If the History Museum includes the events in these 17 years as the history of Hong Kong, what should we do? Buddy, these events are not history, they have yet to be discussed and no conclusion has been reached. Do you understand? A lot of public money is spent to produce LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10553 the hardware, but the production is actually authorized by a certain power. The Home Affairs Bureau will authorize the Museum to do this work on behalf of the Government. If something so outrageous happens, how should we explain to the others? Buddy, is the Hong Kong Government stupid? We often alter history too, don't we? Just consider how much time we have spent on explaining the development of the history of Hong Kong in these 17 years. The explanations given and the interferences vary every time. At present, the saying is that the powers from the United States, Taiwan independence and Tibetan independence are involved, but such powers did not get involved in the past. In addition, there are views that some people are acting against China and stirring up troubles in Hong Kong. The explanations are really confusing …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, do you know which amendment you are speaking on now?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Why is it necessary? Can't I respond to the speeches of other Members? Now I understand that I cannot. Chairman, I am speaking with a good intention. Certainly, when the medication is bitter, people do not want to take it, and so I will give them a sweetener now. Chairman, I think if we have to revamp the History Museum and if we do not want to waste $460 million, we should invite some historians from Britain, the Mainland and the University of Hong Kong to determine the scope of the work first. Then, we can consider how the work should be done.
Buddy, the History Museum needs material. Let me give an example. I have visited the "Xing Huo Liao Yuan" Exhibition Hall before. Chairman, I believe you have also paid a visit. How did people compile the material of the Exhibition Hall? They presumed that LIU Shaoqi was a renegade, traitor and scab. If a meeting had been held to discuss the matter back then, people would have checked and confirmed that the information presented at the Exhibition Hall was false. If so, the ridiculous situation would not have arisen in which the movement mushrooming everywhere in which people condemned the President of their own country. That was what happened when people told the history of their own time. Do you understand? So, do you want Hong Kong to come to that pass? Do you want to hear people say that "Long Hair" is a spy of the United States; he is paid to do the work; he has close ties with George SOROS; he has close ties with Dalai Lama; he is actually not Chinese, but a dog? I 10554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 would be very afraid to hear that. You have finally understood my point after such a long explanation, haven't you? We cannot write history in a fragmented way without a beginning and an end just to serve the current political reality, do you understand? It is alright if you do.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please sit down and read the contents of the amendment on which you think you have discussed carefully.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I want to speak on head 90 … just give me a second as there are too many papers on the table. It is Amendment No 218. You need not look it up and let me read it to you. I will not lie to you. "Head 90 ― Labour Department" of Amendment No 218. Let me read aloud to the Chairman: "deduct an amount which is roughly equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on the staff cost of the Labour Department (LD) for enhancing the processing and vetting of applications under the Supplementary Labour Scheme (SLS), and for creating three Labour Officer Grade posts from 2015-2016 to offer job matching services to eligible job seekers on relevant job titles", which added up to a total of $1.96 million.
Chairman, as I have said, the prime concern of workers is how long they have to work and how much they can earn after working certain hours. Actually, I still have something to say, but knowing that the Chairman is pretty impatient with me today, I will say no more and switch the topic. The fact is, however, if the two questions mentioned above remain unanswered, it is impossible to assess whether foreign workers should be imported. Why do I say so? Some people may say, "'Long Hair', are you crazy? Foreign workers will be imported only when such a need arises. Otherwise, what is the point of importing them?" I cannot agree more, but the question is why local supply is on the decrease. We assume that there is a prolonged shortage of labour in certain types of jobs because full employment means no one is unemployed, which is perfectly right. The question is why so many people have not devoted themselves to society and thus artificially reduced the supply. There are many reasons, but I am not going to elaborate one by one, or else you will interrupt me. I can actually speak for two hours on this issue, giving detailed descriptions of different categories.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10555
In the Quarterly Report of Wage and Payroll Statistics published in December 2014 ― Chairman, please accept my apology for not handing this report to you because this is not a court ― there is one point worth noting. Regarding the column of "Personal Services" under Table B "Real Wage Indices by selected industry section", the percentage change of December 2014 over September 2014 is negative 0.9, whereas the percentage change of December 2014 over December 2013 is positive 0.2. In other words, there are ups and downs. For "Social and personal services", negative indices 0.5, 5.9 and 3.9 were recorded in the fourth quarter of 2013, the third quarter of 2014 and the fourth quarter of 2014 respectively …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, how do your current remarks have anything to do with the job matching services?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): They are certainly relevant and the reason is a reduction in salary. Will anyone work after salary reduction? Chairman, will you still take up the post as Chairman if I reduce your salary by half? You will not because this is unreasonable. Do you get it?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I still do not get how your remarks are relevant to the SLS.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): How come you still do not get it after I have given the explanation? Are you pretending to be a fool? You are not that stupid. Subsequent to an artificial salary reduction, workers chose not to go to work. They wanted to, but are unable to make ends meet, so why would they go to work? Workers are aware of their contribution, but the repeated reduction in salary has prompted them to quit their jobs in protest. Going back to the "Social and personal services", many of the employees are women …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Then why do you propose to deduct the estimated expenditure for the SLS?
10556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Some people have deliberately reduced supply and urged for the importation of foreign workers on the excuse of insufficient supply. Is this not cruel? "Lantern hung from tall flagpole only shed light on others but none on itself." I have said this before, do you remember? I have cited this example for illustration a few months ago. However, as I am aware, examples that are not colloquial are incomprehensible. While lantern hung from long flagpole can light up distant places, it is dark beneath it. As such, people carrying water buckets may easily kick the rocks. Given that the lantern only lights up distant places, it facilitates surprise attacks.
In fact, we should not blame the staff, but I have no idea where the salary reduction should apply. Is this not a waste of time? While there are significant growth in both GDP and tax revenue, why is it that workers of certain trades have declined to work due to salary reduction? Chairman, there is another thing that I must report to you. You may not know because you have not joined any panel. Although the Government has introduced home-based child care and child care services, women do not earn much from this, and coupled with the need to deal with many vexatious problems, they would rather not go to work. On the contrary, construction workers who make money with their sweat and blood have amply job opportunities. I know some bar-benders whose schedules are full. What is the problem then? It is a pity that Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok is not present today for he would certainly cry aloud. The current situation is like some greedy people at a buffet, who ends up either die of overeating or starve to death. The construction industry is the hardest hit, workers suffer from poor training, low-paid on-the-job training, low social status and lack of security. Despite the fact that construction workers risk their lives to work and are said to be carrying the future of Hong Kong on their shoulders by building homes for us, they have been poorly treated.
Chairman, a friend who joined me in the Occupy Central movement has already resumed working. He is a bar-bender who works 26 days a month and earns more than $50,000. Many people envy him.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please focus your speech on the amendment relating to the SLS.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10557
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Why don't you allow me to quote examples? The current problem is a shortage of bar-benders, which necessitated the importation of foreign workers. Do you know that the construction industry is the hardest hit? Chairman, you have listened to numerous debates on the construction of public housing estates in this Chamber. The problem cannot be resolved even if there is land, not to mention that land is not available. Land is not available because "Long Hair" has undermined the authorities' efforts to identify land. Thus, if "Long Hair" again undermines the authorities' efforts to import foreign workers such that construction work cannot be carried out on the available land, he should be blamed once again. If I do not defend for myself, who would defend for me?
Chairman, why is the construction industry the hardest hit? Firstly, training is tough and the pay does not commensurate with the efforts made. Secondly, although construction workers may earn an admirable income of more than $50,000, I wonder if Members still remember a very sad incident which has triggered a strike of bar-benders in 2007. Due to the sudden contraction of the construction industry a few years after the reunification, all bar-benders failed to make ends meet. The current situation is partly attributable to the Government. Why does it insist to take forward so many projects at one time?
Chairman, since I have already mentioned the cost overrun of the nine major infrastructure projects, I am not going to talk about it again so as not to be scolded. Chairman, if Yung Kee only has one roast goose left, but both you and I want to buy one, do you think Yung Kee will raise the price? The logic is very simple. The Government has not prioritized or considered those projects, but simply reiterated that the construction costs would definitely go up. But is this bound to happen? Is it impossible for deflation to set in? Will the price of construction materials not adjust downward? Under such policies, workers are either die of overeating or starve to death, because the fact is, even if the small contractors receive any order, there is no worker to work for them due to the lack of long-term planning by the Government. Chairman, we used to build 20 000 to 30 000 public housing units every year. This provided steady job opportunities for the workers, who thus had clear daily work schedules. Jobs are always available in view of the unlimited livelihood-related works. If some 5 000 elderly people died while waiting for places of residential care homes, the Government should take time to build such homes, right? If there are not enough schools, it should take time to build schools. If there are not enough public housing units, it should take time to build public housing estates. The nine major infrastructure projects have not brought any benefit to local people, 10558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 only multi-national companies will benefit. Despite the high costs, the projects do not help to improve the community at all, nor are they sustainable upon completion.
Chairman, if I were the Chief Executive, I would not build infrastructure that is not urgently needed. According to the experiences from different parts of the world, these "white elephant" projects would only bring tears once the economy experiences a downturn. Chairman, this may happen to us. I want to give the Government a piece of advice. If the Government can proceed with the projects in an orderly manner ― not disorderly ― the problem can be resolved. So long as the Government proceeds with the projects in an orderly manner, the demand and supply of labour force can be estimated. Taking forward the nine major projects at one time has pushed up material costs, and invited consultancy firms and grass-roots workers to ask for sky-high prices. Chairman, the situation is alarming. As regards the employment of high-pay foreign professionals, it does not seem to be a concern for many people. After all, this is the law of the jungle which would be handled by the companies concerned. However, Chairman, I am aware that many people are complaining. The son of my friend, who is an architect, complained that he cannot find a job. I am not going to talk about this for the time being, but will focus on workers. The middle class will have to take care of themselves.
By taking forward a number of projects at one time, the Government has created a strong demand. Actually, these are vanity projects to make money. Fearing that it may not be able to carry out the projects once it loses power, the Government is anxious to take them forward expeditiously. But has the Government thought about the local workers and small contractors? No, it has not. The proposal to spend $1.96 million to employ three Labour Officer Grade staff for enhancing the processing and vetting of applications under the SLS merely serves window-dressing purpose, and is tantamount to "getting water with a bamboo basket", rendering all efforts in vain. By the time foreign workers arrive at Hong Kong, the projects would be nearly completed. Will this not leave behind a "hot potato"?
Chairman, do not think I am a fool. I may be a bit stupid, but I am sensible and sympathetic, and will always consider from the perspective of grass-roots people before taking any action. I am not saying that the grassroots are of paramount importance, but in order to foster empowerment, it is essential for the grassroots to know how the community operates. No community should LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015 10559 devote such considerable amount of public money to blindly construct so many infrastructures. Rather, it should create some constructive posts at the grass-roots level. Chairman, this is my personal view.
The Government said that no one is willing to operate residential care homes or no one is willing to take care of the elderly, not even Filipino maids can manage to do so. I nonetheless think that the Government should better mind its own business. The hourly wage of home-based child carers is $19 only, is this very ridiculous? I do not want to mention the six major out-and-out damned industries because even initiatives at the Government's disposal has been turned into a mess. Chairman, I therefore think that you should run in the Chief Executive election. You have exercised sound management here, and would stop me whenever I make mistakes. Thus, it would be a blessing if you run in the Chief Executive election. When you notice any irregularity, you will say, "Sorry, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, I will 'fire' you if you continue to behave like that." The Chairman should run in the Chief Executive election while I would consider if I should "pocket it first". Chairman, I am just kidding and I will say no more.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am wondering if I should speak. What do you think?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, do you wish to speak?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I am wondering if I should speak as there are too few Members present. If I request a headcount, the meeting will be extended beyond the meeting time 15 minutes later, and this is why I hesitate to speak. Chairman, you decide for me.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
10560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 14 May 2015
SUSPENSION OF MEETING
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The meeting will now be suspended to 9 am tomorrow.
Suspended accordingly at 7.46 pm.