LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1071

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 5 November 2020

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1072 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG*

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI*

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG*

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

* According to the announcement made by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government on 11 November 2020 pursuant to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Issues Relating to the Qualification of the Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Kenneth LEUNG, KWOK Ka-ki, Dennis KWOK Wing-hang and Alvin YEUNG were disqualified from being members of the Legislative Council on 30 July 2020. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1073

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG*

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

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

* According to the announcement made by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government on 11 November 2020 pursuant to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Issues Relating to the Qualification of the Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Kenneth LEUNG, KWOK Ka-ki, Dennis KWOK Wing-hang and Alvin YEUNG were disqualified from being members of the Legislative Council on 30 July 2020. 1074 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

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

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

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

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

MEMBERS ABSENT:

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

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

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1075

PUBLIC OFFICER ATTENDING:

DR RAYMOND SO WAI-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING, AND SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL 1076 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Second Reading of Government Bills

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We now resume the Second Reading debate on the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019. Mr WU Chi-wai, please speak.

FREIGHT CONTAINERS (SAFETY) (AMENDMENT) BILL 2019

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 23 October 2019

(Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, what is your point of order?

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has requested a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members did not return to their seats)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats. Mr WU Chi-wai, please speak.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1077

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, actually, the ultimate logic underlying the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") is to standardize the requirements for testing and inspecting containers, as well as to prescribe the procedures of their maintenance, examination and control for safe transportation, in accordance with the ratified International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention").

All countries should, in truth, fulfil their joint responsibilities under the Convention to ensure consistency of all safety standards for international transport, thereby also ensuring that the basic requirements for maritime safety are met as a whole. However, as we see that it has taken so long for the Administration to get to today's legislative process since the adoption of the resolutions on the Convention in 2010 and 2012, it is certainly worth exploring the underlying causes. As Mr Frankie YICK also mentioned yesterday, this situation reflects that the Government often finds itself behind the curve when dealing with some provisions of international conventions that require our implementation and even in dealing with many issues of the transport industry. I do not feel necessary to describe in detail the crux of this phenomenon here, but objectively, the actual performance seems to reflect that the Government has neither done its best in managing the issues concerned, nor properly met the due diligence requirements, rendering it impossible for international agreements to be implemented in Hong Kong as soon as possible.

I notice the Administration's indication in its paper that the delay in legislative amendment is not a problem, and the presented reasons actually rely very much on the fact that Hong Kong is an international city. Shipping activities often involve international interactions, but since other countries and regions have already implemented the Convention and international shipping companies have already fulfilled the new requirements, there will not be a big problem even if Hong Kong delays the legislative amendment. This logic is highly problematic indeed, because if we are to implement an international convention, of course the sooner the better, otherwise why should we be one of the signatory cities? This aside, let us take a look at Hong Kong's neighbours. Macao, for instance, incorporated the resolutions concerned into its legislation back in 2014. From this perspective, can we say that the Macao Government works more efficiently and effectively than the Hong Kong Government? This argument is untenable. We should not forget either that the Transport and Housing Bureau ("THB") set up a task force to deal with marine legislation back in 2014 and one supernumerary post of Deputy Principal Government Counsel 1078 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 was created to steer the work from 2014 to 2019. However, the problem of backlog in maritime legislation remains unresolved. I very much hope that the Secretary, while listening to Members' views here, contemplates what has really happened. Would the fundamental problem be that THB already has an enormous workload itself, so much so that even though this is its duty, it still accords a lower priority to dealing with the problem, thus allowing the problem to drag on for 8 or even 10 years and still remain unresolved?

In fact, we still have the Merchant Shipping (Limitation of Liability for Carriage of Passengers and Luggage by Sea) Bill in the pipeline. The relevant convention was amended back in 2002 but it will not be dealt with until next year. Does this clearly reflect a default in obligations and a lack of diligence on the part of the authorities in dealing with the relevant issues? The Government should seriously review whether it is best to place all maritime legislation under the purview of THB. Should it re-examine the relevant work arrangements, considering that they involve one of the quite important pillars of Hong Kong, namely logistics, as well as issues relating to international freight and passenger transport? If all these issues are left to THB and the Bureau takes them half-heartedly, it will have an impact on the future and economy of the whole society of Hong Kong, and for that matter, the advancement of shipping policy. Therefore, should the Government right wrongs by entrusting them to the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau ("CEDB")? It is because CEDB was also responsible for the decision-making process in this respect before 2008 …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please return to the subject of this debate, i.e. the subject of the resumed Second Reading debate on the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I got it, sorry. I will quickly brief on the relevant circumstances, because …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have spent a lot of time speaking about the Bureau's problems and also made a very clear explanation. Please return to the subject of this debate.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1079

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): No problem. I have just mentioned the Bureau's own problems. Now, I come back to the specific circumstances that will be encountered when the Bill is put into practice. At present, section 7 of the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance already provides that an approval issued in a country or place outside Hong Kong which has acceded to the Convention in respect of a container may also be accepted in Hong Kong. In other words, just as in the case of many other maritime laws, a large proportion of containers in Hong Kong may already meet the requirements of the new local legislation, so the impact of the new legislation on the industry may not be significant. This is also exactly why the Administration has always considered that there is no big problem doing nothing about it. However, we do not know if any containers will actually be manufactured in Hong Kong and thus need to be examined locally every year, or if some containers with respect to which approvals have originally been issued in foreign countries have been modified for certain reasons and thus need to be re-examined for safety in Hong Kong.

In accordance with the Ordinance, the Marine Department ("MD") has currently appointed a total of four organizations, i.e. Bureau Veritas, China Classification Society, Korean Register of Shipping and RINA Services SpA, as authorized persons to perform the function of issuing approvals in respect of individual containers. So, if the Bill is passed, how many containers does the Government anticipate to be examined in Hong Kong each year? Does the capacity of the ship survey organizations commissioned by MD meet the requirements of the new legislation? Will additional workload be generated from the service as a result?

The second issue that I think needs addressing is the display of safety approval plates ("SAPs") as required by the Bill. Apart from safety issues, the Bill also provides for new requirements in relation to the display of SAPs, requiring that the SAP must be marked in accordance with the requirements set out in the Convention. The Bill also provides for additional requirements requiring SAPs of containers with limited stacking or racking capacity to be marked in a specific manner. However, clause 7 of the Bill provides a quasi-exemption from the new requirements for the display of SAPs, namely by amending section 10(2)(a)(i) to provide that if the construction of a container was completed before 1 July 2014 and no structural modification has ever been made to the container, it is not subject to the aforesaid new requirements, but must still meet the requirements in Schedule 2 as in force immediately before the commencement date of the Ordinance.

1080 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

The Bill is not very long, and Schedule 2 "Safety Approval Plate" occupies one of the eight pages of the Bill, which means that Schedule 2 is also a very important part of the context, but then why has the Government proposed an exemption. Seen from this perspective, will this exemption create a huge loophole or difficulty in the whole approach to examination of containers?

In fact, there is indeed no such thing as identification markings on containers. In our eyes, the containers out there are generally 20-foot or 40-foot containers, similar in both colour and appearance. However, if an exemption mechanism is in place during the inspection, how can we ensure that a container exempted under the mechanism still has clear markings to show its compliance? This raises yet another big question. On what basis exactly has the Government decided that containers completed before July 2014 can be exempted? What is the difference between the containers built in the period 2014 to 2020 (i.e. the present year, when this ordinance is enacted) and those built earlier? This is also what the Administration needs to answer us.

The Bill also addresses the issue of container safety by requiring containers to be affixed with compliant markings, as required by the international organization's resolutions, so that they can be easily identified and arranged at the top of a stack of containers.

The reference material provided by the Government mentions that the Director of Marine ("DM") is empowered to appoint recognized organizations to examine containers―this has been mentioned just now―while MD monitors compliance in general, including by conducting inspections of containers on board vessels. Nevertheless, since no Bills Committee has been formed to discuss the Bill, we do not know whether MD inspects only containers on board vessels. How, exactly, should containers be placed at a container terminal or the cargo yards and container depots in its vicinity? Is this MD's responsibility and scope of work? If this is the case and there is no specification in the Bill, is the inspection limited to containers on board vessels but not allowed beyond the confines of vessels? If so, would it give rise to some problems in terms of safety?

An issue of greater public concern is that there are many brownfields stuffed with containers in the New Territories, is MD responsible for law enforcement in this area? According to the reference material, DM could declare in writing that an approval is no longer valid if the container does not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1081 comply with any of the requirements of the Ordinance, but the Ordinance provides for the power to inspect containers on board vessels. Then, in the case of containers on brownfields, how can DM declare that an approval is no longer valid? The Administration has yet to give an explanation in this regard. Besides, the issue of occupational safety is also a cause for public concern.

Lastly, I would like to point out that the Bill also involves a very important law drafting process in which the Administration has adopted a direct reference approach to replace the current Schedule with the Annex. Except for a few new elements, such as the testing of containers approved for operation with one door open or removed, there is not much difference between the Schedule and the Convention. While both set out the criteria for different tests, and most of the amendments are made to the details of wording and measurements, why is it impossible to amend the Schedule to implement an international convention?

In fact, as I have just added, Macao amended legislation back in 2014 by means of amendment to the Schedule, and the whole Bill, of which I also have a copy of the Chinese version, is only about 10 pages long. Nevertheless, not only have we adopted a direct reference approach instead of amending the Schedule, but there is not even a Chinese translation. Bilingualism is practised in Hong Kong and our Chinese law drafting is part and parcel of it. Against this backdrop, why is it non-existent? Why is there no need to submit it to us? Why has a direct reference approach been adopted? We, as Legislative Council Members, monitor the Government. When we find any problems with the amendments but have no scope for dealing with them, this is also something worth our contemplation.

The narrative advanced by Mr Frankie YICK yesterday is that he thinks it would be better for the Administration to adopt some "beautifully efficient" means, and he supports doing so. However, the thing is, from the objective perspective, this approach to law drafting reduces the power of the Legislative Council to ask the Administration further questions about the issue and even to amend the content. If this approach is put into practice, should the Administration also explain under what circumstances a direct reference is necessary? Under what circumstances should it address the issue by means of amending the Schedule? Could the Administration advise us about any criteria? If there are no criteria, and the legislation provides that even in the case of a direct reference, DM will be empowered to take a selective approach in which a certain part can be identified as applicable or inapplicable, then, in other words, the 1082 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 adoption of a direct reference approach does not mean replication of the whole lot, and instead, additional powers to exercise discretion and grant exemptions will be given to DM. If this is the case, how should DM exercise the powers during the process to ensure that what he implements and enforces complies with our social rules and is considered reasonable and fitting by Hong Kong society at large? On the other hand, what means does the Administration have to enable the co-existence of transparency therein and a checks-and-balances mechanism? This approach will mire the legislature in numerous difficulties during the scrutiny while revealing the Administration's application of contradictory logic to the concept of direct reference.

Therefore, regarding this part, despite the small number of amendments this time, there is already a big question mark on the content about direct reference alone in the context of the Bill as a whole. (The buzzer sounded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please immediately stop speaking.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, regarding the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), there are a few main points I would like to discuss.

From a macro perspective, it is a well-known fact that Articles 124 to 127 of the Basic Law have established Hong Kong's position as an international shipping hub. As stipulated in Article 124 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong's previous systems of shipping management and shipping regulation―the Bill is precisely about the systems of shipping management and shipping regulation―shall maintain. In a broad sense, the second significance of the amendments proposed in the Bill is that Hong Kong can join international economic and trade organizations just as stated in Section 1 under Chapter V of the Basic Law. The International Maritime Organization ("IMO") belongs to this type of economic and trade organizations.

Having spoken about the significance in a board sense, I wish to point out that a number of Members have previously touched upon the major principle of the Bill in their speeches. Here, I am not going to repeat it. President, I will not use up my 15-minute speaking time. These amendments stem from two LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1083 resolutions adopted by IMO in 2010 and 2013 respectively: First, introduction of new requirements on information to be marked on the safety approval plates ("SAPs") of containers; and second, standardization of terms and units of physical measurements to be used on the SAPs of containers. The Bill also proposes amendments to the procedures for testing the structural safety of containers, which are procedural in nature.

There are three points I wish to discuss. First, as the Member has just queried, why did it take a long time for the Transport and Housing Bureau to submit the proposed amendments in the Bill to the Legislative Council for resumption of the Second Reading debate and the Third Reading? I hope the Under Secretary can give me an answer to this later. Second, given that these amendments stem from the resolutions of IMO, I think it would have been unnecessary to take a long time for the amendments in the Bill to come into force in Hong Kong.

President, please let me use some time to discuss how international rules and regulations are incorporated into our local legislation. Firstly, if Hong Kong has entered into a bilateral tax agreement with a foreign place, the authorities will follow the established procedures―by means of subsidiary legislation―to incorporate the relevant contents into the primary legislation of Hong Kong. I believe the President also knows clearly that another situation concerns our need to incorporate the sanctions decided by the United Nations into the local legislation from time to time. The Legislative Council will set up a subcommittee to scrutinize the relevant subsidiary legislation.

Since freight―not only sea freight, but also air freight―involves numerous international agreements, I think the effective way to deal with the relevant legislative amendments is not adopting a direct reference approach. My proposal to the Government is that it should adopt the procedures whereby subsidiary legislation is passed, so as to enable those technical amendments to be handled more effectively and efficiently, thereby expediting the incorporation of the amendments to the relevant international agreements into the legislation of Hong Kong. If the Secretary adopts my proposal, I hope that he will think about what amendments are required to be incorporate into the subsidiary legislation.

President, the Legislative Council can also set up a standing subcommittee dedicated to the scrutiny of amendments to the international agreements involving sea, air or land freight―there is probably no international organization relating to 1084 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 land freight―which will affect Hong Kong's legislation. This will be better than having a vacuum period of several years (nearly seven to eight years). As far as I know, vessel owners and people in the container handling industry will, of course, automatically follow the code of practice of the industry and the international safety standards in their operation. But if there is a vacuum period, I am not sure how law enforcement should be done then.

President, there is one more point that I wish to highlight. Please allow me to discuss this delicate issue concerning safety. A proposal in the Bill is to require the SAPs of containers with limited stacking or racking capacity to be conspicuously marked in a standardized manner. This means containers must be fixed with easily identifiable and conspicuous markings if they have limited racking capacity. So, where should the relevant markings be arranged? At the top of a stack of containers. The incorporation of this safety requirement is necessary, but the problem is that this amendment is unable to enhance the factor of safety factors in container terminal operation because it is merely about labelling after all.

President, a number of container-related accidents actually did not happen on vessels. May I know whether the safety standard stipulated in the Bill is applicable to containers on vessels? When a container has left the vessel and is loaded onto a container truck, will the safety standard concerning containers on vessels as stipulated in the Bill remain in force during the transportation by road in Hong Kong? My answer is: No. If there are two separate standards for containers on land and those at sea, I think the industry will be confused.

President, I propose that this safety standard should apply across the board. I hope that the Bureau will consider across-the-board application of the safety standard proposed in the Bill to sea freight containers and land freight containers. Just let me cite two simple examples. In July 2014, a serious accident involving a gantry crane took place, while in 2018, during the onslaught of Typhoon Mangkhut on Hong Kong, the strong wind blew down a good many containers within the land area of Tuen Mun River Trade Terminal. Fortunately, with nobody around then, it caused no casualty. I think the relevant safety standard should apply across the board to both sea freight and land freight containers.

President, as I stated at the beginning of my speech, I will not use up my speaking time.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1085

With these remarks, President, I request a headcount according to the Rules of Procedure.

Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (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)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members, as I pointed out in my letter to all of you dated 28 October, at present, the progress of the Legislative Council meetings have been unsatisfactory, with unnecessary delays caused by some Members.

During yesterday's meeting which was about seven hours long, Members made 12 headcount requests in total, wasting almost three hours' time. The meeting was even adjourned once due to a lack of quorum, which wasted one hour of the meeting time. Even for the meeting this morning which has just gone on for some 40 minutes, Members have already requested for a headcount twice, wasting over 20 minutes. As I noticed so far, nearly half of the time of the Second Reading debate on this Bill has been spent on headcounts. I think Members have failed to make good use of the Council's time for the debate.

As the President, I have the responsibility to ensure that the meeting is conducted in an orderly, fair and proper manner, and strike a right balance between respecting Members' right and ensuring the effective operation of the Legislative Council. Considering all the relevant factors, and with the power to preside over meetings which is vested with the President under Article 72(1) of the Basic Law, I have now decided to end this Second Reading debate around 11:00 am, and then call upon the Secretary to speak. After that, I will put the motion for the Second Reading of the Bill to vote.

To make the best use of the Council's time, if I find a Member has digressed from the subject or kept repeating his own argument or that of the others, I will stop him from speaking.

1086 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

I also call on Members to stay in the Chamber by all means and keep the speeches concise.

Mr Alvin YEUNG, please speak.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, you have just demonstrated how extensive the President's power is. Basically, the President has the power to freely control the Council meeting time. In fact, under such circumstances―mind you, I am not starting a debate about it. I am praising you, President, I mean, praising …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, please stop commenting on my decision.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Am I not allowed even to praise you?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I do not need your praise either. If you do not return to the subject of this Second Reading debate, I will stop you from speaking. Please return to the subject of this debate.

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, what is your point of order?

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, as I noticed, six Members are still waiting for their turn to speak. In fact, regarding this subject matter, the views expressed by many Members just now are all about … I have noticed that all the views expressed by Members during the debate are relevant to this Bill. President, what you have done … Though you have the power, what you have done is undermining the powers conferred to our legislature by the Basic Law …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1087

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, this is not a point of order. You are questioning my ruling. Please sit down.

Mr Alvin YEUNG, do you wish to speak?

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): This Bill is so important that I definitely wish to speak about it.

(Mr HUI Chi-fung indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, what is your point of order?

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): President, I will not debate with you about your ruling, because it is not subject to debate. But I still wish to point out that the royalist camp is to blame for the abortions of meetings. They did not sit still. The abortions of meetings were not due to our requests for headcounts. The presence of a quorum is a requirement under the Basic Law, so I urge you to advise Members of the royalist camp to sit still.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, this is not a point of order. Please sit down.

Mr Alvin YEUNG, do you wish to continue with your speech?

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): I will speak. Having a script with me, why would I not wish to speak? I will speak slowly.

President, I must first get on to the subject, lest you may say that I have digressed. I certainly understand that this Bill is very technical …

(Dr Fernando CHEUNG indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

1088 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, what is your point of order?

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, a point of order. I noted that just now, you already set a time limit for the debate and stated that you were empowered by Article 72(1) of the Basic Law to set a time limit for debates. But I fail to see that Article 72(1) of the Basic Law confers on you an overriding power to disregard the Rules of Procedure …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not a point of order. If you think that I have acted ultra vires, you may challenge my decision through other channels.

Mr Alvin YEUNG, please continue with your speech.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): The technical nature of this ordinance does not imply that there is no room for debate. Certainly, enacting local legislation for the latest amendments to an international convention is nothing controversial in principle. In fact, there is nothing to dispute about it, unless Hong Kong withdraws from the international convention concerned. Nevertheless, as the purpose of this Second Reading debate is to discuss the general merits of the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), we ought to give our comments on the shortcomings in the way the Administration handles the Bill as well as all the marine-related legislation.

Members who have read the Legislative Council Brief will know that the Government's proposed Bill stems from the amendments made to the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention") by the International Maritime Organization ("IMO") on two occasions. Members should note that the effective dates of the amendments made on these two occasions were 1 January 2012 and 1 July 2014 respectively. In other words, the new requirements of the Convention have actually come into force since as early as eight years ago and six years ago respectively. Mind you, it was not until 16 April 2019 that the Executive Council recommended submitting the relevant amendments to this Council for scrutiny. President, what was going on?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1089

Right, we certainly know that the Convention is an international convention. That means shipping companies have long since conducted their business according to the new requirements of the Convention even when Hong Kong has not yet enacted domestic legislation correspondingly, because other countries may have already enacted legislation for the Convention when Hong Kong has not yet done so. As businesspersons, they should definitely comply with the latest requirements, lest their import and export of containers be affected. While Hong Kong is an important international shipping hub, why has the SAR Government delayed the enactment of local legislation for such a long time? Has this been forgotten or regarded as unimportant?

Of course, some Members, especially those of the royalist camp, will claim that our filibusters, our various moves, the social movements and so on are the reasons causing the long delay in the submission of the Bill to this Council until late 2020. Wait, it was in April 2019 that the Executive Council recommended enacting the legislation. There was no social movement before that, right? What was the Government doing back then?

The SAR Government has the responsibility to react more promptly to the updates on this type of international conventions. I am not going to make a comparison with other places but the People's Republic of China whose Ministry of Transport issued an announcement concerning the entry into force of the amendments to the 1972 International Convention for Safe Containers: (I quote) "China is a contracting party to the 1972 International Convention for Safe Containers and has not raised any objection to the aforementioned amendments after their were adopted. The amendments are thus binding on China. The Chinese version of the amendments is hereby announced for your compliance and implementation." (or words to the same effect) (End of quote). This official announcement was issued on 26 May 2014. In other words, our Motherland had already done what was needed one-odd month before the amendments concerned came into force.

If you do not have the guts to compare with our country, just compare with our neighbouring city then! Have a look at Macao―when did it make a response? Here, let me quote the Macao Special Administrative Region Gazette: "At its 92nd Session held on 21 June 2013, the Maritime Safety Committee of the International Maritime Organization adopted amendments to the International Convention for Safe Containers through Resolution MSC.355(92). The amendments entered into force in the international legal 1090 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 order, including the People's Republic of China and Macao Special Administrative Region, on 1 July 2014. On this basis, the Chief Executive orders the publication of the official text of Resolution MSC.355(92) of the Maritime Safety Committee of the International Maritime Organization in Chinese and English languages pursuant to the requirements under section 6(1) of Law no. 3/1999 'Publication and format of rules and regulations'." (or words to the same effect). Issued on 10 July 2017, this official bulletin came a little later than the announcement of our Motherland but some two years earlier than Hong Kong's enactment of legislation concerning the Convention. It means that Macao is two years faster than Hong Kong in terms of administrative efficiency.

President, may I ask you to ask Mr Paul TSE, Chairman of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, who is next to me to behave according to the Rules of Procedure, i.e. keeping his mouth shut while another Member is speaking?

President, let me continue with the question I raised just now. The SAR Government … President, I do not know whether Mr Paul TSE wishes to debate with me. Could you please ask him about it?

(Mr Paul TSE spoke aloud in his seat)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, please stop speaking aloud in your seat.

Mr Alvin YEUNG, you have already spent considerable time elaborating on how the SAR Government handles this Bill. Please return to the subject of this debate, i.e. the subject of the resumed Second Reading debate on the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Am I really not speaking about this Bill?

President, I strongly agree that you are an impartial and unselfish President. You are absolutely the cleverest President. But if you had listened to what I spoke about just now, you would have known that I was citing examples and elaborating my arguments with reasons. What does elaboration mean? You probably …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1091

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, please return to the subject of this debate, that is to debate the general merits of the Bill.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): I have always focused my speech on this Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): What you have just spoken about concerns how the Government has handled this Bill. You may discuss this subject on other occasions.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Are there really other occasions?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You may discuss it at Panel meetings. Just now, I gave the same reminder to Mr WU Chi-wai, and he returned to the subject of this debate on my advice. If you do not come back to the subject of this debate, I will stop you from speaking.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, okay, no problem. Both my "spirit" and "body" have always stayed in this Chamber, though.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Actually, a number of Members have already mentioned the arguments discussed by you just now. Please return to the subject of this debate.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Okay, no problem. Let us just shift our focus from the time of the introduction of the legislation to staff establishment.

The Establishment Subcommittee paper EC(2013-14)13 shows that as early as in early 2014, an application was made by the SAR Government to this Council for the creation of one post of Deputy Principal Government Counsel in the Department of Justice to head a dedicated legal team to take forward the outstanding marine-related legislative amendment exercises.

1092 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

Paragraph 11 of the document back then stated: (I quote) "When these conventions are amended, Hong Kong is obliged to reflect the latest changes to these conventions in our local legislation if new legislative provisions are required for the purpose of their domestic implementation.", and paragraph 12 wrote: "We have been lagging behind in updating a number of local legislation to bring them into line with the latest requirements under the relevant international conventions." (End of quote) In other words, while seeking to create the post, the Government described itself as lagging behind in its work with a legislation backlog, thus having an urgent need to create the post. Within one month (on 7 February 2014), the Finance Committee already granted approval to the proposal for the creation of the post.

There was nothing to blame back then, right? There was no filibustering then. Even the Legislative Council paper has pointed out that the amendments to the Convention will not have much impact policy-wise, and the Bill just seeks to adopt a direct reference approach in implementing the amendments to the Convention. Such a simple legislative amendment exercise―with a new post created and the direct reference approach to be adopted―has taken seven years to get fixed and ready for submission to this Council. Is it because the dedicated team has been slow in their work? Or they should … What has gone wrong? Perhaps the Government should tell us … Will Under Secretary Dr SO please share with us later whether there was any reason for the SAR Government to act that way? Or were there some internal problems that it was unable to resolve itself?

If the Convention is as important as stated; if maintaining the status as an international shipping hub is as important as claimed, I really cannot see any reason why the SAR Government has spent so many years dealing with the simple technical amendments to an international convention. What is more, this Council has approved funding for the creation of a new post, but why has the relevant work not been done properly?

President, it is not my original intention to speak this much and to speak this long. Raising the point just now, I simply intend to prove and to elaborate on what a lousy job the SAR Government has done with justification, thereby expressing strong criticisms against it.

I understand that you, President, probably seldom engage in a debate. This is what a debate is like: presenting justification and making elaboration. That is it.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1093

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, at the meeting of the Executive Council on 16 April 2019, the Executive Council advised and the Chief Executive ordered that the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") should be introduced into the Legislative Council. Subsequently, the Administration submitted the Bill to this Council on 23 October in the same year.

At the meeting of the House Committee on 8 May 2020, Members agreed to form a Bills Committee to study the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bills Committee"). Under rule 21(b) of the House Rules, a Bills Committee shall consist of not less than three Members. But after expiry of the deadline for the signification of membership of the Bills Committee, less than three Members had signified their intention to join the Bills Committee, thus the proposed Bills Committee was unable to be established. In the meeting of the House Committee on 29 May, Members agreed to rescind the House Committee's earlier decision to form a Bills Committee to study the Bill, and Members had no objection to the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill.

Nonetheless, it does not mean that the legislative proposal has not been discussed by Members because the Administration consulted the Panel on Economic Development on 26 November 2018 and Members of the Panel supported the legislative proposal.

President, to facilitate the international transport of containers, the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention") was promulgated by the International Maritime Organization ("IMO") to standardize the requirements for testing and inspecting containers, as well as to prescribe the procedures of their maintenance, examination and control for safe transportation. In accordance with the Convention, any container used for international transport must be affixed with a valid safety approval plate ("SAP") issued by a Contracting Party to the Convention or its recognized organizations. Each SAP contains a required set of information relating to the container, including the country of approval, the container's manufacturing date and its maximum weight-carrying capability.

President, the Convention came into force in 1977 and is implemented in Hong Kong through the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance (Cap. 506) ("the Ordinance") and its four pieces of subsidiary legislation. Under the current arrangement, the Director of Marine in Hong Kong is empowered to appoint recognized organizations to examine, test and approve containers, while the 1094 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

Marine Department monitors compliance in general by conducting inspections of containers on board vessels. The Director of Marine could declare in writing that an approval is no longer valid if the container does not comply with any of the requirements of the Ordinance. However, since IMO will update the specific requirements in the Convention from time to time, the Administration needs to make corresponding amendments to local legislation on a timely basis in order to implement the latest requirements promulgated by IMO. The Bill seeks to incorporate into local legislation the requirements of two latest IMO resolutions on the Convention.

President, what major amendments are involved in the Bill? The first thing Members should understand is that all the amendments are subsequent to the two resolutions on the Convention. The first resolution was adopted in December 2010 and came into force on 1 January 2012. Under that resolution, IMO introduced new requirements on information to be marked on the SAPs of containers, such as the marking of containers with limited stacking capacity. IMO also prescribed new safety test procedures for containers, such as specific tests for containers approved for operation with one door open or removed, as well as new control measures and specific guidelines for the examination and assessment of the structural safety and integrity of a container.

The second resolution was adopted in June 2013 and came into force on 1 July 2014. Under the resolution, IMO standardized the terms and units of physical measurement to be used on the SAP of containers and amended the detailed testing procedures for examining the structural safety of containers in order to enhance the safety in the stacking, loading and lifting of containers. Given that many marine-related international agreements, including the requirements in the Convention, are mostly technical in nature and will be updated from time to time; the requirements are clear and specific, widely applicable to all Contracting Parties internationally and of interest to only a specific group of people, it is a standard practice for the Administration to adopt a direct reference approach to apply provisions of international agreements (i.e. the direct reference to provisions of international agreements in local laws), in order to allow local legislation to be up-to-date with the new requirements as far as practicable, and this approach is applicable to the Bill.

In view of the above background, it is easier for us to comprehend the following major amendments proposed in the Bill. First, concerning the specifications for containers with limited stacking capacity. To prevent LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1095 containers from collapsing or being damaged during transport, the Bill requires that the SAPs of containers with limited stacking or racking capacity be conspicuously marked in a standardized manner, so that these containers can be easily identified and arranged at the top of a stack of containers.

Second, regarding the testing procedures and specifications for containers approved for operation with one door open or removed, in view of the fact that in certain special cases, containers may be loaded, stacked and transported with one of its door opened or removed in order to improve ventilation and air circulation inside the container. To ensure the operational and structural safety of these modified containers, the Bill prescribes new testing procedures and marking requirements on the SAPs of such containers.

Moreover, regarding alignment of terms and units of physical measurement to be used on SAPs, to ensure that a uniform set of terms, dimensions and units are used so as to facilitate the international transport of containers, the Bill requires that the physical dimensions and units marked on the SAPs of containers be aligned with the International System of Units. Such changes include replacing the term "weight" with "mass".

President, it is quite obvious that the Bill only introduces some purely technical amendments, but it does not reduce the importance of such amendments. These amendments will help to ensure the effective implementation of the latest requirements promulgated by IMO in Hong Kong and keep local legislation in tandem with the updates of the Convention. At the same time, they will be conducive to helping Hong Kong maintain its competitiveness as an international shipping hub and major container port. According to statistics, the throughput of Hong Kong's container port has reached 18.3 million twenty-foot equivalent units in 2019.

With these remarks, President, I support the passage of the Bill.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, we are conducting the Second Reading debate on the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") today. The Bill is similar to the case of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 (I have also taken part in the debate for this Bill) in that the Administration has deferred the legislative amendment exercise for a long while until now that it proposes to amend the parts as necessary.

1096 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

The proposals to strengthen the regulation of the safety standards for freight containers in the Bill that we are discussing today actually arise from the latest International Maritime Organization ("IMO") resolutions on specifications for safety of freight containers (which came into force in 2012 and 2014 respectively), but it was not until May 2018 that the Government consulted the Port Operations Committee under the Marine Department ("MD"), and only in late November did it consult the Panel on Economic Development of the Legislative Council. It took another year or so before the Bill was officially introduced into the Legislative Council.

President, the Second Reading of the Bill by the Council is now in progress. Last week, I wrote to you, the President of the Legislative Council, to express my understanding of Second Reading. According to Rule 54(3) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), a debate covering the general merits and principles of the Bill is conducted at the stage of Second Reading. Therefore, the general merits of the bill in question and its technical, policy and political issues can be fully discussed at the stage of Second Reading.

Next, I am going to express my views on the Bill in terms of its technical and policy aspects. I would like to take the Bill under discussion as an example to explore a policy issue, that is, why the introduction of technical amendments, which is as simple as transcribing the amendments in the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention") into local legislation, has been delayed for as long as six to eight years? As in the case of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 that we discussed last week, it is obvious that this is not only the problem of individual departments, but rather, the entire Government seems to be taking a long time to make technical amendments to the legislation or plug the legal loopholes in most cases. What on earth has gone wrong?

In March 2016, President, the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council approved the creation of a Deputy Principal Government Counsel ("DPGC") supernumerary post in the Law Drafting Division of the Department of Justice ("DoJ") to continue with the outstanding marine-related legislative amendments and updating of marine-related legislation. Yet, the term of this post already expired in May 2019. What is the current establishment of DoJ? How is the work of marine-related legislative amendments distributed among its staff? I hope the Government can respond to this point later on.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1097

Besides, President, there is also the technical issue―the authorities may have noticed―that is, the Bill proposes to add clause 10 to empower the Secretary for Transport and Housing to make subsidiary legislation in relation to the new international agreements adopted by IMO. It is written as "列出或直接 提述" in the Chinese text of the clause and "set out, or refer directly" (which means to set out or directly refer to the contents of the relevant agreement in the provisions of the legislation) in the English text. In other words, when IMO updates some of the standards or requirements in the Convention, the Administration need not draft a separate bill accordingly to give effect to the relevant agreement in Hong Kong but, by adopting the simple way mentioned above, it can make stakeholders comply with the relevant requirements instead.

This is undoubtedly a more expedient approach as some of the new requirements of IMO can be implemented in Hong Kong as early as possible after adding this clause. Similar provisions can also be found in the Merchant Shipping (Safety) Ordinance and the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) Ordinance. However, I would like to point out in the first place that the wording used in the two ordinances concerning merchant shipping which I have just mentioned is "列 明或直接引述", while "列出或直接引述" is used in both the Bill we are now discussing as well as the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources Bill, which was read the Third time and passed in January 2019. The English versions of the phrase in the four pieces of legislation are identical, namely "set out, or refer directly", whereas there are two different versions in the Chinese texts. Is there any difference between "列明" and "列出"? If there is no difference in meaning, why not standardize the wording by adopting the one used in the ordinances concerning merchant shipping (i.e. "列明") for the sake of uniformity?

The law requires uniformity in the use of words. I hope that the Government will refine the wording of the legislation if different words are used due to inadvertence. The uniformity of wording should be maintained particularly when both the Bill we are now discussing and the two ordinances concerning merchant shipping are marine-related. The above is a discussion on the technical aspect of the Bill.

President, another point of concern is: whether adding this clause can really help the SAR Government expedite the implementation of the requirements of IMO so that the current legislative amendment exercise can achieve the objective of the Bill, that is, to "implement the latest requirements of the International 1098 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

Convention for Safe Containers relating to the manufacture, use and examination of freight containers". In the two ordinances concerning merchant shipping that I have mentioned just now, the same provisions have existed for a long time, but they do not seem to have helped solve the backlog problem with marine-related legislative amendments. When the Government sought the Legislative Council's approval in March 2016 for the creation of a DPGC supernumerary post responsible for handling the outstanding marine-related legislative amendments, it had set out those marine-related ordinances (mainly related to merchant shipping) pending actions by the authorities at that time, nearly 30 of which were still under study or being drafted.

President, although most of these legislative amendments are subsidiary legislation, as advised by the Administration in response to Members' enquiries at the meeting of the Establishment Subcommittee ("ESC"), (I quote) "in incorporating the provisions in international conventions into local legislation, the Legal Team had to examine the conventions and local laws carefully to forestall duplications, omissions and legal loopholes. Moreover, considerable time and efforts were required to ensure the compatibility of the proposed amendments with existing legislation and the amendments were enforceable, as well as to work on the Chinese version of the proposed amendments as most international conventions were available in English only." (End of quote) We learn from this example that even with the provision that empowers the Secretary to "set out, or refer directly" the contents of the Convention, the authorities still need to have the manpower and resources required to ensure that the latest provisions and arrangements of the Convention can be implemented in Hong Kong as soon as possible. I hope the Government will tell us later in its response how much manpower and how many resources have been deployed to ensure that the relevant local marine-related legislation can keep pace with international standards.

President, apart from the staff responsible for drafting marine-related legislation in Hong Kong, the Government has also, when consulting the Panel on Economic Development on the legislative amendments proposed to the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") last year, indicated that MD had designated an Assistant Director of Marine as Marine Adviser who is stationed in London on a long-term basis. I think it is noteworthy that MD has arranged for a directorate officer to be stationed in London on a long-term basis and act as Hong Kong's Permanent Representative at all IMO meetings and to report to MD on IMO's decisions. In this regard, we cannot help but wonder: we get the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1099 impression from the Administration's response at the ESC meeting which I quoted earlier that the SAR Government seems to be very passive when it comes to the provisions of the Convention, it seemed only after IMO had made the decision did the Government start to examine and translate the relevant contents before proceeding with the relevant legislative amendment exercise. Is it the case that the Government knows nothing about IMO's decision until then? Since a directorate officer is stationed in London, he should have been aware of the revision of the relevant standards by IMO. Given that he is aware of this, should he not inform the relevant departments of the SAR Government as soon as possible for making the necessary preparations expeditiously instead of waiting until everything has been finalized before taking any action? As Mr Alvin YEUNG has mentioned just now, why is the Government so slow in making responses in this regard when compared with other neighbouring places? I hope the Government can give us an explanation.

Theoretically speaking, the proposed amendments to the marine-related legislation should not have been be made without a cause. Since it is the duty of the Marine Adviser to attend all IMO meetings, he should be aware of the discussions on the revision of the requirements of the safety standards for freight containers, but has he fulfilled his duty by consolidating the salient points of those discussions (including the changes in standards) at IMO meetings and reporting them to the Government in a timely manner? If so, why did the authorities still have to spend so much time on making consequential amendments to local legislation? If not, is it because there are not enough resources to support the Marine Adviser in reporting to the Government in a timely and effective manner? Or is it just due to dereliction of duty by someone that today's amendments proposed by the Bill are not introduced until up to six to eight years after the amendments were made to the Convention?

President, I do not have much objection to the Bill's proposal of amending the provisions on safety standards for freight containers. What I am concerned about is that the legislative proposals of a technical nature introduced into the Council by the Government at each time appear to be rather simple and not too controversial, but upon careful examination of the relevant contents and the legislative timetable, we will find that these seemingly simple amendments do take a very long time to make. On the other hand, some major legislative amendments (e.g. those proposed to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance) could be scheduled to be forced through the Council within six months, even though they could have extensive implications. I think the Government should really pay attention to its problems with resource allocation and work efficiency.

1100 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

President, as I have mentioned before, even though the Bill proposes that the amendments to the Convention be incorporated into the Ordinance by direct reference in order to give effect to these amendments in Hong Kong, thus enabling the relevant local marine-related legislation to keep pace with international standards. Nevertheless if there is insufficient manpower support, or if the Government fails to keep abreast of the latest development of IMO's policies, or if the Government's work efficiency is unsatisfactory (e.g. the responsible departments still follow the old practice of rushing to review, translate and study the new standards only after they have been implemented by IMO and then conducting consultation), Hong Kong will still be lagging behind the international community in terms of maritime standards in the end. And it will be impossible to fulfil the original purposes of this legislative amendment exercise.

Lastly, President, I would like to talk about the two terms mentioned just now, namely "列出" and "列明". If the Government tells us that there is actually no difference between the two, then I hope the authorities will propose an amendment later on to standardize the terms used in marine-related legislation. There is actually a very simple way to do so. All they have to do is simply to propose an amendment to the Bill. As to the English wording, refinement is not even necessary since the English rendition is consistent with that of the aforesaid marine-related ordinances.

Despite the fact that notice of amendments proposed to be moved to a bill shall be given not less than seven clear days before the day on which the bill is to be considered in committee under RoP 57(2), the Chairman (of the committee of the whole Council) may grant leave to move amendments without notice. Hence, I believe that with the leave of the Chairman and some more time given to the Transport and Housing Bureau ("THB") and DoJ to prepare the amendment, this will not be a difficult task to accomplish. I hope the President, THB and DoJ will consider my proposal.

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

That is all I have to say. Thank you, Deputy President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1101

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") seeks to incorporate the latest amendments to the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention") promulgated by the International Maritime Organization ("IMO") into our local legislation, namely the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance (Cap. 506) ("the Ordinance"), and to propose a set of uniform standards for the specifications, markings, testing procedures, terms, dimensions and units relating to containers.

In my view, this exercise is very important and should be taken forward because the improper placement or handling of containers will pose danger and may even lead to a loss of property or life. The Bill proposes to update the specifications, markings, testing procedures, terms, dimensions and units relating to containers as I mentioned just now.

Specifically, the first point is that the Bill requires the safety approval plates ("SAPs") of containers with limited stacking or racking capacity to be conspicuously marked in a standardized manner, so that these containers can be easily identified and arranged at the top of a container stack. Members can imagine that the case is like assembling building blocks. If the top is heavier than the bottom, the "building blocks" may collapse. The proposals concerned are put forth for safety reasons.

The second aspect concerns the testing procedures and specifications for containers in the course of loading, stacking and transportation. Speaking of the term "stacking", I wish to explain it a bit more. Other papers have mentioned the term "stacking", but ordinary people may not know its meaning. I myself, for example, have seen this term in certain papers, and I have come to know its meaning after asking my assistant. "Stacking" means the piling up of containers like assembling building blocks. The word "stacking" is a terminology commonly used by industry practitioners. As I said earlier, a door of a container may be opened or removed in the course of transportation in order to improve ventilation and air circulation inside the container. To ensure the operational and structural safety of these modified containers, the Bill prescribes new testing procedures and marking requirements on the SAPs of such containers.

Third, the Bill requires that the physical dimensions and units marked on the SAPs of containers be aligned with the International System of Units. The relevant changes include the replacement of the term "weight" with "mass".

1102 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

The Wuhan pneumonia has dealt a severe blow to the global economy since its outbreak, with the transportation industry being hit the hardest. Passenger transport, freight transport, air transport, sea transport and even land transport have all sustained a massive blow. The total throughput of seaborne cargo in Hong Kong recorded a year-on-year decline of 4.5% and even 7.2% in the first and second quarter of this year respectively. The industry is already unable to make ends meet. Will the new guidelines and testing procedures proposed in the Bill increase its financial pressure? In the case of freight companies, their containers that are initially up to standards may suddenly become substandard, so they must find ways, including manual revision, the acquisition of new accessories or modification, to bring their containers in line with the new requirements. That way, the cost borne by transportation companies may increase. To what extent will the industry be affected by the Bill? Is it an appropriate moment to scrutinize the Bill now?

I believe the Deputy President, Members and people may still have a vivid memory of Typhoon Mangkhut's onslaught on Hong Kong two years ago. The strong wind associated with Typhoon Mangkhut uprooted large numbers of trees, and many people were hindered from going to work as a result. But at the time, all my attention was on the collapse of large numbers of container stacks at container yards rather than on whether people could commute to work. At the time, Typhoon Mangkhut inflicted serious damage on many buildings and roads, but not many people paid attention to the situation in container yards.

If Members run a search on Google, they will find some relevant news reports. At the time, a news report read: "Due to the strong wind associated with Typhoon Mangkhut, many container stacks at the Tuen Mun River Trade Terminal have toppled as they are unable to withstand the gust wind even though they have been tightly lashed together as a precautionary measure … Around 20 containers at the dockside have become dislodged and fallen against one another like 'domino chips'. But the loss has yet to be ascertained." This was a news report on container yards at the time.

Of course, no worker is supposed to be working at container yards during typhoon attacks on Hong Kong. However, if some workers happen to be around for certain reasons, the collapse of container stacks will lead to inconceivable consequences. Does the Bill seek to prevent this? Or, am I right to say that we can only follow IMO's requirements as it has so prescribed? Is it the attitude of the authorities? I honestly cannot tell, and I also hope that the relevant LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1103 government official can point out in his reply the measures that can further ensure the safety of containers instead of merely saying that after the passage of the Bill to implement the revisions to the relevant requirements, things will become safer than they are now.

Deputy President, I have cited the above example not only because I wish to stress the importance of container safety, but also because I even hope to point out that human lives are involved if any worker sustains injuries in the course of using or handling containers, or due to a momentary lapse of guard. Precisely for this reason, any laws should be drafted in a user-friendly way, or else they may be useless no matter how comprehensive they are. The most important of all is whether a user can understand the contents of a law when reading it and abide by the relevant requirements to ensure safety. This is rather the most important point.

If the authorities have considered the matter from this angle, they will notice certain inadequacies in the Bill. Let me cite a few examples based on my personal observation. First, the Administration says that the Bill will adopt a direct reference approach. What is meant by "direct reference"? The Legislative Council Brief provided by the Government has not explained it in detail. It only says that the amendments proposed in clauses 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Bill are related to direct reference. Upon checking the above clauses, we have found that they contain the wording "Repeal '… Schedule 1'" and "Substitute '… Annex II'". The Annex II here means the Annex II to the Convention adopted by IMO. That is to say, the reference in those clauses is exophoric.

So, how can people locate the document? In particular, how can we as Members of the Legislative Council or ordinary people access its contents? Before this amendment exercise, the Ordinance contains a Schedule setting out the details on the requirements, markings and testing procedures for containers. Ordinary people can access the Ordinance and its Schedules without any difficulties through a search on the web page of Hong Kong laws and read their contents, including the standards and requirements I mentioned earlier. If one wants to access the relevant provisions, they may do so anytime.

The Schedule 1 I mentioned just now is part of the Laws of Hong Kong, and if one wants to access it, the process is quite straightforward and simple. It is like checking the "Guidelines for Road Drivers"―I have forgotten its proper 1104 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 name. The Guidelines is a rather thick booklet. If one wants to get a driver licence, one will have to study the general traffic rules therein. I have realized that this Guidelines is also part of the Laws of Hong Kong, and actually, any amendments to it must be scrutinized by the Legislative Council. This is outrageous, and I also questioned at the time why this arrangement was necessary. The authorities should separate this Guidelines from the law. Is this possible? If yes, amendments can be made more easily. This Guidelines has been amended only once over a span of almost 10 years, during which time many changes have been made to its contents. The latest amendment exercise was conducted in a legislative session in the current term of the Legislative Council. At the time, I already questioned why this arrangement was necessary.

The case of the Bill is comparable to this example. At the time, I put forth a proposal on the approach to amending the "Guidelines for Road Drivers" with the intention of changing it to the direct reference approach. In view of the need for frequent changes to its details, I proposed to separate it from the law, so as to save our efforts and reduce the frequency of presenting the relevant amendments to the Legislative Council.

I think this proposal is logically correct. The Marine Department ("MD") had come under severe criticism due to the Lamma maritime disaster, so it introduced certain reforms and examined afresh the problems involved. As we found out at the time, no amendments had been made to a number of related Hong Kong laws on the basis of IMO's revisions, very much to my astonishment. Certain revisions were introduced 10 years ago, but the authorities only submit a relevant bill to the Legislative Council 10 years later. I once asked MD about the number of laws pending amendment. MD's reply to me was that there were 10 or 20 such laws―I forgot the exact number―much to my bewilderment.

Perhaps the authorities want to save some efforts, thinking that as MD is unable to follow in time the revisions made by IMO each time and amend the law accordingly, the simplest way is to amend the Ordinance to stipulate that direct reference will be made to the information of IMO. In my conjecture, this is the background of this amendment exercise, and the purpose is to save some efforts and spare the need to present the relevant revisions to the Legislative Council in the future.

But this will also give rise to one problem. Some may argue that if one wants to know the contents, one may simply check the Convention oneself, and there should not be much difficulty. This time around, I did not run the search LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1105 myself; instead, I asked my assistant to do so. I asked him to check the Convention and find out how difficult it would be. I found that the process was not as simple as we had thought. I wonder if the Under Secretary or his colleagues have run the search themselves, but I have found that the process turns out to be quite complicated. If the relevant contents are part of the Hong Kong laws as I said just now, then one can simply check the Schedules, and the process is much simpler. In the end, my assistant could only find an unofficial web page like Wikipedia after half an hour, and he could not even determine whether its contents were based on the latest version. After my assistant clicked on a link, he spent another half an hour and eventually found an official document. But the whole document was written in English, and there was no way to determine whether it was based on the latest version. I do not know whether all this was due to his poor performance, incapability or other reasons. Anyway, he told me that he had spent half an hour.

I think this is a major problem. I understand that when IMO introduces its latest revisions, it may be like the International Civil Aviation Organization ("ICAO"), in the sense that for procedural or security reasons, the latter will not publish any contents and will only issue or sell them to airliners, the Airport Authority or the Civil Aviation Department. That is to say, only the relevant parties can obtain such revisions. In the past, if people were to follow any legal requirements, they might, as I said, access the relevant contents through public channels. But is IMO's arrangement similar to that of ICAO as I have just mentioned? That is to say, the relevant documents are not open for everybody's access, and they are accessible only to dock workers or transportation workers as I said just now. I think the Government should look into this as there is a problem here. In the past, they might find out the relevant requirements from the Laws of Hong Kong. But now, they can do so only by following the direct reference approach proposed by the authorities.

While ordinary people may not be able to access the contents, the authorities may argue that they will not break the law inadvertently because they are not in the relevant industries, they naturally will be unable to access the relevant contents. The authorities may put forth this explanation. But will this argument always hold water? In the future, disputes may possibly arise. If a person is suspected of breaking the law and required to appear in court, he may argue that he was not without the intention to follow the relevant requirements, only that he was unable to find the relevant information as it was accessible only 1106 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 to certain companies. He may also contend that it is not necessary for workers in his job type or industry to obtain the relevant licence. I think it is obviously a problem if people are unable to access the relevant information.

I hope the authorities can give me a reply later on and let me know that the case is not like this and I am wrong because people can actually obtain the relevant document from IMO effortlessly. Will the Under Secretary please enlighten me, so that I can tell my assistant that there are actually some other simple ways to locate the relevant document without having to spend half an hour.

I so submit.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I will make a long story short. I am not going into details of the content, background and the process of amending the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), because many colleagues have already mentioned them earlier. In simple terms, the Bill seeks to introduce amendments concerning the safety in the stacking, loading and transport of containers. According to the Legislative Council Brief, the Bill seeks to protect transportation safety. However, last year the Secretary for Transport and Housing told us that the amendments this time around were mostly technical in nature, and they would not have much impact on the current container safety policy, regulation and implementation in Hong Kong. According to the Secretary, ocean-going container ships would stop at different ports in the world, and since the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention") is implemented globally, therefore before freight containers were carried into Hong Kong waters, they would have been in compliance the latest requirements under the Convention as a result of the need to comply with the laws of other jurisdictions. For that reason, the Administration anticipated that the proposed amendments would not have much impact on the daily operations of the trade. According to the Legislative Council Brief, the proposal has no financial, civil service, economic, productivity, environmental, sustainability, and gender or family implications.

As always, the Government will say that such proposed amendments are technical in nature and have no implications; therefore they should be passed swiftly. The question I am going to ask is, at present, many containers are in compliance with the requirements of the Convention, but does that really have no LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1107 local productivity, economic or gender implications? According to the Legislative Council Brief, the latest amendments to the Convention were arisen from two latest International Maritime Organization ("IMO") resolutions which seek to enhance the structural safety of containers and the safety in the stacking and loading of containers. According to the same Legislative Council Brief, the transport of containers involves the on board inspection to be carried out by the Marine Department, but it does not involve the stacking of freight containers on land in Hong Kong.

Deputy President, we can make reference to a review report issued by the United Kingdom Government concerning the collapse of 151 containers on board a container ship on passage, which pointed out that container stow collapse, the structural integrity and stacking of containers would affect the stability during the transport process. The report pointed out the problems with the structural integrity of each container as a single unit and the structural integrity of the containers on stack. What I wish to point out is that the structural safety of containers and the safety in the stacking of containers are not just an issue for container ships, but also an issue in the land transport of containers. For that reason, Deputy President, if you consider that this point is irrelevant to the Bill, I hope you will pay attention to the fact that the Bill regulates the safety in the stacking of containers during the transport process. But there is a low level of regulation over the safety in the stacking of containers on land. As pointed out by the aforementioned United Kingdom Government report, the way the containers were stacked and their structures had something to do with the collapse of the containers on the ship. Such a problem will not disappear when the containers are transported on land. One thing we should note is that in 2013 and 2014, there were cases in which some people working inside container trucks were injured and even killed at Container Terminal 6 in Kwai Chung after the container trucks were crushed by falling containers. These accidents happened during the lifting of containers when the quay crane struck some container stacks, resulting in the collapse of these containers. They highlighted the safety problem arising from the stacking of containers. The proposed amendments concern the safety in the stacking of containers, but why the Government executes such a low level of regulation over the safety in the stacking of containers in the form of the Labour Department's current Code of Practice on Mechanical Handling Safety in Container Yards ("the Code")? As the Code promulgated by the Labour Department in 2001 is applicable to container terminals only, in which paragraph 5.10.2 of the Code reads, "The stacking height of containers should be as low as possible in accordance with determinant factors 1108 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 of ground condition, plant and machinery, competency of workers and the need of business". In other words, we have not put in place a specified stacking height of containers. But the Bill concerns the stacking of the containers with limited stacking capacity, it gives the Government an opportunity to comprehensively review the safety in the stacking of containers in different ways and in different places in Hong Kong. At present, additional conditions imposed by the Planning Department to limit the stacking height of containers at open storage space have limited the stacking height of containers to not more than eight containers at container yards. However, the stacking height of eight containers is still higher than where the aforementioned accidents involving stacking height of six containers happened. To put it in simple terms, the risk has not been eliminated. For that reason, it is not as what the Secretary has claimed that the Bill does not have much impact on container safety policy, regulation and implementation. The Government's attention is focused on the stacking of containers on ships only, it has neglected the safety in the stacking of containers.

Therefore, the Government amends the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance (Cap. 506) ("the Ordinance") this time around in order to update the Ordinance by adding requirements on information to be marked on containers with limited stacking capacity. Should the Government also review Hong Kong's previous accidents involving the collapse of stacked containers and the cause of collapse during transport process, whether they were directly related to the structural integrity and stacking of the containers? If so, the Government's current legislative exercise to amend and update the Ordinance in accordance with the Convention will not be able to ensure the safety in the handling, stacking and transport of freight containers, neither will it be able to protect the safety of the workers working in container terminals. I hope the Government will also review the Code to see if the stacking height of containers should be amended in order to protect the safety of workers and ensure that the operation of container terminals is in line with the prescribed industrial safety standards.

Moreover, Deputy President, some local container operators have said that the safe operation of the container terminals will attract more female workers to join the trade. But according to the Legislative Council Brief on the Bill, the proposed amendments have no gender implications. But I do not think so, because the safety of container terminals and the safety of container transport will affect the willingness of female workers to join the trade. As I have mentioned just now, the proposed amendments are inadequate to address the existing problem with container safety. The Government is only making consequential LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1109 updates to local legislation according to the Convention. The proposed amendments have excluded the gender issue, but it does not mean that the Bill has no gender implication. I wish to reiterate that the proposed amendments have excluded the gender issue, but it does not mean that the Bill has no gender implication.

Deputy President, all in all, occupational safety is an important indicator to gauge productivity. If the Government only deals with part of the container stacking problem without addressing the safety in the stacking of containers in a holistic manner, the potential risk of industrial accidents involving containers will continue to exist. Each time when such an accident occurs, we will always say, "One such industrial accident is too many". But this is too little and too late, and I consider that nothing more than a half-hearted remark.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I wish to remind Members that the President of the Legislative Council has made a ruling earlier that the Second Reading Debate will come to a close at 11:00 am. As several Members are waiting for their turn to speak, Members should speak as concise as possible so as to allow more Members to have the chance to speak.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): The Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") concerns three major aspects. First, conspicuous markings are required to be added on containers with limited stacking and racking capacity and on containers which are structurally more fragile for easy identification. The purpose is to facilitate the stacking of fragile containers at the top of a stack and the bottom of a stack for better stacking stability and safety.

Second, some specially designed containers may have their doors opened or removed during transport or storage for air circulation to protect the goods inside. For the sake of container safety, the Bill requires that a new testing procedure be set up and new markings be added on the safety approval plates ("SAPs") of these containers. It is hoped that the requirements will enable workers to easily identify and carefully stack these containers, with a view to enhancing safety.

1110 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

Third, the Bill aligns the terms used in SAPs of containers with the international system. Precisely, the term "weight" is replaced with "mass" for international consistency.

Deputy President, I believe the Government proposes the amendment for two reasons. First, it needs to align with the requirements of the relevant international convention. The international convention is already promulgated, and Hong Kong must comply with its requirements. But here is the problem. As many colleagues have pointed out, the international organization concerned already adopted in December 2010 the first two amendments to the convention, and the amendments came into force on 1 January 2012. Roughly speaking, it has been eight years since then. Why does it take the Government eight years to propose the amendments? This is strange.

Just now, many colleagues asked the Government for a reason and an explanation. I agree that it needs to explain itself. Why? The Government often says that Hong Kong needs to keep on a par with the international standards, how to do that? It has not taken actions until eight years later. It does not do what it should, but it has done what it should not do. It did not do what it should have urgently done, but now, it has moved at a snail's pace. The Government must explain why something like this has happened.

Besides, we all know that one of the purposes of keeping Hong Kong on a par with the international standards is to create a better economic environment for Hong Kong. But how could the Government create new opportunities for our economic development, given that it is lagging behind others? People are truly irritated by these situations. Certainly, the Government can put the blame on the epidemic for the recent economic downturn. But we cannot rule out one point, and that is the way the Government handles matters will have a bad impact on Hong Kong. And the Government must face itself squarely on this.

Moreover, the third amendment is about the terms. The amendment was adopted by the international organization in June 2013 and came into force in July 2014. But the Government did not any take actions until now to adopt these terms for the sake of complying with international standards. This is the same as the situation just mentioned. I wish to ask the Government a question. Does it have any internal mechanism to monitor these situations? If Hong Kong always lags behind other places because of a lack of such a mechanism, will this do any good to the overall development of Hong Kong?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1111

Just now, when I mentioned the need to keep Hong Kong on a par with the international standards, I said the way the Government handles matters would have a bad impact on Hong Kong. If the three amendments are passed and container safety is enhanced, something which the Government wishes to achieve, it means that the Government paid no attention to container safety in the past. No wonder accidents in the freight container industry frequently took place. Should the Government be held responsible for past accidents?

Deputy President, as I just pointed out, the amendments are proposed for two main reasons. First, the amendments seek to enhance safety; and second, they seek to keep Hong Kong on a par with the international standards and in turn help our economic development. As I just said, these two aspects are equally worrying. Mr SHIU Ka-chun already cited many examples just now, and I do not want to repeat them but I cannot avoid doing so. In looking up the accident records, we notice that accidents involving containers have been very serious. For example, a week ago, one accident happened in Kwai Chung; three weeks ago, another accident happened in Tuen Mun; and in August, one accident happened in Yau Ma Tei and another one in July in Tuen Mun. I have not mentioned the details. But the number of accidents already shows that there have been so many accidents involving container operation safety.

But not until now did the Government propose to amend the ordinance to add markings on containers for better safety. Is the Government not perfunctory in its action? I am even more worried because the Government thinks that safety can be enhanced simply by adding markings. As we all know, these markings only facilitate easy identification. It does not mean that the markings can truly solve the safety issue. Talking about safety, should the Government have more discussions with the industry, especially labour unions and workers, on the causes of the accidents, so as to solve the problem at source?

We often mention casualties involving workers falling down from a height. As far as I know, the victims of these accidents often have worked for long hours. Workers were tired, which could result in industrial accidents. I thus think that the Government should tackle the problem at source. The labour sector has been fighting for standard work hours for years. But the Government has adopted a stalling tactic in this respect. The problem has been left unsolved since the last Government. The efforts of all the parties concerned have borne no fruit after the setting up of a committee. In my opinion, the Government should genuinely consider facing this issue squarely and respond to this core demand of the labour sector, rather than trying to enhance container safety by adding markings on 1112 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 containers. As I pointed out just now, if the Government keeps stalling on legislating on standard work hours, more accidents may happen. I hope the Government can give more thoughts on this issue.

Apart from industrial accidents, I also mentioned the issue of keeping Hong Kong on a par with international standards for economic development. We can see that the logistics industry is not performing well. Its market is shrinking. Even if we manage to comply with the requirements set out in the international convention today, can this resolve the problem? I think the Government should reconsider how to tackle the root problem because I notice that Hong Kong has performed poorly in international trade and the logistics industry has also encountered huge problems. In terms of container throughput, Hong Kong reached its peak in 2011, handling some 24 million twenty-foot equivalent units ("TEUs"); but in 2019, our container throughput dropped to 18 million TEUs. A decrease of almost 6 million TEUs, which means that the container throughput of Hong Kong has dropped by almost 25%.

There have been many hiccups in the China-US trade relationship this year. This has dealt a great blow to the export of China. The point is what we should do. I think the Government should not sit on its hands. It should not ignore the statistics and do nothing except saying that it has done what it should and adopted the requirements set out in the international convention. Can this address the problems of the present withering economy? I believe we all know that this is an idiot's gibberish. Such minimal effort cannot solve the above problem.

Deputy President, all in all, the Bill proposed by the Government today can hardly help the logistics industry, nor can it substantially enhance the safety of container logistics. The Government should show more goodwill in tackling these two problems. As a member of the labour sector, I am especially concerned about the safety of workers. I hope that the Government will not think that it has already done its part and solved the problem by introducing the safety marking requirement. The most important of all … I must repeatedly point out that … the Government should communicate more with workers and trade union representatives of the industry and listen more to their views, so as to find a way to solve the present safety issues. In particular, it should expeditiously introduce standard work hours to alleviate workers' tiredness and in turn reduce the chances of accidents.

Deputy President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1113

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The last Member who is going to speak at the Second Reading debate, please.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please speak.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") basically seeks to implement some technical amendments. Just now, many Members already mentioned this. We are very worried because the first resolution on the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention") was adopted by the International Maritime Organization in December 2010 and came into force on 1 January 2012. Unfortunately, and regrettably, not until today, which is some 8 to 10 years later, did we have the opportunity to consider the resolution at this Legislative Council meeting, and the Government has not given convincing reasons for this.

Just now, many colleagues mentioned problems concerning the handling of containers. Unfortunately, the Secretary for Transport and Housing is the only Public Officer attending this debate session today. This ordinance concerning the operation of containers covers only the handling of maritime matters. Records show that many container-related industrial accidents happened recently. In our opinion, such outrageous accidents should not have happened. On 2 May 2020, a male worker in Sheung Shui fell off to the ground when he was handling a container stacked at a height. He was injured and fell into a coma upon hospitalization. His condition remains unclear. On 5 October 2019, a worker at a container yard in Lau Fau Shan was hit and killed by a crane when he was handling empty containers.

Actually, safety problems concerning containers have never lessened over the years. The Bill only covers part of the shipping arrangements of freight containers on ships or during loading. Adopting the amendments will only offer little actual help and there is still inadequate protection in respect of many freight containers at container yards and on land.

The Bill is proposed on the basis of the Convention. The Convention was adopted in Geneva in 1972 at the Convention conference, and the Chinese Government became a signatory on 23 September 1981. As everyone knows, these international conventions have significant implications for protecting different policies. We are thus very worried that this may set a bad precedent. 1114 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

That is, we have to wait till now to consider a resolution on container safety which was signed 10 years ago at the Convention conference. I do not know how serious the Government takes these international conventions. Honestly, in Hong Kong nowadays, we are very concerned whether the SAR Government or the Chinese Government can adhere to the requirements of these conventions.

For example, the Sino-British Joint Declaration concerning the future of Hong Kong, precisely shows that if the sovereign government fails to honour an international convention, it will be condemned by the international community or even regarded as failing to comply with the convention. Although we are talking about very small changes here, the Government's reaction precisely shows that ordinances on matters as big as Hong Kong's future or Hong Kong's compliance with the separation of powers, or as small as container safety under discussion now, are a matter of concern to the international community as well as the general public in Hong Kong. We are worried that the Government may fail to abide by these international conventions, which will deal a deadly blow to something as big as the overall governance of Hong Kong or as small as a certain industry, such as the freight container industry being discussed now.

The Bill is about the specifications that containers with limited stacking capacity need to meet. These containers are required to be conspicuously marked in a standardized manner. Later at the Committee stage or the Third Reading of the Bill, I will discuss the requirements of these specifications if there is time. But here, I wish to ask a question, and that is, whether the container workers can actually see these standardized and conspicuous markings on the containers, especially those with limited racking capacity. If Members have paid attention to this issue, they may have noticed that the markings on many containers in container yards have faded due to lack of adequate maintenance over time. Although these containers are required under the Bill to be marked, in reality, these markings are rather useless because of inadequate maintenance of the containers in container yards or on the ships.

Second, it is about the testing procedures and specifications for containers approved for operation with one door open or removed. We know that in many cases, containers may have one of their doors opened or removed during operation. As we know, on many occasions, one of the doors of some containers is opened or removed. As their structural integrity is incomplete, it is thus questionable as to whether these containers are structurally safe after the door is reinstalled or closed. Given that a container with a safety test marking LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1115 means that it has been tested and proven safe, I am very concerned about the workers who have to handle containers with one door removed or opened and that their safety may not be protected under the Bill. As I just said, I will discuss the terms and units at the Committee stage, and now, I will focus on discussing the requirements in the resolutions on the Convention and how we are going to scrupulously comply with these requirements.

It is clearly stated under Article V of the Convention that approval under the authority of a Contracting Party, granted under the terms of the present Convention, shall be accepted by the other Contracting parties for all purposes covered by the present Convention. It shall be regarded by the other Contracting parties as having the same force as an approval issued by them. A Contracting Party shall not impose any other structural safety requirements or tests on containers covered by the present Convention, provided however that nothing in the present Convention shall preclude the application of provisions of national regulations or legislation or of international agreements, prescribing additional structural safety requirements or tests for containers specially designed for the transport of dangerous goods, or for those features unique to containers carrying bulk liquids or for containers when carried by air.

The Government has delayed seeking the passage of these requirements by the Legislative Council for some 8 to 10 years. This precisely violates Article V of the Convention on "Acceptance of approval". Article V clearly states that a contracting country or region is not allowed to preclude the application of provisions of international agreements. It is ridiculous that our Government has delayed the adoption of these requirements in Hong Kong for eight years while different regions have adopted them long ago in January 2012. If accidents have happened or casualties have been incurred during that period … if the victims of the accidents in Sheung Shui or Lau Fau Shan, which I just said, lodge claims for damages in to the court, I believe they should regard the Hong Kong SAR Government as one of the indictment targets because the Government has failed to comply with Article V of the Convention.

Article VI of the Convention also clearly states that these containers shall be subject to control in the territory of the Contracting Parties by officers duly authorized by such Contracting Parties. And this control shall be limited to verifying that the container carries a valid Safety Approval Plate as required by the present Convention, unless there is significant evidence for believing that the condition of the container is such as to create an obvious risk to safety. In that 1116 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 case the officer carrying out the control shall only exercise it in so far as it may be necessary to ensure that the container is restored to a safe condition before it continues in service.

It means that the officer carrying out the control is duty-bound to take necessary actions to restore containers to a safe condition. Can you imagine over the years, how many workers have been working in an unsafe environment or exposed to accident risks because of the failure of the Government to expeditiously introduce the required laws and safety standards to the containers in accordance with the Convention?

It is clearly stated under Article VI of the Convention that where the container appears to have become unsafe as a result of a defect which may have existed when the container was approved, the Administration responsible for that approval shall be informed by the Contracting Party which detected the defect. It is clearly stated here that this is the responsibility of the Government. The officer carrying out the control in the Contracting region shall follow the resolution on the Convention which came into force in January 2012 and require the container companies, which can be a container terminal, the owner of a container yard, a freight company or a shipping line, to comply with the requirements stated in the Convention. The controlling officer shall follow up the progress to enable the actual implementation of the Convention.

The Government has worked half-heartedly in this respect. It has let down the workers who have handled millions of containers in Hong Kong since January 2012. We clearly know that workers in container terminals often have to work in a dangerous environment. Over the years, the number of work injuries and casualties involving container terminals has remained consistently high. We notice that the problem lies not only in the safety hardware. The work arrangements and work hours of the workers are also a matter of concern, and a matter of shame, to us. Perhaps Members know that some workers who are responsible for handling containers have to sit in the gantry crane for as long as eight hours. To put it in rather unpleasant terms, they have to eat and shit inside the crane control cabins. Is this humane? Does the Government think that this is a reasonable arrangement? Can this arrangement safeguard industrial safety and occupational health? Of course not. These requirements precisely reflect the sloppiness of government officials.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1117

I hope the Government will respond to this. I understand that the Transport and Housing Bureau cannot tackle all the requests of the container workers, especially the safety requirements set out in the Bill. However, the Bureau should at least discuss with other related Policy Bureaux, such as the Labour and Welfare Bureau, with a view to coming up with a standardized arrangement and expeditiously amending local legislation in accordance with the requirements in the Convention, and submit the legislative proposals to the Legislative Council for consideration. The Government seems so absent-minded. Each government official only cares about his or her own portfolio and turns a blind eye to the legal requirements concerning the protection of people's safety. This is extremely regrettable.

I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I think that the latter half of your speech has digressed from the subject. This Council is debating the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019. It involves some rather technical amendments, that is, to implement the latest requirements under the International Convention for Safe Containers concerning the manufacturing, use and examination of containers. As for container safety and workers' safety, which Member is very concerned about, please follow them up on other occasions.

(Mr HUI Chi-fung indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, what is your point of order?

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I have press the button, but I have no chance to speak. Just now I have heard that Mr Andrew LEUNG made a decision to set the deadline for this debate session. I know that due to his domineering personality, he will not take back his decision. But I wish to put this clearly on record: I consider his decision an abuse of power. Please listen to my rationale first. He invokes Article 72 of the Basic Law regarding the power to preside meetings, but Article 72 of the Basic Law has not …

1118 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, this is not a point of order.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Please listen to my explanation first. Regarding the President's decision, I have different opinion and I wish to put it on record, am I not allowed to do that?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You are not allowed to express personal opinions on the pretext of raising a point of order.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): That is not personal opinion; I wish to put on record.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members all know that the decision made by the President of the Legislative Council shall be final.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I wish to put it on record. I consider the decision questionable. I will sit down after I have spoken. Deputy President, will you allow me to finish my speech?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If you are not satisfied with the President's decision, you may relay your opinion to him later on.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): No, I wish to put it clearly on record in this session.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not the occasion for you to leave any record of your speech.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1119

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I will sit down after I have finished my speech. But you should allow me to continue with my speech because it is related to the Rules of Procedure.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am duty-bound to enforce the Rules of Procedure.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): The Rules of Procedure do not contain the relevant provision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please sit down. I have heard your opinion. As you are not raising a point of order, I cannot permit you to put your speech on record on the pretext of raising a point of order.

(Mr HUI Chi-fung kept on standing and speaking loudly)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have expressed your view on the matter, please sit down.

(Mr HUI Chi-fung kept on standing and speaking aloud)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have expressed your view, and I have made my ruling, please sit down.

(Mr HUI Chi-fung kept on standing and indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, what is your point of order?

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Please allow me to continue with my speech, I will speak for another 30 seconds and I will sit down then.

1120 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, you are not permitted to continue with your speech.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): You should allow me to put my speech on record and let me explain why I consider the President's decision an abuse of power.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have made a ruling and this is not a point of order.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): The Basic Law has no provision restricting Members' right to speak.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If you keep on speaking, I will consider it a disorderly conduct.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): The Rules of Procedure has no such restriction.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI, please sit down and stop speaking. Since the President of the Legislative Council has made his ruling …

(Mr SHIU Ka-chun indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, what is your point of order?

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1121

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun has requested a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members did not return to their seats)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is present in the Chamber. Will Members please return to their seats. The meeting now continues.

I now call upon the Secretary for Transport and Housing to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close. Secretary for Transport and Housing, please speak.

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill").

First of all, I would like to thank Members for their support of the Bill, which enables the resumption of the Second Reading on the Bill today. I also wish to thank the Members for their concerns and views about the Bill just now.

The Bill was first introduced to the Legislative Council for First and Second Reading in October 2019. The Bill seeks to incorporate into the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance (Cap. 506) ("the Ordinance") the latest requirements concerning the safety in the stacking, loading, transport of containers, as well as their structures and specifications in the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention") promulgated by the International Maritime Organization ("IMO"), so as to implement such requirements in Hong Kong.

To this end, the new requirements proposed in the Bill include those on the specifications that containers with limited stacking capacity should meet, and the Bill also prescribes new safety test procedures and specifications for freight containers, as well as the standardization of the terms of physical measurement to be used on the safety approval plate ("SAP") of freight containers. 1122 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

The requirements of the Convention to be implemented in Hong Kong under the Bill are purely technical in nature. Since the Convention is applicable to different ports in the world, the operators of ocean-going freight container ships plying international shipping routes are fully aware of the latest requirements, and they support the proposed amendments in the Bill.

Just now Members have put forwards their views and observations about the Bill, I shall give a consolidated reply as below:

Some Members mentioned the safety of freight containers. Under the Convention, any container used for international transport must be approved by the executive authorities of a Contracting Party to the Convention or the recognized organizations on behalf of the executive authorities in accordance with the relevant safety requirements. For a container which is in compliance with the structural safety requirements and testing standards as prescribed by the Convention, the executive authorities or its recognized organizations will approve the affixing of an SAP to the container. The SAP indicates that the container has obtained the approval of a Contracting Party, thus other Contracting Parties should acknowledge the approval. The SAP seeks to enable all relevant parties involved in the lifting, stacking or transport of containers, such as container owners, shipping companies and oversight authorities in various places, to know the safety and technical details of the containers concerned.

The Bill stipulates that all containers which have obtained valid approval must be affixed with an SAP. Each SAP should contain a required set of information as prescribed in Schedule 2 of the Ordinance, such as the proof of the approval, the manufacturing date, its maximum operating gross mass and maximum permissible payload and other technical data.

Some Members pointed out the adoption of the "direct reference approach" in many parts of the Bill. The Convention and the Ordinance seek to standardize the requirements for testing and inspecting containers, and to prescribe the procedures of their maintenance, examination and control. All the requirements and regulations are technical in nature; they are clear and specific, widely applicable to contracting parties internationally and of interest to specific stakeholders only such as the freight container transport trade and authorized persons. For that reason, it is appropriate to adopt the "direct reference approach" in respect of technical requirements. The approach will also enable provisions of international agreements to be reflected in local laws in a timely and precise manner. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1123

Some Members mentioned that the amendments in the Convention to be incorporated into local legislation this time around came into force globally in 2012 and 2014 respectively, Hong Kong lags behind in amending local legislation. Since the amendments in the Convention which are proposed to be incorporated into local legislation this time around are mainly technical specifications and provisions, including testing and examination procedures and guidelines relating to the safety of the structural integrity of freight containers, their stacking, loading and unloading and transport, we also need to make amendments to some definitions in the principal ordinance, we therefore need to examine how to incorporate the detailed technical specifications into local legislation in an appropriate and effective manner. In Hong Kong, we have been endeavouring to implement the requirements of the Convention through administrative measures as much as possible. And we have informed all stakeholders such as ship operators through all possible channels.

Moreover, since the Convention has come into force globally and is applicable to all contracting parties, all inbound and outbound freight containers used for international transport in Hong Kong should have been in compliance with the latest requirements under the Convention. At present, Hong Kong does not have an industry for manufacturing and repairing containers, therefore the amendments concerning the inspection procedures and testing guidelines this time around should have very little impact on the operation and safety of containers in Hong Kong.

Some Members asked how Hong Kong would fulfil its obligations under the Convention prior to the commencement of the legislative exercise. As I have mentioned just now, the HKSAR Government will adopt administrative measures in this respect.

International organizations such as the International Maritime Organization and the International Labour Organization are already aware of the fact that Hong Kong is implementing some of the requirements under the Convention through administrative measures on a temporary basis. We understand that this is not desirable. For that reason, the Transport and Housing Bureau, the Marine Department and the Department of Justice are working hard to expedite the legislative amendment exercise so as to incorporate the requirements under the Convention into local legislation.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

1124 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

Members mentioned the impact on the trade of the implementation of the latest requirements under the Convention by the Government. Before implementing the latest requirements under the Convention, the Government had consulted the relevant advisory committees under the Marine Department on the amendments made under the Convention, and members of all advisory committees supported the proposal.

Some Members mentioned the role of the Marine Department under the Ordinance in ensuring the safety of freight containers. At present, the Director of Marine has authorized four recognized organizations under the Ordinance to examine, test and approve containers according to the requirements set under sections 5 and 6 of the Ordinance and Annex II to the Convention; while the Marine Department monitors overall compliance situation, including conducting spot checks on the containers on board ships entering Hong Kong, for example, they will examine the completeness and accuracy of the information marked on the SAP.

If the SAP on a container is found missing or incomplete, or the inspection date has expired or the container is structurally unsafe, the Marine Department may notify the owner, lessee or custodian of the container and prohibit the use of such container or to detain the container.

At present, the Marine Department's inspection covers all the requirements under all marine laws, including the Ordinance, in order to ensure the safety of containers.

President, the implementation of the proposals in the Bill is conducive to ensuring the safety in the loading, stacking and transport of containers, and to ensuring that the structural integrity and specifications of containers are in compliance with the latest requirements set down by the Convention, which will further protect the safety of maritime transport. I implore Members to support the passage of the Bill.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 be read the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1125

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr HUI Chi-fung rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN, are you going to vote?

(Mr Michael TIEN cast his vote)

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

1126 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Jeremy TAM voted against the motion.

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

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 59 Members present, 40 were in favour of the motion and 18 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019.

Council became committee of the whole Council.

Consideration by Committee of the Whole Council

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This Council now becomes committee of the whole Council to consider the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019.

FREIGHT CONTAINERS (SAFETY) (AMENDMENT) BILL 2019

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 to 12.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1127

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

Mr HUI Chi-fung, please speak.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): During the Second Reading debate just now, I had pressed the "Request to speak" button but was not able to speak. I originally planned to speak on the overall principles as well as the pros and cons of the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), and give a detailed elaboration on the issues involved.

Mr LEUNG, I will speak very distinctly, and since the subject under debate is whether we should support the question that clauses 1 to 12 stand part of the Bill, I will focus on why I oppose the question and will expound on my reasons. However, I still have to point out that my failure to comment on the pros and cons as well as the principles of the Bill just now was due to the abuse of power, and unlawful ruling by the President …

(Some Members made noise when leaving the Chamber)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please refrain from making too much noise when leaving the Chamber.

Mr HUI Chi-fung, please continue with your speech.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Under Article 72 of the Basic Law …

(The voice transmission of Mr HUI Chi-fung's microphone was unclear)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please put your microphone a bit higher.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Alright. Under Article 72 of the Basic Law, the President is only empowered to preside over meetings, and he has no right to restrict Members from speaking. I was not able to get an opportunity to 1128 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 speak and put my views clearly on record earlier, and would therefore like to take some time now to put it clearly on record that the President is not empowered under the Rules of Procedure and the Basic Law to restrict Members from speaking.

I am now going to focus my discussion on the inclusion of various clauses. With regard to clauses 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the Bill, I have some observations and queries and will express opposing views. This is the basis for my opposition to their inclusion into the Bill. Let me start with clause 1, which is a very simple provision dealing with the short title and commencement of the amended ordinance. Basically, a similar provision can be found in every bill and according to the proposed requirements under discussion, the amended ordinance shall come into operation on a day to be appointed by the Secretary for Transport and Housing by notice published in the Gazette. Why should I query the proposed commencement arrangements and consider them disputable? As a matter of fact, during the Second Reading debate, some Members have pointed out and the public officer concerned has also admitted in his reply given just now that in respect of the introduction and implementation of relevant legislative proposals, the Government had not been doing well and was late in making the necessary arrangements.

After the amendments made by the International Maritime Organization to the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention"), it has taken the Administration 8 to 10 years to introduce a bill for local legislation, we should of course question the capability of the Government. However, it is not my intention to take this opportunity to blame the Government for this, and I would instead like to point out if this can be attributed to a systematic failure. I said so because according to my observations, the delay might not necessarily be caused by the slippage on the part of the Bureau, and I suspect that the Law Officer (International Law) and the Deputy Law Officer (Treaties & Law) of the International Law Division under the Department of Justice should be held accountable.

It has already been clearly specified that the International Law Division should be responsible for the enactment of legislation to implement international agreements in Hong Kong, including agreements on maritime matters. As suggested by some Members during the Second Reading debate, would it be possible that the delay in this regard was caused by a backlog of work in the International Law Division rather than the Bureau? Why was there a delay in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1129 the work of the International Law Division? It is because apart from the implementation of international agreements as well as bilateral and multilateral treaties, the Division is also required to handle requests for surrender of fugitive offenders and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. I will not go into details but do find it necessary to query whether a backlog of work has resulted from the need to deal with the proposed legislative amendments of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, the "anti-extradition to China" movement and the disturbances arising from the CHAN Tong-kai case, thus making it impossible for the authority to work on the amendments of maritime legislation and the implementation of multilateral agreements?

Hence, when it comes to the question that clause 1 stands part of the Bill, as the public officer who spoke just now did not mention when to appoint a day by notice published in the Gazette for the commencement of the amended ordinance, I do not know when it will come into operation. Yet, this is something we should object in principle, and clause 1 should not be included as long as Members have such a query.

I will then go on to discuss clauses 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the Bill in a focused manner, and these clauses seek to amend sections 5, 6, 10A and 14 of the principal Ordinance respectively, so that direct references will be made to Annex II to the Convention. During the Second Reading debate, Members have raised a number of queries about the adoption of a direct reference approach and questioned whether it was done out of laziness. The purpose of Schedule 1 to the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance (Cap. 506) is to incorporate the overall requirements of the Convention into the localized legislation, but under the proposed amendments has adopted a direct reference approach and the entire Schedule 1 to the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance will be repealed.

Why the abolition of the Schedule is so undesirable that I will object to the inclusion of these clauses? As Members who have received legal training may be aware, the principle of law drafting is to produce concise and succinct texts with plain and simple language as far as possible, so that the legal requirements are easily found by and comprehensible to members of the public. This is the best drafting principle, and I think the Law Draftman has also taken note of it. However, if we support the adoption of a direct reference approach, the existing Schedule 1 in the Ordinance, which is directly related to the structural safety requirements and tests of containers, will be repealed in its entirety.

1130 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

I am no expert in mechanical engineering or containers, but as a Member with legal training background, what are my views on Schedule 1 to the principal ordinance? An ordinary citizen referring to Schedule 1 will come to realize that according to the standards adopted for the structural safety requirements and tests of containers, a container made from suitable material which satisfactorily performs the prescribed tests without sustaining any permanent deformation or abnormality which would render it incapable of being used for its designed purpose shall be considered safe. These are actually very clear requirements, and even Mr Andrew LEUNG can understand what I have said.

Certain test procedures are then set out in Schedule 1, and the first one is "Lifting". Simply put, a container shall be lifted in such a way that no acceleration forces are applied, after which it shall be supported for five minutes and then lowered to the ground. In this connection, certain specifications have been carefully listed out, including various methods used to lift up a container, and technical expressions such as "lifting from corner fittings" or "lifting by any other additional methods" have been used. Apart from the method of "Lifting", consideration can also be given to adopting the test procedures of "Stacking" as mentioned just now by some Members and even Members of the engineering sector to test the internal loading in accordance with the standard of 1.8 g.

I will not go on to read out these technical details, but would like to let the public realize that Schedule 1 to the principal ordinance has very clear provisions that even ordinary people who are not engineer can understand. There are of course some relatively detailed requirements containing jargons used in the field of engineering mechanics, but by including clauses 5, 6, 8, 9 and even 11 and 12 into the Bill, the objective effect is to have Schedule 1 repealed, after which direct references will be made to Annex II to the Convention. This will give rise to the problem raised by Mr Jeremy TAM during the Second Reading debate because Annex II has not been part of the principal ordinance.

I confirm that Mr Jeremy TAM was right just now in suggesting that members of the public would not be able to get hold of the required information when they wished to refer to the provisions under Annex II, because I have already checked with the Legal Service Division, which has advised me that the texts of all provisions under the Convention including Annex II are available only online after payment of fees. The Legal Service Division is not in a position to provide us with the texts, and has suggested that we should inquire with the Government. This obviously runs contrary to the principle of law drafting LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1131 mentioned earlier, because the texts are not easily available and comprehensible, and members of the public have to keep making cross-references when perusing the information. I wonder if, out of its lazy or casual attitude, the Government has adopted this so-called direct reference approach in clauses 5, 6, 8, 9 and even 11 and 12, in violation of the principle of law drafting.

Mr LEUNG, apart from the fact that the Government has violated the principle of law drafting, I must point out another problem raised just now by some Members such as Mr WU Chi-wai. It is fine to make direct references to the Convention because its texts are available online after payment of fees, but the problem lies in the fact that the texts are in English only. This is really embarrassing for the legislature, including the Legal Service Division and Members scrutinizing the Bill. This Chinese text I have at hand is the translated version dug up by my assistant in Macao after much effort. Shall we assume all engineers in the entire shipping and container industries can understand English only, and can definitely get hold of the English texts of the Convention? How can you face our great Motherland? How should you hold yourselves accountable to President XI when the Chinese version of an international agreement implemented in Hong Kong is not available? Are all those working in this industry expatriates?

This concerns not only political matters but also Article 9 of the Basic Law and section 4 of the Official Languages Ordinance (Cap. 5). It is stipulated in the Basic Law that Chinese and English are used as official languages in Hong Kong, and in this connection, I can assume that the authorities have acted in accordance with the Basic Law since English is also an official language. However, section 4 of the Official Languages Ordinance provides clearly for the enactment of ordinances in both official languages, and specifies in subsection (1) that "[a]ll Ordinances shall be enacted and published in both official languages". Yet, such a requirement shall not apply to an exceptional case where an ordinance amends another ordinance, but that other ordinance was enacted in the English language only, and no authentic text of that ordinance has been published in the Chinese language under section 4B(1). Nevertheless, the current legislative amendment exercise is definitely not the case, and my queries are therefore well-founded.

Although I am willing to accept that the authorities have not acted in violation of Article 9 of the Basic Law, the Official Languages Ordinance does require that local legislation shall be enacted in both Chinese and English 1132 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 languages and hence, has the adoption of the current approach constituted a breach of such a requirement? The authorities may of course argue that the wordings of the provisions have made references to the English names of Annex II and the Convention, but as far as these details are concerned, I have to query whether it is appropriate to include and adopt the direct reference approach in the current exercise.

With regard to the direct reference approach, there are not too many precedents, and my staff have found only one, that is the Merchant Shipping Ordinance enacted in early years. I have to point out that as Hong Kong is an international city, discussions have often been held on the development of a trade single window on many different occasions in the Legislative Council, such as at meetings of the Panel on Commerce and Industry. These discussions also cover a number of international treaties and agreements, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora which I am very concerned about, and there are many situations where applications have to be made for the issue of licences and permits under such conventions.

If such a direct reference approach is adopted to deal with whatever amendments introduced to international agreements, so that references to local legislation will no longer be required and the provisions under such agreements will be implemented directly in Hong Kong, at least some ten to twenty government departments will be affected. From what I recall, this is exactly the case for the development of a trade single window, and will law drafting officers and officers handling the relevant single window in those government departments manage to get hold of the revised texts of the international agreements concerned, and thereby using appropriate forms for filing single window applications? It seems that the direct reference approach is a legal tool or concept, but it will affect many legal provisions concerning trade development, thus causing problems for practitioners, legal personnel in relevant trades and industries, engineers and businessmen.

There will be a chance for the Secretary to give us a reply later, and he had better tell us when a direct reference approach is suitable for certain provisions, while some other provisions should be made the Bill. Even though a direct reference approach should be adopted, is it appropriate for the authorities to handle the matter in such a casual manner that they do not even provide a Chinese version or a concise and easily comprehensible reference text for members of the public? It should be noted that this will enable members of the public to act in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1133 accordance with the law and handle shipping and container businesses without having to make reference to the Convention. They will not be required to pay additional fees, it will not give rise to the situation where even Members of the Legislative Council cannot obtain the relevant information from the Legal Service Division, thus making it necessary for Members to ask the Government for such information, but it has not included such information in its legal documents. I consider this highly undesirable.

I hope that the public officer concerned will respond to what I have said. In view of the above mentioned reasons, I object to the inclusion of clauses 1 to 12 into the Bill.

I so submit.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, in respect of the question of the adoption of a direct reference approach, I will put forward my arguments against this part of clauses standing part of the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill").

I just heard the Secretary's response to the adoption of a direct reference approach. According to his explanation about the adoption of a direct reference concept in the Bill, such international conventions are widely applicable to all parties around the world, and since they are globally applicable, we have to comply and, theoretically, should have all the contents incorporated intact into local laws.

Clause 10 of the Bill is to amend section 27(1) of the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance ("the Ordinance"), and it provides that: "(whether in whole or in part) to an international agreement relating to the safety of freight containers adopted by the International Maritime Organization, as from time to time revised or amended by any revision or amendment that applies to Hong Kong." However, section 27(1) of the Ordinance stipulates that: "The Secretary may make regulations for the purpose of this Ordinance and for giving effect to any provision of the Convention applicable to Hong Kong." In other words, the Secretary has discretionary power to decide whether these provisions of the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention") should be introduced.

1134 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

However, I just heard the Secretary mention that the principle of adopting a direct reference approach involves global applicability. In other words, when all contracting parties in the world adopt the same set of criteria, why was an element added in the course of drafting this Bill to the effect that the Secretary is given the discretionary power to decide whether to adopt the provisions of the Convention? This seems to be contradictory to and conflicting with the Secretary's original explanation about the adoption of a direct reference approach. Because according to the Secretary's original explanation, the Ordinance has to be amended in response to the requirements of the Convention and thus all the relevant provisions in the Convention should be incorporated. Then, the Secretary should not have the discretion to choose whether to adopt the provisions, and likewise, this amendment should not have contained the stipulation about the right of the Secretary to decide whether to implement any provision in the Convention, right? Moreover, if the Secretary can have a choice, on what basis can he make a decision on implementing the provisions of an international agreement in whole or in part? In case it is a partial implementation, this will be contradictory to the Secretary's explanation earlier. Then will the partial implementation go against the content of the Convention? In fact, some international agreements have long been adopted. When they have not been implemented during this long period of time, has Hong Kong violated the requirement concerned?

Therefore, how to decide in future whether certain provisions of an international convention are applicable to Hong Kong will bring some uncertainties to this amendment. And in the course of law drafting, uncertainties should be avoided as far as possible so that the content of the law can be more precise. However, under the logic just explained by the Secretary, this amendment itself contains some uncertainties.

My second point is related to clause 7 of the Bill. Concerning the requirement on the display of the safety approval plate, it prescribes that "if the construction of the container was completed before 1 July 2014 and no structural modification has ever been made to the container", the plate can be displayed in accordance with the regulations stated in Schedule 2 before this Bill comes into effect and does not need to follow the requirement in Schedule 2 of the new law, such as the requirement stipulated in section 2(1)(b) of Schedule 2 in the Bill that a container with "a racking value of less than 150 kN" should have additional markings on its plate.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1135

My question is: What is the basis on which the line of 1 July 2014 is drawn by the Administration? It is because in 2010 and around 2012 respectively, the International Maritime Organization already adopted the new resolutions to be applicable globally. Unless the authorities tell me that this is not the situation and explain that the ways of handling containers before and after 2014 are different. If this was the case, this might be a justification. However, we completely fail to see this justification. Besides, we cannot forget that this provision is particularly added to the law, meaning that the original international agreement actually does not contain any exemption clause. Then why did the Government, on its own accord, incorporate this exemption clause in the course of amending the Ordinance, so that the containers constructed before 1 July 2014 are not subject to certain restrictions? We find this approach very weird. Besides, law enforcement is also involved. When the containers constructed before 1 July 2014 have to observe the old rules while the containers constructed after 1 July 2014 have to follow the new rules, how can law enforcement authorities do their enforcement work? For example, when I see a container, with or without the display of a safety approval plate, how can I tell it was constructed before or after 1 July 2014? If I cannot make a distinction, will the entire law be simply ineffective? If a distinction cannot be made, what is the point of adding this provision by the authorities? This is very puzzling indeed.

Of course, according to the Secretary's explanation, we do not need to worry about this because Hong Kong has no container production line, all our containers are imported from overseas. However, precisely because our containers are imported from overseas while the Convention is applicable to Hong Kong, Hong Kong must enforce the law with the incorporation of the relevant requirements. But when there is no standard to follow in the course of law enforcement, this law will become a veneer of compliance with the Convention. The resolution concerned was adopted in 2010 and came into force in 2012. With the lapse of 8 to 10 years, the Hong Kong Government finally amends the Ordinance today. In fact, this shows that the Government has not fully discharged its duty when handling the international agreement concerned.

My third point is that in fact, there is a Chinese version of the Schedule to the Ordinance. After studying the Chinese version of the Schedule and Annex II in the amendment of the Bill, we find that apart from the difference in the units of measurement, their contents and wordings are generally very similar. Hence, this issue could have been resolved in a very simple and direct manner by amending the terms and standardizing the units of measurement in the 1136 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

Schedule to the Ordinance―there is certainly also a newly added part―but the authorities have not chosen this approach. Instead, it has decided to repeal the Schedule and substitute it with Annex II.

In fact, under this approach, a Chinese statute law which was originally easily understood by the public will become vague. In order to understand the stipulations in the law, we have to check against the English version of Annex II, and this is undesirable in the law drafting procedure. Why did the Government need to adopt this option? Why did it have to repeal the originally very clear Chinese version of the Schedule, give up a very simple approach by which the problem can be resolved by just amending the units of measurement in the Schedule, but choose to repeal the Schedule and substitute it with Annex II instead? How is this approach beneficial and conducive to law drafting? If we wish that all users can understand the provisions easily and clearly when reading the law, the wording in the law should be very clear. People should not be required to read many different footnotes and citations, and go through the content of Annex II before they can further understand the provisions. While the present approach is not conducive to the entire law at all, practitioners in particular find it even more difficult to adapt.

Another point that I would like to highlight is that in this amendment exercise, the Government has not provided a Chinese version for Annex II. But in fact, Macao provided a Chinese version in 2014. In this version, apart from the last section which mentions single-door operation, the section newly added to the Bill, the other parts are really simply alignment of terms and units of measurement as I just mentioned. Macao has already done it. As far as I know, even the Mainland, for the invocation of this set of international regulations, has also compiled a Chinese version to the corresponding amendments. Why did the Government choose such an inert approach in the process by merely replacing the Schedule with an entire Annex II? As just mentioned by Mr HUI Chi-fung, it is stated in the Basic Law that importance should be attached to the discussion process during legislation. Nonetheless, on this issue, we see that the Government has only chosen a convenient way instead of maintaining consistency in the overall law drafting procedure. We find it very disappointing.

I do not intent to have a detailed discussion on other amendments. As I said earlier, these four parts of amendments alone have reflected the inappropriate areas in the drafting procedure of the Bill. Precisely owing to this reason, not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1137 only will users bound by the law face operational difficulties, but the authorities will also encounter substantial difficulties in the enforcement of this law. In regard to the Bill, I personally express my opposition clearly for the reason that mistakes and negligence should not have existed in the law drafting procedure.

Finally, I would like to point out that in respect of law enforcement, the Government strongly emphasizes that the law enforcement power of the Marine Department ("MD") has to be exercised on board vessels. Nevertheless, we are all cognizant that there may be safety issues for containers stored in any location. In the light of this, there may be safety issues for containers not only on board vessels, but also on land such as container yards. In the Bill, it seems that MD can only authorize the people concerned for law enforcement on board vessels or at ports at the most. But as we all know, the storage space in Hong Kong for containers is limited. The containers, apart from being placed in Kwai Chung Container Terminal or on board vessels, may also have to be stored on brownfield sites or other places in the New Territories. However, workers responsible for transporting containers may face occupational safety hazards if the safety measures for these containers are not properly done. In the course of placing containers at container yards, workers may be subject to unnecessary hazards if the containers are not duly placed. When Hong Kong is under the threat of a typhoon, improper stacking of containers will have significant safety implications for the entire storage area.

Although the Bill seeks to make some technical amendments, its inherent flaws in a few aspects are discernible to us. Therefore, I oppose the passage of the Bill. Thank you, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, please speak.

(Mr HUI Chi-fung indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, what is your point of order?

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

1138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

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 Andrew WAN, please speak.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this part of the debate on the support or otherwise for the question of the relevant clauses standing part of the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), I will mainly focus on a detailed interpretation of the contents of those clauses I discussed briefly during the Second Reading debate. At the time, I mentioned certain principles and queries. Now, my discussion will be more on the technical details.

I will not discuss the legislative intent because it is already known to Members, and Members are more concerned about the reason for the Government's failure to proceed with the matter until such a long time after the endorsement of the new requirements in the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention") in 2010 and 2013. True, this certainly warrants our criticism; but then this is not the main point I wish to discuss in the current debate. After all, 7 or 10 years have passed since then, and in fact, as it is an international convention, the relevant industry has already followed the relevant requirements in daily operation―as I have been given to understand by the relevant industry. That is to say, irrespective of whether the relevant laws of Hong Kong have been amended based on those requirements, the industry has already followed the new requirements in the Convention in its operation. On the surface, it seems that it does not matter much whether this amendment exercise is conducted. But precisely when we heard the Secretary's reply just now, we were literally stunned as we had the feeling that the legislative amendment exercise that was conducted after the passage of those 7 or 10 years, to put it pointblank, was a mere cosmetic attempt. That is to say, as the Government finds it weird to see that everybody is already following the new requirements in the Convention even though it has not amended the relevant local legislation, it considers it necessary to amend the relevant local legislation. But much to our surprise, the outcome is that the amendments concerned are defective and sloppy here and there with numerous loopholes. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1139

Just now, the Secretary tried to address the queries we raised about the principle during the Second Reading debate. His reply was a complete shock to me. When we questioned the poor drafting of the clauses, he told us not to worry; and when we raised the question of regulation, he said that containers were not built in Hong Kong. Can all this be regarded as a satisfactory answer? Was he saying that as containers were not built in Hong Kong, it would not be necessary to carefully execute the supervision work stipulated in the amended legislation? This should not be the case, right?

Actually, the Government sees the necessity to amend the relevant Ordinance precisely because Hong Kong is traditionally a major container port for the freight industry―but this status is declining now. Therefore, the Secretary's earlier reply could not be regarded as a satisfactory answer. I hope the Secretary can realize this. When we asked about the ways to identify containers, the Secretary should not have answered us in the way he did. Besides―Chairman, I will mention those clauses later on―I also wish to refute the Secretary's assertions, because his assertions have driven me to ask some questions. According to the Secretary, we must proceed with the exercise because it is a necessary duty …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, the current proceedings are not an extension of the Second Reading debate. Please return to the topic of the Committee stage and speak on your support or otherwise for the relevant clauses collectively standing part of the Bill.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, thank you for your reminder. I was actually doing what you have just said. But perhaps I was interrupted by the headcount when I was about to speak just now, so I had to think about how I should set forth my arguments. In the following, I will talk about specific clauses. In any case, let me finish this utterance: The Secretary's answer is not satisfactory to us.

In the light of the Chairman's reminder, I will now refute the Secretary on the main basis of those clauses and point out their flaws. To begin with, I wish to talk about clause 7 of the Bill, and it concerns―this is rather more important―the provision of exemption for containers with a stacking value of less than 192 000 kg or a racking value of less than 150 kN from complying with 1140 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 the requirements on the marking and fixing of safety approval plates ("SAPs"). Why do I have to bring up this particular clause? Just now, the Secretary said himself that the marking and fixing of an SAP on containers was a necessary duty. But if the authorities are to accord exemption to certain types of containers, how are they going to enforce such exemption? Unable to explain it, he merely talked about something irrelevant. I cannot see anything about this in the Convention, and if I have missed anything, I hope the Secretary can give Members an answer to this question about technicality because many Members have asked why exemption is to be accorded to those containers that were built before 1 July 2014 without any subsequent structural modification.

Besides, how will the authorities enforce the relevant legal provisions after they have been so amended? The authorities cannot possibly argue: "This is the wording of the provisions, but we are unable to follow them in practicality." Just now, a few Members discussed how to identify containers. Of course, the authorities can require the affixation of markings to containers for easy identification. However, without any such markings, how can the authorities ascertain whether a container was built before 1 July 2014 without any subsequent structural modification? Furthermore, the Secretary has also said that containers are not built in Hong Kong. In my view, this is one of the many defects. The wording of clause 7 is like what I have just said, and that is why I think this particular clause has shown that the authorities merely adopt an attitude of doing a cosmetic job when conducting this legislative exercise. As a result, the clause's wording is sloppy with many loopholes or even ambiguities, and the authorities have failed to explain clearly why such an exemption is proposed in the amendment clause 7 that is supposed to be based on the Convention's requirements as the Bill seeks to introduce new requirements for containers with limited stacking or racking capacity.

Furthermore, I also wish to discuss clauses 5, 6, 8 and 9, which are related to clause 7. The relevant amendments also involve an issue of my concern and that is … As Members are aware, clauses 5, 6, 8 and 9, in gist, seek to repeal the original Schedule 1 and substitute it with Annex II. As several Members already discussed this point just now, Chairman, I will be as concise as possible in my discussion and avoid repeating their points. In my view, this is very inappropriate. The first point is about the adoption of the direct reference approach. This approach … I will only add a few points based on the earlier speeches of Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr WU Chi-wai. Actually, except the revisions to section 8 (which concerns the testing procedures and specifications LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1141 for containers in one-door-off operation) in Annex II to the Convention, many revisions to the contents of Annex II are merely minor textual amendments when compared to their original texts. Therefore, I am baffled, wondering why the Government, despite having such a long time of 7 to 10 years … Well, I do not know if all is because the Government is slack, careless or lazy, or due to any other reasons. Anyway, there must be a reason. Why should it refuse to amend the Ordinance with the same approach of amending an existing Schedule, so as to avoid the controversies today and the query raised by two Members just now as to whether the public can know the requirements in the relevant Ordinance, and whether this Council can exercise its power (one example being the question of whether this Council can propose amendments to the Schedule under the existing legal framework)?

My feeling is that the inadequacies of this amendment approach will make it difficult for the public to understand the requirements on container inspection in the future and will even deprive this Council of the opportunity to discharge certain functions. This is my feeling about the speeches of the two Members.

Besides, I am ashamed of one thing. I am not saying that I look down upon Macao. In fact, according to President XI Jinping, Macao has done a better job than Hong Kong. Precisely … This exercise is another proof showing that Macao has done a better job than Hong Kong. Macao proposed amendments earlier than we …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, this point has already been raised by various Members during the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I for one have not mentioned this point before.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Certain Members have already raised this point. Please do not repeat it.

1142 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, when you say that I am not allowed to raise a point that has been mentioned by other Members, are you saying that I do not have to speak then?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please do not repeat the points of other Members. Please return to this debate topic.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I honestly cannot agree with you. Various Members, including pro-establishment Members, may repeat their own arguments or even my arguments, and I will likewise repeat their arguments. How is it possible for me to utterly avoid an interpretation …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): It is the Committee stage now, and the discussion is on the question of the relevant clauses collectively standing part of the Bill.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am precisely speaking on those clauses.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You have just discussed the case of Macao, but this is not relevant to any clauses. Please return to this debate topic.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, you will understand what I mean to say if you are a bit more patient. The question I am driving at is why the authorities cannot do better by providing a Chinese translation in this legislative amendment exercise. This is what I want to say.

Besides, regarding … as I said just now, the approach to replacing Schedule 1 with Annex II is inappropriate. But I will not repeat this point, lest the Chairman may lose his patience. Anyway, speaking of the amendments proposed in clauses 5, 6, 8 and 9, I will say the authorities are on the whole lack of flexibility in its handling and will make it impossible to carry out any due supervision. As for the problem that only the English version of Annex II is provided, I will not go into the details.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1143

The final point I wish to discuss―Chairman, please be a bit more patient as I only need a few more minutes to finish my speech―is about clause 10. Chairman, I have specifically mentioned clause 10. Seeking to amend section 27(1) of the existing Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance, clause 10 reads: "(whether in whole or in part)"―this is the main point―"(whether in whole or in part) to an international agreement relating to the safety of freight containers adopted by the International Maritime Organization,"―Chairman, this is the main point―"as from time to time revised or amended by any revision or amendment that applies to Hong Kong."

I wish to discuss the original section 27(1), which clearly states: "The Secretary may make regulations for the purpose of this Ordinance and for giving effect to any provision of the Convention applicable to Hong Kong." But the existing amendment seeks to repeal everything after "giving effect". That is to say, on the question of how the Director will be empowered to deal with the implementation of the international convention concerned―I now explain it in my own words―the direct reference approach will be adopted. This is how the relevant matter is to be dealt with. I wish to say that the wording is defective. The Director is to be given absolute power, but the wording is unclear, and the amendment clause has likewise failed to set out any detailed criteria for defining "giving effect (whether in whole or in part)". And very rarely … Of course, the authorities may argue that the manner of "giving effect" must depend on the provisions of the international convention concerned. But the problem here is precisely that this is in contradiction with what the Secretary said just now. If the Secretary says that the contents of the Annex mentioned in the Bill are the same as those of the Annex to the Convention and therefore impose a necessary duty on us, then I will say that the phrase "(whether in whole or in part)" should be left out, and the selective application of the Convention's provisions to Hong Kong should likewise be out of the question.

In my view, all such defects have served to show that when the Government proposes to amend the relevant Ordinance this time around, it has … Even though the Government has so much time, it has nonetheless failed to draft the wording of the amendment clauses clearly, and we can notice certain sloppy loopholes. Besides, unlike the past, the Government has also failed to draft the contents of the clauses in such a proper way that can enable the public to understand them clearly, with the result that in the end … It has even failed to prepare a proper Chinese translation. So, I must put forward these views.

I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.

1144 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, the Second Reading debate on the Bill and its Committee stage have already spanned over five hours. During the above proceedings, five Members have requested a headcount for six times altogether, and this has consumed over 1 hour 15 minutes. Besides, as my Deputy and I have also pointed out, certain Members have digressed from the discussion topic in their speeches.

I remind Members that the scope of consideration by the committee of the whole Council should be Members' support or otherwise for the relevant clauses collectively (namely clauses 1 to 12) standing part of the Bill. The meeting time of the Legislative Council is limited, and during the Committee stage, Members should not repeat their discussions on the principle of the Bill or any arguments that were already raised in the Second Reading debate. If Members can stay focused in their speeches, the committee of the whole Council should be able to complete its consideration within a reasonable time frame.

As President, I am duty-bound to ensure the orderly, fair and proper conduct of meetings and to strike an appropriate balance between respecting Members' rights and the effective operation of the Legislative Council. Having considered all relevant factors, and by virtue of the power granted by Article 72(1) of the Basic Law to the Legislative Council President to preside over meetings, I now decide that the Committee stage shall last until around 2:30 pm, and thereupon the question of the relevant clauses collectively standing part of the Bill will be put to the vote.

Members should be as concise as possible in their speeches, so that more Members can speak. If I consider that a Member has digressed from the discussion topic or kept repeating the arguments of his own or other Members in his speech, I will stop the Member from speaking.

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will speak on clauses 1, 4 and 6 at the current stage. Actually, I would like to mainly raise some queries. As a layman and a nurse, I am more concerned about safety and health. After reading through the clauses mentioned, I have some queries and would like to ask the Secretary for his advice on matters which I do not understand. With the implementation of the legislative amendments, will there be any improvement to risks, safety and health as I mentioned earlier?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1145

Let us first take a look at clause 1, which provides clearly for the short title and commencement of the amended ordinance. I would like to focus on the commencement arrangements because as pointed out by some Members during the Second Reading debate, it has been eight years since the requirements were drawn up but the corresponding legislative amendments are introduced today. We can of course hold different views on the matter. Chairman, will it be safer and the risks are lower after a commencement date is appointed by the Secretary? It seems that the Secretary has offered no explanation in this respect so far, and I hope he would take the opportunity to inform us later of the number of cases or dangerous incidents which may occur before the introduction of these legislative amendments and the commencement of the amended ordinance. I am not talking about workers, but the problems with containers not up to the required standards. I will also discuss such terms as "weight", "tare", "mass" later. Will it be conducive …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Prof Joseph LEE, the issues you are talking about should be scrutinized by a Bills Committee. Please return to the subject of this debate.

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): I am sorry, and thank you for your reminder. I have not joined a Bills Committee formed to study the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), and neither have I got the impression that one has been set up for that purpose. Hence, I would like to raise some queries here, and hope the Secretary will explain to us that some progress will be made after the inclusion of such clauses into the Bill. I understand that this is not a Bills Committee, but I must raise the queries I have as I think this is our responsibility.

What I wanted to say just now is that should this clause be included into the Bill, and the situation would be improved after the proposed amendments have published and taken effect, there should be a reduction in the number of accidents. In the opinion of the Government as the executive authority, if we assume that the Bill is passed today on 5 November, after its commencement, will the number of accidents be reduced? As we are responsible for enacting legislation, I wish the Secretary could offer more explanation and facilitate better understanding among members of the public of the legislation enacted, so that 1146 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 people other than trade members will also be able to understand. Although I do not know if trade members really understand, I as a layman do wish to learn more, and this is my views on the inclusion of clause 1 into the Bill.

I will then go on to talk about clause 4. According to my understanding, it is proposed in clause 4(2) that all references to "weight" shall be repealed and substituted with "mass". Chairman, we are not sure what is meant by the "mass" and "weight" of a container. As far as I understand from the paper provided by the Government, matters concerning the testing, inspection and safety of containers will be outsourced to recognized organizations, and I do not know if this should be called "AP". Recognized organizations will be appointed to examine and approve containers, but what effects can this achieve in reducing the existing risks?

Chairman, I raise this question here because during the Second Reading debate, some Members queried that the Government had proposed no legislative amendment accordingly over the past eight years, and they wondered if the proposed amendments under discussion were introduced merely for amendment's sake. Steps were taken as early as in 2000 in some neighbouring countries and places to amend their laws, but no action has ever been taken in Hong Kong to amend or update our legislation until now. Chairman, I raise no query in this respect but the question is: Can the current exercise really help to reduce the occurrence of accidents and improve safety?

As for the terms "weight" and "mass", I also fail to understand the justifications behind. When I was a secondary student, my performance in physics was so poor that I almost failed in this subject, and I know nothing about such concepts as mass, weight, etc. However, I understand that with the introduction of the proposed amendments and our support for the inclusion of clause 4 into the Bill, we will be able to improve the safety of containers. Yet, I am not sure if this is the case and how this can be achieved, and I really hope the Secretary can give us an explanation later in this respect. Are the proposed amendments to wordings purely a cosmetic move, or are they meaningful suggestions which can actually enhance the safety of containers, workers and operation of the relevant trade? Chairman, I wish to know whether such proposed amendments can really improve the safety of the entire container industry in Hong Kong, container operation in particular. I am not going to talk about things I do not understand, such as "unloading", "ventilation", etc., but with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1147 regard to the proposal under clause 4(2) to replace the term "weight" with "mass", will this help to enhance safety and reduce risks? This is the second point I would like to make.

Thirdly, I wish to talk about clause 6. As some fellow colleagues have mentioned earlier, the proposed amendments in clause 6 are about marking requirements, which involve things I do not understand at all, such as "pushing force", "pulling force", "torsion", etc. However, judging solely from the clause itself, I have a query to raise. The proposed amendments certainly seek to make things better, and with the inclusion of clause 6 into the Bill, it will make a clear requirement on marking the specifications conspicuously at a specified position. I will not query whether the Government is adopting the current approach to ensure conformity with international standards or standards adopted in neighbouring places, nor will I try to argue whether a Chinese version or an English version of the texts should be provided, or whether it is necessary to have the Chinese text translated into English, so on and so forth. Yet, as reflected from the proposed provisions, the Government seeks to amend section 6 but according to my understanding, there is no factory manufacturing containers in Hong Kong at present, and there are only recognized organizations tasked with testing and inspecting containers to ensure freight safety. In this connection, I can recall that all safety markings must be affixed conspicuously at the top right corner of containers, so that the specifications contained therein can theoretically be clearly visible even from stacks of containers.

Chairman, I am not a practitioner of the trade, and containers have only given me two impressions. The first one is that high stacks of containers can always be seen when I drive past container yards in the New Territories; and the second is that I can always see a lot of containers stacking on ships and at container berths when I pass by the container terminals. Chairman, these have made me suspect that the inclusion of this clause into the Bill will involve major changes because of the introduction of marking requirements, but will law enforcement agencies be aware of the situation when there is a breach of such requirements? In his reply given just now during the Second Reading debate, the Secretary stated that inspections would be conducted and various measures would be adopted, and I very much agree with him on this point. However, according to my understanding, the purpose of including this clause into the Bill is to enhance the safety of freight containers, reduce risks and facilitate trade operation, but the problem is that in the enforcement of the law, how can the authorities ensure safety, reduce accidents and enhance the safety of freight 1148 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 containers? For example, as I have said, the Government suggested in page 4 of its paper that the proposed amendments had no financial and civil service implications. Yet, the inclusion of this clause into the Bill will bring about numerous changes, and I do not know―this is why, Chairman, I have admitted that I am a layman―with section 6 amended as proposed by the Government, how many containers in the container industry―what I mean is containers but not businessmen―have to undergo a certain degree of modifications. As it will definitely be necessary for the Government to conduct inspections, enforce the law and even initiate prosecutions after such modifications, does the Marine Department have the necessary capacity now to cope with these law enforcement duties? I really do not know, and as all of us may be aware, the Marine Department has been most well-known over the past few years because of the vessel collision incident back then. I therefore remain doubtful about the law enforcement capacity of the Marine Department.

The paper provided by the Bureau even suggests that the amendments proposed to section 6 of the relevant legislation have no financial and civil service implications. I would just like to ask: Is it really the case that the Marine Department will not conduct inspections in this respect? Chairman, another question is: How will the Marine Department inspect containers after section 6 has been amended? Will inspections be conducted on container ships? How can these inspections be conducted when the ship has already set sail with containers on board? I do not know how inspections will be conducted on ships, and for ships registered in Panama, should penalties be imposed on their Panama-registered companies when problems with containers are found by the Marine Department, or should their Hong Kong-registered companies be punished instead? I really do not know, but I do have such queries. How will inspections be conducted on containers in container yards located in Kwai Chung? As for containers stacked somewhere in the New Territories, do they have nothing to do with the Marine Department? All these have made me doubt about the inclusion of this clause into the Bill, wondering if this can ensure better, healthy and safer development of the trade, while there will be no financial and civil service implications.

Chairman, I am worried that there will be serious consequences after we have given our support for the inclusion of this clause into the Bill, and funding applications will unexpectedly be submitted to the Finance Committee by the Government for the creation of additional posts at the rank of, for example, D6 or D8 for implementation of the amended Ordinance. If so, should I give the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1149 funding proposals my endorsement? The question has so far remained unanswered. Chairman, I hope the Secretary will explain later in his speech whether it is true that the proposed inclusion of clause 6 into the Bill has no financial and civil service implications, and the Marine Department will be able to discharge the related law enforcement duties with its current resources and establishment, thereby closely inspecting containers to ensure their conformity with the prescribed specifications and international standards. This will prevent Hong Kong from being rendered a laughing stock internationally when containers are transported from Hong Kong, while at the same time make considerable improvements in the safety of container operation by conveying very clear messages to the industry about the requirements for terminal operation and even storage of containers in container yards on land. The Government should never try to amend the law for amendment's sake, and then seek endorsement of the Legislative Council afterwards for additional financial commitment. These are the points which I hope the Secretary will clarify.

Chairman, what I mentioned above are some of my queries about the inclusion of clauses 1, 4 and 6 into the Bill. I hope that the Secretary will answer my such negative queries and questions later. My speech ends here. Thank you, Chairman.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, in the following minutes, I am going to give some views on the wording changes in clauses 3 and 4 of the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). I will also express some concern on the exemption-related content of clause 7 as far as possible.

The primary amendment in clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill is the substitution of "mass" for "weight". Prof Joseph LEE also mentioned this earlier but I would like to go a little deeper with the analysis. This is obviously a modification to the translation for the purpose of aligning it with the practice of the International Maritime Organization ("IMO") where the English word "weight" is changed to "mass". In the realm of natural science, weight and mass are two different concepts. Mass describes how much matter an object contains and it is measured in kilograms ("kg"), while weight describes the gravitational acceleration acting on an object due to the earth's gravity and it is measured in newtons ("N").

1150 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

Chairman, take this mobile phone as an example. If I say that its weight is 1 kg, I am talking about its mass. If you ask how much its weight is, the answer should be 9.8 N. The point is, there is the same gravity anywhere on the earth's surface. In other words, the earth's gravity is the same anywhere. Gravitational acceleration is basically a constant, which even a secondary school student can understand, and therefore the mass of an object is, more often than not, directly proportional to its weight. In everyday life, people have gradually referred to mass as weight, talking about weight only, but not mass. I do not mean to give a science lesson here, because what I have just said is basically understandable by any secondary school student who has studied physics.

Nevertheless, Chairman, the issue at hand is the problem caused by IMO changing the word "weight" to "mass". It is not within my capability to delve into what its original intent was, but as the local legislation involves a direct literal translation where the two-word Chinese term "重量", which means weight, is simply changed to " 質量", which means mass, would it cause some misunderstanding? I think that this deserves our careful study. Anyone who knows English would not see it as a problem to translate "mass" as "質量", because it is not a problem with the English word itself, nor should it even be one with the translation, but rather with the Chinese term "質量".

Chairman, I cannot recall since when "質量" has been used to generally refer to quality in the Mainland. When was the first time I heard the two-word Chinese term "質量"? I still have a little memory of it. It was when I was watching an Olympic diving event at a young age. In the past, the commentators used to comment on the national team saying: "This routine was completed to a high '質量'." I did not understand the meaning at first. It was only later that I came closer to understanding it. It all came down to a misunderstanding caused by the difference in context. As it turned out, what he meant was "quality". I would not question the validity of this expression. After all, Chinese communities in different places may use different wording to represent certain expressions or meanings.

The name of the official Chinese department in charge of quality inspection is "General Administration of Quality Supervision …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, please return to the subject of this debate.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1151

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I know you have been listening to my speech, and I believe that you are attentively trying to understand the arguments that I am laying out. If you listen a little longer, you will understand what I am saying. What I am talking about is "mass". Has Chairman ever read the Bill? The Bill has swapped the usages of "mass" and "weight". That is why I have to lay out my arguments. What I am talking about is the General Administration of Quality Supervision … Chairman has interrupted my speech. Let me repeat that the official Chinese department in charge of quality inspection is the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China, which refers to quality as "質量" in Chinese.

This is where the problem lies. I do not know if Chairman understands, but you must understand as you are so smart. Unfortunately, however, Prof Joseph LEE may not understand. I also believe that if Prof LEE did not understand, many people would not either. A problem arose when the usage of "質量" to mean quality widely spread in Hong Kong. What did the Chief Executive say last year when she talked about the Shatin to Central Link? I am going to quote a section of her remarks to support my argument. (I quote) "The Government's requirements on works projects in Hong Kong are not limited to structural safety. If there is any problem with the quality and integrity of the project, the Government will definitely seek full accountability." (End of quote). Carrie LAM also translated "quality" as "質量". She is not the only one who did this, the Legislative Council President also said so …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, please return to the subject of this debate.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman Andrew LEUNG, I have never digressed from the subject.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I consider that you have digressed from the subject. The Chinese term "質量" referenced in the Bill is not what you interpret now.

1152 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): This is the crux of the problem. Do you understand, Andrew LEUNG?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please return to the subject of this debate.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): I am illustrating that problems arise when someone does not understand the meaning of "質量".

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please return to the subject of this debate. If you do not return to the subject of this debate but continue to digress from the subject …

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): I have never digressed from the subject. You can ask me to stop speaking but I am explaining my argument.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You have digressed from the subject. If you do not return to the subject of this debate …

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Have I really digressed from the subject? When there is something wrong with the Chinese language in a piece of legislation, it is the responsibility of Members to point out the problem with its translation. The wording currently used in the legislation is the two-word Chinese term "質量". When you, Andrew LEUNG, can also change the meaning of "質量" from "mass" to "quality", I have to explain where the problem lies. I am now illustrating it with examples.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The Chinese term "質量" in the Bill does not refer to quality, but mass, and you have also put it this way. Please return to the subject of this debate. We are not in a courtroom debate. This Council is considering the Bill.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1153

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): The Court will not …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You should speak on whether or not you support the clauses as a whole, namely clauses 1 to 12, standing part of the Bill. Please return to the subject of this debate.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): How about this: in all the future debates in the Legislative Council, I keep saying "objection" throughout the 15 minutes of my speaking time? Should I? No, I have now cited examples to explain that there is a problem with the wording used by the Hong Kong Government. Something is lost in translation. This is where the problem lies. What we are talking about is what we should do when the choice of words made by the dignified SAR Government gives rise to misunderstanding. The term used is "mass" one moment and "weight" the next. How, exactly, should we use the words "weight" and "mass"? Chairman says that "質量" is equivalent to "quality", but in the eyes of some officials in the SAR Government, "質量" is "mass" or "weight". What should we do under such circumstances? This is the problem. Of course, not everyone in the universe is smart enough like the Legislative Council President to catch my drift right away …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Each term must be interpreted in accordance with the law.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): What are you talking about?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please return to the subject of this debate.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): I have never strayed from the subject. If you want to rule that I have digressed from the subject so that I cannot continue with my speech, suit yourself. My speech will not be long. I am not talking nonsense either. I have cited examples. I am now talking about the issue of quality.

1154 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

However, it does not matter. The quality of the Legislative Council is represented by its President. If you insist on not letting me go on, do not let me speak. How long has my speech lasted now? I am talking about the wording in clauses 3 and 4. Bravo, Chairman! This is the quality of the Legislative Council. My speech ends here.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 2:00 pm.

12:52 pm

Meeting suspended.

2:01 pm

Committee then resumed.

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

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The meeting resumes. Dr Helena WONG, please speak.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, this Council is dealing with the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") today. During the Second Reading debate earlier on, I once pressed the "Request to speak" button. But the President drew a line and disallowed Members to speak. The current debate topic is that clauses 1 to 12 shall stand part of the Bill. The main purpose of the Bill is to introduce technical amendments to address the updated container safety standards in the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention").

The relevant amendments are technical in nature, and they involve plate markings, safe stacking, safety testing for containers with one door left after modification, and also revisions to the dimensions and units marked on container LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1155 plates, including a replacement of the term "weight" with "mass". The relevant amendments are technical amendments to the details, and the updates are necessitated by changes in international standards. We have no objection to all this.

However, why is the Democratic Party against Second Reading and also the question of the relevant clauses standing part of the Bill? I think the most important reason is, particularly, clauses 10, 11 and 12 of the Bill―these are the clauses of our utmost concern. Clause 10 proposes to amend section 27 of the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance ("the Ordinance"), so that regulations made under the Ordinance may directly refer to international agreements as revised or amended from time to time. In our view, this arrangement will change the established legislative approach and limit Members' opportunities for deliberation and amendment in the future.

I believe that the Government proposes this amendment probably because it thinks that the relevant arrangement is more convenient. In the past, we did notice that whenever any international conventions were updated, such as the passage of certain resolutions by the International Maritime Organization ("IMO"), Hong Kong was honestly unable to amend the relevant legislation in a timely and expeditious fashion. In the past, there were honestly a backlog and delays of many years in our attempt to bring Hong Kong's legislation in line with international practices. During the Second Reading debate, I also heard Members' discussions on similar cases. One example is that an international organization already updated its requirements back in 2010, but we have experienced a delay of 10 years and are only able to deal with them now. Another example is that an international organization already passed certain amendments in 2013, but we are only able to deal with them now, after a delay of seven years altogether.

I wonder if the prolonged delay in our legislative work this time has been due to problems on the part of the Transport and Housing Bureau or other problems, with the result that amendments can be made only after a long wait. But owing to the prolonged delay over all this time, the Government now intends to expedite the process through the amendment proposed in clause 10. The Democratic Party, however, has strong views on this. The Government contends that it introduces the amendment because IMO will update the technical requirements in the Convention from time to time. This is why the Government proposes to repeal some of the original provisions through, in particular, 1156 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 clause 10 of the Bill, so that the direct reference approach can be adopted to facilitate the incorporation of the Convention's requirements into the Ordinance in the future. Besides, the Government has also put forth various amendments proposing to repeal a Schedule to the existing Ordinance and substitute it with Annex II to the Convention.

People may be unable to understand why we are against those technical amendments concerning container safety. They may even question whether the opposition camp has to oppose everything. I wish to give a clear account on the grounds for our opposition, especially the reason why the Democratic Party does not agree to transfer the power of amending the law to the Director of Marine ("DM").

Clauses 10 to 12, which are proposed to stand part of the Bill, seek to repeal the Schedules to the Ordinance and empower DM to, by order published in the Gazette, directly amend the Schedules to the Ordinance for the purpose of giving effect to any amendment―any future amendments―to the Convention as applied to Hong Kong. In other words, Legislative Council Members will be deprived of their legislative power, including the power to scrutinize legislation and propose amendments, and it will be transferred to DM in the executive authority.

What problems will ensue? If technical revisions are involved, why should the Government refuse to separate such technical revisions―revisions made to the international convention concerned from time to time―from the principal legislation and deal with them by way of a Schedule? It is alright to use the term "Annex" to replace the word "Schedule". In case of future needs for updates … Actually, we have adopted a similar approach all along, in the sense that when technical amendments are involved, the Government may propose to adopt the negative vetting approach for amending the relevant subsidiary legislation. In that case, Members will still have the opportunity to scrutinize the technical amendments to the relevant legislation.

Why should the Government refuse to separate those technical details that may need frequent revisions from the principal legislation and incorporate them into the Schedules under this approach? This will only involve a structural change and will not infringe on the legislative power vested in Legislative Council Members. In accordance with the Basic Law, legislative power is in Members' hands, but the Government now wants to strip us of the legislative LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1157 power and transfer it to the Marine Department ("MD"). The Government must explain why it has to strip the Legislative Council of its power to scrutinize and amend laws. The Under Secretary said that the international convention concerned would be revised from time to time. But how frequent does the expression "from time to time" suggest? Will revisions be made every month? I do not believe so. It may be revised twice a year at most, or even once a few years. This will not create a long queue of business in the Legislative Council and make it unable to cope. Structurally speaking, the Government may separate the relevant details from the principal legislation and adopt the current practice when the need for amendment arises.

We have processed amendments to various pieces of subsidiary legislation before. Owing to the lead-in-drinking water incident, the current-term Legislative Council once processed the amendment of safety standards for drinking water, focusing on the question of whether the concentration of heavy metals (such as lead, nickel, cadmium and chromium) in metal plumbing parts had exceeded the standard. In view of possible updates of the British and Australian standards, it was necessary to amend the Waterworks Ordinance to implement the updated standards. Of course, certain work is still pending completion, such as the work concerning water pumps.

Apart from drinking water safety, there is also food safety. I have just dealt with the amendment of the Food Adulteration (Metallic Contamination) Regulations. In the past, we updated the concentration standards of lead and mercury in food and also that of cadmium in rice through amending the relevant subsidiary legislation. Speaking of container safety, why does the Government propose to entrust the amendments of the relevant technical details to DM from now on without the need for them to be scrutinized by Legislative Council Members? Does the Government think that if a certain Policy Bureau is highly efficient, then it can follow this mode and authorize the departments under its purview, such as the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department or the Controller of the Centre for Food Safety, to handle food safety issues? I now turn to waterworks facilities. Suppose it is necessary to amend the concentration standards of heavy metals in water pumps, water pipes and water taps in the future. Will the Government also think that any such amendments can be directly handled by the Director of Water Supplies without the need for deliberation by Legislative Council Members? Should this happen, the Legislative Council may simply "close down" and needs not do its work as the executive authority may take up all the tasks. But after it has taken up a task, I 1158 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 fail to see how it can bring it to efficient completion as all the tasks of updating have been delayed for some 10 or 20 years. This is the case with food safety and also the case with drinking water safety.

The proposed arrangement is in breach of the Basic Law as it infringes on the power of Legislative Council Members to scrutinize and amend bills. This is the precise reason for our opposition to the Bill, and our opposition has nothing to do with the testing procedures to be adopted for containers in one-door-off operation in order to ensure their safety, or the question of whether the Chinese, English or French language should be used on the relevant plates. In my view, all these are not quite so important. The most important point of all is that the Bill has set a bad precedent of persistently undermining the legislature's power while incessantly expanding the executive's power. This is rather the crux of the problem. If the Government can confer such powers on MD through the Bill, I really do not know whether it will also be unnecessary for Legislative Council Members to monitor the gatekeeping work in food safety in the future.

Our food actually contains various toxic substances (such as aflatoxins), apart from those heavy metals I mentioned a moment ago. Besides, our cooking oil or food likewise contains many toxic substances. In this Chamber, I have already urged the Government to step up its work. According to the Bureau, a territory-wide consultation exercise will be conducted beginning from 6 November. Subsequently, it will present the consultation outcome to a relevant Legislative Council Panel for discussion and propose amendments by way of subsidiary legislation for deliberation by a Subcommittee formed by this Council. This process can arouse public discussion and concern and enable the relevant industries and people to know about the details, unlike the present case where DM is to be empowered somewhat covertly.

Another point is that after the relevant Schedule is repealed, the Annex II that replaces it is even without a Chinese version. The Government proposes to incorporate Annex II to the Convention into the Bill and repeal the original bilingual Schedule. Hong Kong practises bilingual law drafting, and this Council will soon proceed to the Third Reading stage. However, the Government has failed to provide a Chinese version of Annex II and incorporate it into the Bill for Members' scrutiny. It is undesirable compared to the original Schedule. The original Schedule is bilingual, and we may check the translation for any errors. The Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region adheres to the principle of bilingual legislative drafting. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1159

But the Annex II submitted by the Government is nevertheless stripped of a Chinese translation. Isn't it right to say that this is another example of subverting and ruining the long-standing convention of this Council? Does the Government think that everybody in the freight industry can understand the English language? Or, does the Government think that none of them can read Chinese, so it does not provide a Chinese version? I think the Government must explain why the case is like this.

If the revisions are incorporated into subsidiary legislation … This Council has processed various pieces of subsidiary legislation before. Some examples are the subsidiary legislation on the safety of food or drinking water I mentioned a moment ago, or even the "formula milk rationing order" of grave concern to the Liberal Party, and amendments were made by this Council at the time. Why should the Government refuse to handle the revisions by way of subsidiary legislation instead? I do not believe the amendment of a piece of corresponding subsidiary legislation will be very frequent, so much so that the Legislative Council or the Government will be unable to cope, and all the work must be entrusted to DM. But we will have no way to find out whether he has dealt with the task later as he is not required to report to this Council, and all he has to do is to publish a notice in the Gazette. In that case, will there be any revisions that are unreasonable or unsuitable for Hong Kong? We will not have any opportunities for discussion.

While I highly welcome the authorities' amendments to the Ordinance for the purpose of implementing those technical amendments that have been long overdue, I must say I am very discontented about the Government's approach as it will deprive Legislative Council Members of the power to amend and scrutinize laws, undermine our legislative power and expand the power of the executive. Hong Kong should uphold the full separation of powers with mutual checks and balances. But now, our legislative power has been transferred … Anyway, the legislative power of the Legislative Council has been infringed upon, whether such infringement is manifested by way of a transfer or deprivation. Therefore, the Democratic Party cannot support the relevant amendments.

MS CLAUDIA MO: We are conducting consideration by committee of the whole Council over whether clauses 1 to 12 should stand part of the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). And I will state my personal considerations accordingly.

1160 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

The Bill is certainly ceremonial, fairly straightforward and, of course, there are no smoke and mirrors. But then, if you look at the actual purpose of the Bill―the original Legislative Council Brief tells us that there are two sets of purposes. The first purpose is to standardize the requirements for testing and inspecting containers according to the International Convention for Safe Containers; and the second one is to prescribe uniform procedures of their maintenance and control for safe transportation.

So, it sounds all fine, except―when you look at the Bill itself, it is said in the introduction that the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance is "to implement the latest requirements of the International Convention for Safe Containers relating to the manufacture, use and examination of freight containers". The word "manufacture" was never mentioned in the original presentation by the Bureau. And it tells you … In effect, it has stated a very sad fact and that is: there is no such thing as manufacture in Hong Kong. Do we manufacture containers in Hong Kong? I doubt it very much. I just do not think it exists. And it also reminds one of the fact that our unemployment rate has been going up and up, which has reached almost the highest ever these days. And yet, the Government does not look at the manufacturing sector.

Okay, never mind, what I really think we should seriously lament is the fact that the official simply failed to address all the concerns and queries previously raised over the discrepancies in language between the Chinese and English versions. Excuse me? I thought somebody was saying something to me. Not really. I need a drink.

My previous queries involved the huge discrepancy which may probably lead to misunderstanding of certain terms, and that is why the English word "dimension" would become "foot" and "inch" in Chinese. That could be fairly misleading. It is unnecessary and he could not care less. The official in charge chose to ignore, and he certainly chooses to look the other way. Another example is the word "capacity" which, as far as the Bill is concerned, has now become "ability" in Chinese. Could you tell them to just keep quiet? What are you sitting there for? I mean this is very obstructive.

(Some Members spoke loudly in their seats)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1161

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please not make any sound that may disturb others in delivering their speeches?

Please continue with your speech, Ms Claudia MO.

MS CLAUDIA MO: Thank you. And last but not least, it is what Alvin YEUNG was saying earlier, and I mentioned that yesterday as well, that is, the word "mass", which has now become "quality" and "quantity" in Chinese. That is very very odd. The word "mass" could mean so many things in English. What about "mass" demonstration? What about a "mass" at church? And how could he, in this context―we are talking about freight containers―simply translate it into "quality" and "quantity" in Chinese? This is just so very odd specifically in some clauses.

For example, in clause 3(2), there is the phrase "Add in alphabetical order". When you talk about the alphabet, it is of course for the English texts, but then the Chinese version says, "Add in accordance with the number of strokes in Chinese characters". So why he, in this case, bother to count the number of strokes in Chinese characters? I just do not see the virtue of doing so. And as a result, the terms will be set out in the Chinese and English versions will be in different orders because alphabetical order is adopted in the English version, but the Chinese version, I suppose, is based on the numbers of strokes in the very first character of the term, right? So, this is very unnecessarily confusing and misleading. Now, you would think that words―what is the big deal about certain translation or some minor discrepancies? But they could be important, and do not ever think that I am just being nitpicking, nor come back here to ask the Council to change once again certain language in certain ordinances to the effect or for the purpose of achieving uniformity as that is going to be very absurd. So, this whole business about the language in the Bill could prove ultimately an indictment of this Government's sense of legal or linguistic correctness, and I urge the Administration, especially the judiciary, to seriously watch out.

Now, for clause 4, there is another rather curious difference between the Chinese and English versions. The English version of clause 4 simply proposes to repeal "use or" and substitute with "use the container or". Okay, they added 1162 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 in "the container" only, but the Chinese rendition is fairly completely different: Repeal the original wording of "使用或准許" and substitute with "使用該貨櫃或 准許他人". I do not know where the term "他人" (other person) comes from. I have not got the original ordinance to make comparison, and so this is rather baffling. How come a term denoting a human being would suddenly appear in the Chinese version of clause 4? Where did this actually come from? So this is all very baffling.

Having discussed clause 4, let me go to clause 7. Now, again―I have actually asked questions over this particular clause, and I do not think I got any reply―it says: Repeal paragraph (a) … never mind, I mean all these are like a legal maze of wordings, but the clause basically says that if the construction of the container in question was completed before 1 July 2014 and no structural modification has ever been made to the container, then this particular container is exempted from the new requirements.

Now, the provision clearly states the condition of "no structural modification has ever been made". What I am rather muddled about is how can it be confirmed that no structural modification has ever been made? How do they get this confirmation at all? Do they need another certification, or just take the word of the owner or the freight proprietor's declaration as true, like "Oh, nothing has been changed as it is"? I mean, we will have marine officials checking all those safety approval plates, right? And they just take their word for it, right? There is no actual examination at all. Is that what we are talking about?

Because marine officials checking the containers―you do not expect SWAT (special weapons and tactics teams) to do the checking there or a black helicopter patrolling in the air above to do the inspection, right? So what exactly will they do with this? Will an extra plate be required to confirm that the container is exempted from the new requirements because it is older or was manufactured before that cut-off date, so that it enjoys this grace treatment? Is this the case? I just do not know. Nor do I know if I could put my confidence and trust in our marine officials ever after the Lamma tragedy occurred on 1 October 2012. I just do not know how perfunctory their examinations would be at the end of the day.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1163

And regarding the Bill, I have quoted not just the discrepancies in the introduction but also mentioned my discomfort over the language business. I have specifically mentioned clause 4 (which proposes to add a term denoting a human being) and clause 7 as well. What I am addressing now is the point that certain containers which are old and have not been modified in any way could be exempted. Based on all those points I have made above, I am afraid I have to vote against the Bill.

Thank you.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The last Member to speak in this session.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please speak.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, it is more convenient for me to speak without wearing the mask. And I want to explain to the public that there is no one within 20 feet around me, so it should be safe.

I have a few concerns about passing the motion to let clauses 1 to 12 of the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") stand part of the Bill. These clauses seek to incorporate some new standards prescribed under the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention") … actually, as I said in the Second Reading debate, these new standards are not that new. We are 7 years and 10 years late in incorporating these standards … The clauses seek to implement some changes to the safety standards and procedures in accordance with the Convention.

Clause 1 of the Bill sets out the short title and provides for commencement. Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 2 of the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to repeal certain definitions and add new definitions in the Ordinance to reflect the latest terms adopted in the Convention. I do not find these clauses much of a problem.

Besides, clause 4 of the Bill seeks to make some textual amendments. They involve, among others, replacing the references to "weight" by "mass", so as to follow the change adopted in the Convention to align with the International 1164 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

System of Units. In this connection, I have some questions. I wish to point out that some terms in the Ordinance may clash with those used in some related ordinances.

Clause 7 of the Bill amends section 10 of the Ordinance to provide that if the construction of a container was completed before 1 July 2014 and no structural modification has ever been made to the container, the new requirements do not apply to the valid safety approval plate fixed to the container. I will also raise a few questions in this regard. Some colleagues questioned earlier why the line had to be set on 1 July 2014. I do not think the controversy is about the date. I can understand the logic behind. It is because one of the resolutions on the Convention was adopted in 2013 and became effective in 2014. So, the legal logic is that we should follow the commencement date of the resolution on the Convention and set the exemption date on the time before 1 July 2014. However, I have other questions about this clause and I will explain in detail later.

Section 27 of the Ordinance empowers the Secretary for Transport and Housing to make regulations under the Ordinance. Clause 10 of the Bill amends that section to expressly provide that the regulations may adopt a direct reference approach to refer directly to international agreements as revised or amended from time to time. As some colleagues pointed out earlier, they are a little concerned about this direct reference approach because it may take away the opportunity for the Legislative Council to amend ordinances. I am not that worried about this. Given that we already approved the terms adopted in some international agreements, so in incorporating their terms into local legislation or subsidiary legislation, the closer the terms or the drafting of our legislation to those international agreements the better. But we should indeed adopt some flexibility with the direct reference approach and should not copy directly from those international agreements because in drafting local legislation, we sometimes need to localize some of the terms. I thus think I need to express concern over this point.

Currently, Schedule 1 of the Ordinance sets out the requirements for the structural safety and tests of containers. Consequential to the repeal of that Schedule, clauses 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the Bill amend sections 5, 6, 10A and 14 of the Ordinance respectively to make direct references to Annex II to the Convention. Since this also involves the direct reference approach, I will not repeat my concern. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1165

Clause 12 of the Bill replaces the existing Schedule 2 to the Ordinance with a new Schedule 2 to provide for the latest requirements for the marking and fixing of safety approval plates, including the additional marking requirements for plates of containers with limited stacking or racking capacity. Just like my concern over the exemption for containers constructed before 1 July 2014 from the new requirements, I will express my concern over this clause as well.

I come back to discuss clause 4 of the Bill. It amends section 4 of the Ordinance to replace the references to "weight" by "mass". I will not repeat the definitions of "mass" and "weight" because Mr Alvin YEUNG explained them clearly just now. He more or less has given us a secondary school physics lesson and told us the difference between mass and weight; and he even explained their different measuring units. As a matter of fact, they are two different matters.

By replacing "weight" with "mass", we manage to align with the International System of Units and follow the international practice. I have no objection to this point. However, the Merchant Shipping (Safety) (Carriage of Cargoes and Oil Fuel) Regulation ("the Regulation") (Cap. 369AV), which was amended in 2016 … the amended Regulation came into force on 1 July 2016; and section 3A of the Regulation sought to incorporate the amendments to Regulation 2 under Chapter VI of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea into the Regulation.

Section 3A of the Regulation (Cap. 369AV) concerns the methods adopted for verifying the gross weight; and the Regulation uses the term "weight" and it uses the concept of gross weight to describe the verifying methods used for containers. But the Bill seeks to replace "weight" with "mass", which will clash with the term in Cap. 369AV regarding the loading of containers and the maximum gross weight indicated on the safety approval plates.

I am concerned that after the Bill is passed, if the amended Ordinance clashes with another ordinance, this may create confusion for members of the public or related companies and workers when they try to comply with the law. Should they adopt "mass" or "weight"? I will not repeat myself, but they are two different concepts and they use different methods for measurement.

1166 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

Under the Regulation (Cap. 369AV), the gross weight is verified by two methods … I will not explain in detail here … but the Regulation sets out the specific procedure. It involves the tare mass, weighing, the mass and the gross weight of containers. If people do not sort out these concepts and do not differentiate between these methods and the ordinances are inconsistent, I am worried that many disputes may arise in the future. So, I do not know if the Under Secretary will later try to explain this or introduce consequential amendment to the Regulation within the little time left in the legislative exercise. If he will not do so, I am concerned that this inconsistency will continue to exist and become an obstacle to law enforcement in the future. This is my concern over clause 4 of the Bill at the moment.

Clause 7 of the Bill seeks to amend the exemption date. I think there are some problems here. If containers constructed before 1 July 2014 can be exempted, how many containers will be exempted? I do not know if the Administration has conducted any research or compiled any statistic on this. Take the container throughput of Hong Kong in 2019 as an example. We had a throughput of 18.3 million twenty-foot equivalent units ("TEUs") in 2019. This is indeed a significant drop. Back in 2014, our throughput reached some 20 million TEUs. Among these 18.3 million TEUs, how many were constructed before 1 July 2014?

The resolutions on the Convention came into force more than six years ago. Many containers arriving in Hong Kong have already changed the positions for their safety approval plates in order to comply with the requirements of other countries which have expeditiously incorporated the resolution into their local legislation. Our container workers already get used to handling these containers according to the new positions of their safety approval plates affixed. As far as we know, workers may handle containers with clear markings differently.

I wonder if the Under Secretary, or the officials concerned, have consulted the operators at container terminals when they proposed to amend the Ordinance, especially in the giving of the exemption. Have they asked them how they would look at the markings of the containers when they operate the cranes? They often need to persistently bend at a 45 degree to identify the markings on each container. When this exemption is given, the markings on those old containers will never need to be changed to the new positions, and they will then have to differentiate the old containers from the new ones.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1167

We all know that a study was conducted recently on this industry. It is found that 80% of the workers have lower back pain and intervertebral disc herniation … Deputy Chairman, I have this problem too. It happens at the fourth and fifth intervertebral discs … This is the biggest difficulty they experience in this industry, and …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, I think you have digressed from the subject.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I am talking about the exemption. The containers constructed before 1 July 2014 will be exempted from the requirement of fixing the markings (The buzzer sounded) … I will leave this to the Third Reading …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, your speaking time is up.

The debating time of this section has come to an end. I now call upon the Secretary for Transport and Housing to speak.

(Dr Helena WONG indicated her wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary, please hold. Dr Helena WONG, what is your point of order?

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG has requested a headcount.

1168 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): A quorum is present in the Chamber. The meeting now continues.

Secretary for Transport and Housing, please speak.

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I would like to thank Members for their concerns over and views on the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill").

As I pointed out in my speech when moving the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill, the Bill seeks to incorporate into the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance (Cap. 506) the latest requirements of the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention") of the International Maritime Organization relating to the safety in loading/unloading, stacking and transport of containers as well as the structure and specifications of containers to the effect that these requirements can be implemented in Hong Kong. As the exemption arrangement in clause 7 of the Bill is drawn up in accordance with the requirements of the Convention, the Bill is thus purely technical in nature.

The adoption of the "direct reference approach" means the direct reference to provisions of international agreements in local laws so as to apply such provisions locally. With many marine-related international agreements being technical in nature, clear and specific in their requirements, widely applicable to contracting parties internationally and of interest to only a specific group of people, the direct reference approach has been adopted in quite a number of local legislation when implementing marine-related international requirements. I emphasize here that the direct reference approach does not undermine the powers of the Legislative Council, nor does it circumvent the legislature.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1169

Implementation of the legislative proposals of the Bill will help guarantee safety in the loading/unloading, stacking and transport of containers while ensuring that the structure and specifications of containers comply with the latest requirements of the Convention, thereby further safeguarding maritime transport safety. I implore Members to support the passage of the Bill.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the clauses read out by the Clerk stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr LAM Cheuk-ting rose to claim a division.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

(While the division bell was ringing, THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

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

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

1170 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Jeremy TAM voted against the motion.

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

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 55 Members present, 36 were in favour of the motion and 18 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): All the proceedings on the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 have been concluded in committee of the whole Council. Council now resumes.

Council then resumed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1171

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I now report to the Council: That the

Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 has been passed by committee of the whole Council without amendment. I move the motion that "This Council adopts the report".

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Transport and Housing be passed.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, this motion shall be voted on without amendment or debate.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Alvin YEUNG rose to claim a division.

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

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

1172 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Abraham SHEK, are you going to vote?

(Mr Abraham SHEK cast his vote)

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Jeremy TAM voted against the motion.

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

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 55 Members present, 36 were in favour of the motion and 18 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1173

Third Reading of Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill: Third Reading.

FREIGHT CONTAINERS (SAFETY) (AMENDMENT) BILL 2019

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I move that the

Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019

Be read the Third Time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 be read the Third time and do pass.

Does any Member wish to speak?

Dr Kwok Ka-ki, please speak.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I speak against the Third Reading of the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). I have been listening to the Secretary's arguments but I really find it hard to accept them. The amendments to the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention") were adopted in December 2010 and the provisions of the Convention came into force in January 2012, but the Government only introduced the Bill into this Council this year. I think this has nothing to do with the Secretary as he did not join the Transport and Housing Bureau ("THB") during the period from 2010 to 2012. If we want to hold someone accountable, Anthony CHEUNG may be the right person. I do not know if the Secretary's attention has gone to attending the details concerning the requests for particulars of motor vehicles, leaving him with no time to deal with the problem. He wants to tie journalists down so that they cannot access the particulars of motor vehicles. President, I will immediately return to the subject, I am just joking.

1174 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

Concerning these tasks that need to be dealt with seriously, we absolutely do not accept the Government's sluggish approach. The Bill that the Government introduced into the Legislative Council can be described as neither fish nor fowl. President, I pressed the "Request to speak" button when we discussed that the relevant clauses should stand part of the Bill at the Committee stage, but I will not speak on that issue right now. I just want to point out why I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. I oppose the Third Reading because I do not quite agree with the Government's approach of incorporating an international convention into our local legislation. In the debate a while ago, Dr Helena WONG gave many examples, e.g. the Codex Alimentarius Commission ("Codex") on food safety, but many standards set by Codex are lower than those in other jurisdictions such as the European Union …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please return to the subject of this debate.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): All right, I am sorry, President, I just want to explain why I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

As a sovereign government, the SAR Government should not lightly adopt this legislative approach which prevents interaction by Members or government officials in the enactment process. This is the first point. Second, regarding the safety of freight containers, as we have heard very clearly in the debate just now, when compared with the scope stated in the Convention, the scope involved is definitely … The main purpose of the Bill is to ensure safety and establish specifications and regulations for employees in the container industry, including those working at container terminals, ports and container yards, as well as seamen, so as to protect their safety when handling freight containers.

Security issues do not only occur at ports and container terminals; the largest number of duty-related deaths occurred at container yards or brownfields. The reason is simple. No other places in the world will stack containers in a way as we do; most places will stack containers in the warehouse areas of the container ports. If we also stack containers in this way, the Bill will be able to protect the safety of the personnel concerned because the Bill stipulates the requirements to be followed when unloading containers from container ships or barges. However, we are all aware of the situation in Hong Kong. At present, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1175 it is very expensive to store and stack empty containers or wait for containers to be loaded at the container terminals; thus, many shippers and freight companies choose to stack containers in brownfields in the New Territories. This approach creates two problems: First, brownfields should not be used for this purpose which causes damage to the land and brings no benefits. Second, these containers are not within the scope of the Bill. Duty-related deaths occurred in Lau Fau Shan and similar accidents occurred in Sheung Shui. Although the persons concerned attach great importance to the safety of container handling operations, the Marine Department is the government department responsible for enforcing the relevant laws. Should we require staff of Marine Department to inspect the brownfields? Such things will not happen.

The Secretary is present today; if Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong or his deputy HO Kai-ming, who should be sitting next to the Secretary, were also present, I would think that the Government has the intention or motivation to examine this issue from the perspective of labour safety and we would not have to wait for 10 years. The Convention has been implemented in Hong Kong since 2010 and one month later, i.e. in December this year, it will be the 10th anniversary of the implementation of the Convention in Hong Kong. What has the Government done? We all understand that the relevant work is carried out by the Marine Department or THB. We will not blame them because the Marine Department is responsible for monitoring maritime safety and finding out if there are problems with vessels entering and exiting Hong Kong, while THB should be responsible for reviewing container development in Hong Kong … The Government often says that Hong Kong is a freight or shipping centre but very often, it attaches importance to chartering, trading and other service industries rather than container safety; I am thus greatly disappointed. There is no problem for the Government to make a fortune or to allow merchants to make a fortune in the shipping centre, but it must at least pay close attention to the safety of container handling workers.

We must not casually accept the Government's thinking and logic, including ignoring the facts perceived. The Government said in 2012 that it would adopt the practice stated in the Convention, but its words were just empty promises. This is hardly acceptable. More important still, what kind of legislative approach should the Government adopt? I really hope that Hong Kong will automatically comply with the international human rights conventions and implement dual universal suffrage as soon as possible. If the authorities automatically comply with international human rights conventions in Hong Kong 1176 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 or provide employees with the protection under the international labour conventions, I will be extremely happy. Yet, this is not the case now; the authorities only selectively comply with certain provisions and the problem remains unresolved.

Although the Ordinance specifies that future amendments will be made in accordance with the amendments to the Convention or the latest agreement, it has not specified the time limit. Moreover, the Bill has not specified what will be done when there are new amendments. In other words, this situation may recur in future. If the International Maritime Organization drafts new provisions in future, Members cannot ask questions or they need not ask questions under the mechanism because the Marine Department will introduce the relevant bill into the Legislative Council at a time if deems appropriate. If the Marine Department has to deal with many other important matters and does not have time to deal with the issue, it may ignore the safety of cargo handling workers and THB will only handle the issue when it has time or at a time if deems appropriate. Can we accept this approach? I think this approach is unacceptable.

I certainly understand that we have to be connected to the international community. For example, if we follow international practices, the ordinances should be written in English, French or another language, but if international practices are complied with and the ordinances are written in German, English, French and Italian, 90% of local employees engageing in this industry will not understand the law and they will not know the contents of the ordinances …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I remind you that this Council is now having a Third Reading debate.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I would like to say that I oppose the Third Reading because …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): During the Third Reading debate, Members should speak on whether they support the Bill as a whole while the general merits and clauses of the Bill should be discussed during the Second Reading debate or at the Committee stage. Please return to the subject of this debate.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1177

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I understand that, I know, President, I will not repeat and I will return to this subject. President, I think this approach has not been deliberated and I made this point precisely because this approach has not been deliberated and discussed.

Mr Frankie YICK of the Transport Functional Constituency will not oppose our proposal of including the Chinese language. Are we living in modern times? I think we must act in a fair manner. Can we find a way so that stakeholders involved in or concerned about the Convention and policy can have the opportunity to get involved? This is the most important point.

Though the Secretary has just given a reply, it seems like he has not replied at all. He meant to say that there was no problem as things would "automatically" be done. I do not know if he drives, the "automatic" mode will be lagging …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you have brought up the arguments made by a number of Members just now. Please return to the subject of the Third Reading debate.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Yes, President, I am sorry, I will return to the subject. I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill because no time limit has been set. Hence we do not know when the Government should adopt the new provisions of the Convention. For example, the Bill can specify that any new provisions in the Convention must be implemented in Hong Kong within 12 months. That will be clear enough. President, if this clause is added to the Bill, I will rest assured because I will know when the new provisions in the Convention signed in Geneva in future will be implemented in Hong Kong. It seems like we are turning back the clock and we are now debating what happened 10 years ago. We have to be forward-looking; can the Secretary add some clauses to make the provisions forward-looking? If the Secretary prefers adopting an automatic approach, will he please go one step further and specify whether the time limit is 12 months or 18 months. I think we can then rest assured.

1178 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

Of course, this is not the best approach. The best approach is local legislation which allows Members to scrutinize relevant provisions in the Legislative Council. The authorities think that these are only technical amendments but I do not think so as each region or place has its own limitations. For example, the way in which empty containers are handled in Hong Kong is different from that in the rest of the world …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I remind you for the last time that you have digressed from the subject again. Please return to the subject of this debate.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): All right, President, I will return to the Third Reading. Having considered various factors, including the principles of the Bill, the enactment approach, whether the clauses reflect the safety of container handling, especially the safety of cargo handling workers and whether the Bill has considered local legislative procedures to allow the Legislative Council to further improve, through the Bills Committee, the safety structure or safe transportation of containers, I have decided to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

One of the reasons for my opposition is that I do not want to see this approach become a precedent, depriving the Legislative Council of the opportunity to reflect opinions and hold discussions. The Secretary may say that the issue is not serious as the scope of amendment is very narrow. However, the formulation of a bill involves procedural justice. If procedural justice cannot be manifested, we cannot accept the technical amendments even if the scope is very narrow. If the current technical amendments are not very controversial, as the Secretary has said, the Bills Committee only needs to convene one meeting to complete the scrutiny of a non-controversial bill; yet, the Legislative Council has not held any meeting on the Bill …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, if you continue to digress from the subject of the Third Reading debate, I will ask you to stop speaking.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1179

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I will finish my speech soon and my remaining speaking time is less than 50 seconds. I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill and I hope that in future, THB and other Policy Bureaux will bear in mind the issues on principles that we discussed today.

With these remarks, I oppose the Third Reading.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): There are a number of Members waiting to speak in the Third Reading debate. I will call upon the Secretary to speak at 5:00 pm and the motion on the Third Reading shall then be voted on.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, as you said you would ask the Secretary to give his reply at 5:00 pm, I will speak as concisely as possible. However, I do not agree to this arrangement. Members should be given more time to speak, and this is the first time I speak on the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill").

President, as you had imposed a time limit on the debate, I did not have the opportunity to speak during the Second Reading debate. I will now speak within the scope of the Third Reading debate, but sometimes I will inevitably touch on the contents of the provisions because I did not have the opportunity to voice my views earlier. I am not going to use up my 15 minutes of speaking time because I am not as quick-witted, eloquent and patient as Dr KWOK Ka-ki to hold a discussion with the President about what falls within the scope of the Third Reading debate.

President, first of all, the Bill states at the outset that it seeks to amend the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance to implement the latest requirements provided in the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention") by giving effect to the two resolutions adopted by the International Maritime Organization in 2010 and 2013 respectively. The first resolution introduced new requirements on information to be marked on the safety approval plates of containers. The second resolution standardized the terms and units of physical measurement to be used on the safety approval plate of containers and amended the detailed testing procedures for examining the structural safety of containers.

1180 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

President, some colleagues pointed out just now that the two resolutions were passed in 2010 and 2013 respectively, and they queried why the Bill was submitted to the Legislative Council for scrutiny only until 2019. I have to make it clear first that the Democratic Party will vote against the Bill. However, as it took such a long time for the Government to introduce the Bill into the Legislative Council for scrutiny, we have to express our dissatisfaction here.

The Bureau explained earlier that more than 90% of the containers around the world complied with the requirements of the Convention, and in Hong Kong, which is a maritime centre, most inbound containers also complied with the requirements. The Bureau therefore considered that the impact was insignificant. President, while other places in the world have fulfilled their obligations under the Convention, Hong Kong, as a maritime centre, has taken a decade to do so. The Bureau has yet to offer a reasonable explanation, which I think is a highly irresponsible act.

One of the main reasons why we oppose the Bill is the adoption of a direct reference approach, i.e. completely replacing the existing local legislation with the provisions of the Convention. While this is a feasible approach, it must be done properly. Many colleagues criticized the lack of a Chinese version, given that the Government was to implement the requirements of the Convention. As we all know, generally speaking, members of the public and practitioners in Hong Kong can read Chinese, but their level of English proficiency may vary. President, the Secretary mentioned earlier that the scope of the Bill covers containers during transport. What is meant by "during transport"? To my understanding, it covers containers being transported on ships, unloaded from ships to container terminals, transported from container terminals to container trucks, transported on container trucks, and delivered to the container yards in the New Territories. Containers being lifted around by the cranes in the container yards in the New Territories are also regarded as containers during transport. Is that right? I believe that over 90% of practitioners in the freight container industry in Hong Kong can understand Chinese. As to how many of them can understand English and read international conventions, I have grave doubts and I believe that such people are rare, if not none.

President, international conventions are lengthy, so how should they be translated? In fact, Macao and the Mainland already have relevant provisions in place. "Copying" is possible. Even if we do not draw reference from these versions, we can copy them first and then substitute the Mainland terms for local terms to reflect the language differences between the Mainland and Hong Kong. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1181

With some modifications, the text can be made available to practitioners in Hong Kong for reference. President, the original provisions of the Ordinance are written down in black and white. I am not going to read them out here one by one. But why did the Bureau drop this practice? Was it because of insufficient manpower, insufficient resources, insufficient time or laziness? Given a full decade, I do not understand why there would be insufficient time, manpower and resources. I think this is an irresponsible act.

President, I would like to raise one last point. Clause 10 of the Bill proposes to amend section 27 of the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance (the Regulations) by repealing everything after "giving effect" in section 27(1) and substituting it for "(whether in whole or in part) to an international agreement relating to the safety of freight containers adopted by the International Maritime Organization, as from time to time revised or amended by any revision or amendment that applies to Hong Kong." If I were an industry practitioner, when I read this provision …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, this Council is now having the Third Reading debate. Please do not go into the details of the provisions. Members should focus their speeches on whether in general, they support or oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, of course, I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill as a whole because there are problems with the provisions. Since you, President, had imposed a time limit on the debate, I did not have the opportunity to speak on the relevant provisions during the Second Reading debate or at the Committee stage. I can only point out at this stage that there are indeed some problems with the provisions, so as to illustrate why I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill as a whole. President, in fact, I would have concluded my speech after making this point. However, as you have asked me to explain why I touched on the contents of the provisions, I have to respond to the question put by you, President.

If I were a practitioner, simply by looking at the provisions of the Bill, I could in no way tell which parts of the international convention will be fully or partially implemented and which provisions apply or do not apply to Hong Kong. Will this way of presentation cause confusion and mislead practitioners into breaching the law inadvertently? Generally speaking, for those who work at the 1182 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

Lau Fau Shan container yard in the New Territories, when they read the relevant international convention, can they accurately understand the latest revised version of the international convention and at the same time clearly understand which parts of the Convention are applicable to Hong Kong and which parts are not? The Secretary has spoken for such a long time just now, but I have not heard him give a full and reasonable explanation on this.

President, I will conclude my speech in a few sentences. All in all, we think that the Bill should be dealt with in the way that Dr Helena WONG described just now, i.e. by introducing amendments to the relevant bylaws or schedules to the Legislative Council for negative vetting procedures, and setting out clearly the details of the amendments, so that the Legislative Council can perform its functions in enacting and amending legislation, i.e. the substantive constitutional and legislative functions conferred on this Council by the Basic Law.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, please speak.

(Mr HUI Chi-fung indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, what is your point of order?

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Rule 63(1) of the Rules of Procedure concerning the Third Reading procedure provides that "[d]ebate on that motion shall be confined to the contents of the bill". That is all. Why did you, for no reason, interpret "confined to the contents of the bill" as disallowing discussion on the principles, merits and provisions of the bill? I consider your interpretation too narrow. If necessary, you can refer to the relevant provisions and discuss with the Legislative Council Secretariat. You should not make arbitrary amendments. The provisions that Mr LAM Cheuk-ting has mentioned are absolutely permissible in the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill. That is all I have to point out to you.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1183

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The President of the Legislative Council has followed this criterion all along. If Members can discuss everything all over again during the Third Reading debate, why is it necessary for the bills to go through three stages of deliberation in this Council, namely Second Reading debate, Committee stage and Third Reading debate? Each debate has its scope. I have made this ruling in accordance with the usual practice adopted by the President of the Legislative Council in the past.

Mr KWONG Chun-yu, please speak.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, we now proceed to the Third Reading of the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). In this stage, we certainly have to make some macroscopic comments. However, if you ask me whether I will support or oppose the Bill, I will certainly oppose the Bill, buddy.

The Bill safeguards the safety of container logistics and workers. Yet, I must talk about the belated awareness of the Carrie LAM Administration. As some Members mentioned just now, the resolutions relating to the Bill were adopted in 2010 and 2013, but it was not until 2019 that the Carrie LAM Administration introduced the amendments concerned. The Government has always reacted slowly; it was slow in handing out cash and in withdrawing the Fugitive Offenders Bill.

President, being an associate member of the International Maritime Organization, Hong Kong has the responsibility to fulfil the requirements under the international convention. The Government has introduced amendments in the light of the two resolutions of the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention"), and Members held a thorough debate during the Second Reading stage. What is the meaning of the term "集裝箱" as used in the Chinese title of the Convention? The term actually refers to "貨櫃", i.e. container. In the history of logistics, the birth of containers is a miracle as they can carry tens of tonnes of goods. Since a set of uniform and standardized specifications concerning containers has been developed by the international logistics trade, Hong Kong, being an entrepôt, should tally with the world so as to facilitate its logistics activities.

1184 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

The purpose of the Bill is to make Hong Kong's relevant specifications comply with international standards, so as to keep abreast of the times. Since specifications have been stipulated in the Convention, Hong Kong should follow accordingly. However, how come the Government only introduced the amendments after a long delay of seven years? This is our criticism against the Carrie LAM Administration. The Government indicated that it would closely follow the requirements of the Convention, paying close attention to the safety of workers and containers. However, it turns out that the Government can barely comply with the new requirements, such as standardizing the units of measurement on the safety approval plates of containers, amending the testing procedures on structural safety of containers, as well as prescribing new requirements on information to be marked on the safety approval plates.

Firstly, the Government has been slow in introducing the Bill. Secondly, the Government has not explained to us how the amendment can ensure the safety of containers and at the same time address the needs of the logistics industry affected by the ordinance. According to the information on the web page of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council, in 2018, Hong Kong was renowned for being the seventh largest container port in the world, preceded by Shanghai, Singapore, Ningbo, Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Busan. Why could Hong Kong still blow its own trumpet for just being the seventh largest port? In 2000 or so, Hong Kong's port throughput was the highest in the world. However, I believe the industry will sigh when seeing the debate on the Bill. Hong Kong's port throughput in recent years has been decreasing, with its world ranking dropped to the eighth place in 2019 …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, Hong Kong's port throughput is not directly related to the Third Reading of the Bill. Please return to the subject of the debate.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, the United States presidential election is also not related to us at all. Why do you watch the real-time reports on the US presidential election on the computer beside you?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please return to the subject of the debate.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1185

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Can you first listen to my speech with all your soul and mind first? I am elaborating. Don't make a dig at me. If you make a dig at me, I will likewise do so, the Honourable President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please return to the subject of the debate.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Please do not watch the reports on the US presidential election.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am not watching the reports on the US presidential election now.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Are you a fool? Just now, some press reporters saw you watching the news. President, I will not argue with you. I have seriously done my homework on the Bill. I hope you will allow me to speak, as I did not speak during the Second Reading debate.

Hong Kong's port throughput is related to the Bill because the Bill aims at aligning Hong Kong's relevant requirements with international standards to keep abreast of the times, increasing cargo volume and safety, as well as avoiding any obstruction due to containers not meeting the standards of other ports. However, the officials have repeatedly pointed out that the relevant amendments are not important because most containers, being manufactured in other countries, should comply with the requirements of the Convention. Nevertheless, the Government cannot deny that some containers are manufactured in Hong Kong. If the containers manufactured in Hong Kong fail to comply with the updated requirements of the Convention due to the Government's delay of seven years in introducing the Bill, what is the crux of the problem? Buddy, being a representative of the public, I have to voice out the problem at the Third Reading stage, so that the Government can stay alert and will not commit the same mistake again. The Bill is under the purview of the Transport and Housing Bureau ("THB"). THB, being responsible for a lot of affairs, including housing and transport, has not performed satisfactorily in any one aspect of its work, which is really infuriating.

1186 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

President, the Bill is now at the Third Reading stage. As this is our last chance to speak on the Bill, we have to draw a lesson from the Bill, OK? The Government has adopted a direct reference approach in handling the Bill, meaning that as long as the Convention is complied with, the Legislative Council needs not deliberate on the Bill or form a Bills Committee for scrutiny. Thus, many areas in the Bill are not clear, and I can conveniently give an example … Alas! I am really furious. I was originally very composed, as long as the President did not make a dig at me. I have done my homework seriously.

As the Bill has not been discussed by a Bills Committee, we do not know whether the Marine Department will inspect the containers on board vessels upon the enforcement of the updated amendments of the Bill. The industry has also raised the query of whether the containers near the container terminal will be under the purview of the Marine Department. Recently, the Oriental Daily News has made a prominent coverage on the unlawful occupation of Government land in Sheung Sze Wan Village, which is also related to containers. However, we cannot raise these questions because a Bills Committee has not been formed to conduct an in-depth discussion on the issues since the direct reference approach was adopted by the Government.

Although the Bill sounds cold and distant, it is actually about our logistics industry. Members should not treat the Bill coldly, because apart from containers, the Bill also involves the safety of workers at the terminals. How do they feel? If the ordinance is updated to align with the Convention, the problems will be: first, why did the Government make the updates after such a long delay? Second, how will the Government patch things up and avoid the recurrence of the situation in future? Will the Government introduce similar bills to the Legislative Council in future to bother us and the Honourable President again?

I mentioned just now that THB is now in charge of the Bill; yet THB was originally not responsible for logistics policy. After the restructuring of Policy Bureaux in 2008, the policy on maritime logistics has come under the purview of THB. As all affairs of Hong Kong are related to THB, the Bureau is under immense work pressure, and blunders have occurred. Consequently, it is not until today that we scrutinize the Convention which was resolved in 2010 or 2013. Buddy, the Government frequently reacts slowly. The matter in question is not about politics but people's livelihood; and the problem involved is alignment with the Convention, which is very simple indeed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1187

Since the authorities are also aware that Hong Kong is an associate member of the International Maritime Organization, close attention should be paid to the updates of the conventions. While the requirements of the conventions have been updated, the authorities have procrastinated for years, and now they seek the involvement of the Legislative Council. First of all, since THB has adopted the direct reference approach, the Bill will not be scrutinized; yet I can easily spot some loopholes. These issues can be discussed in the Third Reading stage, what is the reason for that? Assuming that the Government will make the amendments, and this Council will accept the authorities' report, what will the authorities think about similar amendments in future? Will the authorities continue to offer the same explanation: "It does not matter, because the industry has actually been using the containers specified by the Convention for transporting cargoes to the ports in different places, so we reckon that no problem will arise"? I wish to point out to the Secretary that this is not the fact. First of all, how will the authorities enforce the amendments in the Bill? THB will urge the Marine Department to take charge. For instance, are the containers on board vessels under the purview of the Marine Department? How will the containers in other places be handled, a point mentioned by me just now? We cannot find answers in the Bill. We only know that THB requires the updating of the standards, which involve terminology, quality, weights, etc. I will not argue with the Secretary over these aspects. The Secretary says that he hopes the updated requirements of the Convention can be incorporated into the local legislation through this legislative amendment exercise, so as to implement the proposals made a few years ago. Besides, there are still several pieces of subsidiary legislation on prevention of oil pollution, solid bulk cargoes, working conditions of seafarers, and so on. It will really be pathetic if we have to discuss these pieces of subsidiary legislation. The Government works so slowly that it introduces the bills concerned to the Legislative Council one by one, and the collation work of some bills has not been done properly.

President, to put it simply, my speech on the Third Reading of the Bill is to urge the authorities to stay cautious and apprehensive. How come we are not allowed to make criticisms here? It is our responsibility to monitor the Government. If the Government fails to handle such trivial matters and procrastinates so long to make some simple technical amendments, we certainly have to strongly rebuke the Government. Also, regarding matters which are significantly related to the logistics industry, why don't the authorities think of ways to make other improvements, apart from thinking of ways to stack containers prudently, affixing markings to containers to make known the 1188 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 specifications, and increasing workers' safety? I must tell the Secretary, if we want to safeguard the safety of terminal workers, we must attend to these areas of work. Terminal workers are really miserable; their toilet is located at their workplace because there is limited space in the container they handle. For those outsourced workers, I must tell the Secretary here―I do not want to digress but I wish to make sure that the Secretary has listened―the outsourced workers live from hand to mouth, they have no sick leave and have to work all the year round …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, you also know that you have digressed from the subject. Please return to the subject of the debate.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Alright, thank you, President. Our discussion on the Bill takes us to the crux of the problem, that is, given that Hong Kong is an associate member of some organizations, the Government should promptly respond to the updated international requirements and should not procrastinate incessantly, telling us that we have no choice but to handle this Bill first. The Government has not given a thought to the division of work among different bureaux. Which bureau was responsible for this task before the restructuring of the Policy Bureaux in 2008? At that time, the Economic Development and Labour Bureau was responsible for this task, and the Secretary for Transport and Housing might still not join the Government. However, I must tell the Secretary that in the past, THB was not responsible for the task, but now the task is under its purview. If THB had a lot of manpower and could handle its work properly despite the heavy workload, we would not make criticism. However, the present problem is relating to the time frame and this factor alone is already a great headache to us. Moreover, when seeing the widening time gap between our amendment and the last update of the Convention, I am afraid that if we do not voice our views now, the other treaties which are related to the Convention will also be delayed, and Hong Kong's status will be replaced by others. Although the President pointed out just now that port throughput was not related to the Third Reading debate of the Bill, I want to point out that Hong Kong used to have a great edge in logistics and was ranked the first in the world in 2000, but its ranking has dropped significantly recently. Who is responsible for that? The Government should be held responsible. What has the Government done? The problem of the Government can be reflected from its handling of the Bill. The Government is outrageous as it introduces the Bill LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1189 into the Legislative Council after a delay of seven years. Members may not be aware that the Convention was adopted in as early as 2010. What is wrong with the Government?

Therefore, we must present the whole story and strongly rebuke the authorities. THB may explain to us later, "Sorry, we have to handle a lot of work. Recently, we have to deal with the licence plate search. Sorry, this task can only be handled slowly." This is not the true facts. There are a lot of serious tasks to be handled by THB, but THB always fail to perform. The task of handing out cash is not related to THB. I will definitely fight with all my strength and time for issues relating to the handing out of cash. However, we are discussing containers today. Speaking of containers, I have to point out that Hong Kong once had great advantages in this area, but such advantages are diminishing due to the governance of our government. One of the reasons is that Hong Kong is lagging behind international conventions, resulting in other ports overtaking Hong Kong. Last year, Hong Kong was ranked the seventh in this regard, but the ranking dropped one place to the eighth this year. Even Shenzhen and Shanghai have overtaken Hong Kong. What has THB been doing? THB cannot even adequately handle such simple issues relating to people's livelihood and the economy; and it only introduced the Bill for making patchy fixes. As a result, Hong Kong's advantages have disappeared gradually and there is no way to recover the loss; workers get meagre pay; cargo flow is not thriving and gradually Hong Kong is no longer what it used to be. I am not talking politics with the Secretary, but about the duties of THB―I am really sorry that the responsibility lies with THB. Frank CHAN is not present today; of course, he has to go to Beijing …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, please return to the subject of the Third Reading debate.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Got it. President, I only want to draw a conclusion here. If Hong Kong is an international metropolitan city, and we consider our logistics industry highly advantageous, the Bill to align with the Convention should brook no delay, and this task should not be undertaken by THB which has to handle a multitude of tasks. Moreover, if the Government is really committed to doing a good job, officials should go to the terminals to thank the workers and the industry players. Actually, the industry players will scorn, 1190 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 saying, "You need not amend the requirements, as we have standardized them a long time ago. Why? Our container ships have to adhere to the Convention when entering the ports of other places, right? Otherwise, we will not be allowed to load and unload containers there." As a result, the industry has to handle the standardization itself, because the Government is always reacting slowly. Is there something wrong? Where does the problem lie? If we do not have the opportunity to speak at the Third Reading stage, members of the public will not know the whole story. However, the problem can actually be seen from minor details.

President, owing to the efforts of a group of terminal workers and the industry, Hong Kong had high port throughputs and was once a renowned transhipment port; regrettably, our status has now been overtaken by other places. THB has to bear unshrinkable responsibility, and its inadequacy can be reflected from this legislative amendment exercise. THB officials are simply not committed to their work as they only introduced the amendments to align with the standards stipulated in the Convention after a long delay of seven years. For instance, regarding stacking capacity, the Government proposed to put stronger containers at the bottom. After the Government has put forward this proposal, it considered that the work has been done. Shut up and get lost! The reason for Hong Kong to degenerate is that the governance is totally detached from reality. This is simply outrageous.

President, I so submit.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I speak to oppose the Third Reading of the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). However, before I speak, I would like to draw the attention of the people watching the live broadcast that there are now only three royalist Members in the Chamber. I can easily abort the meeting. If I request a headcount now, the meeting will surely be aborted. Although the royalists have received many benefits from the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, they often stay in their office and do not attend the Council meeting. I make these remarks in the hope that they will return to the Chamber and learn about the reasons why the democrats oppose the amendments in the Bill. I urge them to make good use of the Council's meeting time and do not focus their attention on the US presidential election.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1191

I declare that the contents of my following speech will totally comply with Rule 63(1) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"). As I said earlier, I will only talk about the contents of the Bill and will not speak beyond this scope. Thus, I hope that the President can be more patient in listening to my speech and do not interrupt while I am speaking. If he did, I would request a headcount and another 10 minutes or so would be wasted. I hope all of us will make good use of the time, okay?

First of all, when Members debated on whether the clauses should stand part of the Bill earlier, they argued vehemently about whether a direct reference approach should be adopted. I wish to clarify one point. Since Schedule 1 is repealed by the Government in the Bill, we can only see the words "Annex II" and "the International Convention for Safe Containers" ("the Convention"); we cannot see the contents of Annex II and the Convention.

Furthermore, I said earlier that it was hard to obtain the English version of the Convention and even the Legal Service Division ("LSD") of the Legislative Council Secretariat could not get a copy. Let me clarify this point because my assistant has explained the situation to me. Initially, LSD did not have the English version, but it got a copy after making a request to the Government. My earlier statement that a fee is required for obtaining a copy of the Convention is true, thus members of the general public will not pay for getting the document. Even LSD initially did not have the English version, not to mention the Chinese version. Up till now, we still cannot get the Chinese version. As I understand it, the Government originally had not provided a copy to LSD. If I am wrong, the Secretary can stand up to clarify this point, because RoP allows him to do so. We do not have the English version and I must make this point clear.

The Secretary failed to clarify this point in his earlier speech and that is also why I will oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. For a piece of local legislation that has cited an international convention, why is it that members of the public have great difficulties in getting the Chinese version? I think this is an important matter because it will affect the scrutiny of the bill by the Legislative Council. The public will find it difficult to understand the Bill and it reflects the perfunctory act of the Government. If the Government cites the provisions of some other legislation and does not provide a Chinese version of the provisions, it has failed to meet the expectations of the country. This is a very serious criticism and I hope the Secretary can reflect on it.

1192 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

When I was discussing whether the clauses should stand part of the Bill earlier, I pointed out that the authorities could enact the Chinese version of the provisions in a couple of ways. Section 4B of the Official Languages Ordinance provides for publication in an official language of the text of an existing law enacted in the other. If the text of an Ordinance in an official language is absent for the moment, there is a mechanism for the Chief Executive in Council, after consultation with the Bilingual Laws Advisory Committee, to declare that the text of that Ordinance in the other official language shall be as specified. Even if the Bill is read the Third time and be passed, I hope that the Bureau will enact the Chinese version of this legislation in future. I remind and appeal to the Bureau not to bring shame to the great Motherland due to the lack of the Chinese version for certain provisions. This is my first point.

Second, as I understand it, members of the public think that the Transport and Housing Bureau ("THB") has performed badly in handling this matter. Members have also criticized THB for delaying eight to ten years to propose amendments to the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance (Cap. 506) ("the Ordinance") in accordance with the contents of the Convention. One of the reasons given by the authorities is that since other countries have amended their legislation, containers transported to those countries would comply with the local legislation. In fact, section 7 of the Ordinance provides that Hong Kong will recognize approvals or permits issued by other countries after the containers have been considered safe upon examination by those countries. At present, the Government only updates the provisions of our local legislation in accordance with the Convention.

Nevertheless, this attitude of the authorities is the very reason why I have to raise objection in the Third Reading debate. The Government seemed to think that it did not need to take any action. Was it really true that Hong Kong could pay no heed because other countries have complied with the examination and safety requirements? As other countries (including Macao) have promptly updated their local legislation, when containers arrive at those places, they will naturally be handled according to the requirements of the Convention. Hence, when these containers arrive at Hong Kong, certainly no problem will arise. The authorities might think that since containers arriving at Hong Kong were good and sound, they could sit back and there was no immediate need to amend the local legislation. Thus, the Bill is only presented to the Legislative Council after a delay of eight to ten years. This attitude is exactly the reason why I oppose the Government's motion in the Third Reading debate; I am doing so to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1193 teach the Government a hard lesson. Given that amending the local legislation is a simple matter, how come the Government has procrastinated for eight to ten years? Certainly, when I was discussing whether the clauses should stand part of the Bill―not during the Second Reading debate, for I did not have the chance to speak then because the President "has drawn the line"―I pointed out that apart from the Secretary for Transport and Housing, the Secretary for Justice, particularly the International Law Division under her purview, should certainly take the blame too. This is another point which I wish to raise.

If the authorities agree that these amendments should be made, perhaps the Secretary can respond to the issue I raised just now concerning the availability of the English and Chinese versions, and tell us whether he has forgotten to provide us with the Chinese version of the provisions. In fact, RoP 63 provides that during the Third Reading debate, amendments for the correction of errors or oversights may, with the President's permission, be made to the bill before the question for the third reading of the bill is put. Will the Secretary please listen to my suggestion. If the Secretary has omitted to provide us with the Chinese text, which is a mere oversight, he can rectify his mistake under the mechanism of the Legislative Council. The amendment is not of a material character. He can do so and I hope the Secretary will consider my suggestion.

I will now talk about a more technical point which is also related to the direct reference approach. There is a direct reference to Annex II in the Bill. The interpretation of the Bill includes some technical definitions. Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 2 of the Ordinance. The Ordinance initially included the definition of "maximum operating gross weight" or "rating" or "R"; and the definition of "maximum permissible payload" or "P" …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please return to the subject of the Third Reading debate and do not stay in the debate of the committee of the whole Council.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I have reiterated that I will only discuss the clauses. First of all, you have reduced my speaking time earlier and stopped me from speaking; when I intended to speak again, I no longer had the chance to do so …

1194 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please return to the subject of the Third Reading debate and indicate whether you support or oppose the Bill as a whole, instead of discussing the contents of individual clauses.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): In the Third Reading debate, I have indicated that I oppose the Bill as a whole … I have already stated in advance that the contents of my speech will be restricted to the contents of the Bill; I will strictly follow RoP 63(1) and I have not deviated from the contents of the Bill at all.

I am now discussing the interpretation of the Bill, the wordings therein do not match with those in Annex II to the Convention and I must point them out. I cannot support the Third Reading of the Bill exactly because of this discrepancy. I will be brief. I just wish to finish discussing this clause. The authorities have repealed certain definitions, such as "tare weight", in this amendment exercise. These definitions were initially provided in Annex II to the Convention, but since no official Chinese version of the Convention is available, I have to refer to the English version and find some omissions in the Bill. For example, in the English version, there is an explanation after "maximum operating gross mass" or "rating" or "R" and there is an explanation after "maximum permissible payload" or "P".

However, all references to "R" and "P" have been deleted in this amendment exercise. I have to refer back to the problem that I raised this afternoon when discussing whether the clauses should stand part of the Bill. A reasonable layman without undergoing professional training will certainly have no idea what "P" and "R" mean. When he reads the newly amended Ordinance, he will not find the relevant definitions. Since "P" or "R" does not exist in the Ordinance, the layman will not understand the meaning of "maximum operating gross mass", "maximum permissible payload" and "tare weight". Certainly, as I mentioned earlier, three definitions have been added to section 2(1) of the Ordinance, but there is no mention of "P" and "R" at all. However, if one refers to Annex II, the definitions are still there.

Certainly, some will say that if one makes effort to search online and buys the English version of the Convention, he will know the definitions. But, this will take us back to the problem I raised, that is, the approach adopted by the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1195 authorities goes against the general law-drafting principles. Initially, we can see the definitions of the relevant tests, examinations, approvals, maintenance requirements, etc. which an ordinary person will understand; but some of these definitions have now been deleted and new definitions have been added in accordance with Annex II. Yet, not all definitions are included. I think this approach is rather imprecise. The authorities should include the entire Annex II; if not, it should include the wordings used in Annex II, i.e. "P" and "R". Otherwise, I think this drafting method does not match that of Annex II to the Convention. Sorry, I should not mix English with Cantonese in my speech. I was saying the two approaches did not match. The authorities have adopted a direct reference approach to amend the Ordinance, but I think it has done a poor job because the drafting method does not tally with that of the Convention.

Regrettably, we have not set up a Bills Committee to scrutinize the Bill and thus we cannot discuss the wordings. All in all, Mr LEUNG, I repeat, before the Third Reading of the Bill is put, the Secretary can stand up and correct the mistake I make in my speech, and he can also make amendments to rectify the errors or oversights, as provided in RoP 63. If the Secretary has not, prior to the Third Reading of the Bill, responded to my accusations or addressed the inadequacies pointed out by me, I think members of the public will find this regrettable. These careless mistakes should not have occurred; and the Under Secretary or the Secretary should be held accountable to the public.

Certainly, the royalists should be held accountable too. After I have spoken for so long, there are still only three royalists in the Chamber, listening to my speech. I again urge Mr LEUNG to appeal to the royalists to return to the Chamber; otherwise, I will request a headcount and the Council's meeting time will be wasted again. If the royalists remain seated in the Chamber, the meeting will never be aborted, and I will not even have the chance to request a headcount. I hope that people watching the television live broadcast will understand this point and stop accusing us of not making good use of the meeting time. The royalists are the ones who do not make good use of the time. We are seriously scrutinizing the Bill and we have done our homework, but they do not return to Chamber to listen to our speeches. They should bear sole responsibility for abortion of meeting because they have wasted the time. I so submit.

1196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

MS CLAUDIA MO: In the international business world, Hong Kong is, of course, part of the global village. When there are changes in international trade regulations and rules, Hong Kong would need to abide by them and follow the new requirements. This is what the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") is about.

The problem is that the content of this Bill has been properly taken up by Beijing back in 2014 and Macao in 2017. Why the delay in Hong Kong? That is not explained. I supposed we could blame the usual bureaucratic runaround. Our officials are surely teflon-plated. They do not need to talk. They are so slippery. They can just rub away any questions.

I understand that during the Third Reading debate, I should focus my speech on the Bill and give my overall views on it. I perfectly agree with the line in the Legislative Council Brief that the Bill has nothing to do with policy, as there is really not much policy on container trade.

Back in 2010, our total container throughput was close to 24 million twenty-foot equivalent units ("TEUs"), but dived to 18 million TEUs last year. This shows the fact that even Ningbo has taken over Hong Kong as a top container port in the world. So, is it a deliberate policy to just let Hong Kong slip down the ranks of the world's top container ports? It is stated in the Legislative Council Brief that this Bill has nothing to do with the policy. I find this rather irresponsible. But never mind.

The Bill is technical and essentially perfunctory in nature. I mean, most container owners, proprietors of container yards, traders, and so on, have been abiding by the new requirements anyway, right? The Bill is about freight containers safety. When a container tilts, slips, falls or collapses, the consequences can be disastrous. To start with, the goods inside the container or the container itself can get damaged.

The Secretary seems to think that the Bill is just about lifeless objects. Freight container safety is about the safety of containers. There is no mention of the human factor at all. What about occupational safety? We have a representative from the labour sector in this Council who, when talking about LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1197 industrial safety, said that many workers had fallen to their deaths due to being overworked. They were overworked. They were too tired. The fact that there are no maximum working hours in Hong Kong …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please return to the subject of the Third Reading debate.

MS CLAUDIA MO: I know. I am straying away a bit. But I am concerned about the fact that there is no mention of any involvement of labour unions when it comes to container safety. Of course, the Administration is just following the international practice. But, Hong Kong has its own identity. Why can't we stipulate special requirements under the newly amended ordinance, asking proprietors in Hong Kong to shoulder extra responsibilities in case of fatal accidents? But the Government would not do so.

Coming back to the Bill, it serves two objectives: First, to facilitate the testing and inspection of containers. That is self-explanatory, right? Second, to incorporate new requirements for the maintenance and repair of containers. How do you maintain and repair containers on the "brownfields" in Hong Kong? There are so many of them in the New Territories. The Government needs to realize that container safety should not merely be related to the safety of the metal boxes. It should also be related to human safety. Sorry about the damaged goods! Sorry about a broken container! Yes. But what about human lives? I never knew our maritime trade could be linked to housing; but in Hong Kong, we do have container homes―you know what I mean. Yet, the Government pretends that they are all irrelevant. The Bill will have an impact on the logistics trade as well. How will they maintain and repair …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, as this is the Third Reading debate, please state whether you support or oppose in general the motion on Third Reading, rather than repeating the arguments already raised during the Second Reading debate or at the Committee stage. Please return to the subject of the debate.

1198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

MS CLAUDIA MO: Right. I am supposed to talk about my overall views on the Bill, right? There is no policy involved. There is no human factor involved. I am referring to the port workers, seafarers, truck drivers, members of the public and the many people involved along the supply chain of the trade.

I have talked about the apparent lack of responsibility on the part of the Government by delaying the Bill for so long. I have also talked about the apparent lack of policy to boost Hong Kong's container trade. Yet you find that irrelevant to the Bill. Okay.

The relevance is that the public officer has chosen to ignore all our queries on the discrepancies between the Chinese and English versions of the Bill. It is regrettable. And, on that note, I am afraid I have to object the Bill. I have to vote a solid "no" to the Bill. Thank you.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, it is now the Third Reading stage of the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), so I have to give my views on the general merits of the Bill. I am not going to repeat the principles or policy issues that I talked about during the debate on the resumption of the Second Reading. President, I will focus on talking about the merits of the Bill.

I have known Under Secretary Dr Raymond SO for more than a decade. I have to clarify that he and I were both members of the Hong Kong Housing Authority, and we used to exchange a lot of views, particularly on matters relating to transport and containers. Since the Bill has not been examined by a Bills Committee, it actually has some problems which can be generalized into three main points. Nonetheless, I am not going to repeat the arguments made by fellow colleagues just now. I will cite an example in the Bill, i.e. Schedule 2 regarding safety approval plate, to examine how improvement can actually be made to the Bill. However, we have no chance to make improvement suggestions to the Government.

Firstly, most of the contents of the Bill are based on the resolutions of the International Maritime Organization ("IMO"), thus local adaptation has not been made to the Chinese (and even English) text. Let me cite another example, i.e. the sanction agreements of the United Nations. Since Chinese is one of the official languages of the United Nations, there is a Chinese version for sanction LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1199 agreements. However, if the Chinese version is to be made applicable to the laws of Hong Kong, there should be a process of local adaptation.

Regarding the part on safety approval plate, i.e. Schedule 2, in particular … for example, what does without local adaptation mean? In respect of marking of plates, clause 1(2) of Schedule 2 of the Bill stipulates that "[t]he marking must be in English or French" (le français, ça c'est bien moi). However, for containers used in Hong Kong, it is not possible to require the plate markings to be "in English or French, whether or not in addition to any other language", because the workers or other people handling the containers may not necessarily know English or French. Obviously, the relevant authorities may impose an additional condition or language, though not necessarily Chinese, on the marking of plates, depending on where the containers are used. That said, if the containers are to be used in Hong Kong, Chinese must be stipulated as the statutory marking language. However, the Government has not included this condition. The Government now claims that the legislative amendment meets the basic requirements of IMO, but local adaptation of the provisions has not taken place. This is one of the examples.

I will not talk about local adaptation in detail any further, but the authorities have to bear in mind that this task must be done. I hope that any legislation that replicates an international regulation will go through the process of local adaptation. This is crucial.

Secondly, in clause 3 "Fixing of plates" of Schedule 2, it is stipulated that a safety approval plate must be fixed in a position so that it is "(a) readily visible; (b) adjacent to any other officially approved plate fixed to the container; and (c) not likely to be easily damaged". Certainly, plates must be fixed firmly and in an easily visible manner; however, the problem is that there are actually other requirements in other legislation, and the authorities have not handled the matter in a comprehensive manner. What are the other requirements? Other requirements include the size of plates, whether the plates have to be waterproof, the materials to be used for making the plates, etc. I will not go into the details. President, since we have not scrutinized the Bill, we can in no way offer our views to the Government and the Bureau. This approach is not comprehensive.

Thirdly, and lastly, has the Government kept abreast of the times? The Government should do so. Apart from using stickers or other forms of markings, it is further stipulated in clause 1(3) of Schedule 2 that "[t]his section does not prevent also marking the plate by means of a decal for […] an 1200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 examination scheme […] under section 10 of the Freight Containers (Safety) (Examination Procedure) Order (Cap. 506 sub. leg. D)". That is to say, there will be a chop or the like, and I think a stamp can also be used. However, the problem is that if a stamp is used, I am not sure whether the stamp marking will be safe, whether it will last for a long time, or whether the marking will be washed away, etc. I will not talk about such details. We now have the Quick Response Codes, i.e. QR codes. If QR codes are used for marking safety approval plates on containers, it will facilitate easier handling by the Bureau or some law enforcement personnel in terms of application, tracking or tracing responsibility. That is certain. Why doesn't the Government consider having a built-in QR codes on containers? Certainly, this is not a requirement from the international shipping organization. The requirement or resolution was made seven or eight years ago, but the Government only takes action now. Can the Government adopt some new ideas in dealing with this issue so that law enforcement and tracking of these containers can be made easier in future?

President, you need not flip the document because I will end my speech soon. There is just one minute left. I will not speculate the President's intentions or actions. Lastly, on container safety, the Secretary for Transport and Housing surely has conducted examinations, but I want to take the opportunity to voice a view. The President will certainly say that I have digressed, but I have to voice my view because I rarely have the chance to speak to Under Secretary Dr Raymond SO. What I want to say is that QR codes can be used to regulate skips. Skips and containers are equally unsafe, so I hope Under Secretary Dr Raymond SO will look into this issue. Mr Paul TSE also knows that we conducted a value-for-money study on skips three years ago, but at present the Bureau has made no stance on street obstruction caused by skips. When I mentioned QR codes just now, I wanted to ask the Government whether QR codes could be used to regulate skips.

President, I so submit. Thank you.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I would like to raise several points regarding the Third Reading of the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). I will briefly explain my opposition to the Bill.

I will analyse the Bill from several perspectives. First, from the law enforcement perspective. Clause 7 of the Bill proposes to amend section 10(2)(a) of the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1201 so that a container can be exempted from the new requirements provided that the construction of the container was completed before 1 July 2014 and no structural modification has ever been made thereto. A major problem involved in the Bill is that the Secretary for Transport and Housing ("the Secretary") has all along failed to mention how law enforcement officers will enforce the relevant regulations, namely how to identify whether containers comply with the regulations and how to handle matters relating to compliance. In this connection, I will consider these to be loopholes in the legislation itself if the Bill simply seeks to incorporate the requirements into the legislation without providing for any enforcement methods, or if there are difficulties in enforcing the law.

As Dr Fernando CHEUNG has just explained, the reason for using 1 July 2014 as the cut-off date is that the latest International Maritime Organization resolutions on the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention") came into effect in 2014. Nevertheless, does this suggest that other countries should also use this timeline as a basis for implementing the resolutions? If so, I think the Administration is duty-bound to provide the relevant justifications; if not, will different countries have different law enforcement standards which will in turn affect the law enforcement process in Hong Kong?

Secondly, I would like to point out that, according to the Legislative Council Brief provided by the Government, for the purpose of enforcing the law, the Director of Marine ("DM") is empowered to appoint recognized organizations to examine, test and approve containers, while the Marine Department monitors compliance in general by, among other things, conducting inspections of containers on board vessels. In other words, the implementation of the legislation appears to focus on inspection on board vessels. However, as we all know, the Bill essentially seeks to ensure safe transportation, in the hope that safety requirements will be complied with at all stages throughout the shipping and container transportation processes, and that people responsible for handling containers, including workers responsible for stacking up containers, will be able to grasp the actual requirements of containers and avoid "top-heavy" situations, etc., thereby preventing the occurrence of unnecessary safety problems.

With respect to this point, the Administration has only pointed out that DM is empowered to conduct inspections on board vessels, without specifying whether stacked up containers in other places will also be inspected and covered. 1202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

If that is the case, as I said in my previous speech, I think the Secretary should clearly tell us in detail that the scope of inspection is not limited to vessels, but also container stacking vehicles at terminals and in other areas. Disappointingly, I have not heard any statement like that from the Administration. In fact, the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Cargo and Container Handling) Regulations (Cap. 59K) ("the Regulations") also provides for the regulation of cargo stowage and other operations in docks and container terminals, but the Bill apparently has not elaborated on this point, nor has it mentioned how it relates to the Regulations, such as the feasibility of dealing with container safety issues in brownfield operations, etc. Therefore, in my opinion, the Bill proposed by the Transport and Housing Bureau ("THB") which seeks to improve the safety of container storage and require containers with weaker stacking or racking capacity to be arranged at the top of a stack of containers has actually failed to address the obvious limitations in the application of the Ordinance.

I would like to point out the second reason for my opposition to the Bill is that the exercise to amend a large number of local marine legislation has been lagging behind for years. A few years ago, the Government sought approval from the Legislative Council for the creation of a supernumerary post to handle the legislative amendments. However, after the creation of the post, the progress of the legislative exercise had apparently been far from satisfactory. In this connection, had THB examined the situation? The officer concerned had not been re-appointed to the supernumerary post in 2019. When the Government applied to the Legislative Council for the creation of this supernumerary post back then, it had apparently drawn up a list of tasks. However, the backlog of the proposed amendments to marine legislation had not been effectively cleared after the creation of the supernumerary counsel post. In fact, there is still a huge backlog of legislative amendments. From this perspective, THB is duty-bound to do a better job in personnel management. Otherwise, THB's performance will apparently be far from satisfactory if it simply follows international resolutions.

The third reason I am going to talk about involves the law drafting process. The Administration has often stressed the need to replace the Schedule under the Ordinance with Annex II to the Convention on the ground that Annex II deals with international technical issues, which in theory rarely requires amendment. However, from this point of view, the adoption of Annex II will give rise to two problems: first, should Annex II come with a Chinese version? Second, it is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1203 undesirable for Annex II to give the Secretary additional authorization to determine the manner of application and the scope of application because this would bring uncertainties to the Ordinance itself. Since I think the adoption of the direct reference approach in the law drafting process is undesirable, my view on the Bill has been affected. Although the Bill only involves technical amendments with limited impact, we still have to clearly express our opposition because clause 10 of the Bill seeks to amend section 27(1) of the Ordinance to introduce the aforesaid change, bringing certain uncertainties to the legislation. I feel uncomfortable because I have not heard the Secretary responding to our queries in his previous two speeches. I therefore have to voice my opposition.

I will briefly talk about my final point. The adoption of a direct reference approach proposed by the Bill will, as a matter of course, bring convenience for sure, just as mentioned by the Secretary. However, the direct reference approach will lead to two consequences: first, the direct reference approach will make it impossible for Members to make any additions or refinements to the contents of the relevant subsidiary legislation should we intend to do so in the future; we can do nothing but rely on THB to do the relevant work. After all, as the saying goes, "three cobblers are better than one mastermind". If we put our heads together, we may be able to find better ways to help the relevant sectors. If we solely rely on the Government, there may not be enough manpower, and it may be impossible for THB to mobilize other people to assist in dealing with the amendments in this respect.

Secondly, commenting on the approach to law drafting, some Members have just pointed out that the Bill would directly deprive Members of the power to amend relevant bills and undermine the avenues for Members to propose amendments to other government bills, making it impossible for bills to be fine-tuned. In my view, this approach to law drafting has given rise to serious problems. However, what I can only do today is pointing out directly that this approach is inappropriate and it will undermine the power and the mechanism of the Legislative Council in monitoring the Government.

Lastly, the Government has delayed processing the Bill for a long time, yet the Secretary has failed to give any reasons in his two previous replies. We asked just now whether the Secretary has accorded relatively low priorities to maritime issues because THB is already tied up by its heavy workload and basically has no time to deal with those issues. As a result, we are lagging behind international resolutions for about 7 to 10 years. We should have 1204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 complied with the resolutions long ago. One resolution which was adopted in 2002 has not yet been incorporated into our local legislation and the legislative work will not commence until next year. Does this suggest that THB's work priorities have affected the updating of marine legislation? If so, the Government is duty-bound to reconsider carefully whether Hong Kong, as an international maritime centre, needs to keep its marine legislation up-to-date? Under the current situation, this part of the legislation is closely related to Hong Kong's economic development. Should the Administration get back to the basics and hand over the work back to the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau which was originally responsible for the legislative amendments? The Secretary has made no response in this regard, however. THB has been lagging behind in tackling with marine legislation, simply trying to catch up with the amendments of international conventions. This will not be conducive to keeping Hong Kong's status as a maritime hub.

President, I hope that the points I have just raised have clearly explained why we oppose the Bill. In fact, the problem with the Bill does not lie in its specific contents. Rather, we have identified many problems in the process of legislative amendments, including THB's priorities in handling its work. We cannot help but question whether it is appropriate for THB to continue its role as the unit or Policy Bureau in charge of maritime affairs which are of such great importance to Hong Kong. More importantly, the direct reference approach adopted throughout the law-making process is contradictory to the Secretary's response just now. Based on these several salient points, the Democratic Party hence expressly opposes the Third Reading of the Bill.

Thank you, President.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I will speak against the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). The Bill itself is not too controversial as it merely seeks to implement the International Convention for Safe Containers ("the Convention") which Hong Kong signed many years ago. The present amendment is mainly concerned with the safety requirements of containers in the Convention, aiming to bring our local legislation in line with the international convention. The relevant resolutions have been in force for many years, it is indeed too late for the Government to catch up now.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1205

Why do I oppose the Bill? I am not going to discuss the long overdue amendment introduced by the Government. The Bill involves some technical amendments, such as the parts relating to terminology, safety standard or inspection. Of course, the Convention itself is about the safety of containers, including the procedures of their maintenance, inspection and control for safe transportation. These are important issues. Apart from the technical amendments, the Bill has also introduced some substantive amendments. As colleagues have mentioned earlier on, substantive amendments may involve certain terminologies, such as replacing "weight" with "mass". While this appears to be a technical amendment, the concepts of the two terms are completely different and the measurement methods and units are also different. Therefore, the passage of the Bill will have substantive effect on measurement or consistency of law enforcement.

I did not have enough time to speak in the last debate session, but I did point out that the Bill might be in contradiction, and indeed direct contradiction, with the Merchant Shipping (Safety) (Carriage of Cargoes and Oil Fuel) Regulation (Cap. 369AV). The safety approval plate stipulated under Cap. 369AV is the same as that stipulated in the Bill which is now under consideration. Big problems will arise if the same kind of safety approval plate is subject to different standards and methods of measurement or licensing. There is no reason for us to pass the Bill and create contradictions. President, I am not an expert in this field and I may be wrong. However, just now I have not heard any positive response from the Secretary to my question. Perhaps I have missed it, but I hope that the Secretary will seriously respond to this question. We will be acting irresponsibly if the Bill that will create contradiction or confusion is enacted. As Members of the Legislative Council, I think we have to make sure that the Bill is not in contradiction with any other existing legislation. Cap. 369AV mentioned by me just now measures "gross weight", but the term will be replaced by "mass" once the Bill is passed. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary will make clarification on this point, which is precisely one of the reasons why I find it difficult to support the Bill today.

The second question is concerned with exemption. As mentioned by Mr WU Chi-wai just now, the Bill provides that containers constructed before 1 July 2014 are not required to comply with the amended legislation. In other words, the amended legislation allows these containers to remain in use without having to meet the latest standard, even though the latest standard was drawn up 1206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 many years ago. According to the Government, as all the contracting states would be governed by the new provisions under the Convention after 1 July 2014, their containers should meet the relevant standard. How many containers will be involved if the exemption is granted by the Government? Earlier on, I also asked the Secretary if any studies had been conducted, but he likewise had not responded. I believe containers from other countries that comply with the relevant regulations will eventually take up a large percentage of container throughputs in Hong Kong as old containers will gradually phase out. However, I am not sure about the percentage of containers that will phase out, nor am I familiar with the life cycle of containers. Following the passage of the Bill, containers constructed before 1 July 2014 will be granted permanent exemption and I am very worried that they may cause hazards.

The original intent of the Bill is to bring Hong Kong's standard in line with the international standard, with a view to improving our safety standard. President, imagine that frontline workers have to handle a large number of containers; while some of which have met the latest safety standard, some have not, meaning that there are different marking requirements. The intent of the Bill is to improve the marking of containers with limited stacking or racking capacity. The containers are conspicuously marked for easy identification and follow-up by the workers concerned, such as how containers should be placed at the top of a stack of containers to avoid collapse or other hazards. If some containers will be granted exemption whereas others will have to comply with the standard, will it be easy for experienced staff, dockworkers or crane operators to tell the difference? Instead of granting permanent exemption, I think a better approach is to provide a grace period.

It is common for laws to provide a grace period, that is, within a certain period of time …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please return to the subject of the Third Reading debate. During the Third Reading debate, you should indicate whether you support or oppose the Bill as a whole instead of revisiting the arguments put forward by Members on the provisions during the Committee stage. Please return to the subject of this debate.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1207

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I understand and I am trying to explain why I oppose the Third Reading. There are several reasons. In the first part, I talked about the consistency issue; in the second part, I raised the concern that if a time limit was not set for all containers to meet the international standard, the safety level might possibly be lowered once the Bill was passed after being read the Third time. These are precisely the major factors affecting my decision to support or oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. The legislative intent of the Bill to enhance safety may backfire. The provision of an exemption will give rise or likely give rise to hazards in the course of implementation. I am concerned about this.

Apart from raising opposition, I would also like to put forward a positive solution to this problem. A sunset clause may be stipulated to set a time limit, say all containers should meet the latest standard within a transitional period of 10 years. This will at least avoid having different markings for containers constructed before or after 1 July 2014, or fixing the markings of containers at different positions. In my opinion, this approach is very reasonable. But unfortunately, so far I have not heard the authorities indicate their views. This is why I have been trying to explain my proposal, taking into consideration the legislative intent.

In addition, I have also noticed some other issues highlighted by some colleagues, including the direct reference approach of incorporating the Convention into the Annex. This approach is indeed undesirable because sometimes appropriate adaptation has to be made. When a convention is incorporated into local legislation, adjustments have to be made in respect of certain terms or actual practices. While making direct references can save efforts, the opportunity to propose amendments may be missed.

With regard to Annex II, as a few colleagues have said, it is regrettable that a Chinese version is unavailable. We understand that international regulations or conventions are normally written in English, but Hong Kong is a bilingual society and our legislation is also bilingual, I am thus very surprised to learn that the Annex does not have a Chinese version.

President, on the whole, I agree that standards must be set with regard to our maritime services, particularly the safety of containers, and it is our primary responsibility to comply with the Convention. Unfortunately, we have lagged far behind and we have to wait till today to catch up and comply with the resolutions on the Convention implemented six or seven or even ten years ago. 1208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

As for the actual operation, I am greatly worried about the Marine Department's capability in following up the matter upon the passage of the Bill after its Third Reading. I hope that the authorities will seriously take heed of my concern raised a moment ago, i.e. the contradiction between the Bill and the Merchant Shipping (Safety) (Carriage of Cargoes and Oil Fuel) Regulation, and examine how to address the contradiction that may arise. Furthermore, I also notice that gross weight is used for measurement as stated in Cap. 369AV. The inspection involving gross weight will run contrary to the Bill upon its passage. I therefore consider it necessary for the authorities to expeditiously amend Cap. 369AV and consider providing some operational guidelines so as to avoid creating too much confusion and contradiction following the passage of the Bill.

Last but not least, I hope that in future, the authorities will not procrastinate so many years to introduce legislative amendments, and amendments should be introduced into the Legislative Council as soon as possible. As an international maritime center, Hong Kong should keep abreast of the times instead of having to catch up all the time.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Lastly, I will call on Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung to speak in this session. After that, I will invite the Secretary for Transport and Housing to speak.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, please speak.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): We are now having the Third Reading debate on the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). In the Third Reading debate, I understand that we should mainly indicate whether or not we support the Bill as a whole; therefore, I will first state my stance. I oppose the Bill, but that does not mean I do not support some of its clauses. To me, the amendments proposed in parts 1 and 2 are just routine and insignificant. By contrast, the amendments in part 3 are necessary as they do not merely meet the requirements of international convention, but also serve real purposes. In other words, the amendments do not simply revise certain terms or unit of measurement.

Many people may say that these amendments merely change some of the terms used in the ordinance. Nevertheless, every term has its own meaning, for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1209 example, "combined weight" is very different from "sum of the mass". With regard to weight measurement, given that different places may use distinct units of weight, the descriptions of the weight of the same object may vary; yet, the mass of the object is described in the same way everywhere. Therefore, the relevant amendments do not merely seek to attain consistency, but are necessary for enhancing accuracy, unlike the other amendments which are proposed to merely meet the requirements of the convention. That is why I consider such amendments necessary. Having said that, I also have the same query: Why did the Government introduce the amendments into the Legislative Council after a long delay? While other countries have long amended their laws, how come Hong Kong has acted so slowly and has tolerated the relevant discrepancies for so long? I find this situation highly regrettable.

On the other hand, when it comes to the Bill as a whole, I oppose its Third Reading on three fronts. Firstly, the Government is perfunctory and fails to respect the spirit of law-making in the legislative process. On this point, as some Honourable colleagues have already discussed in detail, I will not repeat. I will mainly talk about the most important issue, i.e. the spirit of law-making. At present, Chinese and English are both the official languages of Hong Kong and should hence be respected by the Government. However, as pointed out by a colleague, Annex II is in English and a Chinese version is unavailable. Is this the law-making spirit that Hong Kong once enjoyed? Although the truth is that we will eventually be forced to accept this situation, given that Chinese is one of our official languages, how come the Annex to the Bill only has an English version but not a Chinese version? Does the Government have any respect for the spirit of law-making? If not, the Government is obviously perfunctory in its work, leaving its task half-done. How can a government handle a bill in this way? This attitude of the Government has deterred me from supporting the Bill. Given the Government's perfunctory performance and lack of respect in this legislative amendment exercise, supporting the passage of the Bill is tantamount to conniving with the Government to work perfunctorily and show no respect for the spirit of law-making in its future legislative amendment exercise. I do not think that is right. Therefore, I will not accept this perfunctory attitude and the lack of respect for the spirit of law-making.

The second point is even more important. Just now, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and some other Members have clearly stated that, under the Bill, some containers would be exempt from the new requirements while some would not. What will be the consequence? This will give rise to confusion, making operators hard to adapt to the change. Should we require operators to check the 1210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 compliance of each container? This practice will not only be time-consuming but will also create safety hazards in case the operators also act as sloppy as the Government. So, what is the point of making this amendment? During the Second Reading debate, I said that safety hazards such as falls from height were common in container terminals. How can the Government live up to the expectation of operators if it fails to ensure that the containers are structurally safe? I fail to understand the acts of the Government. It is really disappointing.

It is known to all that over 10 000 industrial accidents happened in each of the past years. To address this issue, we have been discussing with the Labour Department ("LD") about how industrial accidents can be minimized to ensure operational safety. Very often, LD replied that it would conduct inspections to identify operational hazards, but …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, please return to the subject of this debate.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): I have returned to the subject. I am saying that I do not support the Third Reading because the Bill fails to address the safety issue. LD's inspection focuses on operational safety rather than the safety of containers. In this legislative amendment exercise, the original intent is to use marking for indicating the quality of containers and the stacking of containers to facilitate easy identification by operators. However, if only some containers will bear markings, how can workers identify different types of containers? Can the Secretary please answer my question? How can workers tell whether a container is structurally safe and how it should be placed? Can the Secretary please tell workers what to do? Now that the Bureau seeks to amend the ordinance, why does it leave things half-done instead of stipulating regulations in an all-embracing, comprehensive and thorough manner? Such confusion is undesirable and I wonder if the Government has consulted the trade workers. It should be noted that partial exemption will bring operational difficulties to workers. However, considering the Government's perfunctory acts and disrespect for the spirit of law-making in this amendment exercise, I do not think there has been any consultation or gauge of opinions. In my view, the Government is highly irresponsible to operators as it tries to force through the Bill without providing them with proper safety measures. This is the second reason why I oppose the Bill.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1211

The third reason concerns sincerity. In this amendment exercise, I do not think the Bureau has shown any sincerity at all. First, given that the relevant resolutions came into force some seven or eight years ago and other countries have long made the necessary legislative amendments, how come the Government only proposed the amendments until now? If I have not heard the Secretary wrong, he just said that the legislative amendments of other countries had made international transportation considerably safe, thereby improving the operational safety in Hong Kong. Consequently, Hong Kong did not have to rush to amend its law. If that was the case, the Government might as well not make any amendments. Why didn't the Government continue to muddle through as it did in the past when things seemed to be working fine? Why does the Government propose the legislative amendment today? What is the point of taking this unnecessary move when the Government can actually continue to muddle through? I do not understand. The fact that legislative amendments are proposed today indicates, to a certain extent, that this amendment exercise is warranted. If these amendments are necessary, why do they come this late? The explanation given by the Secretary earlier was simply untenable. Just now, a Member remarked that this amendment exercise was meant to, first, ensure safety, and second, align with international requirements. But how can safety be ensured when the necessary legislative amendments come this late?

I am not going to repeat the safety issue as a lot has been said by many other Members. I will speak on the alignment issue. What is meant by "alignment"? How can an alignment be attained when Hong Kong did not follow the footstep of other countries to amend the legislation? No wonder Hong Kong is lagging behind other places in multiple aspects, especially economic development. Earlier on, the Chief Executive highlighted that Hong Kong was outperformed by other places in economic development. Do Members know why? It is because the perfunctory SAR Government has all along muddled through and does not bother to address any issues until the problems have become too pressing to ignore. This is why Hong Kong falls behind.

This time, the Secretary has made some tenuous arguments for the Government, but apart from that, has he thought of changing the work attitude of the Bureau at root? The answer is in the negative. As I just said, this legislative exercise is perfunctory. On the face of it, the amendments are proposed to ensure safety and alignment with international requirements. But if the Government had undertaken this task with all its heart and sincerity, it would not have stopped at amending the ordinance. It would have provided wide-ranging support, including conducting inspection to ensure the smooth and 1212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 safe operation of the trade after the enactment of the Bill. Has the Government thought about doing so? The Secretary did not tell us. He only indicated that the ordinance would be amended under the Bill. That was all. As regards how the enacted Bill will be implemented or enforced and how effectiveness can be ensured, the Secretary has not said a word. So, what is the use of having this legislative amendment? That is why I say sincerity is important.

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

Just now, Dr Fernando CHEUNG also queried the Government's capability for law enforcement. Can the Secretary tell us specifically how the Government will enforce the enacted Bill? I urge for a clear answer or else I would consider his words as half-hearted and his work half-done. Apart from formulating an enforcement plan as suggested by me just now, the Government should also put in place supporting policies, measures and laws to show its sincerity. I do not think marking alone is sufficient to protect the safety of operators. Corresponding legislation in other areas are also necessary. For example, the trade workers often complain about long working hours which pose risks to operational safety. Now that the Government introduces this Bill, it should at the same time tell us when it will legislate for standard working hours to provide workers with reasonable working hours, so that they will not overwork, resulting in safety blunders. This is the most important issue. Unfortunately, the Government has no sincerity in this legislative exercise and fails to ponder on how it can properly support the implementation of the Bill. If the Government has shown its sincerity, I will of course give my support. Yet, its lack of sincerity has stopped me from supporting the Bill.

In conclusion, while some amendments proposed in the Bill are necessary, the Bill as a whole reflects the Government's perfunctory act and lack of respect for the spirit of law-making. The Bill itself will also cause confusion. Moreover, as the Government is insincere in promoting safety and alignment with international requirements, I find it hard to accept this legislative amendment. I hereby express my opposition to the Bill being passed at Third Reading. I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The debate session ends. Secretary for Transport and Housing, do you wish to speak again?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1213

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I would like to thank Members for their views on the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill").

As stated in my speeches given to move the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill and made at the Committee stage, the Bill is completely technical in nature, and I have already responded to Members' viewpoints and concerns in those speeches. Thank you, Deputy President.

(Mr WU Chi-wai indicated his request for a headcount)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai has requested a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is now present in the Chamber. The meeting now continues.

Secretary for Transport and Housing, have you finished your speech?

(Secretary for Transport and Housing indicated that he had finished speaking)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 be read the Third time and do pass. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

1214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

Dr KWOK Ka-ki rose to claim a division.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

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

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Jeremy TAM voted against the motion.

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT, Ms Starry LEE, did not cast any vote.

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT announced that there were 54 Members present, 36 were in favour of the motion and 17 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, she therefore declared that the motion was passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1215

CLERK (in Cantonese): Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please note that the President of the Legislative Council has informed us earlier that this meeting will be adjourned at about 7:00 pm. After the Third Reading of this Bill, the Council will scrutinize the proposed resolutions to extend the period for amending subsidiary legislation on the Agenda. For completeness of debate, we will not start debating the censure motions on the Agenda today and the meeting will be adjourned before 7:00 pm. Please make good use of the time.

MEMBERS' MOTIONS ON SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions on subsidiary legislation.

Three proposed resolutions under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance in relation to the extension of the period for amending subsidiary legislation.

(Mr Abraham SHEK indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Abraham SHEK, what is your point of order?

MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, will you consider asking the President to withdraw the three motions so that no debate will be held tonight? The reason is that there is no need for a debate. Given the uncertainties in the future of our society, the situation in the United States and the crisis of a potential Sino-US war, we should not waste time debating the three …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Abraham SHEK, are you referring to the proposed resolutions in relation to the extension of the period for amending subsidiary legislation? Are you asking the President to withdraw the three resolutions?

1216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): Yes. I would like to ask the President to withdraw the motions and discontinue further discussion.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Abraham SHEK, in my view, the proposed resolutions will be proposed by Members on behalf of the relevant subcommittees on subsidiary legislation. If Members make good use of the time later today, we can actually finish processing these motions expeditiously. I reminded Members just now to make good use of the Council's time.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First motion: To extend the period for amending the Emergency (Date of General Election) (Seventh Term of the Legislative Council) Regulation, which was laid on the Table of this Council on 14 October 2020.

I call upon Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan to speak and move the motion.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR AMENDING SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION (L.N. 152 OF 2020)

MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee, I move the motion standing in my name as printed on the Agenda.

At the meeting of the House Committee on 16 October 2020, Members formed a subcommittee to study the Emergency (Date of General Election) (Seventh Term of the Legislative Council) Regulation which was laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 14 October 2020. In order to give the Subcommittee sufficient time to deliberate on the subsidiary legislation, the Subcommittee agreed that I move a motion to extend the scrutiny period of the subsidiary legislation to the Legislative Council meeting of 2 December 2020.

Deputy President, I urge Members to support this motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1217

Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that in relation to the Emergency (Date of General Election) (Seventh Term of the Legislative Council) Regulation, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 152 of 2020, and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 14 October 2020, the period for amending subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 2 December 2020."

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan be passed.

Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Mr Dennis KWOK raised his hand)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): One Member voted against the motion.

(Mr Dennis KWOK indicated that he was in favour of the motion)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, are you in favour of the motion?

1218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): Yes.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections. I declare the motion passed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second motion: To extend the period for amending three items of subsidiary legislation in relation to the commissioning of the Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point, which were laid on the Table of this Council on 14 October 2020.

I call upon Mr KWONG Chun-yu to speak and move the motion.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR AMENDING SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION (L.N. 155 TO L.N. 157 OF 2020)

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move that the motion under my name, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.

At the House Committee meeting on 16 October 2020, Members decided to form a subcommittee to study the following three items of subsidiary legislation relating to the commissioning of the Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point gazetted on 21 August 2020:

(a) Closed Area (Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point) Order (Commencement) Notice;

(b) Cross-boundary Movement of Physical Currency and Bearer Negotiable Instruments Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 1) Notice 2020; and

(c) Import and Export (Electronic Cargo Information) (Amendment) Regulation 2018 (Commencement) Notice.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1219

To allow the Subcommittee sufficient time to report to the House Committee the result of its deliberation, I call upon Members to support this motion to extend the period for deliberation of the three pieces of subsidiary legislation to the meeting of the Legislative Council on 2 December 2020.

Mr KWONG Chun-yu moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that in relation to the―

(a) Closed Area (Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point) Order (Commencement) Notice, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 155 of 2020;

(b) Cross-boundary Movement of Physical Currency and Bearer Negotiable Instruments Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 1) Notice 2020, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 156 of 2020; and

(c) Import and Export (Electronic Cargo Information) (Amendment) Regulation 2018 (Commencement) Notice, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 157 of 2020,

and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 14 October 2020, the period for amending subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 2 December 2020."

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr KWONG Chun-yu be passed.

Does any Member wish to speak? I now propose to you …

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): May I speak?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, do you wish to speak?

1220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I certainly have to speak.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG, just now you have already made a speech in your capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Deputy President …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Have you not finished speaking? Please speak.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Yes, Deputy President. Please calm down first. We have ample time this evening, so I surely have to talk about the Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point before 7:00 pm. While the speaking note I used just now was prepared for me by the Secretariat, I definitely have to continue speaking as a matter of procedure.

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Three Pieces of Subsidiary Legislation Relating to the Commissioning of Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point, I have to continue speaking after reading out the Secretariat's speaking note, so that fellow colleagues will understand the importance of extending the period for deliberation of the relevant subsidiary legislation. The reason is that the Cross-boundary Movement of Physical Currency and Bearer Negotiable Instruments Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 1) Notice 2020 ("the Notice") is involved.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

Frankly speaking, I hope we will have a good understanding when discussing this extension motion in the Chamber. Simply put, we all know that the Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point will certainly involve different immigration scenarios, thus we hope to do a good job regarding the amendment LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1221 of the Cross-boundary Movement of Physical Currency and Bearer Negotiable Instruments Ordinance. I hope fellow colleagues will note that the said Ordinance regulates the amount of cash a traveller may carry when passing a boundary control point. People who are familiar with the Ordinance will know that there is a reporting system. We call it "R32" in short …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, Members do not need to decide at this meeting whether they support the relevant subsidiary legislation or not. Also, they should not discuss the subsidiary legislation in detail. This subsidiary legislation should be followed up by the subcommittee chaired by you. Please return to the subject of this debate to state whether you support or oppose the proposed resolution to extend the period for amending the subsidiary legislation concerned.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, please rest assured that I just start off the discussion, so that fellow colleagues will take note of the matter. I also know that the Secretariat will make further arrangement later. I just want to highlight that amongst the pieces of subsidiary legislation to be scrutinized, there is one important issue, i.e. disallowing people arriving at or departing from Hong Kong from carrying a huge amount of cash. Therefore, I must disclose this fact and tell Members that they can voice different views on this subject.

I know that fellow colleagues are impatient, and I just want to briefly mention the point that the Notice came into effect on 26 August. Nevertheless, given that the matter is being followed up by a subcommittee formed to scrutinize the subsidiary legislation concerned, I hope fellow colleagues can pay attention to this information.

Besides, I would like to raise one more point. The Subcommittee should submit the scrutinized subsidiary legislation to the Legislative Council later around December. We hope that by then, more concrete information will be made available. That is because at the last meeting of the Subcommittee, Members belonging to different political spectrum, pro-establishment or democratic alike, have raised a lot of questions, and the officials have also given very appropriate replies. We express our gratitude in this regard.

1222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

I hope that more written information can be submitted to the Legislative Council later, and by then we can continue to speak and debate on the issue.

President, I so submit.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections. I declare the motion passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third motion: To extend the period for amending three items of subsidiary legislation in relation to the fees payable for Marine Fish Culture Licences and renewal of Livestock Keeping Licences, which were laid on the Table of this Council on 14 October 2020.

I call upon Mr Steven HO to speak and move the motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020 1223

PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR AMENDING SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION (L.N. 174 TO L.N. 176 OF 2020)

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion under my name, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.

At the House Committee meeting on 16 October 2020, Members decided to form a subcommittee to study the Marine Fish Culture (Amendment) Regulation 2020, Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Licensing of Livestock Keeping) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulation 2020 and Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Licensing of Livestock Keeping) (Amendment) (Fee Concessions) Regulation 2019 (Amendment) Regulation 2020. In order to give the Subcommittee sufficient time to conduct the scrutiny, I move that the period for scrutinizing the three pieces of subsidiary legislation be extended to 2 December 2020.

President, I urge Members to support this motion.

Mr Steven HO moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that in relation to the―

(a) Marine Fish Culture (Amendment) Regulation 2020, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 174 of 2020;

(b) Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Licensing of Livestock Keeping) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulation 2020, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 175 of 2020; and

(c) Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Licensing of Livestock Keeping) (Amendment) (Fee Concessions) Regulation 2019 (Amendment) Regulation 2020, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 176 of 2020,

and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 14 October 2020, the period for amending subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 2 December 2020."

1224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 5 November 2020

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

Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If no Member wishes to speak, I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Steven HO be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections. I declare the motion passed.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the meeting until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 11 November 2020.

Adjourned accordingly at 5:33 pm.