LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8187
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 4 May 2016
The Council met at Eleven o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.
8188 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8189
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
8190 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG NGOK-KIU
MEMBERS ABSENT:
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8191
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
PROF THE HONOURABLE ANTHONY CHEUNG BING-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING
THE HONOURABLE NICHOLAS W. YANG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY
MR YAU SHING-MU, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING
DR DAVID CHUNG WAI-KEUNG, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
8192 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber)
TABLING OF PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:
Subsidiary Legislation/Instruments L.N. No.
Waste Disposal (Designated Waste Disposal Facility) Regulation (Amendment of Schedule 1) Notice 2016 ...... 49/2016
Waste Disposal (Charge for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation (Amendment of Schedule 4) Notice 2016 ...... 50/2016
Pharmacy and Poisons (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulation 2016 ...... 51/2016
Other Papers
No. 91 ─ Quality Education Fund Financial statements for the year ended 31 August 2015
No. 92 ─ Education Development Fund Financial statements for the year ended 31 August 2015
No. 93 ─ Securities and Futures Commission Approved budget of income and expenditure for the financial year 2016/2017
No. 94 ─ Supplementary Legal Aid Fund Annual Report 2014
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8193
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Arrangement for Offsetting Severance Payments and Long Service Payments
1. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Chinese): President, one of the issues covered in a public consultation on retirement protection launched by the Government at the end of last year is the "offsetting" arrangement under the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) system (i.e. an employer may, under the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance (Cap. 485), use the accrued benefits derived from the contributions he made for an employee to an MPF scheme to offset the severance payment (SP) and long service payment (LSP) payable to the employee under the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57)). Some wage earners have relayed to me that the offsetting arrangement undermines their retirement protection substantially and they therefore hope that the Government will abolish the offsetting arrangement as soon as possible. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has analysed the impacts on society and the economy to be brought about by the modifications to the offsetting arrangement under different simulated options; if it has, of the specific contents of various simulated options, the analysis method employed and the timetable for completing the analysis;
(2) in each of the past five years, of the following information concerning those employees employed by various government departments under non-civil service contracts whose accrued benefits were withdrawn for offsetting: (i) the number of employees involved, (ii) the total amount of accrued benefits withdrawn for offsetting, (iii) the total amount of accrued benefits remaining in MPF accounts after offsetting, and (iv) the total residual amounts of SP and LSP payable by the Government to the relevant employees after offsetting (set out in the table below);
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
8194 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
(3) whether it knows, in each of the past five years, the following information concerning those employees employed by outsourced service contractors for providing public services whose accrued benefits were withdrawn for offsetting (set out in a table of the same format as the table above): (i) the number of employees involved, (ii) the total amount of accrued benefits withdrawn for offsetting, (iii) the total amount of accrued benefits remaining in MPF accounts after the offsetting, and (iv) the total residual amounts of SP and LSP payable by the employers to the relevant employees after offsetting; and
(4) whether it plans to give an account of the results of the public consultation on retirement protection before the date from which the current term of the Legislative Council shall stand prorogued (i.e. 16 July 2016); if it does, of the timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, the Government's response to Mr TANG Ka-piu's question is as follows:
(1) Two months remain before the public consultation on retirement protection ends on 21 June this year. While the "offsetting" of Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) is one of the core issues in this consultation, its deliberation at the Commission on Poverty (CoP) or at the public consultation has yet to reach the stage of formulating concrete proposals. In the remaining period of the consultation, the Government will continue to listen to the views of different individuals and organizations, including academics and think tanks, on the "offsetting" arrangement under MPF, including any concrete proposals to address the "offsetting" problem, particularly on how to rationalize the relationship between severance payment/long service payment and MPF, as well as the role of the Government in facilitating the resolution of the "offsetting" problem.
(2) The Civil Service Bureau has not collected relevant information on the amount and number of staff involved in claims made by individual bureaux/departments for offsetting severance payments and long service payments against MPF accrued benefits of Non-Civil Service Contract staff in the past. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8195
(3) The Government is not the employer of staff hired by outsourced service contractors and does not possess the MPF information in respect of the staff concerned.
(4) On completion of the public consultation on retirement protection, the consultancy company will consolidate the views collected and conduct a comprehensive and objective analysis. It will then prepare a detailed report for submission to CoP for its discussion. The consultancy company will need some time to complete the above task.
Issues Revealed by a Fire-fighting Operation by Firemen
2. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Chinese): President, on the 19th of last month, a No. 3 alarm fire broke out in a building at Hennessy Road in Wan Chai. It has been reported that when the firemen tried to get water from the fire service installations of the building concerned for fighting the fire, they found that the water pressure was unstable. They therefore had to connect the fire hoses to the fire hydrants on the street (commonly known as "street hydrants") to get water, and then pump water via the pumping appliances to fight the fire. Moreover, as eight fire hoses ruptured during the fire-fighting operation and the water jetted out from aerial ladders to the unit on fire was weak at the beginning, it took the firemen more than one hour to put out the fire. On the other hand, it is learnt that a registered contractor has carried out maintenance works for the fire service installations of the building concerned, but the fire service installations concerned have all along failed to fully comply with the relevant requirements. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the details concerning the manpower, vehicles and equipment deployed by the Fire Services Department (FSD) to handle the aforesaid fire;
(2) whether, during the aforesaid fire-fighting process, FSD sought assistance from the Water Supplies Department (WSD) for raising the water pressure of street hydrants in the vicinity to facilitate fire-fighting; if FSD did, of the details of the assistance rendered by WSD, and whether it is a usual practice of WSD to render such assistance; if it is a usual practice, of the established procedure involved; 8196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
(3) given that there are quite a number of old buildings in Wan Chai and the fire service installations in those buildings do not meet the latest requirements, resulting in FSD having to resort to street hydrants to get water for fire-fighting, whether FSD and WSD have conducted joint inspections on a regular basis to see if the water pressure of street hydrants within the district is up to the standard; if they have, of the details of the inspections; if not, the reasons for that;
(4) whether FSD has followed up on the failure of the fire service installations of the building concerned to comply with the relevant requirements; if FSD has, of the latest progress of the follow-up work; if not, the reasons for that; and
(5) whether FSD will investigate thoroughly into and follow up on the problems (e.g. unstable water pressure in respect of the fire service installations of the building concerned and ruptured fire hoses) which occurred during the aforesaid fire-fighting operation; if FSD will, of the specific plans; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, my reply to the five parts of the question, in consultation with relevant bureaux and departments, is as follows:
(1) Upon receipt of a call reporting a building fire on Hennessy Road, Wan Chai at 12.47 pm on 19 April 2016, the Fire Services Communications Centre (FSCC) immediately dispatched eight fire appliances and an ambulance to the scene. The first fire appliance arrived at 12.49 pm (that is, about two minutes from the time of call). In view of the fierce fire, the officer-in-charge at the scene upgraded the fire to No. 3 alarm at 1.03 pm (that is, about 14 minutes from the time of call) and requested additional manpower and vehicles for assistance to handle the incident. The fire was put out at 2.07 pm.
The Fire Services Department (FSD) deployed a total of 100 fire and ambulance personnel, 16 fire appliances and six ambulances to tackle the fire. During the operation, the FSD sent two breathing apparatus teams to break into the two units involved in the fire and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8197
subsequently quenched the fire inside the units with two fire hoses. On the street, two turntable ladders, positioned near the building with their ladders extended, directed water jets to form a water curtain to prevent the fire from spreading to other floors along the external wall of the building.
(2) Under the established mechanism, the FSCC will, at the outbreak of a No. 3 alarm fire, immediately inform the Water Supplies Department (WSD) to designate staff for an on-the-spot examination of the water supplies conditions of fire hydrants on the street (commonly known as "street hydrants") in the vicinity of the building concerned. Furthermore, the FSD's officer-in-charge at the scene will contact the WSD for assistance through the FSCC if an adjustment of street hydrants' water pressure is considered necessary in the course of firefighting and rescue operations. As far as this fire incident is concerned, upon upgrading to No. 3 alarm, the FSCC requested for the WSD's on-scene staff assistance immediately, according to the aforesaid mechanism. On subsequent arrival at the scene of fire, the WSD's officers confirmed that the department's water supply system and the water pressure of the street hydrants remained normal.
(3) Fire station staff in various districts (including Wan Chai District) conduct routine examination of street hydrants in their respective districts every half year. Upon repair or modification of any street hydrants, additional examination will also be carried out by the fire personnel, who will inform the WSD for follow-up actions in case any street hydrants are identified with sub-standard water pressure or insufficient flow. Where necessary, the FSD will formulate contingency plans. In addition, the WSD has installed 24-hour water pressure loggers in major street hydrants in Wan Chai District for its officers to keep watch on the supply pressure in the district regularly to ensure the water pressure is within normal range.
(4) After the fire, the FSD's officers examined the fire service installations and equipment of the building, and found that the improvement works for the fire hydrant and hose reel system of the building were still in progress. Meanwhile, the FSD also found that the system was not in efficient working order. 8198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Regarding the improvement works for the fire hydrant and hose reel system, according to Circular Letter No. 3/2008 issued by the FSD to all Registered Fire Service Installation Contractors (RFSICs), if fire service installations and equipment need to be shut down for maintenance and repair, the RFSIC must notify the FSD at least seven days before the commencement of works. However, the FSD only received a notification from the RFSIC on the shutdown of the fire service installations of the building for works in the evening of the day this fire broke out.
On another front, according to the Fire Service (Installations and Equipment) Regulations (Cap. 95B), the owner of any fire service installation or equipment which is installed in any premises shall keep such fire service installation or equipment in efficient working order at all times, and have such fire service installation or equipment inspected by an RFSIC at least once in every 12 months. Whenever an RFSIC inspects a fire service installation or equipment, he shall within 14 days after completion of the inspection issue to the person on whose instructions the inspection was carried out a certificate (that is, annual inspection certificate for fire service installations and equipment) and forward a copy thereof to the FSD.
According to the FSD's records, the latest certificate of annual fire service installations and equipment inspection for the building was issued by an RFSIC in March last year, which was to certify the compliance of those installations and equipment (including fire hydrant and hose reel system) with the required standards. The said certificate of annual inspection expired in March this year. Yet, as of 19 April, the day this fire took place, the FSD has not received any valid certificate of annual fire service installations and equipment inspection for the building.
The FSD has been looking into the case and will contact the relevant parties, including the RFSIC concerned, for the information required. Moreover, the FSD has sent a letter to remind all RFSICs of the procedures and notification mechanism regarding the shutdown of a building's fire service installations and equipment for works.
(5) The FSD is now following up on and investigating into the state of maintenance of the fire service installations and equipment of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8199
building involved in the incident, and will take appropriate action if any contravention of the Fire Service (Installations and Equipment) Regulations is identified.
The FSD does not consider there was any mistake made during the firefighting operation in this fire. Regarding the firefighting equipment, all fire hoses procured by the FSD are in compliance with British Standards BS6391:2009. Moreover, FSD has put in place established guidelines on fire hose inspections. Fire personnel are required to conduct tests on fire hoses upon receipt of new ones, after using them in a fire, after repair and at intervals of 12 months. Only tested fire hoses will be used in firefighting operations. A total of eight fire hoses were damaged in this fire. One of them was suspected to be damaged by fallen objects at the scene of fire while the rest were slightly damaged. The fire personnel at the scene had immediately replaced the damaged ones with other fire hoses to ensure that the firefighting operation would not be affected. The FSD will continue to prepare adequate reserve equipment in each firefighting operation for any emergency which may arise.
Security Checks on Cabin Baggage of Departing Air Passengers
3. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Chinese): President, on 28 March this year, the Chief Executive's younger daughter, who was about to board a flight for the United States, found that she had left behind a cabin baggage outside the restricted area of the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) only after she had entered the restricted area. She then sought assistance from airline staff. Subsequently, an airline staff member reclaimed the cabin baggage from airport security staff, carried the baggage into the restricted area after undergoing security checks, and handed it back to the owner. This incident has aroused public concern about whether there are loopholes in airport security checking measures. Some members of the public have queried whether the airport staff concerned (including staff of the security company and the airline concerned) made any "special arrangement for a special case" in this incident, failing to observe security check requirements. The Secretary for Transport and Housing (STH) said in early April that the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) had been requested to submit a report on the incident to the Government, but the safety of the airport had not been compromised by the incident. Under section 28 of the 8200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Aviation Security Ordinance (Cap. 494), the Aviation Security Authority (ASA) may issue a security direction to any person to whom subsection (3) of this section applies requiring him to take such measures as specified in the direction, and any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with the direction, commits an offence. In addition, it has been reported that in a paper presented by the International Air Transport Association to the International Civil Aviation Organization of the United Nations, it is stipulated that during security checks, cabin baggage must be matched with the correct person/owner (i.e. the requirement for cabin baggage to undergo security checks together with the passenger) and be positioned on the search table so that the owner can open the baggage for checking by security staff. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows, in each of the past five years, the number and details of cases in which airport staff carried baggage into the restricted area for passengers; whether AAHK submitted a report on each case to the Transport and Housing Bureau; whether such reports are available for public inspection; if so, of the means for gaining access to such reports;
(2) whether passengers who have entered the restricted area but left behind their cabin baggage outside the restricted area may request airport staff to reclaim and bring the baggage into the restricted area for them;
(3) of the specific justifications for STH's claim that the safety of the airport had not been compromised by the incident;
(4) whether ASA has issued, under the aforesaid provision, any security direction in respect of the aforesaid requirement for cabin baggage to undergo security checks together with the passenger; if ASA has, whether any person failed to comply with the direction in this incident; if so, whether the authorities have taken follow-up actions (including legal actions) against the person concerned; if they have, of the details;
(5) whether the authorities will request AAHK to set up an independent committee to conduct an investigation into and submit a report on this incident; if they will, whether the authorities will make the report public after receiving it; and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8201
(6) whether it will, in the light of this incident, comprehensively review the current airport security measures; if it will, of the details?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the Transport and Housing Bureau and Civil Aviation Department (CAD), our co-ordinated reply to the six parts of the question is as follows:
Hong Kong has all along strictly followed the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) security requirements in compiling the local aviation security requirements. From the airport security perspective, all persons, including passenger, staff and crew, and their baggage have to undergo rigorous security screening prior to entering the Enhanced Security Restricted Area and boarding an aircraft.
ICAO's requirements on security screening of passengers and cabin baggage are set out in Annex 17 to the Convention of the International Civil Aviation and ICAO's Aviation Security Manual. The key requirements are: (a) passengers and cabin baggage have to be screened prior to boarding an aircraft; and (b) under certain circumstances, screening equipment operators should select baggage for secondary screening, including manual search. Manual searches of cabin baggage should always be carried out in the presence of the owner of the baggage, and the baggage should be opened preferably by the passenger. To our understanding, the document of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) as quoted in the question was a working paper on training for conducting manual search presented by IATA at an ICAO working meeting in 2008. It refers to the procedure for manual search of cabin baggage.
Regarding the incident that took place at the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) from the evening of 27 March to around midnight on 28 March this year concerning a piece of lost baggage, the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) submitted a report to the Government on 25 April and the Government released the report on the same day.
The AAHK looked into the question of whether the handling of the incident complied with relevant aviation security requirements with reference to the airport's duty report and closed circuit television footage, as well as information provided by the Aviation Security Company and the relevant airline concerning the incident. The report of the AAHK affirms that the handling of the incident did not violate any airport security requirements and international aviation security standards.
8202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
On airport security, the report points out that, after its discovery in the departure hall, the cabin baggage concerned passed explosive trace detection; the ownership of the baggage was verified; before entering the departure restricted area, the baggage underwent X-ray screening, which met the requirement of ICAO, but was not selected for secondary screening; and, according to the requirements of relevant authorities of the destination country of the flight, the cabin baggage was also security screened at the boarding gate before the owner boarded the aircraft. After the report was studied by the Security Bureau, Transport and Housing Bureau and CAD, the Government agreed with the report that the handling of the incident did not violate airport security requirements.
The report also mentions the AAHK's established procedures for the handling of lost and found items. Subject to availability of manpower, staff of the AAHK or relevant contractor for the lost and found service can deliver found items to its established owner if the latter is within the restricted area, after the required security screening on the staff and the relevant found item. For the period March 2015 to March 2016, there were 517 cases where staff of the AAHK and its contractor for the lost and found service delivered found items to the restricted area and returned them to the owners.
The report points out that provided that airport security screening requirements are complied with, there is no restriction to prevent airlines at HKIA from returning found items to their respective passengers in the restricted area. Whether to provide such services is a decision of the airlines.
The Government will continue to closely monitor ICAO's latest security requirements and their updates and make sure that the aviation security requirements of Hong Kong are in line with them to ensure aviation safety.
Trafficking in Persons Report 2015 and Protection of Rights of Foreign Domestic Helpers
4. MS EMILY LAU (in Chinese): President, the United States Department of State publishes a Trafficking in Persons Report (TIP Report) every year to evaluate the human trafficking situations in various countries/areas. The Report places the relevant countries/areas onto one of three tiers based on their governments' efforts in combating human trafficking, with "Tier 1" representing the highest ranking. The TIP Report 2015 published in July last year placed LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8203
Hong Kong on "Tier 2" again, and pointed out that Hong Kong was a destination, transit, and source territory for persons subjected to sex trafficking and forced labour. In particular, the Report stressed that there were exploitations of foreign domestic helpers (FDHs) in Hong Kong: some FDHs became victims of forced labour in the private homes in which they were employed (with FDHs having reported working 17-hour days); some employment agencies (EAs) (including FDH recruitment agencies) charged fees in excess of the maximum commission allowed under the law; and some FDHs who had been abused by their employers were unwilling to report abusive employers for fear of losing their jobs and being unable to repay their debts. In this connection, will the Executive Authorities inform this Council:
(1) of the new measures that have been put in place by the authorities so far, in response to the queries about Hong Kong raised in the aforesaid report; whether the authorities, in formulating measures to crack down on trafficking in persons, will set an objective of Hong Kong being placed on "Tier 1" by the aforesaid Report in future;
(2) given that the authorities have indicated that since April 2014, the Labour Department (LD) has increased manpower to step up inspection of EAs, with the annual number of inspections increasing from 1 300 in the past to 1 800 (representing a 38% increase), of the details about LD's manpower increase;
(3) of the total number of EAs and the number of inspections of EAs conducted by LD, in the past three years; whether the authorities will consider further boosting the manpower for coping with the increasing workload of inspection and number of related complaints; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(4) of the number of EAs which were prosecuted for contravention of the law, the offences involved, and the penalties imposed by the court on the convicted EAs in general, in the past five years?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, having consulted the Security Bureau, our consolidated response to Ms Emily LAU's question is set out below: 8204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
(1) The "US State Department's Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report 2015" acknowledges the Government's key anti-TIP achievements, but there exist certain descriptions which do not fully reflect the unfailing commitment and continuous efforts of the Government in the fight against TIP. In particular, we disagree that Hong Kong is a destination, transit and source territory for men, women, and children subjected to sex trafficking and forced labour.
The comprehensive legislative framework of Hong Kong has already fully underpinned the robust enforcement of our law-enforcement agencies. Through inter-departmental collaboration, the Government's efforts in tackling human trafficking include victim identification, enforcement and prosecution, victim protection and international co-operation. Hundreds of our law-enforcement officers are trained with specialized victim identification skills and TIP knowledge yearly. The Police and the Immigration Department will also revise their victim identification guidelines to facilitate thorough investigation and to ensure that genuine victims are provided with appropriate assistance.
The law-enforcement agencies will take all trafficking reports seriously and maintain close liaison with foreign consulates and non-governmental organizations with a view to bringing to justice human trafficking criminals.
(2) to (4)
The Employment Agencies Administration (EAA) of the Labour Department (LD) is responsible for enforcing Part XII of the Employment Ordinance (EO) (Cap. 57) and Employment Agency Regulations (EAR) (Cap. 57A). It regulates the employment agencies (EAs) through conducting regular and surprise inspections, complaint investigations as well as instituting prosecutions against EAs which are suspected of breaching the laws. EAA has strengthened its manpower in the past two financial years. EAA had eight and 11 staff of Labour Officer Grade respectively in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, and will have four more staff of Labour Officer Grade in 2016-2017 to step up the monitoring of EAs.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8205
To promote the professionalism and quality service of the EA industry, the Commissioner for Labour plans to promulgate a Code of Practice for EAs and will require EAs to follow the Code in operating their business. The LD is conducting a public consultation on the draft Code and will consider the views collected during the consultation period, refine the Code and then promulgate it for compliance by the EA industry. The LD will review the manpower arrangements as appropriate to complement the enforcement of Part XII of EO, EAR and the Code. In addition, the LD will continue with its publicity and education efforts in raising the awareness of their respective rights and obligations of foreign domestic helpers, their employers and EAs.
The numbers of EAs and inspections conducted in the past three years as well as the number of EAs convicted in the past five years and the details are set out at Annex.
Annex
Table 1: Numbers of EAs and inspections conducted from 2013 to 2015
2013 2014 2015 Number of EAs 2 570 2 715 2 855 Number of inspections to EAs 1 341 1 806 1 803
Table 2: Numbers of EAs convicted from 2011 to 2015 and the details
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Number of EAs convicted 5 2 5 4 12
Note:
The offences involved by the convicted EAs included overcharging of commission from foreign domestic helpers, unlicensed operation of EAs, failing to display the licence or the Second Schedule specifying the maximum commission which may be received from job seekers, and failing to notify the LD of changes in management or business address within the statutory time frame. As for penalties, for convictions of overcharging or unlicensed operation, EAs concerned were fined $1,500 to $45,000. For failing to display the licence or the Second Schedule, failing to notify the LD of changes in management or business address within the statutory time frame, EAs concerned were fined $800 to $4,500.
8206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Leisure and Cultural Services Projects Which have not yet Commenced and Relevant Planning Standards
5. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, currently, quite a number of leisure and cultural services projects across the territory which were endorsed respectively by the two former Municipal Councils or relevant District Councils many years ago have not yet commenced. Those projects include: a sports centre in Area 103, On Luk Street, Ma On Shan, adjacent to the Ma On Shan Police Station; District Open Space in Area 90, next to the junction of Hang Ming Street and Hang Fai Street, Ma On Shan; and the sports centre and Town Plaza in Area 4, Sai Kung. It has been reported that quite a number of members of the public consider that the cultural and recreational facilities as well as the activity space in the community are inadequate, and the planning work of the Government is not thorough either. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it will consider, when seeking funding approvals from the Finance Committee of this Council, placing the funding applications of the aforesaid projects in a separate queue from that of territory-wide projects, with a view to shortening the waiting time for vetting and approval of the former;
(2) of the existing number of the aforesaid projects that are still pending funding approvals; when the authorities expect to submit to this Council the funding applications for such projects (set out in detail in a table); and
(3) given that the Government will provide open space and recreational facilities in various districts in accordance with the planning standards of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, the projects for such facilities in quite a number of districts (e.g. Shatin and Tseung Kwan O) have not commenced after a long time due to the lack of land or funding pending approval, of the districts in which the relevant planning standards have been met and those have not at present; given that the public's demands for such facilities are keener than those in the past, whether the Government will review the relevant standards afresh; if it will, of the details and the timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8207
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, my reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:
(1) In drawing up agenda items and their sequence for each Finance Committee (FC) meeting, the Government will consider holistically such factors as priorities for funding proposals, whether consultation has been completed and the FC's progress of scrutinizing such proposals. As always, the Government will work closely with all members of the Public Works Subcommittee (PWSC) and the FC for timely completion of the scrutiny work.
(2) The Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) reports annually to the Panel on Home Affairs of the Legislative Council on the update of the 139 outstanding leisure and cultural services projects of the two former Municipal Councils. The latest report was submitted in November 2015. As at end March 2016, 63 of the 139 projects had been completed, seven were under construction or had secured funding from the Legislative Council, two were submitted to the Legislative Council for scrutiny and pending funding approval by the FC, and 17 were deferred or deleted following consultation with the relevant District Councils (DCs); for the remaining 50 projects, nine had been partially developed, eight were at the advanced planning stage, three were under preliminary planning, nine were under review, and 21 were without available sites or had been accorded low priority by the respective DCs. Details of these projects are at Annex 1. In addition, 13 DC-led projects, which are related to district livelihood, cultural and recreational development, are pending funding under the Signature Project Scheme. Their status of funding approval is at Annex 2.
District-based projects will continue to be taken forward according to the established procedures of the Capital Works Programme. The delivery time depends on a host of factors, including urgency, scope and complexity of individual projects, views of the stakeholders (including the relevant DCs) and resources available. Upon approval of funding, we will commence the funded projects as 8208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
soon as possible for completion as scheduled, thus enabling early enjoyment of the relevant facilities by the public.
(3) Regarding recreational facilities, Chapter 4 of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) on "Recreation, Open Space and Greening" stipulates the standards of provision for core activities and recreation buildings. Many different organizations and bodies are involved in the organization and provision of a wide range of recreation facilities. Recreation facilities provided by the public sector are mainly those provided by the LCSD for public enjoyment and those provided by the Hong Kong Housing Authority within public housing developments for residents' use. The area and number of open spaces and recreation facilities under the LCSD are listed by district at Annex 3.
In the planning of recreation and leisure facilities, the Government will continue to make reference to the guidelines of the HKPSG and take into account the policy objectives for sports development, utilization rates of existing facilities, public preferences for different types of sports as indicated by studies and surveys, views of DCs and relevant sports organizations, and the extent of provision of such facilities by governmental and non-governmental organizations, with a view to meeting the public demand.
Given that the last comprehensive review on the relevant chapter(s) in the HKPSG was conducted in 1998, the Home Affairs Bureau set up the Working Group on Sports Facilities (WG) under the Sports Commission last year to review the level of demand for various types of sports facilities and to consider whether and how the current HKPSG should be revised to better meet such demand. Taking into account views of the WG, we plan to engage a consultant to carry out a study on the demand and supply of sports facilities in Hong Kong and to make recommendations on future provision of sports facilities to serve Government's policy objectives on sports development. The WG hopes to complete its review and come up with preliminary recommendations by 2017.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8209
Annex 1
Former Municipal Council projects pending funding
(1) Projects partially developed District Project Title 1 Eastern Improvement of camping facilities in Lei Yue Mun Park and Holiday Village 2 Southern Replenishment of the Stanley Main Beach 3 Yau Tsim Mong Regional Park at West Kowloon Reclamation 4 Kwun Tong Lam Tin Park (Phase II) (that is, Ma Yau Tong Central Landfill) 5 Islands Kwun Yam Wan Beach Building, Cheung Chau 6 Sha Tin District Open Space in Area 90, Ma On Shan 7 Sha Tin District Open Space in Area 11, Sha Tin 8 Tsuen Wan Improvement to the Facilities at Approach Beach 9 Yuen Long Hung Shui Kiu Town Square
(2) Projects submitted to the Legislative Council for scrutiny District Project Title 1 Sham Shui Po Sports Centre, 5-a-side Soccer Pitch and Public Library Facilities at Northwest Kowloon Reclamation Site 6, Sham Shui Po(1) 2 Tai Po Sports Centre, community hall and football pitches in Area 1, Tai Po(2)
Notes:
(1) The project, formerly titled as Tung Chau Street Complex, was endorsed by the PWSC on 23 April 2016 and will be submitted to the FC as soon as possible.
(2) The project, originally titled as Tai Po New Civic Centre, was endorsed by the PWSC on 23 April 2016 and will be submitted to the FC as soon as possible. As the Government is planning the development of a cross-district cultural centre to serve the entire New Territories East in North District (Fan Ling), the LCSD plans to upgrade the facilities of the existing Tai Po Civic Centre. Having discussed the issue in July 2009 and January 2010, the District Facilities Management Committee of the Tai Po District Council supports the upgrading proposal.
8210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
(3) Projects at advanced planning stage District Project Title 1 Eastern Quarry Bay Park Phase II (Stages 2 and 3) 2 North District Open Space in Areas 47 and 48, Fanling/Sheung Shui (Phase 1) 3 North New Territories East Cultural Centre 4 Tuen Mun District Open Space in Area 27 (Sam Shing), Tuen Mun 5 Tuen Mun Recreation Ground in Area 17 (Industrial City), Tuen Mun and adjoining areas 6 Tai Po Local Open Space in Area 6, Tai Po 7 Tai Po 11-a-side Football-cum-Rugby Pitch in Area 33, Tai Po(3) 8 Tsuen Wan Ecological Park (Tso Kung Tam Valley, Tsuen Wan)
Note:
(3) The former name of the project was Recreation Ground Area 33, Tai Po.
(4) Projects under preliminary planning District Project Title 1 Sai Kung Sai Kung Complex, Town Plaza in Area 4, Sai Kung and Redevelopment of Wai Man Road Playground 2 Tai Po Golf Course at Shuen Wan Landfill, Tai Po 3 Yuen Long Kam Tin Pat Heung Sports Centre
(5) Projects under review District Project Title 1 Wan Chai New Tennis Centre and Carpark at Moreton Terrace 2 Sha Tin Expansion of Sha Tin Public Library 3 Sha Tin Sports centre in Area 103, Ma On Shan 4 Sha Tin Redevelopment of Fo Tan Cooked Food Market, Sha Tin 5 Islands Civic Centre for Islands District 6 Sai Kung Civic Centre for Sai Kung District in Area 66, Tseung Kwan O 7 Tuen Mun Hung Lau Park (former Castle Peak Farm) 8 Yuen Long Indoor Recreation Centre in Area 12, Yuen Long 9 Yuen Long Local Open Space in Kau Hui, Yuen Long
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8211
(6) Projects without available sites/accorded with low priority by DCs District Project Title (i) Site not available 1 Kowloon City Lo Lung Hang Garden 2 Sham Shui Po Lai Chi Kok Park Stage III (Indoor Games Centre ― Phase IB) 3 Yau Tsim Mong Open Space Development in West Kowloon Reclamation at Road D10 4 Tai Po Tai Mei Tuk Water Sports Centre Extension, Area 74, Tai Po (ii) Accorded low priority by the respective District Councils 5 Sham Shui Po Improvement to Cheung Sha Wan Playground 6 Kwun Tong Kai Tak Park 7 North Local Open Space Area 20 Fanling/Sheung Shui 8 North District Open Space Area 17 Fanling/Sheung Shui 9 North District Open Space Area 27D Fanling/Sheung Shui 10 North District Open Space Area 4 (Remainder) Fanling/Sheung Shui 11 North District Open Space Area 37 Fanling/Sheung Shui 12 Tai Po Indoor Recreation Centre Area 6, Tai Po 13 Tai Po Ha Hang Village Playground Area 31, Tai Po 14 Tai Po Local Open Space Area 32, Tai Po 15 Tsuen Wan District Open Space Area 2 Tsuen Wan 16 Tsuen Wan District Open Space Area 3 Tsuen Wan 17 Yuen Long Swimming Pool Complex Kam Tin 18 Yuen Long Local Open Space in Hung Shui Kiu, Phase I 19 Yuen Long Sports Complex and District Open Space in Area 12, Yuen Long 20 Yuen Long Local Open Space in Hung Shui Kiu Phase II 21 Yuen Long Hung Shui Kiu Complex
8212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Annex 2
Projects pending funding under the Signature Project Scheme that are related to district livelihood, cultural and recreational development
Progress on Funding District Project Application (as at 30 April 2016) 1 Eastern Eastern District Cultural Endorsed by the PWSC on Square 20 April 2016. Pending 2 Kwun Tong Construction of Lift Tower funding approval by the FC. at Shung Yan Street in Kwun Tong 3 Kowloon City Revitalization of the Rear Portion of the Cattle Depot 4 Yau Tsim Mong Yau Tsim Mong Multicultural Activity Centre 5 Tai Po Establishment of an Arts Centre by Retrofitting Tai Po Government Secondary School 6 Yuen Long Construction of a Yuen Long District Community Services Building 7 Tuen Mun Revitalization of Tuen Mun River and Surrounding Areas 8 Promotion of Youth Endorsed by the PWSC on Development in Tuen Mun 20 April 2016 and subject to separate voting in the FC. Together with the non-works components, the project will be submitted to the FC as soon as possible. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8213
Progress on Funding District Project Application (as at 30 April 2016) 9 Wan Chai Construction of Moreton Pending consideration by Terrace Activities Centre the PWSC. 10 Kwun Tong Construction of Music Fountains at Kwun Tong Promenade 11 Tai Po Improving the Tourist Facilities at Lam Tsuen Wishing Square 12 Sai Kung Construction of the Tseung Supported by the Panel on Kwan O Heritage Hiking Home Affairs on 12 April Trail and Heritage 2016. To be submitted to Information Centre the PWSC as soon as 13 Reconstruction of the Sharp possible. Island Pier
Annex 3
Area and number of leisure and recreation facilities under the management of the LCSD (gazetted as at 30 September 2015)
Leisure and Recreation Facilities Districts Areas (Hectare)# Number* Central and Western 71.4 126 Wan Chai 51 84 Eastern 146 122 Southern 151 94 Sham Shui Po 95.1 72 Yau Tsim Mong 77.2 107 Kowloon City 104.4 92 Wong Tai Sin 76.7 64 Kwun Tong 108.6 123 Islands 166.2 97 Tuen Mun 191.5 90 8214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Leisure and Recreation Facilities Districts Areas (Hectare)# Number* Yuen Long 180.2 123 Kwai Tsing 111.4 95 Tsuen Wan 140 81 North 132.7 148 Tai Po 112.5 82 Sha Tin 182.6 101 Sai Kung 175.9 73 Total 2 274.4 1 774
Notes:
# Including areas of indoor and outdoor leisure facilities and roadside amenity areas.
* Including sports centres, stadia, sports grounds, major parks, small parks/gardens/sitting-out areas, beaches, swimming pools, water sports centres and holiday camps.
Smart Traffic Management
6. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, the Government has proposed a study of the development of a "smart city" in both of the Policy Addresses of last year and this year. In a smart city, smart technologies are employed to revamp and enhance its systems, operations and services, thereby improving the functions of the city. Besides, smart technologies are useful in managing traffic and mitigating traffic congestion. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) with regard to the installation of "stop-and-go" e-payment facilities at manual toll booths of government tolled tunnels and roads currently under study by the authorities, of the (i) details of the technologies, (ii) development and operation costs and (iii) names of the roads and tunnels involved, together with (iv) the expected commissioning date of such facilities;
(2) with regard to the "stop-and-go" e-payment facilities mentioned in (1), of the (i) mobile payment technologies to be introduced by the authorities, and (ii) mobile payment methods in support of such LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8215
facilities and the functions associated with the methods; whether the authorities have consulted members of the relevant sectors when conducting the relevant study; if they have, of the consultation details; if not, the reasons for that;
(3) with regard to the trial scheme on new generation of parking meters (new parking meters) currently implemented by the authorities, of the locations and number of parking meters involved (broken down by District Council district);
(4) with regard to the trial scheme mentioned in (3), of the (i) mobile payment methods in support of the scheme and the functions associated with the methods, (ii) locations where on-site testing scheme has been conducted and (iii) development and operation costs; whether the authorities have plans to replace all roadside parking meters with new parking meters; if they do, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(5) whether the authorities have studied the offer of parking concessions to drivers of environment-friendly vehicles when introducing new parking meters, so as to encourage more people to use such vehicles; whether the authorities have studied the introduction of parking meters capable of making real-time adjustments to parking charges according to factors such as location and usage rate of parking spaces as well as average parking time, etc., so as to regulate the supply of and demand for roadside parking spaces; if they have conducted such a study, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; whether the authorities will release the real-time data on usage rate of parking spaces to facilitate drivers' choices of driving routes and parking locations; if they will release such data, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(6) given that the authorities have just completed the public engagement exercise for the Electronic Road Pricing Pilot Scheme in Central and its Adjacent Areas, and are planning to update the Transport Information System of the Transport Department, whether they will conduct a study on how to make the computer systems involved in those two tasks compatible with the computer systems involved in the 8216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
various aforesaid e-payment facilities, and adopt a standardized and open data format to facilitate public use of such systems, and encourage public and private organizations to make use of the relevant data for transport studies; if the authorities will conduct such a study, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my reply to the various parts of Mr Charles Peter MOK's question is as follows:
(1) and (2)
The Transport Department (TD) has obtained funding from the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council for introducing "stop-and-go" e-payment facilities at seven government tolled tunnels and roads, namely Aberdeen Tunnel, Cross Harbour Tunnel, Lion Rock Tunnel, Shing Mun Tunnels, Tseung Kwan O Tunnel, Lantau Link and Tsing Sha Highway. The facilities aim to provide motorists with the choice of an alternative payment method, that is, using contactless smart cards.
Upon securing the funding, the TD and the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department have been actively working on the preparatory and preliminary work on the technical details of the project. Major work includes modification of the existing manual toll collection system at the Government tolled tunnels and roads, installation of e-payment facilities, and formulation of requirements and terms in the contract for future contractors providing e-payment services. The modification of the existing manual toll collection system is now complete. Within the coming two months or so, the contractor selected through open tender will commence system design for the e-payment facilities; and the TD will conduct another open tender exercise to select contractors for providing e-payment services. We need to make amendments to relevant subsidiary legislation for e-payment, and will consult the Legislative Council Panel on Transport on the legislative proposals within this year. We expect that "stop-and-go" e-payment facilities will come into operation at the above-mentioned seven government tolled tunnels LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8217
and roads in phases from mid-2017. Details will be announced nearer the time. The estimated cost of the entire project is around $45.53 million, and the operating expenditure is estimated at $15 million per year.
The TD plans to adopt the contactless smart card payment technologies which are currently commonly used in the market. Motorists only need to hold a specified contactless smart card within 2 cm of the card reader for the latter to detect the data on the smart card for transaction purpose. The TD will select contractors for providing e-payment services through open tender. In formulating the tender requirements, the TD had consulted different suppliers of the services concerned in the market on a number of occasions, in order to understand the existing operation modes and technological development of "stop-and go" e-payment facilities in the market.
(3) and (4)
At present, there are about 9 800 electronic parking meters in the territory, supporting a total of around 18 000 on-street metered parking spaces. The Government will launch a New Parking Meter System Trial Scheme (Trial Scheme) to examine the scope for introducing a new generation of parking meters with new features and functions. The Trial Scheme will, among other things, test different payment methods (for example, using a new model of card reader with enhanced transaction speed to accept payment by Octopus and other contactless transaction payment cards), and enhance the system functions with wireless communication technology (for example, automatic uploading of transaction and utilization data and pro-active fault alerts).
The Government has selected new suppliers for the provision of new parking meter system through open tender. The design work for the new system and functions is already underway. Field tests will be conducted in four districts, namely Yau Tsim Mong, Wan Chai, Yuen Long and Sai Kung, for a total of about 120 on-street metered parking spaces. The exact locations of these meters have yet to be confirmed at this stage. We will table the relevant legislative amendments at Legislative Council this month, in order that the field 8218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
trial can commence in the fourth quarter of 2016 for completion in the fourth quarter of 2017. The estimated expenditure of the Trial Scheme is around $3.8 million.
After the implementation of the Trial Scheme, we will assess and finalize the functions and specifications required of the new generation of parking meters for full replacement of existing parking meters.
(5) Currently, the utilization rate of on-street metered parking spaces is quite high and vacant ones will usually be taken up by vehicles nearby within a short time span. The TD therefore considers that real time information on utilization rate may not provide practical use to motorists, and has currently no plan to collect and disseminate real time data on vacant on-street parking spaces or to change the charging mode of on-street parking. This notwithstanding, the TD may consider adjusting the fee of individual parking spaces depending on the circumstances of individual on-street metered parking spaces (for example, traffic conditions and utilization rate, and so on). As regards the proposal of offering on-street metered parking concessions to environment-friendly vehicles, the Government has always been encouraging the use of public transport as far as possible so as to reduce the use of private cars. Using public transport is more environmentally-friendly and helps mitigate traffic congestion. As such, the Government has no plan to offer on-street metered parking concessions for environmentally-friendly vehicles.
(6) Currently, the transport data in the TD's Transport Information System (TIS), such as traffic directions, turning restrictions at road junctions and traffic flow, and so on, have been integrated into an Intelligent Road Network which is in Geographic Information System format, and is open to the public. Private institutions and academics can use such data to develop other intelligent transport applications and to conduct transport studies. Moreover, other real time traffic data, such as traffic snapshot images, special traffic news, cross-harbour journey times, traffic speed maps, and so on, have been digitalized and provided to the public free-of-charge through the Government's public information portal "data.gov.hk". LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8219
With the enhancement of the computing capacity of TIS in future, more traffic information, such as possible changes in traffic conditions and estimated travel time, will be provided, allowing the TD and private institutions to develop more innovative services which meet the personal needs of travellers.
The TD will conduct a study on the dissemination of real-time data to be collected through the Electronic Road Pricing Pilot Scheme in Central and its Adjacent Areas (the ERP Pilot Scheme), the new generation of parking meter system and the "stop-and-go" e-payment facilities. The aim of the study is to facilitate travel planning by the public through dissemination of such data.
During the public engagement exercise, some members of the public proposed that the payment system of the ERP Pilot Scheme should be made compatible with the automatic toll collection systems currently used in various tunnels. At present, the Government keeps an open mind towards the technology and toll collection method to be adopted in the ERP Pilot Scheme. We will conduct an in-depth feasibility study for the ERP Pilot Scheme, which covers the technical issues such as the compatibility of payment system of the ERP Pilot Scheme system with other systems, as well as the data format to be adopted, and so on.
Safety of Food Products Imported from Japan
7. MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Chinese): President, in response to a nuclear radiation leakage incident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011 (Fukushima nuclear incident), the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene has issued an order under section 78B of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) to prohibit the import of certain fresh produce, milk, milk beverages and milk powder from the five most affected prefectures of Japan, namely Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Chiba and Gunma. A scheme of targeted radiation testing on all food products imported from Japan has also been carried out since then. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
8220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
(1) of the types and quantity of those Japanese food products from which excessive radiation levels were detected after such food products had been put on the market, each year since the Fukushima nuclear incident;
(2) as it has been reported that the food testing standards prescribed by the authorities in respect of certain radionuclides (e.g. caesium) in imported food products are lower than those prescribed by other jurisdictions (including Mainland China, South Korea and Taiwan), of the reasons for that;
(3) as it has been reported that radionuclides strontium and polonium will cause leukaemia and lung cancer respectively, why the authorities have not enacted legislation to regulate the permitted levels of such radionuclides in food products; whether the authorities will include strontium and polonium as items to be tested on food products imported from Japan; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(4) as it has been reported that at present, the authorities only prohibit the import of food products from the aforesaid five prefectures of Japan, while other jurisdictions (e.g. Mainland China, South Korea and the United States) ban the import of food products from more places in Japan, of the reasons and justifications for the authorities adopting an approach which is less stringent than other jurisdictions; whether the authorities will expand the ban on imported food products to cover more places in Japan; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(5) as it has been reported that in respect of certain food products imported from Japan and sold on the market, the description of their places of origin is very general (e.g. only the broad term "Japan" is shown) without showing the names of the prefectures and cities where the food products concerned were produced, and in some other food products, wrong places of origin are shown, whether the authorities have assessed if the importers and retailers concerned have contravened the relevant food labelling requirements; if they have assessed and the outcome is in the negative, whether they will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8221
enact legislation to require that the package labels of imported food products must bear detailed description of places of origin; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, of the legislation and penalties involved; of the number of persons who have been prosecuted and convicted since the Fukushima nuclear incident for committing relevant offences and the punishments imposed by the court on them in general?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, following the Fukushima nuclear power plant incident in Japan in 2011, the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene (DFEH) issued an order under section 78B of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) on 24 March 2011 to prohibit the import of vegetables and fruits, milk, milk beverages and milk powder from the five most affected prefectures of Japan, namely Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Chiba and Gunma. The import of all chilled or frozen game, meat and poultry, poultry eggs and all live, chilled or frozen aquatic products from the five prefectures is prohibited, unless they are accompanied by a certificate issued by the competent authority of Japan attesting that the radiation levels do not exceed the guideline levels. The order is still in force. Anyone found to have contravened any terms of the order is liable to a maximum fine of $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 12 months.
Since the incident, the Centre for Food Safety (CFS) has enhanced the surveillance of the radiation levels of food imported from Japan according to a risk-based approach. The CFS has been testing the radiation levels of every consignment of food products imported from Japan. Only food products with satisfactory test results will be released for sale in the market. Besides, the CFS, through the regular food surveillance programme, takes food samples at the retail level for radiation tests to monitor the radiation levels of food products to safeguard food safety.
My reply to the questions of Mr WONG Kwok-hing is as follows:
(1) Following the Fukushima nuclear power plant incident in Japan in 2011, the CFS immediately stepped up the surveillance of the radiation levels of food imported from Japan. As at 15 April 2016, the CFS tested more than 320 000 samples of Japanese food. Since 8222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
the said order came into effect, the test results of all samples were satisfactory. The CFS also updates the test results on food imported from Japan and the latest figures on its website every working day.
(2) and (3)
The CFS has referred to the standards laid down by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex)(1) in the Guideline Levels for Radionuclides in Foods Contaminated Following a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency (the guideline levels) when testing the radiation levels of food. The guideline levels are internationally recognized standards for protecting public health.
The Government has set up an Expert Committee on Food Safety (Expert Committee) under the CFS to advise the DFEH on the formulation of food safety strategies and measures. According to the Expert Committee, three radionuclides, namely Iodine-131 (I-131), Caesium-134 (Cs-134) and Caesium-137 (Cs-137), are the main radionuclides posing health risks and are most relevant in the acute phase of nuclear emergencies. The Expert Committee also considered the adoption of the Codex guideline levels by the CFS appropriate in addressing the public concern over food safety. Besides, the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) also stipulates that all food for sale in Hong Kong (including the food imported from Japan) must be fit for human consumption.
(4) In the wake of Fukushima nuclear power plant incident, individual countries or regions have implemented measures deemed fit to their risk assessment results and local circumstances. As such, the places of origin, the number of prefectures and categories of food products covered under their import control measures imposed on Japanese food may differ from those implemented in Hong Kong. Generally speaking, compared with Australia, New Zealand and
(1) The Codex Alimentarius Commission was co-established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization to serve as an international authority to set food-related standards and guidelines for protecting the health of consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8223
Canada (which have now lifted all the import control imposed after the incident) as well as Singapore (which has only imposed limited control over the import of food products from Fukushima and imposed conditions on the import of food products from certain prefectures), the import control of Japanese food products exercised by the Mainland, Taiwan, Korea and Hong Kong is more stringent.
Regarding the control measures implemented by the United States, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) imposes import restriction on Japanese foods (Import Alert 99-33) by referring to the list of food products that are prohibited from export compiled by the Japanese Government based on the results of their ongoing food surveillance. When the Japanese Government updates the list, which can be found on the website of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, the FDA will make changes to the import alert accordingly. In other words, the Japanese food products and prefectures subject to import restrictions in the United States mirror the export prohibition measures taken by Japan.
As mentioned in the first paragraph above, following the radiation leakage at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011, the DFEH issued an order to prohibit the import of a number of food products from the five most affected prefectures, namely Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Chiba and Gunma. The CFS has also been closely monitoring and testing food imported from Japan for radiation at the import, wholesale and retail levels. In the case of Hong Kong, apart from the food items prohibited from export by the Japanese authority, the food prohibited from importing into Hong Kong also include those covered by the order issued by the DFEH.
Moreover, as mentioned in parts 3(2) and 3(3), the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) stipulates that all food for sale in Hong Kong must be fit for human consumption. This requirement applies to all imported food (including Japanese food), regardless of whether the food is subject to the restrictions imposed by the Japanese authority or the order issued by the DFEH.
Having regard to the latest development, we will keep in view the control on food imported from Japan, taking into account assessments made by international agencies such as the International 8224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Atomic Energy Agency, control measures implemented by other jurisdictions, local food surveillance results, handling of the Japanese authority in the Fukushima nuclear power plant incident and other relevant factors. Generally speaking, while we accord top priority to food safety, we also need to take into account the latest development of the above factors and the requirements of the World Trade Organization.
(5) At the import control level, during the CFS's routine surveillance of each consignment of food imported from Japan for radiation testing, importers are required to provide the CFS with relevant information including the places of origin and the prefectures concerned to facilitate the CFS's identification of food from the five Japanese prefectures on which import restrictions are imposed so as to safeguard food safety.
On labelling, under the Food and Drugs (Composition and Labelling) Regulations (Cap. 132W), the name and detailed address of the manufacturer/packer should be provided on the label of prepackaged food. Otherwise, the prepackaged food should be labelled with an indication of its country of origin, together with:
(i) the name of the distributor or brand owner in Hong Kong and the address of the registered or principal office of the distributor or brand owner in Hong Kong, with the full address of the manufacturer or packer of the prepackaged food in its country of origin provided in writing to the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) in advance; or
(ii) a code marking identifying the manufacturer or packer in its country of origin, with particulars of the code marking and of the manufacturer or packer to whom it relates provided in writing to the FEHD in advance.
If prepackaged food labelled with an indication of its country of origin is in compliance with the above legislative requirement, indication of the prefecture may serve as supplementary information on the label.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8225
On traceability of food, the Food Safety Ordinance (Cap. 612) requires food traders to maintain proper transaction records to ensure that the CFS can trace the source of food effectively and take prompt action in the event of a food incident. Even if the information of the food manufacturer or packer is not shown on the food label, with the transaction records kept by food traders, the CFS can still trace the source of food if necessary, thus safeguarding public health.
According to section 61 of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132), if any person falsely describes a food or misleads as to the nature, substance or quality of the food on the label of the food sold by him, he shall be guilty of an offence and be liable to a maximum fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for up to six months. In addition, according to the Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Cap. 362), "trade description", in relation to goods, means an indication, direct or indirect, and in whatever forms and by whatever means, with respect to the goods or any part of the goods, including claims as to place of manufacture or country of origin. The Trade Descriptions Ordinance does not make it mandatory to specify information on goods or their packaging. However, in the course of trade or business, all trade descriptions marked on or attached to goods must be true and correct. Making a false or misleading statement about goods to a material degree may constitute an offence of false trade description. Any person who contravenes the relevant provision of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance is liable on conviction to a maximum fine of $500,000 and imprisonment for up to five years.
In the CFS's regular inspection of Japanese food, no irregularity in relation to labelling has been found so far.
Fuel Prices
8. MR FRANKIE YICK (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that the cumulative rates of decrease in international crude oil prices and import prices of refined oil products since 2011 are as high as 75% and 56% respectively, but the retail prices of petrol in Hong Kong have dropped by merely 28.5% over the same period. As such, members of the public are unable to 8226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 benefit from the significant drop in international oil prices. Moreover, a survey has found that the retail prices of auto-fuels sold by three oil companies in Hong Kong have moved almost in tandem, thus arousing suspicion of collusive price-fixing. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the oil products of various oil companies vary in inventory levels as well as import time and they do not come from exactly the same places of origin, and that oil companies have different operating costs (e.g. transportation costs), whether the authorities have investigated why the retail prices of auto-fuels sold by the aforesaid oil companies have moved almost in tandem; if they have, of the details; if not, whether they will conduct such an investigation;
(2) as the rate of decrease in the local retail prices of petrol differs from the rate of decrease in the prices of international crude oil and those of refined oil products by 46.5 and 27.5 percentage points respectively, whether the authorities have studied if such differences are reasonable; if they have studied and the conclusion is in the affirmative, of the criteria and justifications for arriving at such a conclusion; if the conclusion is in the negative, of the authorities' measures to narrow such price differences;
(3) as some members of the public have pointed out that the oil companies' practice of offering greater discounts to major customers (e.g. government departments) has resulted in members of the public subsidizing those major customers and showed that there is room for downward adjustment of the retail prices of petrol, whether the authorities will take the initiative to request oil companies to reduce oil prices so as to alleviate the burden on the public; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(4) given that petrol prices have direct impacts on people's livelihood as well as on the logistics and transportation industry (e.g. affecting the fares of public transport services), whether the authorities will consider requesting oil companies to make public the inventory levels and sales figures of their oil products so that the public can monitor whether it is the case that the prices set by the oil companies have been "quick to rise and slow to drop"; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8227
(5) as oil companies have to recover such operating costs as land costs, government rents and tax (e.g. $6.06 per litre for unleaded petrol) from the retail prices of petrol, whether the Government will consider, by making reference to the pricing formula for the auto-liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) ceiling prices adjustment mechanism for dedicated LPG filling stations, requiring the oil companies to set their retail prices of petrol based on international oil prices and operating prices;
(6) whether it will consider adopting, apart from bidding prices, other criteria such as fuel quality and retail prices for vetting and approving tenders for the sale of petrol filling station sites, so that (i) the retail prices of auto-fuels can better reflect the trend movements of international oil prices, and (ii) the threshold for running a petrol filling station can be lowered, thereby attracting more new operators and increasing market competition; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(7) given that the Competition Commission will conduct an investigation into whether the oil companies have engaged in anti-competitive behaviour in setting auto-fuel prices, whether the Government knows the completion date of the investigation and the date for publication of the results; how the authorities will follow up on such investigation results?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, the consolidated replies of the Environment Bureau and Commerce and Economic Development Bureau to the above seven questions are as follows:
(1) and (4)
In a free market economy, retail prices of auto-fuels in Hong Kong are determined by oil companies having regard to commercial practices and their operating costs. When oil companies determine their prices, apart from the import prices of oil products, tax and the changes in operating costs (such as staff costs, transportation costs, costs of operating oil terminal, land premium, and so on.) will also be taken into account. Since the relevant data are commercially 8228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
sensitive information of oil companies, in a free market economy, the Government does not have the power to request the oil companies to provide such detailed information.
The role of the Government is to endeavour to ensure a stable fuel supply, maintain market openness, and remove barriers to enter into the market to enhance competition. We also endeavour to improve the transparency of the prices of auto-fuels products to facilitate consumers to make choices. We appreciate the impact of the auto-fuels prices on the public and have been monitoring the changes in local retail prices of auto-fuels and comparing them with the trend movements of international oil prices (benchmarked against the Singapore free-on-board (FOB) prices (that is, Means of Platts Singapore (MOPS)) for unleaded petrol and motor vehicle diesel). We will urge the oil companies to promptly reduce their retail prices whenever there is room to do so in order to lessen the burden of the general public. Although the trend movements of the oil companies' retail prices of auto-fuels are similar, the various kinds of discounts and promotions offered by the oil companies to customers are different. The prices paid by customers are actually different.
(2) and (3)
Hong Kong has no oil refinery. All auto-fuels sold locally are imported refined oil products instead of crude oil. Refined oil products (such as unleaded petrol and motor vehicle diesel) are products produced from crude oil after refinery processes and are different from crude oil. Therefore, changes in international crude oil price and prices of unleaded petrol and motor vehicle diesel are not necessarily the same in terms of timing and magnitude. When comparing international oil prices and the local retail prices of auto-fuels, it is more appropriate to make reference to Singapore FOB prices (that is, MOPS) and the prices of importing oil products by oil companies as explained above.
In assessing whether the prices of local auto-fuels are adjusted in tandem with the changes in import prices of auto-fuels, we should consider the portion of import price of auto-fuels in the pump price, and should not take into account other components (that is, tax and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8229 other operating costs) in the pump price. When the import prices drop, if tax and other operating costs are unchanged, the percentage change of pump price must be lower than that of import price. On the contrary, when the import prices rise, the percentage increase in pump price will be lower than that of import prices. Therefore, it is not appropriate to simply compare the percentage change of auto-fuels pump prices with that of import prices. Besides, as oil companies generally provide various kinds of discounts and promotions to consumers, the actual prices paid by consumers are effectively lower than the pump prices listed at petrol filling stations (PFS).
Oil price has fluctuated notably since mid-2014. According to our analysis, the import prices of auto-fuels in February 2016 have dropped by around $3.7 per litre (around 60%) from their peak levels in June 2014. During this period, oil companies, in response to falling import prices, have adjusted the pump prices of auto-fuels downwards, with accumulated reduction of around $3.7 per litre, which represents around 60% of the peak level import prices of auto-fuels (the peak level import prices of unleaded petrol was $6.47 per litre in June 2014). Therefore, the magnitude of the pump prices adjustments is generally in line with the trend movements of import prices. Similarly, according to our observation, the adjustments in retail price of auto-fuels are generally in line with the trend movements of MOPS over the same period.
In addition, oil companies point out that discounts and promotional offers are part of their market competition strategies. In order to maintain the competitive edges of their products, they provide various discounts and rebates to cater for the needs of individual and fleet customers. The discounts obtained by different customers depend on various factors, including long-term fuel consumption, service need, credit history, prevailing market competition condition, other business considerations, and so on. The Government will continue to monitor the prices of local auto-fuels and urge the oil companies to promptly reduce their retail prices whenever there is room to do so in order to lessen the burden of the general public.
8230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
(5) and (6)
As mentioned in the reply above, the magnitude of the pump prices adjustments of oil companies is generally in line with the trend movements of import prices and MOPS. According to free market mechanism, we consider that Government's existing arrangement to grant land for use as PFS to the "highest bidder" by public tender is appropriate. This arrangement is same as other land sales arrangements. Any suggestion to change the existing arrangement should be considered carefully as it may reduce Government's revenue and affect the fair business competition environment under free market economy.
To enhance market competition, since 2003, the Government has re-tendered all existing PFS sites upon expiry of their leases, instead of renewing the leases to the existing operators. At the same time, the requirement for bidders of PFS sites to hold import licence and supply contract have been removed. Since the introduction of the new tendering arrangements, two new operators have successfully entered the market. The share of the three incumbent major operators in terms of the number of PFS has dropped from over 90% to about 70%. At present, there are six oil companies operating over 180 PFS in Hong Kong. In view of the size of Hong Kong market, the tendering arrangement has effectively enhanced the competition in the auto-fuel market and increase economic efficiency.
(7) According to our understanding, the study on the auto-fuel market conducted by the Competition Commission (the Commission) is expected to be completed within this year. We will maintain close liaison with the Commission and welcome views of the Commission on competition matters, with a view to jointly enhancing market competition.
Enhancement of Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme
9. MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Chinese): President, the Government launched the Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme (EHCV Scheme) in 2009 and the Pilot Scheme at the University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital under the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8231
EHCV Scheme (Pilot Scheme) on 6 October 2015. Under the Pilot Scheme, eligible Hong Kong elderly people may use elderly health care vouchers (HCVs) to pay for designated outpatient services at the University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital (HKU-SZ Hospital). Moreover, the authorities have indicated that they will continue to enhance the EHCV Scheme. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of attendances of Hong Kong elderly people using HCVs at HKU-SZ Hospital since the implementation of the Pilot Scheme; whether it knows the Mainland cities in which these elderly people reside;
(2) of the total value of HCVs used by Hong Kong elderly people at HKU SZ Hospital since the implementation of the Pilot Scheme, with a breakdown by the healthcare services involved;
(3) whether it has reviewed the effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme since the implementation of the Pilot Scheme; if it has; of the outcome; if not; the reasons for that, and when it will conduct the review;
(4) of the factors based on which it determined the Mainland cities in which the Pilot Scheme was to be implemented; whether it will (i) include more medical institutions in Shenzhen in the Pilot Scheme and (ii) implement the Pilot Scheme in other Mainland cities; if it will, of the details; if not; the reasons for that; and
(5) whether it has studied other measures to enhance the EHCV Scheme since the implementation of the Pilot Scheme, so as to benefit more Hong Kong elderly people; if it has, of the details of such measures and the progress of the study?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, my reply to the question raised by Mr WONG Kwok-kin relating to enhancement of Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme (EHCV Scheme) is given below.
The pilot scheme for the use of elderly health care vouchers at the University of Hong Kong ― Shenzhen Hospital (HKU-SZ Hospital) was launched on 6 October 2015. This is the first time the Government allows health care vouchers to be used outside Hong Kong. The scheme aims to 8232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 provide one more service point for Hong Kong elders and facilitate those who reside in the Mainland or places near Shenzhen (for example, North District in the New Territories) to seek necessary medical treatment.
(1) and (2)
As at end of March 2016, 691 elders had used health care vouchers at the HKU-SZ Hospital, and the total amount of the vouchers claimed was $919,709 (to pay for the healthcare service fees of around RMB 762,891 yuen). The vouchers were used in the following designated Outpatient Medical Centers and Medical Service Departments:
Amount of Health Designated Outpatient Medical Centers and Care Vouchers Medical Service Departments Claimed (HK$) (1) Family Medicine Clinic 32,685 (2) Health Assessment and Management 65,782 Center (3) Accident and Emergency Department 39,898 (4) Orthopaedic Clinic 52,865 (5) Ophthalmology Clinic 48,122 (6) Dental Clinic 96,154 (7) Chinese Medicine Clinic 98,013 (8) Medicine Clinic 385,548 (9) Gynaecology Clinic 4,375 (10) Surgery Clinic 89,618 (11) Physiotherapy Department 5,113 (12) Department of Pathology 1,536 Total: 919,709
The Department of Health (DH) does not maintain statistics on the use of health care vouchers by elders residing in different cities. Nevertheless, according to the information provided by the HKU-SZ Hospital, as at end-March 2016, among the elders who had made use of vouchers in the HKU-SZ Hospital and provided their residential information, 408 were residing in the Mainland and 173 were residing in Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8233
(3) and (4)
The quality of healthcare services and clinical governance structure of the HKU-SZ Hospital are similar to that of Hong Kong, of which Hong Kong elders would more likely consider it acceptable. As such, we at the present stage are working with the HKU-SZ Hospital as the starting point for studying the extension of the use of health care vouchers by Hong Kong elders in the Mainland.
As this is the first time we provide service point for using the health care vouchers outside Hong Kong, we are closely monitoring the implementation of the pilot scheme, including the arrangements for voucher claims and reimbursement, checking and auditing. A review would be conducted after the scheme has been implemented for some time. Taking into account the experience gained and the principle of prudent use of public money, we will explore the feasibility of extending the EHCV Scheme in the Mainland. The factors we will consider include the quality of healthcare services, clinical governance structure, administrative procedures, financial arrangement, operation environment and skills of staff of the healthcare institutions and units.
(5) Since the implementation of the EHCV Scheme, we have introduced various enhancement measures to give elders greater flexibility in using private primary care services. For example, the annual voucher amount for an eligible elder has increased progressively from the initial sum of $250 to $2,000, and the financial cap has been revised upward from $3,000 to $4,000. Moreover, the face value of each voucher was changed from $50 to $1 in 2014 to make it more convenient for the elders to use the vouchers.
As at end-March 2016, about 5 300 healthcare service providers are enrolled under the scheme and over 610 000 elders have made use of the vouchers (accounting for about 80% of the eligible elderly population). To attract more elders to join the scheme and use the vouchers, the DH will continue to promote the scheme via different channels, including announcements of public interest on television and radio, and advertisement in public transport system. We will also explore various methods to encourage more service providers to participate in the scheme. 8234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Besides, the DH is reviewing the EHCV Scheme in collaboration with the Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. We will closely monitor the pattern of using the vouchers, and consider implementing other enhancement measures as appropriate having regard to the results of the review and the Government's overall fiscal condition.
Measures to Boost Tourism and Assist Tourism Sector
10. DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Chinese): President, the Central Authorities announced on 13 April last year the tightening of the policy on Shenzhen permanent residents visiting Hong Kong, under which the issuance of one-year multiple-entry Individual Visit Endorsements (multiple-entry endorsements) was stopped with immediate effect (endorsements which had been issued and yet to expire would not be affected), and was replaced by the issuance of one trip-per week (OTPW) Individual Visit Endorsements only. The Chief Executive said at that time that such measures were meant to crack down on parallel trading activities, and Hong Kong still welcomed visitors from all over the world to come for sightseeing. However, according to the statistics of the Immigration Department, during the period from 13 April last year to 31 March this year, the number of Mainland visitor arrivals was about 42.49 million, representing a year-on-year drop of 8.6%. Among them, the number of visitor arrivals travelling to Hong Kong on multiple-entry endorsements not yet expired was about 6.315 million (a year-on-year drop of 57.3%), while the number of those travelling to Hong Kong on OTPW endorsements was about 4.38 million. The Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong announced last month that the number of registered Mainland inbound tour groups to Hong Kong in March this year stood at 4 789 only, representing a sharp drop of 48.8% when compared with the 9 350 tour groups during the same period last year; and the number for the first quarter of this year was 11 665 only, representing a drop of 59.3% over the same period last year. Some members of the tourism industry have pointed out that the drastic drop in the number of Mainland visitor arrivals has not only affected the livelihood of tour escorts and tourist guides, but also impacted on the catering and retail industries, causing a number of restaurants and shops dedicated to serving tour groups having closed down one after another in recent months. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8235
(1) whether it has assessed if the tightening of the policy on Shenzhen permanent residents visiting Hong Kong is the cause for the drop in the number of Mainland visitors under the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS); if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) whether it has assessed the impacts of the drop in the number of IVS visitors on industries such as tourism, hotel, retail, catering, transport, real estate, and of the latest figures on business turnover, employment rate and unemployment rate, etc. of such industries;
(3) from the perspective of the changes in the number of people engaged in parallel trading activities, of the decline in such activities since the implementation of the OTPW arrangement;
(4) of the number of operations conducted by the Customs and Excise Department to combat parallel trading activities since the implementation of the OTPW arrangement, and the number of people arrested in such operations (with a breakdown by District Council district);
(5) whether it has assessed, from an economic perspective, the impact of the OTPW arrangement on Hong Kong's overall economic development; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(6) whether it has assessed, from a perspective of integration between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), how the OTPW arrangement helps resolve the problem of conflicts between the two places; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(7) whether it has assessed if the OTPW arrangement has caused repulsion and ill feelings among the Mainlanders towards the practices of the SAR Government; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(8) whether the Government had, before the implementation of the OTPW arrangement, considered carefully as well as conducted detailed analysis and study to ensure that such an arrangement would not bring about adverse impacts on various aspects; if it had, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; 8236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
(9) whether it will request the Central Authorities to resume the multiple-entry endorsements arrangement; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that, and the circumstances under which the SAR Government will make that request to the Central Authorities;
(10) whether it has examined the impacts of the drop in the number of visitors to Hong Kong on the attendances at and the revenue of Hong Kong Disneyland, Ocean Park Hong Kong, Ngong Ping 360, racecourses, etc., as well as on the numbers of jobs in the related organizations; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(11) whether it has assessed the correlation between the drop in the number of Mainland visitors and protests against parallel traders, the problem of conflicts between the two places, the riot in Mong Kok, social sentiments, "shopping tour" protests, etc.; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(12) of the average hotel occupancy rate last year and the anticipated average hotel occupancy rate this year; the number of hotels expected to be completed in the next five years and the number of rooms to be provided by such hotels;
(13) whether it has examined the existing tourist carrying capacity of public transport services, as well as the overall tourist carrying and receiving capacities of Hong Kong; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; of the concessionary measures to be introduced by the Government this year and next year for attracting more Mainland and overseas visitors to Hong Kong;
(14) whether it has regularly reviewed the operation and effectiveness of the OTPW arrangement with the relevant Mainland authorities; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(15) given that the number of IVS visitors has dropped significantly, whether the authorities will consider abolishing the restriction on powdered formula, i.e. each person aged 16 or above may carry, on his/her departure from Hong Kong within a 24-hour period, powdered formula for infants and young children under the age of 36 months of a total net weight no more than 1.8 kilograms; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8237
(16) whether the Government will, in the light of the latest situation of the tourism industry, introduce short, medium and long term policies and relief measures to assist members of the industry in tiding over the difficult times?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, after consulting relevant Policy Bureaux, our consolidated reply to the question raised by Dr LAM is as follows:
The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) attaches great importance to the long-term and healthy development of Hong Kong's tourism industry. While ensuring the stable and orderly development of the tourism industry, we also seek to minimize as far as possible the inconvenience caused by increasing visitor arrivals to local residents, with a view to striking a balance between the impact of the tourism industry on Hong Kong's economy and the livelihood of the community. In this regard, the HKSAR Government has been working on various fronts, including the completion of the Assessment Report on Hong Kong's Capacity to Receive Tourists (Assessment Report) in late 2013. In response to the public's views and following our conveyance of different opinions of the community to the Central Government, the Mainland announced on 13 April last year that the issuance of "multiple-entry" Individual Visit Endorsements for permanent residents of Shenzhen was stopped and replaced with "one trip per week" Individual Visit Endorsements with immediate effect.
The "one trip per week" measure has been implemented for more than one year. The drop in Mainland visitor arrivals, in particular the number of same-day visitors, is within expectation. Meanwhile, the local tourism industry is facing keen competition as a result of various factors, including the weakening external economy, devaluation of currencies of neighbouring travel destinations and their relaxation of visa requirements for Mainland tourists. The unfriendly incidents initiated by a small number of radicals that were directed against Mainland visitors have also affected Mainland tourists' desire to visit Hong Kong.
The decrease in visitor arrivals has impacts on Hong Kong's tourism industry and relevant sectors (for example, retail, food and beverage services and hotel, and so on) as well as on tourist attractions. However, it is difficult to 8238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 accurately estimate the impact of individual factors. It is worth noting that after several rounds of promotion, non-Mainland visitor arrivals have increased in recent months, with 5.4% year-on-year growth in the first quarter of this year. The HKSAR Government will continue to facilitate the healthy and stable development of the tourism industry. We will also move towards diversified and high value-added services with a view to attracting more high-spending overnight visitors to visit Hong Kong.
In response to the opinion that the HKSAR Government should request the Central Government to resume the "multiple-entry" arrangement, as mentioned above, Hong Kong's tourism industry should not merely focus on the growth in tourist numbers, but should move towards diversified and high value-added services. Therefore, the HKSAR Government has no plan to request for the resumption of the "multiple-entry" arrangement, but will focus on attracting more high value-added overnight visitors to visit Hong Kong. We will also continue to observe the effect of the "one trip per week" measure, and maintain close liaison with the relevant departments of the Central Government regarding the overall arrangement for Mainland residents travelling to Hong Kong.
As regards occupancy and supply of hotels, the hotel room occupancy rate in 2015 was 86%. The Government does not have estimates on hotel room occupancy rates. The supply of hotel is largely market-driven. Developers will decide on and adjust their hotel development plans and construction pace with reference to various factors such as their forecasts on visitor arrival growth, economic prospect, hotel business environment and profitability. A number of new hotels are coming on stream in the years ahead, including those of the two flagship theme parks and that of the Airport's North Commercial District. Also, the 2016-2017 Land Sale Programme includes three hotel sites in Kai Tak. Overall speaking, it is expected that the total supply of hotel rooms in 2019 will be around 95 000. The Government will continue to closely monitor the supply and demand situation of the hotel sector, with a view to facilitating the healthy and stable development of the tourism industry.
In response to public concern about the impact of continuous growth in visitor arrivals on the livelihood of the community, the Government has comprehensively assessed Hong Kong's capacity to receive tourists and completed in end 2013 the Assessment Report. On the basis that projected visitor arrivals would be over 70 million in 2017, the assessment suggests that Hong Kong would generally be able to receive the visitor arrivals in 2017. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8239
Government will continue to monitor closely the situation in order to take forward relevant measures to increase our capacity to receive tourists in a progressive manner.
Regarding public transport services, as advised by the Transport and Housing Bureau, the occupancy rate of and waiting time for public transport services in Hong Kong vary on different days (holidays versus working days), during different periods (peak versus non-peak hours) and in different districts (commercial versus residential areas). The capacity of our public transport network to receive passengers will thus vary accordingly. This shows that the receiving capacity of public transport modes has certain flexibility. In the planning of public transport services, the Government will respond to and assess the overall passenger demand (including that of local residents and tourists). The Transport Department will continue to work with the operators to introduce new services or adjust existing road-based public transport services where necessary and feasible.
As for railways, when compared with 2014, the patronage of the MTR trains in 2015 was generally stable, with loading of individual lines either recorded a moderate growth or a slight decrease during morning peak hours on the busiest sections. The MTR Corporation Limited has been closely monitoring the service level of each existing line and will adjust service arrangement to meet overall passengers' needs as necessary. With the upgrading of its signalling systems and the commissioning of new railway lines in succession, the capacity of the MTR network will be further enhanced. Details are at Legislative Council paper No. CB(4)854/15-16(07) issued on 12 April 2016. In respect of new railway lines, following the full commissioning of the West Island line in March 2015, the Kwun Tong Line Extension, South Island Line (East), Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link and Shatin to Central Link (SCL) are now under construction. These projects are expected to be completed successively between 2016 and 2021. Upon completion, this would help increase the capacity of the railway network and that of the overall public transport network, and also help re-distribute visitor flow. Take the SCL for instance, it is estimated that approximately 20% of the southbound passengers of the New Territories (including those of the East Rail Line and Ma On Shan Line) will switch to the SCL for travelling to East Kowloon and Hong Kong Island upon its completion. This would help relieve the loading of the East Rail Line during peak hours.
8240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
On combating parallel trading activities, according to the information provided by the Security Bureau, since September 2012, the law-enforcement agencies have been mounting large scale joint operations to suppress parallel trading activities and improve order at railway stations and boundary control points. They have also refined their enforcement strategies in response to the mode of operation of parallel traders. Amongst other departments, the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) has pinpointed suspected parallel goods storage and packing establishments, and passed intelligence to the Immigration Department (ImmD) and the Police to conduct enforcement actions. The C&ED has also been exchanging intelligence and planning dedicated operations with the Shenzhen authorities. From 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, the two sides cracked down on 359 smuggling cases involving parallel traders, seizing goods with a total value of about $9.8 million. During the same period, the C&ED also detected 3 824 cases of attempting to export unlicensed powdered formulae, involving the seizure of 26 000 kg of powdered formula and arrest of 3 826 people. Besides the C&ED, other departments (for example, the ImmD, the Police, the Lands Department, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the Fire Services Department) are also actively taking various measures to combat parallel trading activities. After a series of enforcement actions, parallel trading activities have subsided. The HKSAR Government will continue to take targeted measures against parallel trading activities and enhance inter-departmental co-operation and collaboration with relevant Mainland authorities.
Separately, as advised by the Food and Health Bureau, the policy objective of the Import and Export (General) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 (the Amendment Regulation) is to ensure stable and adequate supply of powdered formulae to local infants. The Amendment Regulation has to a certain extent struck a balance between the supply of, local demand and non-local demand for powdered formulae. It has catered for the needs of parents of local infants and young children for powdered formulae while safeguarding free trade and commerce. The HKSAR Government has established a regular mechanism to monitor the demand and supply of local powdered formulae. We will review and improve the supply chain of powdered formulae with the trade and the relevant stakeholders to ensure its effective operation having regard to the market circumstances.
To reduce the tourism and relevant industries' costs of operation and enhance Hong Kong's attractiveness and competitiveness, the Financial Secretary has announced in the 2016-2017 Budget various short-, medium- and long-term LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8241 measures. Short-term measures include waiving the licence fees for travel agents, hotels, guesthouses, restaurants and hawkers for one year. We will also expand the scale of major events to be held this year, such as holding the Formula E Championship for the first time, expanding the venue for the Hong Kong Wine and Dine Festival with more featured themes, extending the race of the Hong Kong Cyclothon to 50 km and staging additional Pulse 3D Light Shows at the Hong Kong Cultural Centre. Moreover, we will, through the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB), re-package Hong Kong's tourism image with new promotional videos and step up publicity in the Mainland for quality and honest tours. On measures to support the industry, through the HKTB, we will continue the implementation of the matching fund for promoting tourist attractions, promotion of MICE (Meetings, Incentive Travels, Conventions and Exhibitions) tourism and "fly-cruise" tours, and waiving of local traders' participation fees for overseas promotion fairs. Through the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong, we will subsidize small- and medium-sized travel agents, on a matching basis, to make use of information technology so as to enhance the competitiveness of the industry. Furthermore, we will continue to promote Hong Kong's natural scenery as well as our unique history and culture, including enriching the contents of the Dr Sun Yat-sen Historical Trail.
In the medium and long term, we will continue to upgrade different types of tourism infrastructure, with a view to enriching Hong Kong's attractiveness as a tourist destination. Hong Kong Disneyland will open a new themed area based on Marvel's "Iron Man" franchise and the new hotel with a theme dedicated to the spirit of exploration in this and the coming year respectively. Ocean Park is also developing an all-weather waterpark and two new hotels, which are scheduled for completion from 2017-2020. From 2017 to 2019, the West Kowloon Cultural District will be in the spotlight of cultural tourism. Facilities such as the public open space, the Xiqu Centre and the M+ museum for visual culture will be successively completed in the coming few years. Further, the building at the site originally known as "Hung Shing Yi Hok" will be revitalized into the Tai Hang Fire Dragon Heritage Centre. In addition to enjoying the fire dragon dance in the Mid-Autumn Festival, visitors can also visit the Tai Hang Fire Dragon Heritage Centre to experience the special culture and history of this traditional festival. The Government is also planning the development concerning the tourism node of Kai Tak Fantasy and Lantau. We will also continue the discussion on the further development of the Hong Kong Disneyland Resort with The Walt Disney Company.
8242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Reporters Covering News in Large-scale Public Events
11. MR TONY TSE (in Chinese): President, in recent years, during large-scale public events such as processions, demonstrations, assemblies, etc., there have often been a large number of media personnel covering news at the scene. Apart from handling chaos and confrontations arising from the radical behaviour of individual participants of the events, the Police have to take care of the safety of the people, including the media personnel, present at the scene. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the Police have formulated a procedure, guidelines or measures (collectively referred to as "the mechanism") to identify and verify the identities of the media personnel covering news during large-scale public events; if they have not, of the reasons for that, and whether the Police will formulate such a mechanism; if they have, the specific contents of the mechanism, and whether the Police will review the mechanism and consult the police staff associations concerned during the review; if the Police will not review the mechanism, of the reasons for that;
(2) whether it has conducted any study on the difficulties encountered, in the past large-scale public events, by the Police in identifying and verifying whether the persons at the scene were media personnel; if it has, of the study outcome and the relevant solutions;
(3) as a large number of online media have emerged in recent years, coupled with the fact that smartphones are equipped with advanced video-recording functions due to the rapid development of information technology, resulting in anyone holding a smartphone in hand being able to cover news, how the Police currently identify and verify whether the persons at the scene are media personnel during large-scale public events; whether the Police have formulated a procedure to complement media personnel's news coverage; if they have, of the details of the procedure; if not, the reasons for that, and whether they will formulate such a procedure;
(4) whether the Information Services Department (ISD) has a role in assisting media personnel in covering news during large-scale public events; if ISD does, of the details, and whether the authorities LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8243
will strengthen the role of ISD; if ISD does not, the reasons for that, and whether the authorities will specify the role to be assumed by ISD; and
(5) whether it will consider (i) establishing a registration system for media organizations, (ii) issuing press cards to those media personnel employed by registered media organizations, and (iii) stipulating that only those media personnel who can produce press cards are allowed to cover news during large-scale public events, so as to make it easier for law enforcement officers to identify whether the persons at the scene are media personnel and complement the news coverage by media personnel?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, the Government's consolidated reply to Mr Tony TSE's question is as follows:
The Police all along respect press freedom and the media's right of reporting. The Police also fully recognize the importance of facilitating media reporting and maintaining effective communications and co-operation with the media. Therefore, the Police have been taking measures to facilitate media reporting as far as practicable.
In handling public order events, the Police will conduct holistic risk assessment based on the objectives, nature, number of participants, past experience and the latest situation, and so on, of individual events for manpower deployment and formulation of operational plans and contingencies. The Police will also deploy manpower flexibly and implement crowd management measures in light of the prevailing circumstances to ensure public safety and public order.
The Police have formulated relevant guidelines for officers to identify and verify the identity of media practitioners during public order events or other police operations with the proof of identity or documents issued by media organizations or associations. While covering public order events, media practitioners should bring along the proof of identity of reporters or testimonials issued by their companies and can wear easily recognizable clothing and armbands so that police officers at scene can easily recognize them. The Police will examine relevant guidelines from time to time and will consider the opinion of front-line police officers in the process.
8244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
On the condition of not affecting operations, the Police have all along been assisting in media reporting as far as possible. Generally speaking, unless designating a press area will provide a vantage point for the media to cover the events, in principle the Police will not designate a press area in public place, where the media like other members of the public are allowed free access. If a designated press area is set up under the above-mentioned circumstances, the media are still free to move in and out of that press area. If a police cordon is set up for operational or investigative purpose at a scene of crime, traffic accident or emergency incident, and so on, the Police will consider setting up a designated press area where practicable to facilitate media reporting. The Police appeal to media practitioners to put their own personal safety first and comply with the instructions of police officers at scene while covering public order events or other incidents.
To further enhance the communications and co-operation with the media, the Police have officially established the Force Media Liaison Cadre in December 2015. When necessary, the Police will deploy Cadre members to the scene of public order events or other police operations to provide facilitation and assistance to media practitioners covering the events at scene. Information officers of the Information Services Department staffed in the Police Public Relations Branch (PPRB) of the Hong Kong Police Force will also provide support and assist in handling media enquiries. If necessary, media practitioners conducting reporting at scene can seek assistance from the Force Media Liaison Cadre or liaise with the PPRB Newsroom which operates 24 hours round-the-clock.
On the basis of mutual respect and understanding, the Police will continue to maintain close communications and co-operation with the media and provide necessary assistance.
Working Arrangements for Pregnant Nurses in Public Hospitals
12. PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Chinese): President, in the middle of last month, a nurse who was 30 weeks into her pregnancy and worked in a public hospital collapsed during her night shift. After resuscitation, she needed to remain in the hospital for treatment. Some nurses in public hospitals have pointed out that the Hospital Authority has implemented the Continuous Night Shift Scheme (the Scheme) since 1994. Under the Scheme, when the overall frequency of night LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8245 shift duties undertaken by the nurses in a ward exceeds once in every seven days, the ward-in-charge will activate the Scheme to recruit nurses who are willing to undertake night shift duties continuously and provide them with an allowance, with a view to reducing as far as practicable the frequency of night shift duties of nurses to not more than once in every seven days. Regarding the work arrangements for pregnant nurses in public hospitals, will the Government inform this Council whether it knows the following information for the past five years, broken down by public hospital and ward:
(1) the number of pregnant nurses each year and, among them, the respective numbers of nurses who, being 1 to 12 weeks, 13 to 24 weeks, 25 to 36 weeks and more than 36 weeks into pregnancy (the four stages of pregnancy), felt unwell while on duty and therefore took sick leave;
(2) whether the hospitals concerned had made arrangements for staff replacement when the nurses mentioned in (1) were on sick leave; if so, of a breakdown of the figures on replacement staff by each of the four stages of pregnancy; if not, the reasons for that; whether the hospitals concerned had activated the Scheme when those nurses were on sick leave; if so, of the number of nurses who joined the Scheme and the number of weeks for which the Scheme had been implemented; if not, the reasons for that;
(3) the respective average frequencies of night shift duties undertaken by the nurses at each stage of pregnancy mentioned in (1), how such figures compare with the average frequency of night shift duties undertaken by other nurses in the same ward during the same period; whether the hospitals concerned had activated the Scheme during the pregnancy of those nurses; if not, of the reasons for that; if so, the number of nurses who joined the Scheme and the number of weeks for which the Scheme had been implemented; the average frequency of night shift duties undertaken by pregnant nurses during the period when the Scheme was implemented, with a breakdown by each of the four stages of pregnancy; and
(4) whether the hospitals concerned had made arrangements for staff replacement when the nurses mentioned in (1) were on maternity leave; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; whether the 8246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
hospitals concerned had activated the Scheme when those nurses were on maternity leave; if so, of the number of nurses who joined the Scheme and the number of weeks for which the Scheme had been implemented; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, in respect of the various parts of the question raised by Prof Joseph LEE regarding the work arrangements for pregnant nurses in public hospitals, my consolidated reply is as follows.
As the Hospital Authority (HA) does not require its staff to declare their health conditions (for example, whether they are pregnant or what their weeks of pregnancy are) in sick leave applications, it has not maintained information about nurses taking sick leave during pregnancy (including their weeks of pregnancy while on sick leave) and the relevant data. Nor has it maintained the frequency of night shift duties performed by these nurses and the information of the Continuous Night Shift Scheme so implemented.
The table below sets out the number of nurses applying for maternity leave in the past five years.
Cluster 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Hong Kong East 50 53 46 38 47 Hong Kong West 61 65 40 50 44 Kowloon Central 92 83 57 82 58 Kowloon East 79 79 63 59 62 Kowloon West 167 140 123 138 134 New Territories East 86 89 87 76 86 New Territories West 81 72 62 75 72 Total 616 581 478 518 503
When there are nurses on maternity leave, the HA will deploy manpower flexibly according to the actual circumstances and implement the Continuous Night Shift Scheme where necessary to ensure that appropriate manpower is provided at all times for the provision of necessary services to patients.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8247
The Continuous Night Shift Scheme provides additional allowance for nurses who are willing and required to undertake night shift duties for a long period of time, so as to reduce the frequency of night duties undertaken by other nurses in the ward. The table below sets out the number of nurses participating in the Continuous Night Shift Scheme in all hospital clusters under the HA in the past five years.
Cluster 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Hong Kong East 305 275 182 172 114 Hong Kong West 361 377 351 263 201 Kowloon Central 400 388 366 312 225 Kowloon East 250 214 165 147 132 Kowloon West 697 686 609 511 405 New Territories East 417 460 439 413 382 New Territories West 434 469 488 449 343 Total 2 864 2 869 2 600 2 267 1 802
Note:
The number of nurses participating in the Continuous Night Shift Scheme in 2015-2016 is the provisional figure as at 31 March 2016. The HA has not maintained statistical information about the number of weeks for which nurses participating in that scheme have worked.
Broadband Internet Access Services for Residents of Villages in Remote Areas
13. MISS ALICE MAK (in Chinese): President, residents from a few dozens of villages in remote areas (including Fuk Hang Tsuen in Tuen Mun, Tam Shui Hang Village and Luk Keng Village in Sha Tau Kok, and Lam Tin Village in Tsing Yi) have complained to me that as there is only one operator providing fixed network broadband Internet access services (broadband services) for their villages, the services provided are of poor quality while the fees are on the high side. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has compiled statistics on the respective current numbers of residential units in the territory which are (i) covered solely by one fixed broadband network (fixed network) and (ii) not covered by any fixed network;
8248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
(2) in respect of the residential units mentioned in (1)(i), of the authorities' measures to ensure that the residents concerned may enjoy services with quality commensurate with the prices, given that the broadband services are monopolized by single operators;
(3) whether it will propose that the Competition Commission/Communications Authority investigate whether the operators have abused their market power when they provide broadband services for residential units covered solely by their fixed networks;
(4) of the number of complaints about broadband services received by the authorities from members of the public in each of the past five years, and among such complaints, the number of those involving single operators;
(5) given that the Government indicated in April this year that at least three operators were actively building fibre networks in rural and remote areas, whether the authorities will consider afresh giving priority to the provision of "Government WiFi", free public wireless Internet access service, to villages in remote areas by making use of such newly built networks; if they will, of the details and the timetable; and
(6) of the specific measures put in place by the authorities to encourage more operators to build fixed networks in villages in remote areas; the expected time when every residential unit in the territory will have more than one fixed network operator to choose from?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, with respect to the Member's questions, a consolidated reply incorporating information from the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau and the Innovation and Technology Bureau is as follows:
As a statutory body overseeing the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors, the Communications Authority (CA) regulates the provision of public telecommunications services pursuant to the powers conferred by the relevant ordinances, including the Telecommunications Ordinance (TO) and Competition Ordinance (CO). LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8249
(1) According to the statistics of the Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA), about 87% of the residential households in Hong Kong (about 2.3 million residential flats) enjoy the choice of at least two fixed network operators' (FNOs) local fixed broadband networks as at end March 2015. In other words, about 13% of the residential households in Hong Kong (about 0.3 million residential flats) have only one or no broadband network coverage. However, the OFCA does not have the relevant breakdown statistics.
(2) The Hong Kong local fixed telecommunications service market has been fully liberalized since 2003. The Government adopts a market-driven regulatory framework on telecommunications to encourage competition. There is no pre-set upper limit on the number of licences for local fixed telecommunications services which is completely determined by the market. The TO does not regulate the type and charges of telecommunications services to be provided in the market. FNOs are free to provide different types of fixed telecommunications services, including residential fixed broadband service, in accordance with the conditions of their licences and based on their commercial considerations, operational strategies and the situation of market competition, to meet the demand of the users. The provision of the relevant service, charges, network coverage, the type of technologies adopted and the amount of installed capacities are primarily determined by FNOs based on their commercial considerations and do not require any approval by the CA.
(3) Noting that there was only one network operator in some locations (such as rural areas and some individual buildings), the CA conducted assessment on a number of relevant complaint cases in accordance with the competition provisions of the TO. The CA's conclusion was that, having regard to the full liberalization of the fixed broadband services market, and that a number of major FNOs were providing fixed broadband services in the market, the fact that other FNOs chose not to provide services in some locations was the result of their commercial decisions, rather than the result of anti-competitive conduct by certain FNO that prevented other FNOs from expanding services to those locations. In regard to service charges, the CA considered that it was not uncommon for FNOs to 8250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
apply differentiated charges for different customer groups in a highly competitive telecommunications services market. The pricing strategy adopted by the FNO in the cases in question did not constitute anti-competitive conduct.
The CO came into full operation in December 2015. Under the CO, the CA is conferred concurrent jurisdiction with the Competition Commission (Commission) to enforce the CO in respect of the conduct of certain undertakings operating in the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors. Pursuant to the principles set out in the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the CA and the Commission, for cases involving the telecommunications or broadcasting sectors and falling within the concurrent jurisdiction, the CA would ordinarily be the leading authority. As such, if the CA suspects that any FNO engages in anti-competitive conduct, it will conduct investigation pursuant to the CO.
(4) For the past five years, the number of complaints received per annum by the OFCA regarding fixed broadband services, and among which the number of complaints on the problem of coverage by only a single FNO or the lack of choices of fixed broadband network are set out in the following table.
Number of Complaint Cases 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Complaints on the problem of coverage by only a single 6 11 47 5 2 FNO or the lack of choices of fixed broadband network Total number of complaints received by OFCA regarding 1 603 1 590 1 237 695 610 fixed broadband services
(5) The Government, through the Government Wi-Fi Programme (GovWiFi) provides free public Wi-Fi services at government venues. To ensure cost-effectiveness, GovWiFi mainly provides free Wi-Fi wireless Internet access services at government venues with high patronage for use by the public and visitors. The Government is planning to implement a new "Wi-Fi Connected LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8251
City" Programme, under which more Wi-Fi service providers will be invited to provide free public Wi-Fi services at more non-governmental venues, including those in remote areas.
(6) With a view to encouraging investment by FNOs in network expansion, the OFCA will continue to introduce facilitating measures in order to speed up the expansion of their network coverage at different locations in Hong Kong, including assisting FNOs in rolling out network infrastructures at public streets, government-owned bridges and tunnels, and explaining to the public about the rights and responsibilities of FNOs in rolling out networks in private land and premises and the benefits to residents. The OFCA would refer enquiries or complaints received from the residents of particular locations to the FNOs concerning unsatisfactory fixed broadband services, and encourage them to consider enhancing their network coverage at the concerned locations to meet the demand of the consumers.
For broadband services in rural and remote areas, we understand that there are currently at least three FNOs actively establishing high speed broadband networks in those areas, with a view to providing higher speed broadband services. Among these FNOs, two are existing FNOs; while the other one is a new FNO who just obtained CA's approval last year to amend its unified carrier licence, such that it is able to use its radio spectrum to provide wireless fixed broadband services in rural and remote areas. The proposed network coverage of this FNO will span across 114 villages in the eastern part of the New Territories, western part of the New Territories, North District and the outlying islands, including some of the rural and remote areas mentioned by individual groups before. It is expected that the quality of the fixed broadband services and the range of choice of FNOs in these areas will be enhanced following the completion of the network expansion or improvement works by the FNOs.
Apart from fixed broadband services, a number of mobile network operators (MNOs) are also providing wireless broadband services in the market in recent years. Consumers at locations within the coverage of the MNOs can make use of the mobile broadband 8252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
services to get access to the Internet. Residents in rural and remote locations may therefore consider the use of such services as an alternative to the conventional fixed broadband services. With the advancement of technologies, the speed of wireless broadband services provided by MNOs in Hong Kong now reaches as high as 375 Mbps and is comparable with that of the fixed broadband services.
Promotion of Reading Culture with Aid of Advanced Technologies
14. MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Chinese): President, the Government is conducting a study on the development of "smart city", including opening up more public data to facilitate market development of smartphone applications for the convenience of the public, and developing intelligent homes. The Government has planned to engage a consultant in the second half of this year to formulate the digital framework and technical standards of a smart city. It has been reported that the Singaporean Government has recently launched a number of measures to encourage reading among its people. These include allowing its people to download e-books and e-articles by scanning two-dimensional barcodes with their smartphones to connect to smartphone applications of public libraries, and transforming Mass Rapid Transit train compartments into electronic libraries. Regarding the promotion of reading culture with the aid of advanced technologies, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the authorities will, in conducting the research project on smart city, explore measures (e.g. making available devices in public facilities or MTR stations for free downloading of e-books or e-articles by members of the public) to promote reading culture with the aid of advanced technologies; if they will not, of the reasons for that;
(2) given that at present, a number of franchised bus companies (bus companies) have developed smartphone applications to provide passengers waiting for buses with real-time information on bus services, whether the Government will collaborate with various bus companies to provide e-books or e-articles for free downloading by passengers for reading during the journey; if it will, of the relevant timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8253
(3) whether it will conduct a territory-wide study on ways to encourage, in this age of information proliferation, members of the public to download e-books for reading, apart from watching films and television programmes, playing electronic games and visiting social networking websites, when they are connected to the Internet through their electronic products; if it will, of the relevant timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, with the development of technology, the Government has been actively launching e-government services to provide the general public with greater convenience. Different public services and private organizations are also offering various e-services for their customers. Regarding the promotion of reading culture, the Hong Kong Public Libraries (HKPL) of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) is committed to leveraging on the use of new technology and information technology in enhancing the public library services in a bid to commensurate with Hong Kong's development as a smart city and world-class metropolis. My reply to the various parts of Mr IP's question is as follows:
(1) and (2)
The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer will engage a consultant in 2016-2017 to formulate the digital framework and technical standards suitable for developing Hong Kong as a smart city, which will serve as the foundation for our smart city development. In the course of the study, consultation will be carried out with stakeholders including related government departments, the academia, research institutions and the private sector. Different organizations may consider providing various value-added services based on the foundation.
As regards the public library services, developing a balanced and "mixed" library collection which covers print books and e-resources has been one of the major tasks of the HKPL in recent years. In the past five years, the total number of e-books in public libraries has increased from over 110 000 in 2011 to over 220 000 in 2015. In 8254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
addition to e-book collections, the LCSD now provides 63 e-databases and the Multimedia Information System (MMIS) containing an extensive number of digitized audio-visual recordings, images and documents.
Launched by the LCSD in 2014, the "Library at Your Finger Tips" consists of both the "My Library" and "Multimedia Information" mobile apps and a dedicated online "Electronic Resources Webpage". All these e-services allow the public to enjoy library services and digital resources anytime and anywhere, and meet their needs for knowledge, information, self-learning and continuous education as well as the constructive use of leisure time.
The "My Library" and "Multimedia Information" apps have various practical functions. Through the "My Library" app, readers can access their personal library accounts; search, reserve and renew library materials; and locate the nearby libraries through the Global Positioning System. The "Multimedia Information" app allows users to search the contents of the MMIS, including over 4 million pages of digitized materials under more than 20 digital collections of various themes. Furthermore, members of the public can use notebook computers or any mobile devices which support major Internet browsers to directly access 21 e-databases and over 220 000 e-books covering a variety of subjects through the HKPL's one-stop "Electronic Resources Webpage" via their library accounts for remote usage and online reading. Two of the English e-book collections and the newly-added Chinese e-book collection this year provide a more convenient platform for readers to download e-books to their mobile devices for offline reading. Users can enjoy the convenience of online library services at any time with just a few taps on any smart phone or tablet.
The HKPL has been providing two-dimensional barcodes on some publicity materials of e-resources to enable readers to access the HKPL's "Electronic Resources Webpage" through mobile devices. To further promote the use of e-resources, the HKPL will provide two-dimensional barcodes on printed publicity materials, library LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8255
newsletters, recommendations for e-resources and guides for readers for linking up individual e-book collections and e-databases to facilitate readers' use of such resources through mobile devices.
The HKPL promotes e-resources to various sectors of the community by regularly organizing education and extension activities, library visits by schools, briefing sessions on electronic information, "School Culture Day", and through customer liaison groups, teacher liaison groups as well as visits to schools/community groups/organizations. The HKPL has also stepped up its promotion on the electronic services of the "Library at Your Finger Tips" since 2014, which included the production of Announcements in the Public Interest and printed publicity materials, and the promotion of its e-services through television and at public transport facilities. The number of virtual visits (sessions) to library services in 2015 was over 23 million. The HKPL will continue to work with other government departments and public organizations to further promote e-resources with a view to cultivating a reading habit among the public.
(3) The LCSD conducts regular opinion surveys on the facilities and services of public libraries to collect views of the public (including both users and non-users) on the prevailing library services and future needs. The findings of the 2014-2015 opinion survey showed that 80.6% of the library users usually spent more time on reading the printed version (including books/newspapers and periodicals/materials) while 12.5% of them on the electronic version. For non-library users, 63.4% of them usually spent more time on reading the printed version, whereas 27.3% of them on the electronic version. The LCSD is studying and analysing the survey statistics in depth in a bid to understand the reading habits and interests of the public; and to explore how to further enhance public library services to meet the expectations of users, attract non-users to use public library services and facilities, promote its e-resources and foster a reading culture.
8256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Progress of Comprehensive Structural Investigation Programme and Redevelopment of Public Housing Estates Concerned
15. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Chinese): President, the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) launched the Comprehensive Structural Investigation Programme (CSIP) in 2005 to ascertain whether the blocks in public rental housing (PRH) estates aged more than 40 years were structurally safe and whether it would be worthwhile to keep such blocks through repair and structural strengthening works, or else they would be demolished or redeveloped. Also, CSIP would identify the extent of repair and strengthening works required to sustain those blocks for at least 15 years and the estimated costs arising therefrom, as well as the costs of other improvement options. The first stage of CSIP covered 10 estates, with 32 more added in 2008. The entire programme is expected to complete in 2018. Regarding the progress of CSIP and the redevelopment of the PRH estates concerned, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the following information concerning each of the estates for which the structural investigation as well as the required repair and structural strengthening works have been completed (set out in a table):
(i) the name of the estate,
(ii) the number of blocks in the estate,
(iii) the number of flats in the estate,
(iv) the date of completion of the estate,
(v) the respective years in which the investigation commenced and completed,
(vi) the average age of the blocks when the investigation commenced,
(vii) the details of the repair and strengthening works, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8257
(viii) the average estimated expenditure on the repair and strengthening works for each flat,
(ix) the actual expenditure on the repair and strengthening works for each flat, and
(x) the actual expenditure on the repair and strengthening works for the estate;
(2) of the name of each of the estates the investigation for which has been completed but the repair and strengthening works have not been completed, and the following details of the works concerned: (i) the latest progress, (ii) the actual expenditure incurred so far and how that figure compares with the original estimated expenditure, and (iii) the expected completion date of all the works;
(3) of the name of each of the estates the investigation for which is in progress and the expected completion date of the investigation; the name of each of the estates the investigation for which has not yet commenced and the expected commencement date for the investigation;
(4) whether HA has compiled, in respect of those estates for which both the investigation as well as the repair and structural strengthening works have been completed, statistics on the annual average expenditure on repairs incurred for each flat since the completion of the works concerned; if HA has, whether HA has found a situation that the expenditure on non-structural repairs for the flats in aged estates was higher than that for the flats in younger estates; if so, of the difference;
(5) whether HA will implement a new investigation programme upon the completion of CSIP; if so, of the details; given that it has been more than 10 years since the launch of CSIP in 2005, whether HA will carry out a new round of investigation for the estates the investigation for which was completed many years ago (e.g. Choi 8258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Hung Estate, Wo Lok Estate); if so, when the new round of investigation will be launched; and
(6) given that some estates (e.g. So Uk Estate, Wah Fu Estate) covered in CSIP are being redeveloped/will be redeveloped soon, and the redevelopment of aged estates may increase the supply of PRH flats in urban areas given a stringent supply of land resources in urban areas, whether the Government has any plan to reserve decanting resources in urban areas for the redevelopment of aged estates in future; if not, of the measures in place to prevent the recurrence of situations similar to that of Wah Fu Estate in which the commencement of its redevelopment programme has been delayed for a long time due to problems of decanting resources, etc.?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) launched the Comprehensive Structural Investigation Programme (CSIP) in 2005 to ascertain the structural safety of Public Rental Housing (PRH) estates approaching or over 40 years old, and to assess the repair works needed for sustaining those estates for at least 15 years and the cost-effectiveness of such repair works.
My consolidated reply to the questions raised by Mr WU Chi-wai is as follows.
Details of repair works for PRH buildings and the corresponding costs are affected by many factors. Apart from the age of the buildings, it also depends on the building design, structural conditions, locations, maintenance conditions as well as other site conditions. Hence, it would be inappropriate to simply compare the repair costs by building ages. There are 52 685 units in the 14 estates with structural investigations and structural repairs and strengthening works completed. The relevant cost of works is $355 million, or on average $6,740 per unit. Details of these 14 estates are at Annex 1. After the completion of the necessary structural repairs and strengthening works, the annual maintenance costs of these 14 estates in 2015-2016 are around $237 million, or on average $4,500 per unit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8259
A total of 14 estates have undergone structural investigations, but the corresponding structural repairs and strengthening works have not yet completed. The actual cost of works incurred for these estates so far are about $75 million. Details of these 14 estates are at Annex 2. In addition, the Housing Department (HD) is conducting investigations for Shun On Estate, Wan Tsui Estate and Tai Wo Hau Estate, which are scheduled for completion this year. The HD will also start investigations for Shek Wai Kok Estate and Lung Tin Estate this year. Investigations will be carried out for Sha Kok Estate, Tai Yuen Estate, Sam Shing Estate, Ap Lei Chau Estate, Yau Oi Estate and On Ting Estate in 2017 and 2018.
After completion of the first-round of CSIP (First CSIP), the HA will implement another round of CSIP, details of which are being worked out. Since the First CSIP has already assessed the structural conditions of the estates concerned for future 15 years, the investigated estates will undergo the next investigations within 15 years after the First CSIP. The exact investigation schedule will be fixed in accordance with the actual circumstances of the estates.
Redevelopment will instantly reduce, instead of increase, PRH supply. As stated in the Long Term Housing Strategy promulgated in December 2014, while redevelopment may increase PRH supply over the long term, it will in the short term reduce PRH stock available for allocation. This will inevitably add further pressure on the HA's ability in maintaining the Average Waiting Time target at about three years. Hence, redevelopment can at best serve as a supplementary source of PRH supply. In addition to the structural safety and cost-effectiveness of repair works as per the findings of the CSIP, the HA will also take into account other factors such as build-back potential and the availability of suitable rehousing resources in the vicinity of the estates in considering redevelopment of any aged PRH estates. If the HA decides to redevelop individual estate or building in future, it will consider various factors including the availability of suitable rehousing resources and will, in accordance with the established practice, allow sufficient time to consult the relevant District Council, and give sufficient advance notice to affected tenants well before the clearance operation.
8260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Annex 1
Details of Estates with Investigations and Structural Repairs and Strengthening Works Completed
Details of Structural Repair and Strengthening Works Commencement Completion Number of Number Completion (1: Concrete Repair, Estate Year of Year of Block(1) of Flat Year(2) 2: Seepage Repair; Investigation Investigation 3: Structural Strengthening; 4: Structural Improvement) Sai Wan Estate 5 636 1958 2005 2006 1,2,4 Choi Hung 11 7 455 1962 2006 2006 1,2,3,4 Estate Model Housing 7 667 1954 2006 2006 1,2,4 Estate Wo Lok Estate 11 1 941 1962 2006 2007 1,2,4 Ma Tau Wai 5 2 075 1962 2006 2007 1,2,4 Estate Fuk Loi Estate 9 3 129 1963 2007 2007 2,4 Wah Fu Estate 18 9 147 1967 2007 2008 1,2,3,4 Ping Shek Estate 7 4 575 1970 2008 2008 1,2,3,4 Mei Tung Estate 2 665 1974 2009 2009 1,2 Kwai Shing 10 5 387 1975 2009 2009 1,2,4 West Estate Oi Man Estate 12 6 293 1974 2009 2009 1,2,4 Lei Muk Shue 11 4 315 1975 2010 2010 1,2,4 (II) Estate Lai King Estate 7 4 218 1975 2010 2010 1,2,4 Yue Wan Estate 4 2 182 1977 2011 2012 1,2,4
Notes:
(1) "Number of block" refers to those blocks covered by the Comprehensive Structural Investigation Programme.
(2) "Completion year" refers to the block with the earliest completion year within the same estate.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8261
Annex 2
Details of estates with investigations completed but with structural repairs and strengthening works yet to be completed
Status of Structural Estate Tentative Completion Date Repairs/Strengthening Works Lek Yuen Estate In progress March 2017 Fu Shan Estate In progress June 2017 Tai Hing Estate In progress June 2017 Shun Lee Estate In progress September 2017 Cheung Shan Estate In progress March 2018 Hing Wah (II) Estate In progress March 2018 Nam Shan Estate In progress March 2018 Shek Kip Mei Estate In progress March 2018 Wo Che Estate In progress March 2018 Cheung Ching Estate In progress December 2018 Choi Wan (II) Estate In progress December 2018 Lai Yiu Estate In progress December 2018 Cheung Hong Estate Under preparation To be confirmed Choi Wan (I) Estate Under preparation To be confirmed
"Ladies' nights" Ruled to be Discriminatory on Ground of Sex
16. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, recently, the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) instituted legal proceedings on behalf of a man against the owner of an entertainment venue under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 480) (SDO), alleging that the "ladies' nights" (i.e. charging male customers a higher admission fee than that for female customers) offered by that entertainment venue was discriminatory on the ground of sex. The court ruled in favour of EOC. It has been reported that a former Director of Public Prosecutions pointed out that should the authorities concerned disregard common sense and sound judgment when enforcing SDO, and waste time on such kind of frivolous lawsuits, it might instead result in members of the public feeling 8262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
SDO repulsive. The press reports also pointed out that the new Chairperson of EOC once suggested entertainment venues launching "gentlemen's nights" (i.e. charging female customers a higher admission fee than that for male customers) at the same time to "balance" the concessions for men and women. A spokesperson of the Hong Kong Bar & Club Association has pointed out that in the light of the aforesaid judgment and suggestion, entertainment venues may be coerced into offering gentlemen's nights albeit loss-making, in order to avoid breaching the law inadvertently. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the man concerned in the aforesaid case reportedly lodged the complaint with EOC merely because he had been dissatisfied with the small number of female customers drawn to that entertainment venue by the ladies' night, and that offering ladies' nights is just a promotional gimmick of entertainment venues, whether the Government will, in the light of the comments by the aforesaid former Director of Public Prosecutions, consider taking the initiative to seek clarifications with EOC or following up on the aforesaid case by other appropriate means, so as to make it clear whether SDO's original intent covers, and whether SDO should be applied to, ladies' nights or other similar promotional gimmicks, i.e. the offering of concessions mainly for promoting goods and services;
(2) whether the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (CEDB) will assess and consult the bar trade on the setback suffered by the bar trade, especially those bars situated in places frequented by tourists (including Lockhart Road, Lan Kwai Fong and Knutsford Terrace) as a result of the aforesaid judgment; whether CEDB has assessed the impacts on the bar trade if bars are coerced into offering gentlemen's nights or cancel ladies' nights although this may work against their economic interests;
(3) given that the aforesaid case has led to concerns raised by quite a number of business operators of different trades that the promotional gimmicks commonly used by them (e.g. concessions for Mother's LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8263
Day set meals offered by restaurants as well as different fees charged by hair and beauty salons for male and female customers) may be regarded as discriminatory on the ground of sex, thereby exposing them to the risk of lawsuits, of the policies and measures put in place by the Government and EOC to allay the concerns of the business sector;
(4) whether the authorities will advise EOC to draw up guidelines for the trades concerned so as to clarify that unless a business operator has an intention which is unreasonable or involves sex discrimination disproportionate to marketing and promotional efforts, EOC in general will not institute legal proceedings under SDO against any business practices and promotional gimmicks which primarily aim at providing concessions; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(5) whether it knows if EOC, when in future considering whether to institute legal proceedings against a business operator on behalf of a complainant, will make reference to the comments by the aforesaid former Director of Public Prosecutions and give more regard to common sense and sound judgment so that EOC will be less susceptible to allegations of overcorrecting, acting frivolously or doing something for the sake of doing it?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and relevant departments, we would like to respond to the question raised by Mr TSE as follows:
The EOC is a statutory body established under section 63 of the Sex Discrimination Ordinance (SDO) (Cap. 480). It is responsible for implementing the four existing anti-discrimination ordinances, and operates independently in accordance with the functions and powers stipulated by these ordinances. The Government does not interfere with the daily operations of the EOC.
8264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
According to the EOC, section 28(1) of the SDO provides that:
"It is unlawful for any person concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public to discriminate against a woman who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services-
(a) by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide her with any of them; or
(b) by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide her with goods, facilities or services of the like quality, in the like manner and on the like terms as are normal in his case in relation to male members of the public or (where she belongs to a section of the public) to male members of that section(1)."
Section 28(1) of the SDO is applicable to all providers of goods, facilities or services, including bars, catering services, restaurants, and so on. Currently, the law does not provide for any exemptions for business promotion and marketing behaviours.
According to the EOC, whether an individual case would constitute discrimination under the relevant Ordinance depends on the facts of the case. Broadly speaking, a differential treatment in the provision of goods, facilities or services arising solely from a customer's sex may be unlawful.
As the legal proceedings of the case referred to by the question have not been concluded yet, it is inappropriate for the Government to make comments. Nevertheless, as members of the community have expressed concern over the implications of the case, we will invite the EOC to consider, after the case has concluded, reviewing the implementation of the relevant provisions and, if necessary, making recommendations to the Government.
(1) Section 6 of the SDO stipulates that the above provisions relating to sex discrimination shall be equally applicable to treatment of men and women. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8265
GOVERNMENT BILLS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill.
Council went into Committee.
Committee Stage
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee stage. Council is now in Committee to continue the consideration of the Schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2016. Committee continues the fourth debate. The debate will end at around 3.30 pm today. Members who wish to speak in this debate will please press the "Request to speak" button as early as possible. The names of Members who had pressed the "Request to speak" button but did not speak at last week's meeting have already been put on the waiting list for this debate at today's meeting, so the relevant Members need not press the button again.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2016
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, good morning. You as President have permitted the Members concerned to propose totally 407 amendments, and this session involves 69 of them. I wish to briefly explain why we oppose these 69 amendments. Generally speaking, even without any explanation from us, people can already know that the pro-establishment camp will oppose the proposals put forth by the opposition. But I must tell everybody how these amendments defy the needs of the social realities, and I also want to let people understand that while the pan-democratic camp keeps talking about its concern for the underprivileged, they have actually been doing things that jeopardize the very interests of the disadvantaged.
I will first talk about the estimated expenditure for the personal emoluments of Architectural Services Department (ASD) staff. The relevant sum for the upcoming fiscal year is around $1,126.6 million. If the amendment proposed by the opposition Member to cut this estimated expenditure is passed, the ASD staff will not receive any salaries in the upcoming fiscal year.
8266 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
This is likewise the case with the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD). The estimated expenditure for the CEDD on personal emoluments is around $1,206 million. And, an opposition Member has also proposed to cut this sum. Frankly speaking, Members should notice that the Government has already set a target of housing construction, in the hope of meeting the housing need of Hong Kong people. Under the five-year plan on housing construction, some 90 000 units will be built, and this will require large numbers of civil engineering personnel and construction workers every year. Besides, many infrastructure projects will also be finalized. What should they do if the estimated expenditure on their salaries is cut? Does the Member think that the Financial Secretary has a small vault? No, the Financial Secretary does not. If the opposition Member succeeds in cutting the estimated expenditure on their salaries, it will be impossible to implement the large numbers of works projects in the upcoming fiscal year and the Government will certainly fail to achieve its target of housing construction. That way, people will be unable to move into public housing, tenants of "sub-divided units" must continue to live in "sub-divided units", and the Government will be unable to find accommodation for street sleepers.
Staff of the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department also face a similar crisis. The sums involved in the relevant amendments amount to $100 million and $300 million respectively. They have also proposed to cut the estimated expenditure of $2.5 billion for the Drainage Services Department, and this sum covers the personal emoluments for its staff. We can see that many government departments are involved.
The opposition have also proposed to cut the estimated expenditure of around $1,125 million for the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) on personal emoluments. Honestly, everybody now attaches a great deal of importance to environmentalism, and the portfolio of the EPD covers many aspects. Over the past few years, we have very often been caught in controversies over such issues as the management and setting up of landfills, and also improving the beauty of the physical environment. Cutting the estimated expenditure on their personal emoluments is tantamount to asking the Government to stop doing anything. The general non-recurrent expenditure for the EPD is substantial, amounting to $1.9 billion. They have also proposed to cut it altogether.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8267
There is also an estimated expenditure of $1,272 million for the Highways Department (HyD) on personal emoluments. As Members know, the HyD is a very important department because many massive construction works projects are now underway with the assistance and under the supervision of the HyD. The deduction of the estimated expenditure on the personal emoluments of its staff will make it utterly impossible for the department to supervise such works projects.
Chairman, some amendments concern the estimated expenditures for other departments on personal emoluments. One example is the Buildings Department (BD), and the relevant sum is as much as $931 million. The BD is also a very important department because of its heavy role in buildings regulation and management. I am baffled because the BD is responsible for many tasks (such as handling unauthorized building works). Despite its manpower shortage at present, an opposition Member has nonetheless proposed to cut the estimated expenditure on their personal emoluments rather than seeking additional resources to enable them to get their job done. He has even proposed a full instead of partial deduction of the estimated expenditure on their personal emoluments. This is indeed hard to understand. The case with the Lands Department is the same. They have proposed to cut the estimated expenditure of $1.83 billion for the department on personal emoluments.
Chairman, I want to discuss a specific issue of great concern to many elderly people. The $2 concessionary fare for the elderly which we have fought for over the years shows the Government's concern for them. During the scrutiny of the Appropriation Bill 2016 (the Bill), an opposition Member nonetheless proposed a full deduction of the estimated annual expenditure (roughly $1,117.5 million) on the Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities. If the amendment is passed, elderly people and persons with disabilities will be unable to enjoy the $2 concessionary fare in the upcoming fiscal year and must pay the full fares instead.
I want to ask the opposition Member why he should propose the amendment. Are they truly concerned about the needs of the disadvantaged? As a result of our efforts in striving for this initiative over the past years, elderly people can eventually regain their dignity. They once made contributions to society, and we show our respect for them by enabling them to travel by public transport at a fare of $2 when they have reached old age. Actually, the $2 8268 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 concessionary fare is already less generous than the practice on the Mainland because elderly people on the Mainland basically can travel by public transport free of charge. Nevertheless, we must at least offer this concessionary fare to the local elderly as a gesture of respect for them. But the opposition Member has proposed an amendment to cut this estimated expenditure. We will be baffled if the amendment is really passed. I believe pro-establishment Members will put up full opposition, so as to ensure that our elderly people can continue to enjoy the concessionary fare. I must tell everybody our strong dismay at this move of the pan-democratic Member.
Besides, there is also an amendment that concerns a deduction of the estimated recurrent expenditure of around $4,543.6 million for the Water Supplies Department (WSD) on the purchase of water. Chairman, this is an expenditure of huge implication. Thanks to the country's unfailing support over the past century, Hong Kong has been able to enjoy fresh water supply from Dongjiang. Hong Kong is equipped with quite a number of reservoirs that supply fresh water. But as Members know, the capacity of our reservoirs is actually insufficient to meet our needs. In the 1960s, Hong Kong even suffered water rationing, with the supply of water limited to once every four days. Thanks to our country's care for us and its export of Dongjiang water to Hong Kong, we can rid ourselves of any worry about fresh water supply. Both in times of ample rainfall and scarce precipitation, Hong Kong can always enjoy an endless supply of fresh water.
However, many pan-democratic Members often advance slanderous arguments, saying that the fresh water supplied from the Mainland to Hong Kong is of poor quality or even contains feces. As a matter of fact, the quality of Dongjiang water supplied to Hong Kong has improved significantly over all these years. At present, the Dongjiang water intake is mostly located in an unpolluted region. Years ago, the region concerned (Heyuan) already formulated a policy forbidding the operation of polluting plants in the region. It can be said that they have sacrificed much in order to ensure the cleanness of fresh water supplied to regions on the east bank of the Pearl River Delta Region. Besides, the fresh water supplied to Hong Kong originates from the catchments in the vicinity of Heyuan, and the Government also needs to cope with the expenses arising from the installation, repair and maintenance of water pipes.
Sadly, a pan-democratic Member has proposed an amendment to cut the estimated expenditure for the WSD on fresh water supply, with the intention of severing this source of fresh water supply for Hong Kong people. This is indeed LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8269 hardly acceptable. Over the past period of time, the Government has proposed that society should adopt seawater desalination and other energy-saving water supply facilities. But as everybody knows, the cost thus incurred will be very high.
Recently, a delegation of the Legislative Council conducted a duty visit to Singapore. When the Singaporean personnel received us, they looked baffled as they did not understand why we should conduct a duty visit to learn from their technology of seawater desalination even though Hong Kong could enjoy endless fresh water supply from Dongjiang water. They did not understand the thinking of Hong Kong people.
Actually, out of political considerations, certain political figures in Hong Kong have deliberately sought to create panic by claiming that the clean Dongjiang water has been polluted, in a bid to plunge Hong Kong people into confusion. Some people are now concerned about how Hong Kong should cope if the Central Government or the Mainland turns off the water tap. I think Hong Kong people should now realize that opposition Member can even go so far as to target on the Bill and cut off the supply of "water" for the purpose of dealing with fresh water supply to Hong Kong.
Chairman, what is absolutely unacceptable to us is the tactic of proposing large numbers of amendments, as it actually defies our usual practice of dealing with the Bill. As Members know, proposing amendments in the Legislative Council is a serious matter, and Members should not lightly put forth any amendments. Let me give an example. Of all the various amendments, some seek to reduce certain estimated expenditures to merely $1,000. We cannot fathom why they should so lightly propose these amendments in respect of this serious matter. What is their motive? Is it simply because they want to make up a total of some 2 000 amendments, so as to facilitate their filibuster? Is it the very reason why they have put forth these frivolous and meaningless amendments?
We will oppose their amendments with all our resources, so as to make sure that the Hong Kong economy and people's livelihood are not subjected to any impediment. Thank you, Chairman.
8270 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, before I discuss my amendments, I would like to respond to the speech of Mr CHAN Kam-lam through the Chairman. If our Council were elected by the people and could make government policies answer public needs, it would not have been unnecessary for us to propose so many amendments in the Finance Committee. If the Legislative Council were not controlled by the royalists and the pro-establishment camp, but could really reflect the views of the community, it would not have been unnecessary for us to hold any policy discussions here. Chairman, precisely because these people have been shielding the Government, we need to spend time in this Council on discussing many basic livelihood policies, including those on housing, environmental protection, healthcare and universal retirement protection. And, precisely because of them, I now need to spend time on responding to the speech of Mr CHAN Kam-lam.
Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG is now present, and my amendment seeks to cut his remuneration. Why do I want to cut his remuneration? Honestly, he may not necessarily be able to exert any personal influence on many transport policies, and in the case of many "white elephant" projects of transport infrastructure, the decisions were not made by him alone. However, Chairman, the several incidents disclosed by the media recently have made the public and Legislative Council Members realize the necessity of uncovering the policy shortcomings and mistakes of the Government.
Recently, there have been media reports on the information in some internal documents of the China Railway SIYUAN Survey & Design Group Co Ltd. The Government has said in its response that these were the papers in 2009 and the information might not be accurate. But as clearly pointed out in these documents, when the project of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) was endorsed, only one train out of the 190 trains was scheduled as a through train to Guangzhou South Station, and only seven trains would go to Shenzhen direct. Most of the remaining trains would stop at intermediate stations. In other words, the Government cheated us at that time ― I am not referring to the incumbent Secretary, Prof Anthony CHEUNG, but his predecessor, Ms Eva CHENG. She said that by taking the XRL, passengers could reach the Guangzhou South Station in just 48 minutes. She was in fact lying to Hong Kong people, as over 96 trains would not be through trains. We have been made to waste a lot of money on this.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8271
Apart from the above, the media have also reported that after fulfilling its wish of constructing the XRL, the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) simply did not do anything when problems arose and only asked the Government to join it in a show of dividend distribution in order to meet the cost overrun of $19.9 billion. Nevertheless, Chairman, even after this, XRL tunnels have still been plagued with the problems of seepage and rail track corrosion. As disclosed by informed sources, the cracks in the tunnels are as wide as the diameter of a coin. To begin with, this XRL with a construction cost of $84.4 billion is not at all a high-speed railway but just a low-speed one designed by the low-witted. As we all know, no express train can still be an express train more once it enters a tunnel. But the Government still pushed ahead in spite of resistance. As the situation got out of its control, the Government yielded and co-operated with the MTRCL in this big show. This $19.9 billion was called dividends. However, we all know that this sum of money should basically be returned to the Treasury for launching other necessary projects in Hong Kong.
Second, the media have also disclosed the drifting of the artificial island of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. Every time when drifting is reported, the Secretary will instruct the Director of Highways to explain that a drifting of less than 3 m is not a serious problem. Perhaps because Hong Kong people have really heard too much of such project blunders in the Legislative Council, they have gradually got used to all this, thinking that it is just 3 m anyway, not as serious as the 7 m last time. We must remember that the artificial island will be connected to a tunnel and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. But a drifting of 3 m is detected. Do you think that this is a cause of worry? Many people frankly cannot see why the project has still ended up like this despite the huge funding of $100 billion. Some people said, "This is actually a foregone conclusion and we will know why if we find out who the contractor is." The contractor is China Harbour Engineering Company Limited, which has a terrifying track record. In many different places such as Malaysia and Africa, bridge collapse and cracks were recorded in the projects undertaken by it, and many of its projects were even left uncompleted. These "China" companies enjoy the Government's special treatment and can reap a lot of benefits. But even now, the public still do not know why our public money has been spent in such ways.
Admittedly, these policies were not finalized by the present Government, but has it ever responded to all such problems? Has it learnt from the mistakes? Has it really worked for the public? The answers are of course in the negative. Despite its awareness of all these problems, the Government still insists on the 8272 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 continuation of these projects, in a blind attempt to dovetail with the "white elephant" projects in the Mainland. We all know that the patronage volumes of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and even the XRL are seriously over-estimated. If we compare all the figures concerning the various boundary crossings of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge since the time of project establishment, we will see clearly that the over-estimation may be as much as 400%. In other words, by the time the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge is commissioned, the traffic flow and passenger flow may just be one fourth of the figures projected at the time of project establishment. However, the Government has still pressed ahead ― not for any special reason, but just because the National Development and Reform Commission of the Mainland has already given the go-ahead, and the SAR Government must proceed obediently.
Chairman, secondly, while the Secretary is present, I want to talk about the housing policy of Hong Kong. Ever since LEUNG Chun-ying the Liar took office, he has been claiming that the most important task of this Government is to resolve the housing problem in Hong Kong. He has also been brainwashing Hong Kong people, telling them that he has made huge efforts. However, the figures can tell us the truth. To begin with, any lies will be exposed one day. For instance, the Government must finally admit despite its great reluctance that the three-year waiting period for public housing is an undertaking that can no longer be kept. In fact, we and those people on the waiting queue all know that the undertaking of PRH allocation within three years is just an empty promise. Invariably, the Government will force applicants to accept units known for certain unpleasant happenings, or those located next to garbage rooms, or those not wanted by others for one reason or another within their respective three-year waiting periods. When the applicants concerned refuse, the Government will say that it has provided them with housing units, but they have refused. If people do not accept such units, they will have to wait five or seven years more, or even longer. Such cases indeed abound.
Secondly, the Government has kept breaking all promises, even including the undertaking on the volume of PRH construction made by Donald TSANG. This LEUNG Chun-ying administration is really shameless. Prof Anthony CHEUNG is an academic and a former president of a tertiary institution, so I of course hope that he will not behave like this. Unfortunately, however, we can see that in many cases, instead of pointing out the mistakes of this Government (including LEUNG Chun-ying), he actually collaborated with them and continued to deceive the public.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8273
Thirdly, how do they tackle housing supply? They mainly rely on restricting demand. But still, if we look at housing supply, we will be very worried. The Transport and Housing Bureau is of course not the only one to blame. In fact, we just wonder what Secretary for Development Paul CHAN, who is not present here, has been doing. The reason is that he has failed to increase land supply, and time and again, he even put up with various cases of unlawful land occupation and land use alteration.
I can easily cite a few examples here. Earth dumping was found in the north of Chuen Lung Village, Tsuen Wan. It was later discovered that this was due to the plan of Deacon CHIU's family to build a luxurious country house over there. LAU Wong-fat's family filled up five fish ponds measuring 2.13 hectares in total in Pak Nai of Yuen Long. The Government was also helpless. A garbage mound was heaped along Deep Bay Road, Lau Fau Shan. The land lot is owned by the TANG family, and we now know that there is a plan for the further development of the site concerned. And, more recently, there also occurred a very contentious earth dumping incident: some people heaped a mound of earth on a land lot near Kingswood Villas in Tin Shui Wai, and the land is owned by people related to Sun Hung Kai Properties Limited. From all these cases, and also from the Government's inaction despite its vow to clamp down on village houses with unauthorized building structures several years ago, what can we observe? We observe that the Government has never walked its talks. It has been turning a blind eye to people of great strength, including New Territories figures and major real estate developers. These problems have already been there for many years, and the Government in fact has all the power and opportunities to rectify the situation through various means such as legislative amendments, the exercise of administrative authority and the formulation of Outline Zoning Plans. The Government has not done so, but has instead chosen to continue to tango with real estate developers, in a bid to create a false impression of limited land supply.
Of course, real estate developers and many landlords of great strength can continue with their partnership in making good money under the high land price policy of the Government. The Chairman may not have heard our discussion today. What did we discuss in the meeting of the Public Works Subcommittee today? We discussed the Government's permission for a real estate developer to alter the use of a land lot and construct a youth hostel over there. As we all know, real estate developers usually will not do anything that cannot yield any return. We notice that the real estate developer concerned has already started 8274 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 land hoarding in the vicinity. If it is confirmed that land use alteration can be possible, it will construct residential buildings. It does not matter how the youth hostel is to be built, whether it is to be constructed by the real estate developer with government assistance, or by any non-governmental organization. The important thing is that with the alteration of height restriction and land uses becoming a fait accompli, the property developer may simply circle the land it has hoarded in the vicinity and proceed with the construction of luxury apartments with all sorts of justifications based on this fait accompli. In fact, such clandestine collusion between government and business has never vanished, only that it has taken other forms that are hardly noticeable to us.
However, has the Government learnt any lesson? No. Instead of learning any lesson from the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and XRL incidents, Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG has made the even worse move of proceeding with the third-runway system project at the airport. As we all know, many problems with the third-runway system, especially the problem of airspace, are still unresolved. Under the original planning of the new airport at Chek Lap Kok, there should have been 84 flight movements per hour at the airport by now. But the original plan of creating a northward flight path to achieve 84 flight movements per hour has never been put into practice. Now, the Government suddenly tells us that the airspace problem has already been resolved. But it cannot even provide us with any documentary support. We are just asked to trust the Government's assurance, the grounds of which are simply unknown or cannot never be known. Chairman, they may be talking about a "divine book with invisible words" which nobody but they can read. But then, we need to spend $141.5 billion.
Yesterday, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue talked about our financial difficulties. Chairman, the construction costs of our "white elephant" projects at this moment and all the upcoming costs already amount to nearly $500 billion. Hong Kong has spent a lot of money fruitlessly, but the Government is still unrepentant. How can we allow these Secretaries, who are each earning an annual remuneration of several million dollars, to sit here any longer, earning their high salaries in the comfort of all the air-conditioning?
I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8275
MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this debate session, nine Members propose a total of 69 amendments which involve 16 heads covering the Architectural Services Department (ASD), the Buildings Department (BD), the Highways Department, the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Development Bureau. I find the Members who move these amendments utterly absurd, unrealistic and devoid of any constructiveness. Their action cannot help resolve any problems. Rather than improving governance and upgrading the service quality and efficiency of the Government, cutting the resources for these Policy Bureaux and departments will only add to the workload and work pressure of the civil service team and affect staff morale, bringing only harm to Hong Kong and its people. Therefore, I am firmly against all these amendments.
Chairman, of these 69 amendments, those involving "Head 158 ― Government Secretariat: Transport and Housing Bureau (Transport Branch)" are the most numerous, totalling nine. "Head 138 ― Government Secretariat: Development Bureau (Planning and Lands Branch)" and "Head 186 ― Transport Department" come next, as each one of them is involved in eight amendments. The Members concerned have stated clearly that their amendments, which propose to cut the annual expenditure on the emoluments of the Secretary for Transport and Housing and the Secretary for Development and to deduct the annual operating expenditure of the Transport Department, are moved mainly due to the serious cost overrun incurred by the various infrastructure projects in recent years. They say that the cost overrun and delay of the Express Rail Link (XRL) project, in particular, has drawn serious attention and discussion from various sectors in society. Many criticisms point to the mismanagement and lack of professionalism on the part of the relevant bureau and department in supervising the XRL project.
Actually, many people in the construction sector and I believe that the Government's slipshod and inadequate supervision aside, the serious cost overruns of many infrastructure and civil engineering projects in recent years are largely related to the failure of the Government to make good use of costing experts and hire independent consultants for cost evaluation and cost control. Hence, early this year, in conjunction with a number of architects, planners and surveyors in the sector, I set up a concern group for monitoring the XRL project, with a view to following and monitoring the replies and undertakings given by the authorities in the Finance Committee in response to the concerns and demands I put forward. The concern group requests the Transport and Housing Bureau 8276 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 to: adopt effective measures that can strictly monitor the works progress and funding utilization of the project; closely supervise the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) in its arrangements for handling and assessing claims lodged by contractors; and require the MTRCL and XRL project contractors to fulfil their respective contractual obligations and liabilities. The concern group also requests the Highways Department to strengthen its appraisal of the MTRCL's performance in monitoring the works progress and costs of the XRL project, and to offer advice and take follow-up actions at appropriate junctures. Furthermore, the MTRCL is urged to adopt specific and effective measures to rectify its poor and inadequate management of the XRL project, with a view to properly performing its role and responsibilities as the project checker.
Apart from the cost overruns of infrastructure works, some Members are dissatisfied with the huge differences between the project cost estimates made by the ASD and the actual tender prices in recent years. They accuse the ASD of exaggeration and lacking in professionalism in making cost estimation. As a result, they move an amendment to reduce the annual expenditure of the ASD by more than $1.1 billion. While I agree that there is room for improving the Government's project cost estimation and cost control, I also think that we should pragmatically put forward practical and feasible suggestions on resolving the problems, rather than putting forward an absurd request for reducing the estimated expenditure for the department.
Chairman, the sector and I have been following up this issue, and we have also held meetings with the Development Bureau to explore ways to improve and enhance the Government's cost management and monitoring of public works projects. I am sure the Government can enhance the effectiveness of project management if it can draw on the expertise of cost control and estimation professionals, consult more widely and listen more to expert organizations, including the Hong Kong Institute of Architects and the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors. Therefore, I approve of and support the Government's establishment of the Project Cost Management Office.
However, I must make it a point to mention the submissions on the Project Cost Management Office sent respectively by the Hong Kong Institute of Architects and the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors to the Panel on Development in March. They advise the Government that it must not focus solely on cost control and neglect the need for utilitarian designs in architecture. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8277
They also hope that the Government will not stifle creativity in the name of "no frills". The architectural and surveying sectors and I hope that the Government can enable the Project Cost Management Office to give full play to its role. It is hoped that when designing the set-up and staff establishment of the Office, the Government can designate the leadership to professionals with experience in project cost management. But in the current proposal put forward by the Government, there is an apparent bias towards one particular profession in the staff establishment of the Office. I have reservation about this and hope the Government can reconsider the relevant proposal.
Chairman, a mover of the amendments points out that government expenditure on infrastructure construction has trebled over the past 10 years. The Member holds that many such infrastructure projects are of no real benefit to Hong Kong and hence the Government should not make any massive infrastructure investment. I do not buy such opinions. That the economy of Hong Kong has benefited so much is precisely due to the fact that Hong Kong has been making massive infrastructure investments, such as the Hong Kong International Airport at Chek Lap Kok, water management facilities and territory-wide railway construction and road network expansion. Therefore, bigger investments in the construction of more large-scale infrastructure facilities, coupled with manpower training, will benefit Hong Kong's long-term development and upgrade our overall competitiveness. Thus, I agree that public finances permitting, the SAR Government should launch more projects beneficial to the long-term development of Hong Kong. But of course, attention must be paid to project cost and progress management.
Furthermore, a Member describes the Buildings Department (BD) as the worst department in the eyes of the public, criticizing the BD for its sluggishness and inadequate enforcement in the handling of unauthorized building works, "sub-divided units" and dilapidated buildings over the years. Three Members therefore propose to cut the operating expenditure of the BD. In fact, I really think Members and the public are sometimes a bit unfair in their criticisms of the BD. For some years, I have been trying to understand and follow up the difficulties faced by the BD. I notice that the shortage of manpower and resources faced by the BD is really very serious. With the implementation of policies on buildings maintenance and repair in recent years, such as the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme and the Mandatory Window Inspection Scheme, and also due to the need to handle large numbers of unauthorized 8278 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 signboards and unauthorized building works, the manpower of the BD simply cannot cope. Although there have been some increases in the manpower establishment of the BD, it is still under immense pressure because there is after all too much work and too little manpower.
I understand that the BD intends to hire retired civil servants by contract to help handle the cases, in a bid to expedite the clearing of the backlog. But I am afraid that the BD may not have enough financial resources to hire the personnel required. I have made an inquiry with the Civil Service Bureau regarding the Budget, to see if the Bureau is going to provide resources to various bureaux and departments to pay for the expenses of hiring retired civil servants. The Bureau replied that under the "Post-retirement Service Contract Scheme", the cost of hiring retired civil servants and the operating expenses concerned are to be met by the bureaux or departments with their own resources. The original intent of this scheme is to draw on available talents as a means of alleviating manpower shortage in departments. However, if the Government does not put in sufficient resources, how can it be possible to implement the scheme and achieve the desired results? Therefore, I hope the Government can give serious consideration to the problem and put in resources to dovetail with the implementation of the scheme.
Chairman, when a government bureau or department performs poorly, can we solve the problem simply by cutting the emolument of the department head or the annual operating expenditure of the entire department? I believe we all know the answer perfectly well. But Members from the opposition camp still propose similar amendments year after year, with the clear intention of filibustering and obstructing the passage of the Budget, so as to delay the implementation and launching of a large number of relief measures. Are they sincerely working for the benefits of Hong Kong people and Hong Kong? The answer is very clear.
With these remarks, Chairman, I oppose all the amendments.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8279
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, this joint debate covers a number of major policy areas, namely land, housing, transportation, environment and conservation, and it involves the work of four Policy Bureaux and 12 government departments. In fact, each policy area can be the subject of an independent and in-depth debate. Yet the time-limited joint debate arrangement laid down by the Chairman has in effect limited the delivery of speeches by Members. As a result, we can only make some slapdash remarks rather than holding any genuine and in-depth debate. Earlier on, President Jasper TSANG and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung appeared in the television programme "Travel with Rivals", and now he presides over the meeting with unfair rules, limiting our speaking time in the joint debate.
Four of the amendments put forth by the Neo Democrats fall within the scope of this debate. These amendments seek to cut the estimated expenditure for six months' emoluments for Secretary for Development Paul CHAN, to cut the annual estimated expenditure for the operating costs of the South East New Territories Landfill in Tseung Kwan O, to cut the estimated annual emoluments for a dedicated unit responsible for the planning and execution works of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) under the Railway Development Office of the Highways Department; and to cut the estimated expenditure for Monitoring and Verification Services Consultancy for the detailed design and construction stages of the three-runway system (3RS) project. First of all, Chairman, I will elaborate the Neo Democrats' justifications for raising the two amendments (Nos 144 and 368) that seek, respectively, to cut the estimated annual emoluments for a dedicated unit responsible for the XRL under the Railway Development Office of the Highways Department and to cut the estimated expenditure for Monitoring and Verification Services Consultancy of the 3RS project.
8280 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Chairman, as a Legislative Council Member, one of the major duties that I have to discharge during this term of the Legislative Council is to monitor the progress of the "white elephant" projects undertaken by the Government. In recent years, several "white elephant" projects have been met with significant cost overruns and delay. The Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point project has reported a cost overrun of $12.3 billion. As for the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) project, just the topside development at the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities alone has reported a cost overrun of $5.5 billion, and the rush to complete the works on schedule has increased the incidence of fatal industrial accidents. Recently, it is even reported that the artificial island where the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities will be located has drifted, and such movement may lead to further works delay and project cost overrun. Needless to say, the greatest works delay and cost overrun is related to the Hong Kong Section of the XRL, showing that the Highways Department has failed to adequately monitor the works and truthfully report the actual progress of the works to the public and the Legislative Council. The Neo Democrats is of the view that the Highways Department should be held responsible for the cost overrun and works delay of the Hong Kong Section of the XRL.
According to the second entrustment agreement between the Government and the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL), the Railway Development Office of the Highways Department has an obligation to check the checker. It is responsible for monitoring and verifying the project management work of the MTRCL, as well as commissioning an independent consultant to monitor and examine the progress of the works. Nonetheless, Chairman, according to the report of the Independent Expert Panel appointed by the Government, the Highways Department has not taken the advice of the independent consultant seriously. The independent consultant repeatedly pointed out in the monthly report submitted to the Highways Department that the completion date of the XRL would likely to be delayed, but the Highways Department has not taken any concrete and effective actions, nor demanded the MTRCL to review the progress of works and carry out appropriate actions.
As explained by the Director of Highways later on, the Highways Department's judgment was that the works were just lagging behind schedule, and this did not necessarily mean that the completion of the project would be delayed. He added that the Highways Department did not have adequate manpower to monitor the entire XRL project. The reports by the Independent Expert Panel LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8281 reveal that the Highways Department in fact had several opportunities of early intervention, yet the Highways Department chose to blindly believe the assurance given by the MTRCL and disregard the warning given by the independent consultant. The Neo Democrats maintains that the officials in charge should be held responsible for the erroneous professional judgment of the Highways Department. But up till this moment, none of the officials in charge is required to bear the responsibility. At the time, though the Government and the MTRCL were yet to reach any consensus on the responsibility issue, the Government already acted high-handedly and hastened to as the Finance Committee to approve the extra funding for the XRL project.
Chairman, we all know that the application for extra funding for the XRL project was supported by the pro-establishment and royalist camps. Mr CHAN Kam-lam, who spoke just now, even brushed aside the meeting procedures of the Finance Committee and forcibly approved the funding application. Yet the XRL project is still plagued with problems, and the Highways Department's inadequate monitoring has led to the emergence of problems one after another. Last week, the press once again reported on the problems relating to a number of works contracts of the XRL project, including the fractures and water seepage in the Tai Kong Po to Tse Uk Tsuen Tunnels. Most of the precast tunnel tubes were already broken as early as one year ago, and cracks as wide as a bottle cap are even found on them, resulting in water seepage in various parts of the tunnels. In addition, the underground works in Hoi Wang Road, Yau Ma Tei, and the works for Shek Kong Stabling Sidings and Emergency Rescue Siding have been plagued with the persistent problem of water seepage. The MTRCL has ignored all these problems in order to rush ahead with the works, thus leading to the continuous deterioration of the situation. The Neo Democrats is of the view that the Highways Department can no longer perform the supervisory function of checking the checker. The XRL project must still face many more challenges ahead, one example being the highly complex works of erecting the gigantic glass canopy of the West Kowloon Terminus, which may lead to further works delay if anything goes wrong during the installation process. Moreover, the issue of co-location arrangements remains unresolved, so there are doubts about the economic efficiency of the operation of the XRL in the future.
Chairman, yesterday, there was another media disclosure of an internal document of the MTRCL. The document attaches the train schedule for the entire XRL suggested by China Railway SIYUAN Survey & Design Group Co 8282 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Ltd. The daily timetable of trains departing from or arriving at the West Kowloon Terminus is set out in detail. According to the timetable, only one direct train would be scheduled to run from Hong Kong to Guangzhou daily in the future. The rest of the trains departing from the West Kowloon Terminus would be those with intermediate stops or short haul trains heading for Fuzhou or Shenzhen. In 2009, the Transport and Housing Bureau vowed that the XRL could reduce the train time between Hong Kong and Guangzhou to 48 minutes, but this vow is now obviously invalid in the light of the train schedule revealed. Since the Government cannot fulfil its words, the Neo Democrats proposes to cut the estimated annual emoluments for the dedicated unit responsible for the XRL under the Railway Development Office of the Highways Department. In addition, we urge the Government to seriously re-consider the possibility of suspending the XRL project for redevelopment in order to remove this "mission impossible" from the scope of responsibility of the Highways Department.
Chairman, although the several "white elephant" projects under construction are all under the pressure of cost overrun and works delay, the Government has refused to conduct any impact analysis on the simultaneous conduct of several large-scale infrastructure projects. Instead, it has continued to roll out new infrastructure projects without due consideration. It has even bypassed the supervision of the Legislative Council, allowing the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA) to play a financing trick, so that it can proceed with the building of a third-runway system for the airport at a cost of over $140 billion. In the Budget this year, the Government plays the same trick again ― bundling the $180-million expenditure for Monitoring and Verification Services Consultancy for the detailed design and construction stages of the 3RS project with the Budget for submission to the Legislative Council in an attempt to circumvent scrutiny by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council.
Chairman, up till now, Members and the public still know very little about this provision of funding. The Government has not provided any formal documents to the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council; and Members have not been given sufficient time to ask the Government for the details of this provision of funding. The Government's plot is to bundle this provision of funding with the Budget in the hope that they would be passed together. If this really can work, the royalists do not even need to do anything to defend the funding request.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8283
The Government's painstaking tricks to repeatedly bypass the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council in the scrutiny of the funding request concerning the 3RS project can prove that the Government is very scared, is afraid that it cannot answer all the questions asked by Members in the Finance Committee, including those relating to airspace constraint. Chairman, earlier this year, a community organization conducted an analysis of 17 000 flights departing from and entering the airports of Shenzhen and Macao. According to the findings, the flight paths of over 60% of the flights entering the airport of Shenzhen will overlap the flight paths of the third airport runway in Hong Kong. In other words, if the 3RS is to operate at capacity level, we must co-ordinate with the airport of Shenzhen. The Neo Democrats is deeply worried that the Transport and Housing Bureau may go so far as to resolve the problem of airspace constraint through the shared use of airspace, thus surrendering the management of part of the Hong Kong airspace to Shenzhen.
Yet the Government does not intend to offer the public and the Legislative Council any detailed account of its negotiation with the Shenzhen authorities. We are worried that as the Government presses ahead with the 3RS project, the airspace issue would end up like the co-location arrangements of the XRL, meaning that it will be impossible to reach any agreement at the early stage of operation, and the solution, if any, may contravene the Basic Law and undermine "one country, two systems".
Moreover, Chairman, due to the AA's erroneous planning of Terminal 2, this $2.8 billion airport terminal will have to be demolished for redevelopment less than 10 years after its inauguration. Such a major planning mistake not only wastes public money but also makes us worry that the fate of the 3RS would be similar. The Neo Democrats therefore opposes the launching of the 3RS project at this stage. Owing to the mismanagement of the XRL project, people are concerned about the effectiveness of the Monitoring and Verification Services Consultancy for the 3RS project. We are also worried that the project may end up in incessant cost overrun and delay. Since the Government is reluctant to provide more information, the Neo Democrats has no alternative but to propose the reduction of the estimated expenditure for this provision of funding in this fiscal year.
Chairman, another Amendment No. 60 I raise on behalf of the Neo Democrats seeks to cut the annual estimated expenditure for the operating costs of the South East New Territories Landfill in Tseung Kwan O under the 8284 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Environmental Protection Department (EPD). The report released by the Audit Commission in October 2015 points out that the EPD has not provided the Legislative Council with any clear quantitative information relating to the remaining serviceable lives of the three landfills. The Audit Commission has thus made its own projection and concluded that the serviceable lives of the landfill in Tseung Kwan O could last till 2018. This proves that Secretary for the Environment WONG Kam-sing was actually telling a big lie when he avowed in 2014 that our city will be flooded with waste if we did not expand the landfills. He was actually trying to exert a kind of public opinion pressure on the then Legislative Council.
The implementation of a comprehensive producer responsibility scheme has been delayed for 10 years. According to the statistics released by an environmental group last month, a total of 12 billion plastic bottles were disposed in the landfills of Hong Kong over the last seven years. Obviously, there is no time to waste, and we must implement a producer responsibility scheme for plastic bottles immediately. While causing environmental problems, the Tseung Kwan O landfill adjoining the residential areas is itself the result of a serious planning blunder. Yet, the Government has not set down any sensible timetable in the light of the actual situation for the permanent closure of the Tseung Kwan O landfill. We doubt whether the Government has the ability and enterprise to realize the waste reduction targets laid down in the "Hong Kong: Blueprint for Sustainable Use of Resources 2013-2022" announced in 2013. On behalf of the Neo Democrats, I therefore propose to cut the operating cost of the Tseung Kwan O landfill.
Chairman, the fourth amendment (No. 266) I put forth seeks to cut the estimated expenditure for six months' emoluments for Secretary for Development Paul CHAN. Secretary Paul CHAN's has been surrounded by scandals since his taking office. I think he is the king of scandals among all the Bureau Directors. At first, he was suspected of running a business of renting out "sub-divided units"; later on, his family's ownership of a plot of agricultural land aroused strong public concern that he exercised his power to press ahead with the planning of the North East New Territories New Development Areas for the sake of his personal benefits. Last month, some Panama Papers relating to Hong Kong companies revealed that Paul CHAN has not disclosed his interests in the offshore companies under his ownership. But he has said nothing officially to clarify the query so far.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8285
Chairman, let us take a look at similar cases in other places of the world. Iceland Prime Minister GUNNLAUGSSON, also beleaguered by the Panama papers scandal, stepped down three days after the Panama Papers were revealed. British Prime Minister CAMERON took a rare move to disclose his personal taxation records in order to ease the public pressure calling for his resignation. The Neo Democrats must say that even though Paul CHAN is scandal-ridden, he has still disregarded all dissenting voices and insisted on developing the North East New Territories, tearing down the villages and homes of the villagers there. Moreover, he has not actively responded to Members' call for giving development priority to brownfields. Since Secretary for Development Paul CHAN has been performing very poorly over the past four years, we maintain that he should step down.
With these remarks, Chairman, I put forth four amendments seeking to cut the Government's estimated expenditure.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I now speak on the amendment which I propose for the purpose of cutting the annual estimated expenditure on the emoluments for the Secretary for Development (Amendment No 265).
The purpose of development is to put our valuable land resources to optimal use in order to render assistance to all Hong Kong people. Regrettably, however, throughout the course of developing Hong Kong's valuable land resources all these years, the Government has been totally on the side of big consortia and people with vested interests. The North East New Territories New Development Areas Project (NENT Project), in particular, can aptly show the fallacy and absurdity on the part of the Government in the overall process of development and planning.
Let me start by talking about one person. The village of Ma Shi Po is one of the earliest victims under the NENT Project. It used to be a major vegetable growing area in Hong Kong, and in its heyday, it grew a very big proportion of the vegetable produced locally, as much as one third as I have heard. Becky AU is a girl living in Ma Shi Po. For three generations, her family have been practising farming in the village. Her grandparents even settled down in Ma Shi Po as early as the 1940s to 1950s. The three generations of her family have been practising farming as a means of making a living. They own several land 8286 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 lots, and one of the them, the one used for growing banana, is exactly the land lot that the Henderson Land Development Company Limited (Henderson Land) now wants to resume.
Becky comes from a farming family, and what is so special about her is that after graduation from university, she returned home to assist her family in its farming business. However, as she can observe and experience, it is now very difficult to identify an active farmland in the New Territories for carrying on farming. Her observation is that major developers, including Henderson Land, have been very active in acquiring and hoarding land around Fanling over the past 20 years. For reasons unknown, they seem to know that the area would sooner or later be identified for development, so they have long since started land acquisition over there. Once a place is identified, local villagers and farmers will be expelled. Their houses will be sabotaged, with roofs and windows damaged, such that they can no longer be used as human dwellings. Farmlands will be sealed off by wire fences and left deserted, or they may be used as junkyards even though this will breed mosquitoes and weeds. Hence, the population of the whole village has dropped from 700 households over 10 years ago to just around 100 now.
As land acquisition by property developers went on, the Government suddenly announced the implementation of the NENT Project, whereby the Conventional New Town approach of full resumption of land by the Government was enhanced by allowing applications for "in-situ land exchange" from anyone who owns 4 000 sq m (about 40 000 sq ft) of land in the new planning areas. What is "in-situ land exchange"? It is not the exchange of a land lot for another land lot, but the change of a land lot from agricultural use to commercial or residential use in order dovetail with government planning. For reasons unknown, the new planning areas under the NENT Project coincide so very remarkably with the lands hoarded by real estate developers over the years, which can now be converted to residential and commercial uses. As I can remember, the Apple Daily once reported that over 80% of the land owned by Henderson Land actually coincided with the new planning areas under the NENT Project. It is really very successful in this.
Therefore, a big landowner possessing more than 40 000 sq ft of land can at any time hold clandestine negotiations with the Government on the payment of regrant premium. The actual premium will not be disclosed and no one knows how the amount is determined. But then, this process can enable real estate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8287 developers to change the use of their lands, and their lands will thus worth ten times or even a hundred times more. Such is the present mode of development. As long as one has the money, one can buy such lands, and once these precious lands are under private ownership after purchase, the owners can do whatever they want, disregarding the fact that such lands were originally meant for assisting the development of agriculture in Hong Kong or other purposes. They may seal off such lands with wire fences, and use them for the storage of waste, used tyres and old vehicles and even for the dumping of earth. They are allowed to do all this in the name of respect for private ownership. But agricultural development, the old ways of life of farmers and villagers and the overall ecological environment are thus brushed aside completely.
If land is one of the most important resources of Hong Kong today, how can the Development Bureau possibly say that land can only be used for housing construction? Having looked at the whole thing, we can notice that it is actually all about the handing out of benefits. The Government will formulate development plans and property developers will then know how to act accordingly. Both sides have in fact come up with some sort of arrangements and once the time is ripe, a development plan will be rolled out. At this juncture, the Government will tell people that the plan is intended to build more housing units for the people of Hong Kong. But the absurd thing is that the people living on the lands are all expelled, and the lands will all be razed, allowing no crops, vegetation and living things. Today, one may still be living on a land lot which has been home to several generations of one's family. But tomorrow, the Government may suddenly say that an outfall and a carpark will be built here and there on the land. Can this be called development? Is there any respect for the natural environment? Is that a kind of development genuinely for the people of Hong Kong?
Chairman, Becky AU aspires to a simple way of life in a farming village. Although she once left home for work after university, she eventually quitted the job. She says that she can never get used to the hustle and bustle of city life, a kind of life that is taxing, onerous and annoying. Thus, she gave up and took part in the establishment of the Mapopo Community Farm (the Community Farm) on a full-time basis in the hope of enhancing the development of local agriculture through organic farming. Instead of adhering to the conventional farming method of using pesticides and chemical fertilizer, the Community Farm practises organic farming. They compost food waste collected from the community and use home-made pest nets. On one single plot, they grow 10 to 20 different types 8288 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 of vegetables, each of which requires a unique type of attention and farming method. The job is really very difficult. They make their own compost and put the entire production chain under their own control. They even sell their crops directly to consumers through the Community Farm. Their job is really very difficult, but they have eventually achieved some success over the past six years.
Even in the face of the incessant impediments caused by both developers and the Government, people in the Community Farm have still persisted in their constructive efforts. Through all these wholesome activities that can energize the entire local community and even unite the people, they seek to reduce waste by collecting food waste for recycling and reuse. They grow wholesome foods on their land and then supply them to people, thus establishing a wholesome food chain in the ecological system. Yet, what do they get today in return? Nothing but the deployment of the police by the Government to assist Henderson Land in the forcible resumption of land. It is true that Henderson Land is the owner of the farmlands, but does this mean that it is free to do whatever it likes?
We are all sojourners. Every one of us lives for several decades, or at most 80-odd years only. We are not inheritors of the land, but just mere stewards who watch over the land for the future generations in their short lifespans. The people I have mentioned just want to optimize land resources for the benefit of our future generations. They just want to put the land to dynamic uses that can support the livelihood of residents in the local community. But they are expelled. The people who expel them are the very people who are led by profit considerations to completely ignore land uses, community development and the sustainable progress of Hong Kong as a whole. For the sake of this bunch of people, the Government has deployed the police. It has formulated planning for them. It has implemented the present top-down and "bulldozer" mode of development to suit their needs. This is now the development mode of Hong Kong.
From now on, this development mode will be adopted for all infrastructure development projects in the New Territories and the Lantau Island, or even the mega project called the East Lantau Metropolis comprising several artificial islands. Where will this development mode lead Hong Kong to? Can this development mode really give us sustainable progress and a more wholesome life? Or, are we just spending hundreds of billions dollars on heaps of concrete structures that can at best create a veneer of prosperity? As for Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8289 people and also the three generations of the AUs, who have been working so hard just for the sake of living a simple and wholesome life, what is in stock for them? What has Paul CHAN done as Secretary for Development? In what ways has he given equal weight to the basic value of sustainable progress in the course of implementing the NENT Project?
The AUs are facing expulsion. This very family who used to live on their farmland will be plunged into a dire situation. How are they going to live after the expulsion? It may be argued that they are just tenants, and private ownership should be of paramount importance. But Chairman, even though private ownership is important, we must still respect the natural use and value of land. Land is a kind of valuable public resources of Hong Kong, and even landowners must not be permitted to trample on such resources in the name of private ownership. As I said earlier, we are just mere stewards, and even the SAR Government is also a mere steward who is responsible for taking temporary charge of these valuable resources on behalf of Hong Kong people. Hence, should it behave in such an irresponsible way?
The experience of this family alone can already show that the so-called development we see today has already deviated completely from the original path of sustainable development Hong Kong is supposed to follow and also the fundamental principle of giving priority to the interest of Hong Kong people. If things go on like this, Hong Kong will fall onto a path of no return and continue to be shaped into a city that sees nothing but commerce. In that case, we cannot possibly face the next generation and the request by Becky AU for a new way of life. I hope the Secretary for Development can reflect seriously on the issue and realize that economic interests are not above everything else in our society.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I will invite public officers to speak at 1.30 pm, to be followed by Members who move the amendments to speak for the last time. Members who wish to speak in this session but have not yet spoken are reminded once again to return to the Chamber as soon as possible and press the "Request to speak" button.
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I rise to speak in support of passing the entire Appropriation Bill 2016. In this fourth joint debate, the themes are land, housing, transportation, environment and conservation.
8290 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
As the representative of the engineering sector in the Legislative Council, I must voice the views and aspirations of the sector clearly. Chairman, despite the reduction resulting from your rulings, some pan-democratic Members are still able to propose a total of 69 amendments in this session. Many of them are unreasonable, and I must refute them in order to avoid any public misunderstanding.
This session touches on various aspects of development planning in Hong Kong, including long-term planning. In this connection, at least the Development Bureau, the Transport and Housing Bureau, the Environment Bureau and 12 related departments are involved.
In the future, the SAR Government should continue to allocate resources to address land and housing supply, plan for new development areas, construct new railways and implement other infrastructure projects which are related to economic development and improvement to people's livelihood, so as to ensure the sustained development of Hong Kong. Although the several pan-democratic Members who have proposed the amendments avow that they are very concerned about these issues, they simply do not walk their talks. Their amendments seek to slash the resources for the departments concerned, or even deduct their general departmental expenses and annual estimated expenditure for personal emoluments. In practical effects, these amendments are just like bringing a halt to the day-to-day operation of these departments, and even the salary payment of the relevant civil servants will become a problem. There will be dire consequences if these amendments are unfortunately passed.
Chairman, I believe members of the public are interested to know the scope of the amendments proposed by these pan-democratic Members and the dimensions of their impact.
Right now, society is most concerned about housing. Many people (including the younger generation) aspire to own their own properties and the SAR Government is also making efforts to identify land for building homes. In 2016-2017, the recurrent expenditure for planning and land will reach $4,810.32 million, an increase of $183.5 million over the last financial year. This money is mainly used to enhance land development, launch new development areas, expand new towns and step up law enforcement related to building safety.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8291
In respect of short- and long-term land supply, the Government will continue to identify suitable land for rezoning and appropriately increase development density. The authorities have planned to start the procedure of amending the statutory plans for 40-odd plots. It is estimated that around 80 000 units can be produced.
For middle- and long-term land supply, the authorities are proceeding in full steam with various new development areas and new town extension projects, as well as planning for the long-term development of New Territories North and Lantau. It is estimated that the Kwu Tung North New Development Area (NDA) and the Fanling North NDA, the Tung Chung New Town Extension, the Hung Shui Kiu NDA and the Yuen Long South development can provide more than 197 000 residential units and over 3.5 million sq m of commercial floor space.
In the past, due to a lack of comprehensive long-term planning in Hong Kong, employees of the engineering sector suffered a lot. There were either insufficient workers or insufficient jobs. In October 2013, I moved a motion in the Legislative Council urging the SAR Government to formulate long-term infrastructure planning. With the support of the majority of Members, the motion was passed without amendments. Therefore, I am happy to see that the Planning Department has set about launching the updated study of "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030".
Regarding the enhancement of building safety, the Buildings Department conducts annual large-scale operations against unlawful "sub-divided units" and other illegal structures. In order to follow up the recommendations in the Report No. 64 of the Director of Audit and Public Accounts Committee report of the Legislative Council, the Department will enhance the intensity of related law enforcement and prosecution.
All the initiatives mentioned above are mainly carried out by the Planning and Lands Branch under the Development Bureau, and other related departments such as the Buildings Department, the Lands Department, the Planning Department and the Civil Engineering and Development Department. Nonetheless, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung are now asking to cut the resources for these departments, or even their general departmental expenses and annual estimated expenditure for 8292 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 personal emoluments. Do they think that the above-mentioned short-, middle- and long-term development planning can be disregarded? How can the public demand for housing demand be satisfied? Can building safety be ignored?
Regarding land transportation infrastructure, in addition to monitoring the progress of the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, South Island Line (East), the Kwun Tong Line Extension and the Shatin to Central Link to ensure the timely completion of these projects, the Highways Department will continue to press ahead with the railway projects recommended in the Railway Development Strategy 2014. The Secretary for Transport and Housing has also expressed that the Department will first embark on the detailed planning of the Northern Link and the Kwu Tung Station, the Tuen Mun South Extension and the East Kowloon Line.
I think there is a pressing need to implement the related planning and advance work. The several railways now under construction will be completed one after the other in the next few years. If no new projects are to follow, it will be difficult for Hong Kong's railway infrastructure to develop in an orderly and sustainable manner. Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen are now asking to cut the general departmental expenses of the Highways Department and its annual estimated expenditure for personal emoluments. Do they actually think that the progress of the above-mentioned transport infrastructure projects under construction requires no monitoring? Or, do they think that Hong Kong does not need any new railway planning?
As regards air transport, the Hong Kong International Airport is the world's busiest cargo airport and the third largest international passenger airport. To cope with the future need for air transport and to maintain Hong Kong's competitiveness as an international and regional aviation hub, the Airport Authority is pressing ahead with the implementation of the three-runway system (3RS). In general, the industries concerned support the construction of the 3RS. Yet, Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr Gary FAN respectively ask for a cut of the annual estimated expenditure the Transport Branch under the Transport and Housing Bureau for the detailed design of the 3RS and for the required monitoring and verification consultancy service. Do they think that the SAR Government does not even need to conduct basic monitoring as far as the construction of the 3RS is concerned?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8293
In respect of environmental protection, in order to realize the objectives set in the "Hong Kong: Blueprint for Sustainable Use of Resources 2013-2022" to reduce 40% of our per capita municipal solid waste disposal rate by or before 2022, the authorities are gradually implementing Producer Responsibility Schemes. The Legislative Council already scrutinized and passed the Promotion of Recycling and Proper Disposal (Electrical Equipment and Electronic Equipment) (Amendment) Bill 2015 on 17 March.
Meanwhile, the Promotion of Recycling and Proper Disposal (Product Container) (Amendment) Bill 2015 has also passed the Bills Committee stage and the resumption of Second Reading debate will be scheduled later. As the Chairman of the Bills Committees for these two Bills, I feel delighted and am happy to see that the authorities have set about doing all the preparatory work, including the construction of facilities for the recovery and processing of waste electrical appliances and electronic products, and the drafting of the necessary subsidiary legislation.
The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) will monitor the running of the $1-billion Recycling Fund and help with the upgrading of the operational capabilities and efficiency of the recycling industry. Moreover, the EPD will join hands with the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (EMSD) to strive to boost buildings energy efficiency, including the implementation within this year of the newly amended Building Energy Code. However, Mr Albert CHAN has proposed two amendments to cut the annual estimated expenditure for personal emoluments for EPD and EMSD staff. I hope Mr Albert CHAN can explain to the public if he considers that the above environmental protection work is unnecessary, or that he can mobilize volunteers to do it.
Chairman, I understand that the engineering sector is very concerned about the above issue. It is also very worried that if the amendments are passed, they will bring adverse consequences. Very often, some pan-democratic Members would like to pit Members returned by geographical constituencies against Members returned by functional constituencies. They also degrade the functional constituency Members. They mislead the public into believing that Members returned by functional constituency elections will only take care of the interests of the business community. This is obviously unfair to those Members and the constituents they represent.
8294 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
As the representative of the engineering sector in the Legislative Council, I have to take this opportunity to make solemn clarification. Let me take the engineering sector which I serve as an example. Any person who has registered as a professional engineer under the Engineers Registration Ordinance (Cap. 409), or who is a member of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers with the right to vote at the general meeting of the Institute can apply to be registered as a functional constituent. These individual constituents have to possess statutory professional qualification. They have to be employed as engineers with Hong Kong's large, medium or small enterprises or professional engineering officers in the Civil Service. They serve in various departments of the SAR Government, in particular, the Planning Department, the Lands Department, the Civil Engineering and Development Department, the Housing Department, the Architectural Services Department, the Buildings Department, the Drainage Services Department, the Water Supplies Department, the EMSD, the Transport Department, the Highways Department and the EPD, as well as related Policy Bureaux involved in this debate session. Their target of service is the people of Hong Kong. They have always played an important role in pushing ahead with public works. Their work, contribution and position in society are beyond any doubt.
Yet, in recent years, they are working under increasing pressure. In particular, they have to respond speedily to various aspirations from within and outside the Legislative Council. I have over and again reflected to the SAR Government that these professional grades in the Civil Service are facing the problem of insufficient manpower resources. One month after assuming office as a Member, at a joint meeting of the Panel on Financial Affairs and the Panel on Housing, I asked the Government to create additional posts at all ranks for the professional grades in the Civil Service to cope with the ever-increasing workload. I am pleased to see that as at the end of March 2015, the civil service establishment for related engineering profession in various government departments already increased from 3 545 in 2011 to 4 082 in 2015, an increase of 537 posts. Over the last four years, with the approval of the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, the various government departments have created 29 directorate grade engineer posts. In this financial year, the government departments concerned will also create 156 posts for professional engineering officers. Of course, I think that apart from increasing the establishment, the authorities should also put in place a regular review mechanism and establish a reasonable progression pathway to nurture and retain professional engineering talents and maintain the professional standard and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8295 overall morale of the civil service team. Then, the Government will have policies, planning, talents and resources to implement the administration objectives.
The civil servants with whom I have contacted lately all welcome and support the move to increase departmental manpower to ease the immense pressure borne by existing staff. Nonetheless, the amendments now proposed by the several pan-democratic Members simply go in the opposite direction. They even seek to cut the annual estimated expenditure for personal emoluments for the staff of the various departments concerned. This is totally outrageous.
Chairman, on the one hand, the pan-democratic Members mentioned above are pretending that they are very concerned about society and people's livelihood and strongly demand that the Government raise the standard of service. But on the other hand, they are proposing unreasonable amendments to the Budget. They even seek to remove completely the general departmental expenditure of the government departments concerned and the annual estimated expenditure for personal emoluments for the staff. If these amendments are passed, the operation of those government departments will come to a standstill or they will even have to be shut down. This will not only deal a blow to the morale of the Civil Service but will also seriously impact society and people's livelihood.
With these remarks, Chairman, I support the Appropriation Bill 2016 but oppose the amendments.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, the filibuster in the Legislative Council has dealt a direct blow to the construction sector and the engineering sector in the territory. Therefore, I will wear a safety helmet used in construction sites and hang up a cooking pot when I speak in this debate session. Chairman, of those Members who have proposed amendments …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please remove your helmet. You can put it on the bench but you cannot wear it when speaking.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, I do not intend to argue with you, so I will follow your advice. Arguing with you is just a waste of time.
8296 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, I have already explained the Rules of Procedure to you. Please go on.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, one of the Members who proposed the amendments just now, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, criticized that the Government was not elected by the people. But he did not mention that when the Government put forward its proposal on the Chief Executive Election last year, they voted against the package and even refused to allow our political system to take one step forward in its development. They were the very people who refused to allow the Chief Executive Election and the ensuing Legislative Council Election to undergo any reform and progress. I think before he criticized the Government for not being elected by the people, Dr KWOK Ka-ki should first ask himself a question about the consequences caused by their vetoing of the constitutional reform package last year.
Second, Mr Gary FAN criticized that since Secretary Paul CHAN was scandal-ridden, he should step down. But they themselves adopt double standards. Can't they see that their acceptance of "black money" is far more serious than any scandals? Up to now, they have not given any account at all, nor have they offered any explanation. I believe that they should also offer an explanation to the public regarding their acceptance of "black money" from Jimmy LAI.
The amendments they propose in this debate session mainly involve cutting the provisions for the emolument expenditure of departments. They call themselves pan-democrats from political parties upholding the interests of the vulnerable groups and the grassroots. But then, they simply behave like unscrupulous employers, proposing to deduct the emolument expenditure of departments and labelling various construction projects as "white elephants". In fact, I think all the filibustering Members should be the very people whose emoluments should be cut. Filibustering in the comfort of an air-conditioned room, they have harmed the interests of the general public. In my opinion, Members proposing these amendments are all parasites whose emoluments should be cut.
Let me return to the theme of my speech. I want to talk about the severe impact suffered by the construction and engineering sectors, about how their "cooking pots" are hung up. The Chairman pointed out that Members must not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8297 wear any hat under the Rules of Procedure. I see no problem with that because I can just hold the safety helmet in my hand. This is even better as I can thus show the impact on the construction sector even more clearly. When their "cooking pots" are hung up, construction workers may not even need a safety helmet anyway. So, this is a far sharper image. I thank the Chairman for his reminder.
On 10 April, 16 organizations from the construction sector formed an anti-filibuster alliance, protesting strongly against opposition Members whose reckless filibuster has directly affected the sector. The filibuster has caused damage in six areas: first, the employment and livelihood of more than 300 000 people in the sector have been seriously impacted. According to the alliance, Hong Kong on average needs to invest $180 billion each year in public and private works projects in order to support the industry, and public works projects account for approximately $70 billion of this sum. However, the filibuster in the Legislative Council has delayed the funding for numerous public works projects. The sector is thus severely impacted and plunged into business difficulties. According to them, the unemployment rate in the construction sector has almost reached the level of 19% in 2003. Secretary Paul CHAN stated in his speech on 7 April that the budget for public works projects in 2014-2015 amounted to $70 billion, and the figure in 2015-2016 was $74 billion, while the average figure for the next few years would be $70 billion or so. However, the Secretary pointed out on 7 April that only two new projects amounted to merely $200 million in total were approved then, while other 70 projects involving over $60 billion were still pending. Therefore, the situation has inflicted considerable harm on the survival of construction sector. This is the first major damage.
Second, due to delays in funding approvals, many investors or consultancy firms related to advance works are caught in difficulties. Some must freeze or reduce the wages of their employees, while others need to stop employing new staff or even close down. These problems will affect site investigation, surveying, design, plan drafting and materials supply. As a result, every sector has to bear the brunt.
Third, such public works projects are related to various livelihood needs of people, including hospitals, schools, water supplies, sewage treatment, greening, slope maintenance and even environmental protection. Therefore, filibuster is affecting not only the construction sector but also various livelihood-related projects. Members of the public may not know that filibuster is found not only 8298 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 in Council meetings but also in the meetings of the Public Works Subcommittee and the Establishment Subcommittee. Practically all meetings have been facing filibuster. The impact is very great. This is the third damage.
Fourth, due to the delay caused by filibuster, those recently approved items are probably items that were already endorsed by the relevant Panels the year before last. In other words, there may be a time lag of one year after the approval of these items by the relevant Panels. Owing to the year-long delay, the costs have all increased, generally at a rate of 10% on average. The extra construction costs must be met by the public in the end. This results in the wastage of public money and undermines people's interests.
Fifth, many university students majoring in professional disciplines such as engineering and surveying have been expressing their doubts and worries to their professors. Such students say that they were induced to major in these disciplines mainly by their belief that the construction industry of Hong Kong had bright prospects and a stable demand for manpower. They thus thought that they would have career protection after joining this industry. Yet, the sector is now faced with either a glut of jobs or none at all. If this is caused by objective market forces, they cannot possibly have any complaint. But the present uncertain prospects of the construction sector are instead caused by a kind of uncontrollable man-made disaster in the Legislative Council, the indiscriminate filibustering of opposition Members. The worst victims are those who have mortgaged their homes and fixed assets in order to make investments in the sector. Since there is such a shortage of projects and business opportunities, they simply do not know how they can repay their debts. Such cases actually abound these days. How come opposition Members still claim so frequently that they care about people's livelihood? Can't they see the plight of people?
Sixth, when the construction sector is affected, other sectors will also be impacted. The employment of 300 000 people and the livelihood of more than a million people will suffer directly, and so will related industries. For instance, consumer industries such as the catering, retail and tourism industries will all suffer impact in a whole series of chain reaction.
Chairman, many surveys and assessments and even the Government have pointed out that the economy of Hong Kong will adjust downward this year, while the unemployment rate is on the rise. Many shops have already closed down. Under this situation, it is all the more necessary to launch the public works projects of the Government as early as possible in order to boost the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8299 economy and revitalize the city. But all those well-paid opposition Members sitting in this air-conditioned Chamber with water or tea served have chosen to filibuster, ignoring the plight of front-line employees. I earnestly hope opposition Members can look at this "cooking pot" and the difficulties faced by workers without jobs.
Chairman, the Construction Industry Alliance will again voice their anger this year. It is decided that an anti-filibuster rally will take place at Chater Garden in the afternoon of 8 May, that is, the coming Sunday. I hope every member of the construction sector will join the rally, and that various industries and sectors will support the rally, joining forces in the demonstration against filibuster. I hereby urge opposition Members of the Council, those filibustering Members, to show mercy on the sector and provide them with some much-needed relief.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): The Democratic Party supports the Budget, but not all the contents of the Budget have our support. Our support is based on the consideration is that the public officer in charge of the Budget, that is the Financial Secretary, has at least made a rare and prudent attempt in his Budget speech to suggest a direction for healing the social split in Hong Kong: the Government is duty-bound to listen humbly to public views. He has also shown an understanding that all stakeholders are to be held responsible for the social split, and that the problem cannot be solved merely by shifting the responsibility to others. Hence, by voting in support of the Budget, the Democratic Party wishes to express its view that the Government must squarely face the problem of social split today and public officers also have the duty to heal the social split, rather than creating conflicts to widen it. This is a direction we need to encourage.
That said, coming back to the Budget, we support the full deduction of the estimated annual expenditure for the emoluments of the two Bureau Directors related to the Budget, who are the Secretary for Transport and Housing and the Secretary for Development. To begin with, we understand that the Secretary for Transport and Housing must deal with many problems of land, sea and air transport in the past one year. But two such problems have aroused grave public concern: the requests for additional funding arising from the cost overrun and delay of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) and Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) and also the related culpability issue. 8300 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Chairman, the pan-democratic camp has been doing all it can to thwart the passage of the two requests for additional funding, because we are of the view that the Government's explanation cannot convince the public that the allocation of additional funding is the only option. More importantly, the Government cannot show the public that the additional funding requests are not the result of its negligence in supervising the project works, nor can it convince the public that following the approval of the requests for additional funding, the XRL will really be equipped with features that can achieve its intended effectiveness, such as the implementation of co-location arrangements without compromising "one country, two systems".
The case with the HZMB is similar. The original funding should be enough for completing the whole project. The request for additional funding is only meant to provide the HZMB with additional facilities, and the extra funding request is based on the assumption that following the commissioning of the HZMB, its throughput will really increase at the expected junctures and additional facilities are thus called for. However, the Government has failed to provide any elaboration on all this and has simply insisted on forcing the funding application through the Finance Committee. In the meantime, we have learnt that as the Government has changed the method of construction in order to rush along with the construction works, the artificial island of the HZMB has time and again experienced drifting.
At the time when the XRL funding application was approved, the Government avowed that the commissioning of the XRL would bring significant economic returns to our society. However, it has recently been reported that the Government did not tell us the whole truth when it showed us its computation of economic returns. I remember that when the funding application for the XRL was passed in 2010, former Secretary for Transport and Housing Eva CHENG stressed over and over again that the XRL would bring enormous economic returns to Hong Kong people because the ride from Hong Kong to the Guangzhou South Station via Shenzhen would only take 48 minutes. The journey time, she said, would be substantially reduced when compared with the present journey time from Hung Hom to Guangzhou Stations. She also said that the Hong Kong section of the XRL could be connected to the express rail network of the whole country.
During the scrutiny of the request for additional funding for the XRL, we kept asking him questions on the specific operating environment and timetables of the XRL, but the Secretary simply refused to tell us the truth. Perhaps, he LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8301 was afraid that if he told the truth, the public would turn even more sceptical of the cost-effectiveness of the XRL. However, as pointed out by latest press reports, the Secretary's responses to media enquiries show that no matter what methods of computation are used, the XRL will just be a mere inter-city railway built at the costs of a high-speed railway. In other words, the XRL is not value-for-money. From this perspective, I must say that when we discussed the additional funding request, the Secretary must be withholding the truth from us. As a result, members of the public were unable to make any sound judgment without any knowledge about the cost-effectiveness of the entire XRL.
I can see that the Secretary has worked very hard in recent years trying to solve different kinds of land, sea and air problems related to the Transport and Housing Bureau. But these two important projects which have aroused grave public concern show once again that the Government is not honest and open in its work and does not follow the public administration "ABC" of fully disclosing information to the public. The public have thus been led to doubt the integrity of the Secretary. Under the accountability system, the Secretary should be held politically responsible, shouldn't he? Cutting his salary is just a small punishment.
Another person I wish to mention is Secretary for Development Paul CHAN. He has certainly been surrounded by many controversies over land development, but one of the biggest controversies is the development of the North East New Territories (NENT). The development of NENT underwent three rounds of consultation. The first two rounds were conducted under Carrie LAM, the then Secretary for Development. She pointed out that if the development involved private sites and the Government did not take the approach of land resumption, the public would inevitably suspect that this development project involved collusion between government and business, and that the project was only meant to pave the way for major property developers, thus making it even more difficult to take forward the NENT project.
However, after taking up the post of Secretary, Paul CHAN said that the approach adopted by his predecessor, Carrie LAM, was inappropriate and he proposed an enhanced Conventional New Town Approach (enhanced CNTA). Under the enhanced CNTA, property developers can tender land exchange applications to the Government after accumulating a sufficient area of land. This approach has precisely led to the recent land resumption incident concerning the Henderson Land Development Company Limited, which Dr Fernando CHEUNG has just mentioned. 8302 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
In fact, many property developers accumulated large quantities of land in the New Territories in the early years. They acquired the lands at very low prices, which could be as low as $10 per sq ft or even lower. According to the compensation criteria under the Lands Resumption Ordinance, the land resumption price is now around $500 to $600 per square foot. In other words, even if developers do not develop their lands, they can still make profits 10 times their investments simply from the land resumption compensation offered by the Government. But why should the Government pave the way for property developers? Why can't the Government follow the conclusion drawn by Carrie LAM when she was the Secretary for Development and adopt the CNTA as a means of resolving the land problem in accordance with the Lands Resumption Ordinance, so that the construction of public facilities and the development of NENT can be taken forward with the interest of the public in mind?
The Secretary for Transport and Housing is facing the problem of insufficient land for housing. Secretary Paul CHAN has the responsibility of providing him with land resources. But he has chosen a contentious approach to obtain land in NENT. The public are not convinced by his approach, and this will adversely affect the work of the Secretary for Transport and Housing to achieve the housing construction target in the coming decade. Even though society nowadays is very sensitive about the distribution of land-related benefits, the Secretary for Development still insists that the enhanced CNTA is the most effective approach and totally disregards all the disputes and public grievances. This will affect the progress of this development project and housing supply. Indirectly, this may also lead to a gap in housing supply by the Transport and Housing Bureau in the coming three to four years and the Bureau will have to make up the shortfall afterwards.
The Secretary for Development should take the largest blame for the present situation due to his land policy. As a result of his erroneous development approach, our housing problem and the issue of distributing land-related benefits have become the source of conflicts among the Government, the business sector and the people. In my opinion, the Lands Resumption Ordinance can actually serve as a very good tool for the Government to serve the public interest. I believe that nowadays, no one will doubt the saying that housing development in Hong Kong is a matter that concerns the public interest, not least because there is still a shortfall of 280 000 units in the public housing construction list of the Transport and Housing Bureau despite all the adjustments. No matter how hard the Secretary for Development works, he will still be unable to close the gap. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8303
However, if the Government continues to adopt this high-handed approach and ignores the crux of the problem, and if this renders the use of land resources in Hong Kong unable to truly meet the demand for public housing and serve the public interest, social conflicts will only escalate. I thus think that in respect of the land policy, Secretary for Development Paul CHAN has failed completely to respond to how society perceives collusion between government and business. He has chosen to change the policy, thus giving rise to the public perception that this Government has changed the policy decision of its predecessor probably with the purpose of answering the wishes of certain developers or property developers. Hence, it is even more difficult to dispel the spectre of government-business collusion in people's minds.
I thus hold that the two Bureau Directors must take the blame for all the social conflicts stemming from these important policies. For this reason, I support the full deduction of the estimated annual expenditure for the emoluments of the two Bureau Directors, so as to reflect the political responsibility they should bear.
Thank you, Chairman. I so submit.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, there are only five Members in the Chamber. I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This debate will end at 3.30 pm. As I have explained to Members earlier, given that sufficient time has to be reserved for public officers and Members moving amendments to speak, I cannot invite any 8304 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 more Members to speak now. If there is time left after the public officers and Members proposing amendments have spoken, I will invite other Members to speak. Secretary for Transport and Housing, do you wish to speak?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Chairman, some Members propose various Committee stage amendments to the Appropriation Bill every year, which seek to cut the estimated annual expenditures of various offices, bureaux and departments, the emoluments of certain secretaries and staff under their offices, and some heads of departments. Some of these amendments target the necessary expenditure for individual work projects and functions.
If the Members concerned would like to make use of the amendments to express their criticisms of the work performance of the relevant bureaux and departments, we will listen humbly and seek to improve. However, if these amendments are passed, they may bring about contradictory effect. Instead of helping the Government improve, they will lead to work suspension and operation standstill of the departments concerned. There are 30 amendments seeking to cut the expenditures in housing, transport, maritime and aviation affairs. I am going to provide an integrated response here.
An amendment seeks to cut almost all the funding for the operation of the Housing Authority under head 62. This will render the Housing Authority unable to carry out various kinds of work under this head, including certain expenditure in the construction of public housing. Any sort of reduction in the Housing Authority's manpower or resources will lead to the impediment of the housing supply programme now going on at a frantic pace, at a time when both the number of people waiting for public rental housing and the relevant waiting time are increasing incessantly. I hope the Legislative Council can support the work of the Housing Authority; otherwise, we will not be able to respond to people's urgent housing needs effectively.
Some amendments seek to cut approximately the estimated annual expenditures of the entire Highways Department or its projects. The Highways Department is responsible for the construction, repair and maintenance of the public road network throughout the territory, and the implementation of the railway development projects, including the supervision of the construction of new railways as led by the MTR Corporation Limited and the Hong Kong Section project of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. We of course have to face up LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8305 to and conduct review on the pronounced delays and cost overruns of some projects, but any reduction of the expenditure funding of the department will certainly affect its operation and overseeing function seriously, or even lead to an halt in the construction of transport infrastructure.
(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
There is an amendment which seeks to cut the estimated annual expenditure in electricity supply in the provision of public lighting. Is this proposal going to enforce all Hong Kong people to carry out activities without streetlight at night, and thus facing the risk of road safety and public security? Some amendments propose to cut the estimated annual operating expenses of the Transport Department and the Department's estimated annual expenditures in emoluments, plant, vehicles, equipment, and so on. If the above amendments are passed, the expenses necessary for the Department to perform its overseeing function on public transport services and to provide various systems will come to a halt, including the cost of electricity, maintenance and management of all sorts of transport systems and facilities such as the Central-Mid-Levels escalator, traffic control systems, closed-circuit television systems, transport information system, Tsing Sha Control Area, Tsing Ma Control Area, government tunnels and public transport interchanges, and so on. By then, transport will be in total chaos. The Department will also be rendered unable to conduct policy research for the review and improvement of transport, such as the rationalization of traffic flow among the three cross-harbour tunnels, policy on parking spaces, and the Public Transport Strategy Study which is now underway.
An amendment proposes to cut the estimated annual expenditure on the Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities. Is this proposal targeting the elderly persons and persons with disabilities in Hong Kong, in a deliberate move to increase their burden of transport expenses?
Marine Department
The Marine Department is responsible for managing port operations in Hong Kong, ensuring safety in all Hong Kong waters as well as the smooth, safe and efficient operation of local sea-going ships, locally licensed vessels and river trade vessels. It also operates the Hong Kong Shipping Register and safeguards 8306 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 the quality of the Hong Kong registered ships. The Marine Department also carries out harbour patrol, provides vessel traffic services, and strictly complies with the requirements and standards of major international maritime conventions. The Department also provides repair and maintenance for government fleet.
There are amendments which seek to cut an amount approximately equivalent to the estimated annual expenditures for the salaries of the Department, the replacement of patrol launch, hydrographic survey launch, plant, vehicles and equipment. If the amendments are passed, the operation of the Marine Department will come to a stop, definitely leading to a severe jeopardy in sea safety and in Hong Kong's international reputation in shipping and on top of that, serious repercussions on the enforcement of security at sea and on rescue operations by the disciplined service.
Civil Aviation Department
The Civil Aviation Department provides air traffic control services, the certification of Hong Kong registered aircraft, and is responsible for the monitoring of airlines on their compliance with bilateral Air Services Agreements, the regulation of general civil aviation activities, the safety and security of airports in Hong Kong, and so on. A Member proposes an amendment to cut almost all the appropriation for the operating expenditures of the entire Civil Aviation Department. This is going to affect directly the safety of aviation, aerodrome and air passengers. Another amendment proposes to cut the estimated annual expenditure for the emoluments of two Deputy Directors-General of Civil Aviation. But we have to note that …
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Point of order. The expenditure cuts for the Civil Aviation Department belongs to the fifth joint debate in the next session. The Secretary has digressed.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please sit down.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Would the Deputy Chairman please make a ruling here?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8307
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN has pointed out that the area falls under the theme of the next debate session. However, as this particular area falls under the portfolio of the Secretary, the Secretary has the liberty to speak on issues belonging to the area in the current session. Likewise, some Members have as well expressed comments which are irrelevant to the theme of the debate session. Secretary, please continue with your speech.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Another amendment proposes to cut the estimated annual expenditure for the emoluments of two Deputy Directors-General of Civil Aviation. But we have to note that the position of one of the Directors-General is intended to be added in this financial year, for following up the recommendation made by the Legislative Council Public Accounts Committee. The function of the post is to strengthen the overall governance and administrative capability of the Civil Aviation Department, including the oversight of the administrative co-ordination necessitated by the preparation for the rollout of the new air traffic control system.
Regarding the Hong Kong International Airport's existing two-runway system, the system will soon reach its full capacity and in the face of the competition posed by neighbouring airports, the three-runway system plan is of paramount importance in relation to maintaining Hong Kong's status as a regional and international aviation hub and in terms of ensuring Hong Kong's long-term economic development. As of now, the Advisory Council on the Environment has endorsed the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA)'s environmental impact assessment report and the AA has also put forward a feasible financial arrangement proposal. There are amendments which seek to cut the estimated annual expenditure for the Airport Expansion Project Coordination Office (AEPCO) under the Transport Branch of the Transport and Housing Bureau or the consultant fees for monitoring the three-runway system plan.
I must point out that the three-runway system plan involves huge investment. It is the AA who is responsible for financial arrangement and taking the plan forward, but the Government is also responsible for ensuring that the plan is properly implemented, cost-effective and in public interest. It is necessary for the AEPCO to continue operation, including monitoring the procurement strategies for tenders and contracts, engineering technologies, management of works projects, the honouring various undertakings in the 8308 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 environmental impact assessment report, and complying with conditions set out on the environmental permit. The AEPCO must also hire professional technical consultants to help assess AA's work, including the detailed design, the provision of oversight and verification service throughout the entire construction stage.
Finally, I have to take this opportunity to clarify once again on the frequency of the Express Rail Link (XRL) upon commissioning. Some Members quoted just now a 2008 report of the China Railway SIYUAN Survey & Design Group Co Ltd (China Railway SIYUAN), saying there will only be one through train departing from the West Kowloon station to Guangzhou daily. This is inaccurate. The Transport and Housing Bureau issued a press release yesterday to clarify the relevant situation very clearly.
According to China Railway SIYUAN's final report in 2009, which provided information for planning, in the initial years of the commissioning of the XRL, there will be 114 daily train pairs of short-haul service between Hong Kong and the Shenzhen and Guangzhou areas. Sixty-one of them, or 54%, will be direct trains service without intermediate stops. On a daily basis, a total of 11 pairs ― not one pair ― of direct trains will be running between the West Kowloon Terminus and the Guangzhou South Station, at a travelling time of 48 minutes. This is what we have always been quoting, the same travelling time, without concealing anything. And there is no question of us not working in an open and transparent manner, as we were suspected of by some Members just now. Of course, the China Railway SIYUAN's consultation report is only used for reference in the establishment of the XRL project. The actual train schedule of the XRL after commissioning has yet to be discussed by the operating organizations of the two sides. As of now, the operation plan has not been finalized. I would like to state clearly here that we should not cite half-baked and incomplete information to accuse the Government of making false claims about the efficiency of the XRL while knowing clearly during project establishment that there will only be one train per day. This is not true.
With these remarks, Deputy Chairman, I call upon the Members to vote against the amendments concerned.
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I asked the Secretary in my speech the other day to give a reply on adopting a three-runway system (3RS) at the airport. He gave a brief reply just now. But the point is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8309 that first, he still maintains that the Government is duty-bound to ensure the cost-effectiveness of the 3RS. Frankly speaking, $140 billion is a huge sum in itself. How can the authorities possibly achieve cost-effectiveness? I am very doubtful about this expenditure of some $140 billion.
Building the 3RS is the idea of the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA). So, why should the Government spend $180 million on monitoring the AA? We should not forget ― and the Secretary must admit ― that the AA is a statutory body wholly owned by the Government, and the Secretary is a member on the AA Board. The AA must ensure that the 3RS is cost-effective. In that case, why should the Secretary take the unnecessary step of setting up an office under the Transport and Housing Bureau? In my view, this is unnecessary and reflects that even the Government is doubtful about the ability of the AA to achieve cost-effectiveness for the 3RS. This explains why the Government wants to set up a new office to monitor the AA.
I think that the entire arrangement is ridiculous, and the financing proposal put forth by the AA is unreasonable. I must make this point clear, because the Secretary has talked about the necessity of a reasonable financing proposal. We should not forget that the so-called "reasonable financing proposal" is actually the imposition of a levy on each departing passenger. Some have even dismissed the levy as "snatching money from passengers' wallets". The Government will charge each departing passenger a head tax of some $100. If it does not do so, the AA will be unable to obtain any bank loans. The financing proposal of the AA includes a head tax of some $100 levied on each departing passenger and also bank loans. Certainly, we should not overlook the proposed waiver of dividend payments to the Government. Actually, such dividend payments constitute an income of the public coffer. While the waiver of dividend payments to the Government cannot be regarded as an expenditure in the technical sense, the public coffer will suffer an actual loss of income. The entire financing proposal of the AA actually seeks to take advantage of Hong Kong people.
And just now, the Secretary did not reply to ― and I know that he definitely will not answer ― the question of how the airspace issue should be resolved. According to the Government, it has reached an agreement on the use of airspace with five airports, with a view to achieving the use of common standards and joint airspace planning. What will happen after standardization? Nobody knows. What will happen to the actual use of airspace? Nobody knows. Will the number of aircraft movements really reach some 100 per hour 8310 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 as asserted by the Government? Nobody knows either. If the airspace issue can be resolved, the existing two-runway system of the airport should be able to handle more than 68 flights per hour ― although the number should be some 80 flights as planned. From this, we can see that a basket of issues remains unresolved. I therefore hope that everybody can oppose the construction of the 3RS and also the unjustified and unnecessary expenditure of $180 million for the purpose of setting up an office to monitor the AA.
I want to talk about another issue. Just now, the Secretary explained that the Housing Department needed to take forward many important tasks, including its housing construction plan. We totally agree to this remark of the Secretary and think that the Government should continue to build more housing units. But the point is that the Secretary has still failed to answer our questions about his salary. Will the deletion of his post cause any major difference? Under the existing establishment of the Government, there are the Secretary and the Permanent Secretary. In some cases, the Permanent Secretary will stand in for the Secretary and take the flak in the Legislative Council. Well, I agree that the Secretary has also attended meetings sometimes. But after he has taken the flak in the Legislative Council, no progress can be seen all the same. If things show some progress after the Secretary has answered our questions, people will think that the Transport and Housing Bureau has done its job. However, the Transport and Housing Bureau is unable and has failed to deal with one fundamental issue, the issue of genuinely resolving the housing problem of Hong Kong.
In Hong Kong, tenants of "sub-divided units" have had to put up with high rents all along, and the rate of rental increase almost reaches 10% a year on average. The Government, however, has refused to formulate any rent control. Let me reiterate to the Secretary that the Labour Party demands the introduction of rent control. The Secretary's remarks seem to show that they will not introduce any rent control or rental subsidies in any case. We of course maintain the position that rent control and rental subsides must be introduced all at the same time, or else rental subsidies will only go into the pockets of property owners. We can naturally understand all this.
But instead of doing anything, the Government has only been talking about its housing construction plan, hoping that people can thus quench their thirst for housing. I am not going to talk about the next 10 years for the time being. According to the Government, its 10-year plan will lead to a substantial increase in housing supply. I do not know if this will come true by that time. But if I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8311 am asked whether the Government was able to increase housing supply in the past five years, I think the answer is "yes". The reason is that the housing supply over the past five years was 15 000 units a year on average. In one year, 20 000 units were built, and in another year, only some 9 000 units were completed.
That said, various districts in Hong Kong are now facing a major problem, especially the New Territories West. Whenever I visit Yuen Long or Tuen Mun in the New Territories West, many people from three-, four- or five-person households will ask me why they are still unable to move into public housing even after waiting for five or seven years. They are doubtful about the Government's claim that people can move into public housing after waiting for three and a half years. I wonder if the Secretary realizes that a problem will arise in the future. The problem is that in the New Territories, no … only very few new public housing units will be completed. It is certainly no true to say that no public housing units will be built, because such units will be built in Fanling. But the quantity will be very small. In contrast, Kowloon will see the completion of large numbers of such units.
At present, people on the Waiting List of public housing in the New Territories are not allowed to join the queue for public housing in Kowloon. I want the Secretary to consider one scenario. If people on the Waiting List of public housing in the New Territories are required to stay in their present queue, they will have to wait a longer time before they can move into public housing. On the contrary, if they are allowed to switch to the queue for public housing in Kowloon, their waiting time can be shortened. At present, can they switch from the queue in the New Territories to the queue in Kowloon? No. For this reason, we request the Secretary to hold discussions with the Hong Kong Housing Authority on allowing people in the queue in the New Territories to switch to the queue in Kowloon, because the queue in the New Territories is very long. True, the queues in various districts are all very long; but then we should not forget that some of the people queuing for public housing in the New Territories as I have just mentioned are still unable to move into public housing even after waiting for seven years. Don't you think this is unreasonable?
Let me continue to discuss the Appropriation Bill 2016. According to the authorities, this is the existing arrangement. Then, we must ask, "Why should we pay salaries to you people?" The public will certainly ask this question. As the Secretary has failed to achieve anything, why should we pay him any salary? 8312 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Besides, the Secretary is responsible for two policy areas ― I can only say that he is unlucky, and I am not saying that he has any personal problems. Speaking of housing, he has failed to achieve anything. And in the case of transportation, he rose to speak just now for no good reason, in an attempt to defend the Director-General of Civil Aviation and the Deputy Director-General of Civil Aviation. He said that the Deputy Director-General of Civil Aviation was very important as he was responsible for implementing the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
I think we are really miserable sometimes. When we find something wrong with the Government, we may actually end up helping the Government to create new posts, rather than rectifying problems. I think this is very ironic. I now realize that even if the Audit Commission and the PAC have detected any wastage of public money on the part of the Government, the Government may simply resort to the tactic of post creation as a means of resolving the wasteful conduct so detected. This is very ridiculous. And, this tactic of post creation is really effective. In this regard, we are honestly no match for the Government.
After the creation of the post "Deputy Director-General of Civil Aviation", the Director-General of Civil Aviation can continue with his slackness. In the case of the luggage incident, for example, the Secretary said that it was not within his portfolio. But the fact is that the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) is actually under the Transport and Housing Bureau. After spending 24 hours on "aligning their words" ― neither the CAD nor the Secretary spoke on this incident at the very beginning ― the CAD, the AA and the Aviation Security Company Limited (AVSECO) eventually came up with a consistent explanation. But their explanation is very absurd and has only served to arouse more queries. According to them, the baggage owner is not required to appear at the relevant security check. I think this explanation … The Secretary is responsible for airport management. While the Secretary claims that airport security is not within his portfolio, the transportation policy actually entails a civil aviation policy. Why can he allow our airport to degenerate into an "doorless cage" where a suitcase could be brought into the airside without having to undergo any security check in the presence of the owner under the civil aviation policy?
In fact, a repercussion of the LEUNG Chung-yan incident is that people are confused about the airport security procedures. According to them, the presence of the owner is required at the second instead of the first security check. I asked a very specific question yesterday. With the time difference of merely five LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8313 seconds between the first and the second security checks, will any baggage owner appear at the first security check if his presence is only required at the second security check? No baggage owner will do so. Yesterday, a staff member of the AVSECO said that the presence of the baggage owner was required only at the second security check if any problem was detected at the first security check. But the point is that not every passenger will appear at the security check. Isn't it right to say that some may be able to evade the security check?
What is more absurd is that when I asked him whose presence was required at the first security check, he replied that anyone would do. He was right in saying this. The reason is that except LEUNG Chung-yan, the people of Hong Kong and I are all unable to find anyone who is willing to give us a hand. How can they possibly say that this incident did not involve any use of privilege or special treatment? Afterwards, they attempted to obscure the fact by dismissing this use-of-privilege incident as a lost-and-found case. They said that 517 pieces of baggage were delivered by the relevant personnel to the airside and returned to the owners before. But we should not forget that these pieces of baggage were lost items. So, did LEUNG Chung-yan seek any assistance from the lost-and-found office? No. Members should realize that the whole incident was not a lost-and-found case as such. If her suitcase were a lost item, the case should have been handled under the lost-and-found procedures. However, this incident was not handled under the same lost-and-found procedures as in the case of those 517 lost items. Rather, it was an incident involving the use of privilege. The incident was that absurd. But the Transport and Housing Bureau has not offered any explanation.
In the final part of my speech, I want to discuss further the duty of the CAD and the Transport and Housing Bureau in civil aviation as my speech has already touched on civil aviation. Initially, I planned to talk about this issue in the next debate session. I will speak on the Marine Department (MD) in the next debate session, because I do not have enough time to also speak on the MD's procurement of vessels in this session. We support the MD's procurement of vessels, but I hope that the Secretary can tell us later on why the MD needs such a long time ― as long as several years of delay ― to procure those vessels. In our view, when putting forth all its appropriation requests, the Bureau concerned has circumscribed the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council. This is the reason why we have deliberately asked questions on its appropriation requests here, in the hope of getting an answer.
8314 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Speaking of civil aviation, many people perceive the Cathay Pacific Airways Limited (CX) as a Hong Kong airline. I wonder if the CX also shares this view, because it may consider itself to be an Asian airline. We spent huge sums of money on acquiring the fifth freedom right for the CX, and our officials likewise used their public power for this purpose. Why didn't our officials or the transportation policy require the CX to train their pilots in Hong Kong and recruit more Chinese or Hong Kong people as their pilots back then? In the absence of such requirements, the CX may import pilots from overseas. It is true that the CX has set up a training base in Australia. But how many Hong Kong people can receive training there?
Members can actually see that Hong Kong people only account for a minority of all those people who receive pilot training in the CX every year. But this is part of the civil aviation policy. The pilot profession offers quality employment opportunities. Why hasn't the Government done anything to promote these quality employment opportunities? Why does it give the CX all the freedom to recruit people from overseas instead? I once had a discussion with the CX. But the CX trampled on our local university students, saying that they simply did not have any strengths. But I do not think this is possible. If they have enough appeal …
Of course, we have also criticized the CX for discriminating against local pilots. And this is likewise the case with the Hong Kong Dragon Airlines Limited. The reason why I say so is that they have devised two different remuneration structures under which overseas pilots are entitled to housing allowances, whereas local pilots are not given such allowances. This is a major problem. However, even though the Transport and Housing Bureau is in charge of our civil aviation policy, it has not done anything to promote the above quality employment opportunities. Worse still, the Bureau concerned has turned a blind eye to the airline's discrimination against local pilots and also its age discrimination against flight attendants ― at present, the airline requires its flight attendants to retire at the age of 55. Is this reasonable?
These days, the Government talks about the need of formulating a population policy. But actually, all is just an empty talk. On the one hand, the Government claims that it encourages people over 65 years old to stay in the workforce; but on the other, it has not done anything even though it is aware that the airline which successfully obtained the fifth freedom right with government assistance practises age discrimination against its employees and forces them to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8315 retire at the age of 55. Can't all this serve as a sufficient ground for cutting the estimated expenditure for the Secretary's emoluments? The existence or otherwise of this Bureau Director post will not make any difference.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please speak.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): It should be Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's turn to speak, isn't it?
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, do you wish to speak again?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen is supposed to speak first, isn't he?
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): According to my script, it is now Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's turn to speak. Do you wish to speak again?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Fine.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, point of order. As displayed by the computer system, I am the first on the list. This is a time-limited debate. If you put my name at the end, I may not have the chance to speak. I am the first on the list, so why do you say that I am the last to speak according to the script?
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please sit down. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please speak.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
8316 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I request a headcount. Would you please discuss with the Chairman to find out why your approach is different from that he adopted earlier.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, Bureau Directors seldom sit here to listen to Members' speech. So, let me first read a poem to Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG as he looks so miserable. Members may have read this poem before: "Tears of the forsaken consorts wet their silk and satin clothes; Separation brings sadness to the young wife every day. Countless tear streaks of the mourning at Xiang-jiang; Much is the tear shed in front of Xian-shou Monument. Chao-chun leaving Zi-tai to go beyond the Great Wall in Autumn; Exhausted soldiers besieged on all sides heard the Chu song at night. Incomparable are all these to the sadness of the commoners seeing off the rich, as I walked one morning by the Ba-shui Bridge." This poem really befits him as he used to be an academic. He may still be one, only that he has switched allegiance to the Government.
What is his job after switching allegiance to the Government? He must come here to block our way for the Government. I believe that it were some 20 years ago, he would probably be sitting on this side chiding the Bureau Directors. This poem describes six kinds of feelings. Suspected of unfaithfulness, some consorts lost favour with the emperor and were even kept in confinement. Some consorts missed the emperor, and WANG Chao-chun left the country to build relations with an alien tribe; and XIANG Yu, the overlord of Chu, found himself pushed into a tight corner at night. These six feelings equally wet our eyes. The poem also portrays another kind of feeling through the words "Incomparable are all these to the sadness of the commoners seeing off the rich, as I walked one morning by the Ba-shui Bridge". This means that the saddest of all are the scholars in blue robes (clothes for commoners) who beg and see off the rich at the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8317
Ba-shui Bridge at the Chang'an entrance. Secretary, you fall into this category. LEUNG Chun-ying is not even good enough to carry your shoes, but you must be subordinated to him.
Why do I say so? First, Secretary, you have done LEUNG Chun-ying two favours. He is such a cunning person. I heard that he first intended to ask you to give you the post of Secretary for Education but in the end, you were offered the post of Secretary for Transport and Housing, and you accepted the offer. Let us just talk about the Express Rail Link (XRL) scandal. Many pro-establishment Members ask why salaries and expenditure have to be cut. I have said over and again … Mr WONG Kwok-hing has put something here. Deputy Chairman, why do you allow him to do so? When I talked about the death of people on another occasion, you ordered the staff to remove my plaque. Now, he has put a cooking pot here as a symbol showing that people do not have food, but you allow him to do so. He is not in the Chamber now. What if the cooking pot falls and injures someone? This is a real cooking pot and it may break into pieces. This is really an example of differential treatment. Deputy Chairman, I displayed a cardboard prop to mourn those workers who died in work-related accidents but you stopped me. Today, Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG, even a mere lackey can do this because of his master's power. You just have a look at that thing over there. It is allowed even though someone may get killed.
Deputy Chairman, let me come back to the issue of cost overrun. Mr WONG Kwok-hing is the most big-mouthed, most loud-mouthed, Member of this Council. But his words usually do not make any sense, and he has bad breath. Deputy Chairman, I now return to the Secretary's portfolio. First, the Secretary is kept in the dark about the cost overrun of the XRL project; he is completely ignorant of this. Let me talk nothing else but just his ignorance in this case. He is the head of the Bureau, but he is completely unaware of what is happening under him. What about those officials around him? Are they aware of the situation? When the Secretary came to the Legislative Council, he said he did not know that the problem was so serious and the project had been delayed for so long. Deputy Chairman, in ancient times, officials would make informal inspection visits. Has the Secretary done so? He has not. What is the system outlined in the response given by the authorities in the Legislative Council? The authorities pay the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) for undertaking an expensive project, and the MTRCL sends staff to hold meetings with the 8318 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 authorities in the office. Deputy Chairman, were you with us when we visited the XRL site the last time? All was already a fait accompli by that time. Since they could no longer hide it, they could only let us have a look. It was then that we realized what a mess it was. Should the Secretary bear any responsibility? I think he should.
After our visit, the MTRCL claimed it should not be held responsible. The position of the SAR Government was very weak, and it neither prosecuted the MTRCL nor disclose the truth. Instead, it sided with the MTRCL in bringing up an outrageous proposal, asking the Legislative Council to approve an additional funding of $10-odd billion for meeting all the extra cost, and this was followed by a financing trick of giving money. Deputy Chairman, we find this proposal ridiculous. I hope the Government can think it over carefully. It should first resolve the "co-location of immigration and customs facilities" issue before pressing ahead with the project. No one heeds our opinion. When we filibuster, the pro-establishment camp accuses us of ruining Hong Kong.
Deputy Chairman, as recently reported by the Ming Pao Daily News, there would only be one XRL through train every day, and this is also the case with Guangzhou-bound trains. I do not know if the Secretary has read the newspaper report. Whenever we make even a very small mistake in what we say, the Secretary will immediately issue a statement. Now, the newspaper … He has already given a reply? See. Deputy Chairman, the Secretary is not such a thick-skinned person after all. I like him. Although he argues with me, at least he gives his response. Deputy Chairman, since the Secretary has said so, I will not pursue this.
Okay. The other issue, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HKZMB), is also like this. The HKZMB has drifted again and there is new fatality … Where is Mr WONG Kwok-hing? Despite the drifting and new fatality, the authorities still asked us for funding. The funding has been approved. How can we monitor the project in that case? I have no idea how Mr WONG Kwok-hing is going to compensate those workers who lost their lives. Deputy Chairman, these two pivotal projects under the charge of the Secretary have experienced delay and fatal accidents. The situation is literally out of control. They are not the end of the list as there is still the three-runway system (3RS), which comes with a price tag of at least $140 billion. I will spare my comments on whether the 3RS can really achieve the Government's expected effect. In LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8319 other words, I will reserve my comments on whether the marginal efficiency of an additional runway will really be as high as expected by the Government. But I must still talk about the issue of airspace, which is still unresolved.
Deputy Chairman, you also own a company. Suppose your subordinate tells you that he has been holding discussions with a company since 2007 on the possible purchase of a building in Central. But he also tells you that he is not sure if the fire escape and power supply system of the building can meet the requirements, or if the washrooms have any flush water. Yet, he tells you that they already held discussion in 2007 and agreed on the tackling of all these matters in 2017 or before 2016. If all these matters are still unresolved now, will you still spend any money on buying this building? Of course you will not. You will dismiss that subordinate because he is doing you harm. Let us suppose that the Secretary wants to buy a flat, and he actually started negotiations on purchasing one particular apartment as early as 2007. At that time, he noticed that plaster was peeling off from the ceiling, water was dripping from the taps, the door lock was damaged and there was no fire escape. But he paid a deposit in 2007 anyway. Suppose the apartment is still dilapidated or under renovation today and the vendor refuses to tell the Secretary the progress of renovation, what will he do? Suppose the other party insists that he already made a solid promise at the meeting in 2007 to fix all these problems, what will the Secretary do? Of course, he will not buy the flat, right?
Deputy Chairman, one need not be erudite in order to be a government official, only that one must not rashly do anything which runs counter to common sense, especially when it comes to a project that involves a huge amount of public money. Over and over again, many people have asked me: "Long Hair, why do you have to filibuster over the XRL project?" My reply to them is that they do not understand. We have already spent $60-odd billion but they now want us to spend another $10-odd billion. The whole thing is very simple. Let us suppose that I have agreed to buy a flat from you at the transaction price of roughly $6-odd million. Then, when the date of occupation draws near, you suddenly tell me that there is something wrong with the construction and I must lend you $1-odd million, so that you can fix the problems before handing over the unit to me. Would I agree? Of course not. So, the Secretary is unable to deal important business. And, this immediately reminds of the last two sentences of the poem I cited earlier: "Incomparable are all these to the sadness of the commoners seeing off the rich, as I walked one morning by the Ba-shui Bridge."
8320 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
This immediately reminds me of the "Addams Family of Hong Kong", the trouble caused by LEUNG Chun-ying at the airport. Secretary, you must come to his rescue in the end, even though it was only a trivial matter. Anyone who has just the slightest sense of shame and good manners will never resort to his privilege and social status simply because of a piece of luggage of his family member. He is already such a mess in handling important business, and when it comes to trivial matters, this "Addams Family of Hong Kong" … Deputy Chairman, do you understand what is meant by "Addams Family of Hong Kong"? "Addams Family" was a television drama screened by Television Broadcast Limited in the past. All members of this family are weirdos. Our Chief Executive's family the "Addams Family of Hong Kong". They resort to privileges and cause conflicts on their trips. The Secretary is altogether vague on this incident. So far, the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) under him has not offered a clear explanation. Of course, the CAD is not directly responsible. Rather, the organization that should held responsible is the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA), which is in turn regulated by the CAD. Since the AA is a statutory body, it is natural that we cannot hold it accountable. There is nothing we can do. However, why is it that to date, the authorities still cannot provide a clear account of what exactly happened that day?
Deputy Chairman, Secretary, I have heard another lie. The patriarch of the "Addams Family of Hong Kong", that is LEUNG Chun-ying the Liar, has issued another statement, claiming that the report of the AA does not mention any use of overbearing language on his part over the telephone that made the female Cathay Pacific employee who answered the telephone call cry. This is obviously a perfectly safe statement. If the female employee can really be located later, or suppose someone really turned up at "the maddest ever press conference" held by David CHU earlier today and admitted that someone did cry that day and she was the one, then, Deputy Chairman, LEUNG would definitely say something like "I have not said I have not dug a hole". He said the report did not mention that he abused his privilege and made someone cry. Yet, he did not say that he actually had not done so. He just said that the report did not mention that. Deputy Chairman, these words tell us that he is telling a "white lie".
I have one question for Anthony CHEUNG. Can he ask the AA to provide all the CCTV recordings that day? This question was asked yesterday but the authorities declined for security reasons. This is nonsense, a lie. I will not watch those recordings. Since security is cited as the reason, what about LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8321 asking Andrew LI to watch them, so as to find out if someone really cried and whether Lobster really tried to force her way through. Does he have the guts? He does not. "Incomparable are all these to the sadness of the commoners seeing off the rich, as I walked one morning by the Ba-shui Bridge". So, he has to clean someone's buttocks and shine his shoes every day.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): The wrongdoings of the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) ― especially the Director-General of Civil Aviation ― are too numerous to record, yet the Transport and Housing Bureau has still sought to defend them. Today, the Secretary for Transport and Housing even jumps the gun to defend them. Let me repeat that the issues related to the CAD are actually under head 28, which should be dealt with in the fifth debate session. Of course, I hope the Secretary will stay here to listen to the next debate because I believe many Members will speak on the CAD in the next debate session. If you have any response to make concerning our proposal of cutting the remunerations of the Deputy Director-General of Civil Aviation, you may jot down some notes and hand them to the next Secretary assigned to answer our questions, instead of hastening to oppose our proposal before we even speak on it. In fact, we also want to cut the remunerations of the Director-General of Civil Aviation, but we will wait and make a clear proclamation in the next debate session.
Of course, this debate session is also related to the airport. I of course support the amendments moved by Mr Gary FAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan to cut the estimated expenditure relating to "Monitoring and Verification Services Consultancy for the detailed design and construction stages of the Three-Runway System Project", totalling $35.9 million. However, as the Secretary himself jumped the gun first, I can understand why Mr LEE Cheuk-yan also jumped the gun and said a few words just now. In fact, 11 amendments on this part have been moved by Members; they are only speaking for the second time, but this is already the last time they can speak. There will be another 11 amendments on the next part. Actually, besides the CAD, I also want to talk about the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, the Intellectual Property Department and the Innovation and Technology Bureau, but I just cannot speak for too long. However, the Secretary does not need to jump the gun, because he is not subject to any speaking time limit. In contrast, Members must be very economical with their speeches. They can only speak once or twice at most, so they must express all their views in a nutshell. I am glad to see 8322 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 that pro-establishment Members are speaking enthusiastically today and I appreciate that. Yet, I must first respond to the fallacies of pro-establishment Members.
First of all, the Committee of the whole Council must deal with a total of 407 amendments this time around, and these 407 amendments have all survived President Jasper TSANG's rulings, which have slashed a total of 2 168 amendments. All the amendments deemed frivolous by him have been slashed. The 407 amendments that we are now dealing with are procedurally in order. Therefore, if you oppose these amendments, you need not debate them here. You should instead write a complaint letter directly to President Jasper TSANG and point out the amendments which he has wrongly approved. Moreover, please do not describe everything as filibustering. Filibustering no longer exists ― please allow me to say "no longer exists", the pet phrase of LEUNG Chun-ying. It is because the President has already said that in any case, voting will commence next week.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing was even worse, as he claimed that a total war of filibuster was waged in the Public Works Subcommittee, the Establishment Subcommittee and the Finance Committee. Filibuster is likewise his pet phrase. But was there really any filibuster? He was also in those meetings. Actually, in the meeting of the Public Works Subcommittee held on last Saturday, Members from the pro-establishment camp and the pan-democratic camp raised a lot of questions about a swimming pool project and a library project. The discussion lasted three hours. This morning, how many questions did Members from The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions raise in the discussion on the Public Transport Interchange at Sham Shui Po? They even said that they would not let the project pass if no lavatory was added to it. I do appreciate Members' participation. It is very good that Members all showed their attitudes and stances in order to force the Government to do its part. How can one describe such participation as filibuster? Was there any filibuster in the Public Works Subcommittee? Nothing of the sort! Was there any filibuster in the Establishment Subcommittee? Nothing of the sort! At present, the Finance Committee is up and running as usual. Please do not display the clay cooking pot and the safety helmet and refer to filibuster as a means of misleading people.
In addition, I must respond to the speech of Mr CHAN Kam-lam. Two amendments in this debate session are related to the Water Supplies Department (WSD), and one of them is about cutting a sum equivalent to the annual estimated LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8323 expenditure of the WSD for the purchase of water. Just now Mr CHAN Kam-lam said that some of our colleagues conducted a duty visit in Singapore. The Singaporean officials wondered why we still wanted to visit Singapore's desalination plant despite our cheap and clean water supply from Dongjiang River. First, Mr CHAN Kam-lam did not join the Singapore trip. Mr IP Kwok-him of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong joined the Singapore trip, but he came back to attend the Executive Council's meeting after just one day. Mr LEUNG Che-cheung went there too, and I was there all the way. But I did not hear any Singaporean officials ask such a silly question.
Why do I think that they would not have asked such a question? Singapore also has cheap and clean water supply from Malaysia, but why does Singapore still want to invest so much resources in developing its own desalination and water reclamation facilities? They have even set the very ambitious aim of doing away with its reliance on Malaysia's water supply in the next 30 years. In fact, Singapore's development of desalination and water reclamation facilities is not purely motivated by financial and cost-effectiveness considerations. Rather, there are also national defence and strategic considerations. This issue is even elevated to the level of national education ― how the state must satisfactorily tackle the issue of water supply for its people and do away with any reliance on foreign countries, so that even if foreign countries cause any trouble in the future, the people will not need to worry about anything.
At present, we in Hong Kong are reflecting on whether we have purchased too much Dongjiang water and become over-reliant on this source of water supply, so we conducted a duty visit in Singapore. Singaporean officials could well understand and appreciate the reason for your interest, though they somehow stopped short telling us that the money they spent on water reclamation and desalination was much more than the cost of purchasing water from Malaysia. But then, why do they still want to bring in replacement and do away with their reliance on Malaysia? It is because Singaporeans are far-sighted. Therefore, we need to learn from Singapore and go there to find out and explore why its desalination and water reclamation technology can even be exported to create economic value. Our visit to the water supply facilities of Singapore has nothing to do with any intended abandonment of Dongjiang water, anti-China sentiments and departure from the Mainland anymore.
8324 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Furthermore, this is the first time I speak on cutting the estimated expenditure of the Buildings Department (BD). Of course I agree with Mr Tony TSE's view that the BD is understaffed and does not have sufficient resources. At every special meeting of the Finance Committee, I invariably asked the Director of Buildings or the Secretary for Development if they needed any manpower increase. I have these words for the BD: what should be demolished is not demolished and what should be approved is not approved. Since the BD is understaffed, the issue of Mr CHAN Kam-lam's unauthorized building works (UBWs) has been dragging on for a long time. I do not know if his case has been solved. Anyway, the BD will not handle any UBWs as long as they do not pose any immediate danger. However, due to this principle of not handling any UBWs which pose no immediate danger, UBWs have been getting bigger in size and thus more rock-steady and less likely to collapse. I once mentioned a case in which a small house of 400 to 500 sq ft was illegally expanded into a luxurious home measuring 4 000 sq ft. It is rock-steady and will not collapse even in an earthquake. It therefore poses no immediate danger and has not been handled so far.
Furthermore, what I want to support is Amendment No 144 proposed by Mr Gary FAN, which is about the estimated annual emolument expenditure of a dedicated section under the Railway Development Office (RDO) of the Highways Department (HyD) which takes up the planning and implementation of the proposed Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) project. The amount is $15.6 million. Secretary, speaking of the two scandalous projects of the XRL and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) ― which you will not call "white elephants" ― we would think that you should really step down voluntarily, not to mention having all your salaries deducted. The XRL is not only a "white elephant" but also a big scam. The cost of constructing the railway works has increased from $55.0175 billion to $70.405 billion, with a cost overrun of $15.3 billion; and the cost of constructing the non-railway works has increased from $11.8 billion to $16 billion, with a cost overrun of $4.2 billion. The total cost overrun is $19.5 billion. The completion of the project has been delayed from 2017 to the third quarter of 2018, and this is a tentative target. They just wanted to secure the funding first. In case anything goes wrong and the commissioning of the XRL is delayed, nobody will go after the Secretary ― unless he comes and asks for extra funding.
Today, several Members have raised the point that the Secretary has already issued a statement in response to a press report on XRL travel time. I wish to make my point clear in the few minutes left in my speaking time. In the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8325 past, the Government kept bragging that the XRL was very efficient in terms of cost and travel time, saying that a train journey between the West Kowloon Terminus (WKT) and Guangzhou would only be 48 minutes ― we have always questioned this figure. Later, it said that a non-stop train journey would take 48 minutes, but if the train made en-route stops or if more en-route stops were made, the time would increase. However, I do not know if any Member ever asked how many non-stop trains would be operated every day. Several days ago, Ming Pao Daily News published an internal document released in 2009, which quoted the words of the China Railway SIYUAN Survey & Design Group Co Ltd ― the Secretary shorted it as the China Railway SIYUAN, and the intention was of course to highlight the figures. It is reported that only one non-stop through train to Guangzhou South Station would be operated every day. Specifically, there would be totally eight non-stop trains a day, but only one train would be a non-stop train from WKT to Guangzhou South Station, while there would be seven non-stop trains to Shenzhen. There would be 190 daily trains, but just 4% of them are non-stop. Most of the XRL trains are not non-stop trains. This means that only one train would attain the journey time of 48 minutes, while the remaining 96% have to make en-route stops. Yet, I do not know if they will make two or three stops.
Later, the Transport and Housing Bureau issued a press release in which it withheld the name of Ming Pao Daily News and made a clarification regarding its report that most of the XRL trains would not be through trains. The press release emphasized that what had been reported were only the operating details proposed by the China Railway SIYUAN Survey & Design Group Co Ltd, and the document was for reference only. See, whenever the public find any problems with what the Government says, it will say, "It is just a mere proposal intended for reference only." The case of the Public Engagement Leaflet ― Lantau Development is just like this. We criticized that all the proposals would not work, and even the pro-establishment camp said that sunrise/sunset tours to the Sunset Peak should not be promoted, because the construction of too many facilities would be a bad idea. As a result, the Secretary for Development said all the proposals were just meant to elicit public views and discussions. He also said that no discussions could be possible if these proposals were not put forward, but they might not necessarily be implemented.
However, the Transport and Housing Bureau pointed out in its response that according to the final report of the China Railway SIYUAN in 2009 ― I do not want to mention its full name any more ― there would be 90 and 24 short-haul train pairs between Hong Kong and Shenzhen and between Hong 8326 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Kong and Guangzhou respectively in the initial stage XRL operation. It was mentioned for the first time that of those 114 daily train pairs of short-haul services, 61 pairs or about 54% would be direct trains. Years back, the Government frequently bragged that there would only be 11 pairs of direct trains running between the WKT and Guangzhou South Station. This means less than 10% of the total train service. The Secretary clarified that there would be more than one through train, but what about its cost effectiveness?
An associate professor of the Department of Geography of the University of Hong Kong, who studies urban transport and planning in Chinese cities, points out that the return rate of the XRL will be mainly constituted by passengers' time costs savings. I remember that in the meetings of the relevant Panel and even the Public Works Subcommittee and the Finance Committee, a lot of Members also raised certain questions, and one of the areas of discussion was in that direction. If most of the trains departing from the WKT in future are short-haul and non-direct trains, then the rate of return is really not that high. However, some academics say that we should take a macroscopic view of that when we calculate the benefits brought by the XRL. We should also take into account the economic benefits brought by the connectivity between the XRL and the Mainland's high speed railway system. In this connection, I really do not know how to calculate. I do not know whether there will really be a great boom, but I only know that we should not only calculate the time cost. In that case, the Government simply should not have discussed that with us at the outset. But the Secretary still told us that since the XRL would bring a great boom and co-prosperity, we must support its construction. But please do not try to convince us and make a 48-minute train journey the selling point. Since the day we started the discussion on the XRL, we have always thought that the officials in charge of the XRL project, whether in the previous Government or the present one, all owe the public an explanation.
Therefore, because of the XRL project, we should not simply talk about Mr Gary FAN's Amendment No 144 on cutting the expenditure of the HyD. We should also include the expenditure heads involving the Secretary for Transport and Housing, meaning Amendment No 365 and Amendment No 366 relating to the estimated annual salary expenditure for the Secretary for Transport and Housing. The Secretary's annual salary is $3.58 million. I initially also wanted to talk about the cost overrun of HZMB and the drift of the artificial island, but I am running out of time.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8327
I wish to report once again the cost overrun situation of HZMB: the cost of the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities has increased from $30.4 billion to $35.8 billion, with a cost overrun of $5.4 billion. The cost of the Hong Kong Link Road has increased from $16.1 billion to $25 billion, with a cost overrun of $8.8 billion. The total cost overrun is $14.2 billion, comparable to that of the XRL project. Its completion has already been deferred to late 2017 (The buzzer sounded) … but nobody knows if it will be able to commission by then …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Your speaking time is up, please stop.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I initially expected the Secretary to say something on those issues falling within his portfolio. In fact, in this debate session, we have expressed many strong views on the Government's planning and environmental policies. Unfortunately, the Government simply does not attach any importance to these discussions and only sends Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG to take the flak here.
Nevertheless, honestly, it is very hard for us to say anything to defend the Secretary. The Secretary is an intellectual and often called a professor. And, because of his academic background, we hope very strongly that he can discuss all the issues objectively. If we look at the several projects he is in charge of, the Express Rail Link (XRL), the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) and the three-runway system (3RS), we will see that these projects are just like three daggers threatening Hong Kong people, and each dagger has indeed cut very deeply into us. The cost overrun of the XRL is almost $20 billion, and the project has been scandal-ridden ever since it was first established. The Secretary said he would clarify a lot of issues, including the earlier report by Ming Pao Daily News. He clarified that the consultant report of the China Railway SIYUAN Survey & Design Group Co Ltd was for reference only. But when will the Government disclose the figures? The Government did not give any reply during the discussions of the Finance Committee and Public Works Subcommittee, and government officials simply evaded whatever questions we asked ― questions on future arrangements, the "co-location arrangements", the revenue or how to split the income with the Mainland, or whether the trains were to be controlled by Hong Kong or Guangzhou ― and they refused to give any answers as much as possible. If the Government has not been so dishonest and if it has not kept telling lies, the media will not seek to uncover so many things.
8328 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Since the Government has been hiding so many things, many scandals have arisen. Why have problems with the XRL kept emerging? Cost overrun is not the only problem, and there are all sorts of problems in the course of construction, including corroded rails, water seepage inside the tunnels, and the question of whether the railway can be connected properly. Will the Government tell us the whole truth? Of course it will not. How many residents living along the proposed rail line are affected? Please include residents living in the old tenement buildings in Tai Kok Tsui, West Kowloon, who found cracks on the walls in their buildings, and the owners of fish ponds and variegated carp farms located in rural Yuen Long. We all know that all variegated carp farms along the proposed rail line have dried up and farmers can no longer breed any fish.
This Government is completely dishonest. Let us take the HZMB as an example. So many workers have died, yet the Secretary can still … not just you, and the Secretary for Labour and Welfare also said the same thing. He said that workers who fell overboard should not be counted, because they did not fall from the bridge, and they just fell overboard from barges. But the dead are already dead, and what is the use of counting in such deaths? These "white elephant" projects led by the Government are constantly rushing along to meet deadlines. These "white elephant" projects that keep reporting cost overrun have taken away not only the lives of workers but also the precious assets of Hong Kong people. Yet, the Government is clever. Since yesterday, it started to "cry wolf" and said that its tax revenue was declining and we must beware of this. And, following this, some people now start to propose the introduction sales tax or tax increases in Hong Kong. However, the Government is actually the culprit. I do not know how much benefit Hong Kong can get from these "political white elephant projects" meant to dovetail with the development in the Mainland. Much of such benefit is based on mere computation or pure fabrication. For example, how much travelling time can the XRL save? It is said that the time can be reduced from 110 minutes to 48. How much money can thus be saved? A very rough figure is put forward after haphazard computations. But then it is found that the figure is a gross exaggeration and there will not be such a big saving of travelling time. The truth has all been exposed.
Secretary Prof CHEUNG, you may refuse to accept any blame and say that you have nothing to do with the problems because you just took over the unfinished job of your predecessor. But, as a political figure, you should know the workings of the accountability system, right? Whether the responsibility is entirely yours is not so important, and the point is that as the person holding this post … You might have jumped at the offer when you were invited to accept the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8329 post of Secretary for Transport and Housing back then, or you might have been forced by LEUNG Chun-ying to accept that position. You really do not care and do not know which was the case. You two brothers just sort it out behind closed doors. Oh, sorry, I must say I do not know if you two really regard each other as brother; we really do not know. But when you assumed office and took charge of the Bureau, you should be able to see this complete mess. So, how can you say that you are not to be held responsible? Every time your departmental subordinate, the Director of Highways, attends our meetings, he will always say that he knows nothing about this and that. He will not give any answers and will tell us that he needs to seek expert advice in his department. In fact, everybody knows that he does not have the ability to manage and monitor such a large-scale project. And, let us not forget who are behind these projects. Many of the contractors have a China background, and perhaps they are even enterprises directly owned by Grandpa. How can he afford to offend them? The China Harbour Engineering Co Ltd will not need to face any punishment and consequence despite any gigantic cost overrun, any prolonged delay, any drifting of the artificial island and any numbers of worker fatalities. Our government officials will just need to do a little something in their offices, such as putting them on the observation list or imposing a tendering ban to bar these contractors from bidding the next project, and then the issue is deemed to have been dealt with. Nevertheless, these companies have already made a profit of nearly $100 billion. Should the authorities still invite them to submit tenders in the future?
The Government, the Highways Department under the Secretary, has put our hard-earned money, totally some $200 billion, into a number of "white elephant" projects, including the new boundary control point at Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai. All this is our hard-earned money. If the Government can now put the money into hospital construction, for example, this $200 billion will be enough for meeting the expenditure of 10 years, right? But instead of doing so, Government has only said that it may provide 5 000 additional beds. This is just a verbal promise, and we just do not know if this will really come true. And, we need not mention universal retirement protection. The Government is a double-dealer with absolutely no conscience. It has forced us to go ahead with the projects and made a soft touch of us. It can choose to be a soft touch any time it wants to. But why must it make all Hong Kong people a soft touch like it? We now see cost overruns, delays and all sorts of empty talks and promises that are never honoured. It has failed to honour all its promises, for both the XRL or HZMB projects.
8330 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
He is now sitting in this Chamber … I mean YAU Shing-mu is sitting in this Chamber. We wanted him to tell us the revised throughput projection of the HZMB. He simply refused to answer. He insisted that we should approve the funding request first and then he would tell us the figure by end of this year. I can tell you that once after getting over this hurdle, the Government will no longer be under any check by the end of this year. Why is the Government so despicable? Why does the Government always resort to such tricks, or such rascally tricks?
Let me cite the cost overrun of the XRL as an example. The MTR Corporation Limited (MTR) is not entirely without any responsibility in this regard, but it has come up with a stupid idea. It has sought to resolve the problem by playing the financial trick of distributing special dividends, giving the Government and itself a fig leaf and seeking to create the impression that no public money is used. However, this is not the case. The $19.9 billion is public money. Now the MTR is forced to secure loans and pay interests.
In respect of housing, what comes to the minds of Hong Kong people most immediately must be the prevalence of "sub-divided units" in recent years. The Transport and Housing Bureau has become the "Bureau for Sub-divided Units and the Cost Overrun and Delay of Transport Projects". Perhaps the Secretary needs to change his title, too. The people of Hong Kong are greatly disappointed at all the projects undertaken by the Bureau, be they the building of bridges, the XRL or housing construction.
What is more … Paul CHAN is not in this Chamber. I do not know where he is. In fact, many Members have already said that he should present himself for the sake of accountability. He has been lying on everything about the planning policy or land policy of Hong Kong ever since he assumed office. First, he refused to disclose the number of brownfields. MAK Chai-kwong had to quit the post of Bureau Director because of a prosecution case, but he was at least willing to tell the truth the first time he spoke in this Council. He said there were about 2 000 hectares of idle land. However, the Government did not show any response and simply brushed aside the figure as if it was fabricated. People have been filling up fish ponds earth, so that they can have an excuse for changing their land use. The green landscape of farmlands has been changed completely by large property developers and people of influence. A very outrageous plan has even been rolled out ― land exchange. But this plan is exclusive to landowners possessing the required quantities of land, and only those who have 400 hectares of land can apply for land exchange. Therefore, all large LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8331 property developers have been doing all they can to drive away the indigenous residents and tenants living on those lands with government permission for development. In fact, what the Government has done is to create a loophole, so that property developers can make use of land exchange to earn as much profit as possible from Hong Kong people.
This is not all. On the excuse that there is a shortage of land, the Government has also done everything possible to take forward the Concept Plan for Lantau Development. On the surface, the plan is about both conservation and development, but anyone with a discerning eye can see that it is actually a plan for the ruining of Lantau Island. To begin with, after all this time, North Lantau has gradually become a developed town. Serious damage has already been done to the natural environments of Tung Chung, the Tung Chung New Town and the future Yam O reclamation area. Well, however, since the change has already taken place and there are undeniably certain improvements, we can still tolerate the situation. But the point is that the Government still wants to go on with the ruining of South Lantau by widening the South Lantau Road and doing everything possible to change the land use of country park areas, including Sunset Peak, Pui O, Shui Hau, Tai O, and so on. Many Hong Kong people perceive all of these proposals as nothing attempts to ruin the natural environment. The Government has even made a furtive attempt to include in the consultation document the development of the East Lantau Metropolis, which we will never agree to. Its avowed purpose is to construct roads, one involving reclamation and running from Central Lantau to Hong Kong Island, and the other going through the heart of Lantau Island all the way to Tuen Mun.
We all know that the real concern of the Government is not transport planning. In fact, there is a similar case. The Government wants to develop Hung Shui Kiu, and bring in an additional population of 170 000 people from more than 60 000 households in the future. But from a document recently released by the MTR, we all know that the passenger volume of the West Rail during peak hours has already exceeded its capacity. However, the Government says that this is not a problem as train frequencies will be increased gradually. But the frequency increase can only tackle the existing problem. In future, Hung Shui Kiu will have to accommodate an additional population of 170 000 people. How is the Government going to tackle the situation then? Can it just ignore the problems? Or, is it going to defer planning until the time really comes? The Government has always been behaving like this. It always thinks that the very first thing to do must be the relocation of a large population to a place designated for development. Those relying on the West Rail are mostly 8332 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 grass-roots people, notably public housing tenants. These people have no alternatives as they are living in "sub-divided units". When public housing units are available in Hung Shui Kiu, can they choose to reject the offer? If they reject the offer, they must go on waiting and continue to live "sub-divided units". As a result, they can only yield and become "trailblazers" of Hung Shui Kiu, putting up the overcrowding on the West Rail. Such tragedies have kept occurring over the past decade or two as a result government planning transport policies.
If the Government is really pragmatic, if the Secretary is a genuine academic, it will not necessary for us to mention these erroneous policies repeatedly. But have they addressed such problems? The Government's responses have shown nothing but complacency. It does not admit its errors and keeps defending its mistakes. For that reason, it is impossible for us not to propose amendments to the Budget (The buzzer sounded) …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Your speaking time is up, please stop.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): … I so submit.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yuk-man, do you wish to speak again?
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, this is my second speech in this debate session. In my last speech, I mentioned the Transport and Housing Bureau, and my amendment is to cut the remuneration of the Secretary for Transport and Housing.
We can all see that pro-establishment Members have all been fussing up and down responding to these amendments. They wonder how government officials can possibly carry on their work if their remunerations are cut. Honestly, whenever we debate the expenditure estimates of the Budget during the Committee stage, Members will always propose amendments, right? This is the case every year. This can provide a platform for us to air our views, and pro-establishment Members can refute any arguments they do not buy. This is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8333 what we call a debate. As Bureau Directors listen to our speeches in the Chamber, they can make their own judgment, right? I do not understand why these Members should fuss up and down. Besides, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, who is sitting here, again accuses us of filibustering. Are we filibustering now? Already, there ceased to be any filibustering last year, right? On 11 May this year, we must vote on the amendments. Can there still be any filibustering in that case? Hence, I am really puzzled. Are we filibustering now? This basically is not filibustering.
The Secretary is now present. The Secretary was present in the Chamber the whole morning. Maybe he is not very busy today, so he could sit here the whole morning. However, I have been observing the Secretary. Even when I was watching television upstairs, I also did so. The Secretary has not been listening very attentively to the speeches of Members. The reason is very simple and I do not blame him. It is because the level of the debate is really very low. This also applies to pro-establishment Members, as they are simply unable to get to the heart of the matter. The Secretary is therefore bored. Members simply keep repeating the same viewpoints and saying the same words. They say the same things every year. You also said so earlier on.
In brief, the Secretary is not interested in listening to us. But even so, he should still listen carefully to Members' speeches and then respond seriously. Is there any project undertaken by the Secretary's Bureau that does not cost us huge sums of money? Secretary, please tell me. We are now talking about money, about expenditure, and we want to cut the several million dollars of remuneration of the Secretary. What we are discussing now is all about money. Within the portfolio of the Bureau for which the Secretary is supposed to be held accountable, there are a number of major infrastructure projects (Let us not talk about the projects under the Development Bureau for the time being). All these projects ― the Shatin to Central Link project, the Express Rail Link (XRL) project, and also the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge project ― have recorded cost overrun. Secretary, can you name any project which does not record any cost overrun?
Some people say that workers in Hong Kong must be rescued, as they are unable to have any income due to our filibustering. This accusation is simply far-fetched. How is it related to the Budget? Are we filibustering now? What we are discussing at present is all about money. Roughly calculated, the sum is at least over $100 billion. How much money is $100 billion? 8334 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, can you please tell me how many public housing units and hospitals can be built? How many residential care homes can be built for the elderly? Every year, 5 000 to 6 000 elderly people pass away while waiting for places in residential care homes. Let me tell you people, a bit rudely perhaps, that your hands are all dripping with the blood of others.
I have recently read an article. I think the Secretary should really read it, or perhaps he has already read it. If he has read it but feels nothing, he does not deserve to be called an intellectual, one of the intellectual elite, a professor and a scholar. He definitely has to read this article. This article was written by Mr LAM Chiu-ying, a former Director of the Hong Kong Observatory. On 29 April when the Government announced the reclamation work for the construction of the third airport runway, he uploaded an article to his Facebook page. The title of the article is "Letter to the Hong Kong people in 2036: We are Sorry!" In the article, he uses "we", as he thinks that we, including him, are unable to stop Hong Kong from falling, and he is also to blame for that. He thus uses "we". But in fact, he is referring to "you people", the powerful and influential people who can use huge amounts of money for the "white elephant" construction projects. I now quote one to two paragraphs of the article to the Secretary.
He says, "Today, the Government announces its approval of the reclamation work for the construction of the third runway. We, who are concerned about the future of Hong Kong, have already done our very best, but are still unable to hold back this project.
"We people of this generation cannot retain the nice hills or rivers of Hong Kong for you. We are sorry.
"We know only money. We have been brainwashed, and we blindly believe that spending money on 'infrastructure construction' will bring about 'economic development'. We also have the mistaken belief that GDP increase will improve people's livelihood, and that the 'prosperity' expressed in terms of money will bring about social stability. We have been plunged into one black hole after another by all the works projects. We have spent astronomical sums of money on levelling hills and reclamation, boring tunnels, building massive bridges and constructing tall buildings, making never-ending efforts to turn Hong Kong into the gigantic concrete city it is now. All such money could have been used to do a lot of good to your generation. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8335
"We people of the present generation talk about 'sustainable development', but we talk less about social development and basically do not talk about environmental development. We obstinately define 'development' as 'economic development', and distort 'sustainable development' as 'sustainable building construction' and 'sustainable GDP increase', thus deviating from the genuine livelihood needs of the masses.
"We have completely overlooked the fact that life requires quality, richness, fun, dignity and meaning. Guided by erroneous principles, we have disregarded the objective parameters defined by our geography and history, and kept building this and that with flawed justifications and means. In the course of all this, we have inevitably eaten away the natural environment, causing harm to many marine and terrestrial creatures."
The above is only part of the article. At the end, he says, "2036 is 20 years from now. By then, the concrete-built area of Hong Kong will be much larger, and the natural ecosystems will have shrunk accordingly. I do not dare to imagine how your life will be like. I can only give you my apology. For the selfishness and stupidity of our generation, and also for my inability, I ask for your forgiveness."
These words should have come from Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG. I am not sure whether he has read this article. If not, I will advise him to do so. If he has read it but feels nothing … What LAM Chiu-ying says is an exact description of what the Secretary has been doing all this time. All these "white elephant" projects have experienced cost overrun one after another. We Hong Kong people are made to put our hard-earned money over the decades into in these projects, only to find that our next generation are to be confined to a stuffy concrete jungle. Such is the sin committed by all those people.
Therefore, we should understand why some Hong Kong youngsters born after the new millennium and in the 1990s want to rebel, and why they want to voice their vision and advocate "Hong Kong independence" in preparation for 2047 and for the future of their next generation and themselves. The Secretary and people of his generation are to blame. This article from LAM Chiu-ying is to apologize to the people in 2036, but what about the people in 2047?
8336 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Today, those university students who ask for self-determination are only about or even less than 20 years old. By 2047, they will be in their prime and have their children, but their living environment will have been destroyed by you people. Therefore, the issue that we are discussing today is not only about expenditure and the Budget. All the money spent by the authorities now and in recent years is money wasted.
In my first speech, I focused on the XRL. At this moment, I would like to talk about the three-runway system (3RS) of the airport. After reading LAM Chiu-ying's article, I have prepared some materials. However, this is how the present Legislative Council is like. Two weeks ago, I was tied up in court because of that bastard and could not come back to speak in the meeting. Now I can come back, but only one debate session is left for me to speak. Hence, I want to race against time and speak as much as possible.
LAM Chiu-ying is strongly against the 3RS. When the Government accepted the proposal and announced the reclamation work that day, he wrote that article. I only quoted part of that article just now. I hope that Prof Anthony CHEUNG can really think it all over when he goes back. A few years ago, he accepted the position of Secretary for Transport and Housing. It is natural for outstanding scholars to join the officialdom. When a scholar decides to join the officialdom, he must want to do something for Hong Kong. We will not query his motive. Nevertheless, after the three years or so, when he looks back, can he say that he has already achieved his purpose? Has he done anything which is of contribution to Hong Kong people? And, is any such contribution greater than the contribution which he can otherwise make by teaching students and doing research in an academic institution? He should make an evaluation himself.
As a Legislative Council Member and advocate of public opinions, I have been observing his performance over the past few years. Frankly speaking, we have both taught in university. He is a scholar, and was once a university professor and even the President of the Hong Kong Institute of Education. I do not deny that I find him a gentler person than other accountability officials, and he will not lose his temper even when chided by others. It is understandable that he may be kind of sad when he is sometimes dressed down by sharp-tongued and relentless politicians like us in the Legislative Council. If I were him, I would definitely fight back. However, Prof Anthony CHEUNG, in his position now, cannot possibly fight back even if he wants to, because the existing Government is basically "rubbish". LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8337
A few years ago, I often said, "When a man destitute of benevolence is in a high station, he thereby disseminates his wickedness among all below him." The present Government is just a heap of "dog shit and rubbish". Even though he may be a better member of this heap of "dog shit and rubbish", he still cannot avoid becoming "dog shit and rubbish", because he must also be held responsible for all the misdeeds of this heap of "dog shit and rubbish". He heads the Transport and Housing Bureau, and all the existing problems are related to him. The problems of the XRL, the 3RS, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and lead water are all related to him. The unreasonable measures of the MTR Corporation Limited and its fare increases are also related to him. The public housing problem is even more related to him.
The undertakings made by LEUNG Chun-ying in the election have all turned out to be empty promises. In the following session, I will talk about public housing. At present, 280 000 people are on the Waiting List. Many members of the public often go to my office in the districts to seek help concerning their wait for public housing units. After obtaining their waiting numbers, we will write to the Housing Department. We have been doing this for many years. Many people are still not allocated any housing units after waiting 10 years, seven years or eight years. There are many such cases. The waiting time is three years only? That is just a big lie!
This leads me to wonder why he still wants to be Secretary for Transport and Housing. Because the remuneration of several million dollars a year is a very big sum? There is a bastard who earns more than $10,000 each day, whose remuneration is even higher than that of the Secretary. His name is Andrew FUNG. When you look at Andrew FUNG, do you feel aggrieved, Anthony CHEUNG? There is such a bastard called Andrew FUNG in your government team whose daily salary is more than $10,000. The monthly salary of an assistant to a Legislative Council Member is only $10,000 or so, but the daily salary of that bastard is also $10,000 or so. Is there any justice? How could there not be seething discontent in Hong Kong, Prof Anthony CHEUNG?
Every instance of project cost overrun involves several billion dollars and even 10 billion to 20 billion dollars. All such money is just like money dumped into the sea. The Government always threatens us that if the Legislative Council does not approve the funding, the projects concerned will have to be left uncompleted. Just let them be so. As the saying goes, drive someone into a fatal position and he will come out alive, right? This legislature is really 8338 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 hopeless. Some people criticize the Members proposing amendments to the Budget for filibustering and for trying to "stop the rotation of Earth". They actually hope that Members can act like hand-raising machines, voting for the Second Reading and Third Reading of the Bill straight away, best even skipping the Committee stage and doing away with any amendments. That way, they can get it over with. In this Chamber anyway, they are the majority. There are lots of hand-raising machines and flunkeys. Does it really matter? The job of Legislative Council Members is just as easy as pressing a button.
Students on the public gallery upstairs, listen up. The job of a Legislative Council Member is very easy. You just need to know which button to press. You only need to know that you must press the "Yes" button. If you do not know which button to press … I mean if you are dumb, you can choose not to speak, but you must know how to press the button to support the Government. I ask you all not to learn from them. When you come to visit the Legislative Council, it will be better that you learn from us.
The Secretary earns a very high salary, but his performance has caused wastage of our money. We taxpayers are made to pay more than $100 billion for the cost overrun of infrastructure projects. This is just like dumping money into the sea. The education, housing and medical policies are all in a mess. The money is thus wasted. And we still need to pay several million dollars of remuneration to the Secretary? I opine that if these public officers in Hong Kong still have the slightest sense of shame, they should step down voluntarily. Just go home. Do not sit here and make a fool of yourselves anymore.
Every time before the Third Reading of the Budget, Members will propose amendments during the Committee stage. I originally intended to propose 100-odd amendments, but only 30-odd amendments are allowed this time. This is still okay, as we only ask for a platform to air our opinions, and to let the Hong Kong people know and discuss the explanation from the Government on the amount of money involved in these substantial projects, including the cost overrun. Why do we need to pay this amount of more than $100 billion? Just let the Government explain to us.
Some of our elderly people passed away while still waiting for places in residential care homes. Each year, 5 000 to 6 000 elderly people pass away while waiting for such places. This means that it is easier to go to heaven than getting a government subsidized place in the care homes. In such a rich society LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8339 with the average per capita income at more than US$30,000, the Government has spent more than $100 billion on these infrastructure projects instead of (The buzzer sounded) …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please stop speaking.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, the amendment I propose in this debate session is Amendment No 263, which is about cutting the estimated annual salary expenditure of the Secretary for Development in full.
I will focus my speech on the "lead-water" incident. In fact, three Policy Bureaux of the Government (the Development Bureau, the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Food and Health Bureau) have failed to discharge their duties in this matter. This debate session is drawing to a close, but only the Secretary for Transport and Housing is present, and the Secretary for Development is out of sight. I listened attentively when the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Prof Anthony CHEUNG, spoke just now, but I could not even hear one word on the "lead-water" incident.
Sometimes, I really cannot see the point of holding such debates and whether any members of the public will listen to them. Maybe, some people are listening to our debate now, but I am not sure if the public officers are listening. If they are listening but do not give any response, what does this reflect? This reflects that the Government does not want to comment any more on the "lead-water" incident because the incident has hard hit the weakness of the Government. They thus do not want to respond to any questions in order to minimize the chance of saying the wrong things. This reflects that the Government wishes to tackle the "lead-water" incident in a low profile, hoping that its impact can abate and eventually disappear. But the fact is that a low-profile approach cannot stop problems from surfacing.
Late last night, I received a message about the Hospital Authority Convention held yesterday. One of the speakers, Dr LEUNG W C, Consultant and Chief of Service of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Kwong Wah Hospital, presented the result of his research on the impact of the "lead-water" incident on pregnant women. This was the annual convention of the Housing Authority. As he is a doctor working at the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department of 8340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Kwong Wah Hospital, and has followed the cases of pregnant women affected by the lead-tainted water and the impact on their foetus, he has access to the relevant data; otherwise, the public will still be kept in the dark.
The four cases presented yesterday come from Princess Margaret Hospital and Kwong Wah Hospital. The pregnant women concerned have now given birth to their babies. Since 5 July last year when I discovered the "lead-water" incident, the Government has been following the progress of these pregnant women. In reviewing the data, Dr LEUNG finds that the blood lead levels of three of the pregnant women have been relatively stable, now having dropped to less than 5 µg. The normal blood lead level for an adult is 10 µg while that of a child, infant and pregnant mother is 5 µg. The conditions of these three pregnant women have been okay, but there is something strange about the fourth woman from Kwong Wah Hospital. She is a 27-year-old pregnant woman living in a "lead-water" housing estate. Her first blood test taken at her 25th week pregnancy showed a blood lead level of 5 µg, but her postnatal blood lead level rose to 10 µg. This is a very strange case. Even the doctors find it strange. Why is her blood lead level so high? Her blood lead level should not exceed 5 µg even during postnatal lactation.
Since the "lead-water" incident took place, the Government has advised residents not to drink unfiltered fresh water. She has not drunk any unfiltered fresh water, but why is her blood lead level still so high? The research finds that the lead isotope of the pregnant woman is inconsistent with that of the water of her housing estate, reflecting that her high blood lead level may not be directly related to the lead-tainted water she has been drinking. This conclusion probably comes as a great relief to the Government because the conclusion seems to indicate that her high blood lead level is of an unknown cause and is not caused by the Government. But we do not have any detail.
If the lead in this pregnant woman's blood comes not only from the water of her housing estate, then what else can be the source? But as I did not attend the convention … In fact, will the Government tell us whether it will conduct any follow-up work on this special case? The prenatal blood lead level of this pregnant woman is 5 µg, but her postnatal level rises to 10 µg. The doctor believes that the lead in her body is not only found in her blood, but it may have also penetrated into her bones. If lead is found in her bones, it will not be possible to remove it from her body that quickly and it may remain in her body for 25 years, after which it will gradually drop in level due to excretion.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8341
Although it is still unconfirmed whether the incident is related to the lead-tainted water of her housing estate, the Government should still conduct an in-depth investigation to find out whether the cause is related to her other daily habits or working environment. Is it caused by the water she drinks at school, during lunch time or at her work place? Hence, the Government should look into all these factors. I hope the Government can conscientiously make public all statistics on heavy metals (including lead) found in the fresh water samples taken from all public rental housing (PRH) estates in the "lead-water" incident and in schools and hospitals as well as publishing all the blood test results.
The Government announces that the HA has conducted blood lead analyses for over 4 800 affected residents, 240 of whom are pregnant women. If that is the case, the Government should also disclose the blood lead data of these 4 800 people, shouldn't it? But of course their names need not be disclosed for the sake of privacy protection. If these data are not made public, it will be difficult for us to conduct research or monitoring work. That is why when Dr LEUNG W C presented his research, he also said that the Government should make public the monitoring data of affected pregnant women in the future, so that if similar incidents take place again, references can be drawn from the data.
However, to date, we do not have any such data. The Government has not made public the water sample test results, the blood test results or the analyses on the development and growth of the affected children and infants. Now we can only find some generalized statements from the Government, so the public are unable to know more about the incident. If the Government is going to introduce a water safety law, or before this water safety law is introduced, the Government should first be more open and transparent. We would not have known the above-mentioned situation if the data are not disclosed, or if this Obstetrics and Gynaecology doctor has not made public these data. Why can't such information be made public? I think the Food and Health Bureau should respond to this question.
Regarding the Transport and Housing Bureau, as Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG is here, I wish to talk about the Housing Department's performance on monitoring water safety. The Housing Department has shifted its monitoring responsibility to other departments. It always assumes that the Water Supplies Department, or the contractors if it is so prescribed in the contract, is in charge of water safety monitoring. The Housing Department does everything by assumption. As a result, it has not conducted any random checks on-site when 8342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 water safety-related building parts, such as water pipes, soldering materials, water meters and valves, were delivered to construction sites. All that the Department has done was conducting paper checks, thinking that it has discharged its duty once it has included contract terms to forbid contractors to use soldering materials with lead contents in water pipe works. This actually induces contractors, or the water pipe sub-contractors, to make jerry-built water pipes because they know that the Department will not conduct any random checks. There is a price difference between soldering materials with and without lead contents, and the difference can amount to at least hundreds of thousands of dollars for one housing estate. Hence, why can't the Housing Department establish an effective mechanism to ensure that contractors will play by the rules. The Department has not established such a mechanism, and this is dereliction of duty.
Moreover, regarding the testing of water samples of PRH estates, I have repeatedly queried the validity of the existing sampling method adopted by the Government, which allows the flushing of water for a few minutes before taking water samples from the taps. In fact, this is similar to students cheating at examinations because the crime evidence, which is the contaminants, will be flushed away and the lead level of the test result will be lowered. Besides, the Government has not conducted any water tests in other housing estates, such as those under the Home Ownership Scheme and Sandwich Class Housing Scheme. It has also not pursued the criminal liabilities of the four major contractors. It has done nothing at all.
Maybe the Secretary for Transport and Housing thinks that he has to rely on these contractors to construct PRH units and thus he will be lenient with them even if they have broken the rules and will only ask them to replace the water pipes to settle the matter. This has no deterrent effect at all. The situation is completely different in Flint, a city in the United States where the fresh water was also contaminated and tested positive for lead. Their public officers were all subject to criminal prosecution and imprisonment. In contrast, no public officer to date has taken the responsibility for the incident in Hong Kong. Not only they but also the contractors are not liable for the incident. This is outrageous.
Deputy Chairman, I will move onto the Secretary for Development. He is again not here today to respond to us. No other public officer from the Development Bureau is here. This is unreasonable. Talking about the work of the Development Bureau, I would say monitoring of fresh water safety is under its portfolio because the Water Supplies Department is under the Bureau. I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8343 checked the Water Safety Plan (the Plan) posted on the Water Supplies Department website again today. The Plan adopts the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (Fourth edition) of World Health Organization (WHO) released in 2011, and the Government has uploaded the details of the Plan and the criteria adopted by WHO onto the website.
The Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality formulated in 2011 provides information on the health impacts of drinking water and what chemicals in the water people should take special note of. In the first sentence of the document under "General Points", it reads "Hong Kong enjoys one of the safest water supplies in the world". I do not know if I should laugh or cry after reading this sentence. The document is about "Drinking Water Quality for the Period of October 2014 to September 2015", and its first sentence states that "Hong Kong enjoys one of the safest water supplies in the world" and that "samples were taken at water treatment works, service reservoirs, connection points and consumer taps".
I wish to ask Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG some questions on PRH which he is in charge of. Does he know the number of water samples the Water Supplies Department or the Housing Department will take from the occupants' taps in a newly commissioned PRH estate for laboratory testing? Is it true that they will only take water samples at easily accessible places such as PRH shopping arcades, management offices and public toilets? How many water samples have been taken for laboratory testing from residents' kitchen taps? In fact, the Government has yet to tell us whether it has any plan to test occupants' kitchen tap water. It perfunctorily took water samples from public toilets and offices or shopping arcades of the Housing Department for the sake of convenience. But how many people will take the water in public toilets home for cooking and drinking? People will only use the water in their home kitchen.
The Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality 2011 lists many chemicals, many of which are heavy metals including lead. According to the report released by the Government, the drinking water in Hong Kong meets the standard and does not have any problems. The Government often tells us that the testing confirms that the drinking water meets the standard and does not have any problems. If this is the case, I would not have made public the "lead-water" incident in July. But then after testing the water samples from the collection points I just mentioned, such as water treatment works and consumer taps, why did the Government say that the drinking water was okay and up-to-standard? This shows that the entire monitoring system is flawed.
8344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
The Water Supplies Department seldom takes water samples from PRH units. I hope that the Housing Department will properly define the division of work with the Water Supplies Department. In fact, it simply needs to post a notice in PRH estate lobbies, inviting occupants for free testing of fresh water samples taken from their units, and I believe the occupants are more than happy to book a time with the Department and let its officers into their units to take water samples for testing. It is as simple as that, but why has the Government not done so? Besides, the Government says that the Water Supplies Department has set up a working group consisting of senior professionals from various operational units to monitor the Plan, including professionals from the Department of Health and Water Supplies Department. As there are so many professionals, why have they not tested whether the drinking water contains lead? How come the testing conducted by the Government did not find any problem, but mine found the otherwise? Hence, Deputy Chairman (The Buzzer sounded) …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, please stop speaking.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): … I am very disappointed at the performance of the Government.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): End of this debate session.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I request a headcount.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8345
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I have already informed Members through the Secretariat that in order to facilitate Members to make better use of the remaining debating time, the fifth and the sixth debates will be combined into one debate. The time available for conducting this joint debate will be equivalent to the total time originally allocated for the fifth and the sixth debates. Members may speak on any amendments moved in respect of the heads set out in Appendices 1D and IE to the Script in this debate session. The joint debate now begins.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, point of order. May I ask at which point of time in the joint debate for the fifth and sixth sessions will you invite public officers to give replies? In case of meeting suspension middle of the way, will the Government still have the time to give replies or shall we proceed directly to the voting procedures at the meeting next week? Will movers of amendments be provided with any time to give their replies?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The debate will end on Friday at about 1 pm as originally scheduled. I will reserve some time for movers of amendments to speak for the last time. Public officers will be invited to speak before movers of amendments are called upon to speak.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Heads 28, 47, 51, 53, 55, 59, 63, 76, 78, 90, 96, 100, 106, 116, 135, 147, 148, 152, 155, 156, 160, 162, 168, 173, 181, 188 and 190.
8346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee now combines the fifth and the sixth debates into one debate. The debate themes include "Economic Development" and "Education, Manpower, Youth, Arts and Culture and Sports".
The policy areas covered in this joint debate are: Commercial and Industry; Economic Development, excluding energy; Belt and Road; Financial Affairs; Innovation and Technology Industries; Broadcasting and Telecommunications; Maritime and Aviation; Education; Manpower; Youth; Arts and Culture and Sports.
Thirteen Members, namely Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Cyd HO, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Gary FAN, Ms Claudia MO, Dr Helena WONG and Mr IP Kin-yuen have respectively given notice to move a total of 129 amendments to reduce the various sums for the 27 heads which have just been read out. The contents of their amendments are all relevant to the areas of this joint debate.
I will first call upon Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to speak and move Amendment No 29 set out in Appendix 1D to the Script, to be followed by other Members who move the amendments to speak respectively.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move Amendment No 29 as set out on Appendix 1D, so as to cut the estimated annual expenditure of the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) from $929.66 million to $5,000. Members from the pro-establishment camp will certainly want to lecture me on the cut I proposed. So, let me do this for you, "Without the CAD, no planes can take off or there will be chaos. If an air catastrophe does occur, you will be the murderer." I would like to tell all of you that the CAD, and the Director-General of Civil Aviation in particular, actually committed numerous blunders in the past. Regarding the old blunders, the Legislative Council Public Accounts Committee (PAC) already interrogated the Director-General of Civil Aviation. But even now, pro-establishment Members in the PAC are still saying they are dissatisfied with the answers, meaning they would like to further pursue the case with the Director-General.
Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG just now jumped the queue and talked about Mr Albert CHAN's proposal to cut the estimated annual emoluments of the two Deputy Directors-General of Civil Aviation. I do have to make an upfront LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8347 statement here: I know that there are Members who propose to cut the estimated annual emolument of the Director-General of Civil Aviation, Mr Norman LO, but the proposal has unexpectedly been eliminated by the President as it is said to be frivolous. What is left is Amendment No 30 which proposes to cut the estimated annual emoluments of the two Deputy Directors-General of Civil Aviation. If I were given a choice, I would definitely choose to cut the estimated annual emolument of Norman LO. It does not really matter if we do not cut the emoluments of the two Deputy Directors-General.
However, the Secretary shamelessly discussed the matter just now. Referring to Member's Amendment No 30 which proposes to cut the annual emoluments of the two Deputy Directors-General, he asked if we understood the importance of one of the Deputy Directors-General. Of course I do, the CAD submitted to the Legislative Council Panel on Economic Development a paper this January, requesting the parachuting of an Administrative Officer to their existing structure for three years as the proposed Deputy Director-General, who will be responsible for the preparatory work for the implementation of the new air traffic control system. Then, what necessitated the creation of this position? It is the fact that the Director-General has been derelict in his duty and failed to monitor the whole system.
The CAD was allocated with $1.5 billion for replacing its air traffic control system in 2007. But the Director of Audit found out then that the new system had yet to be implemented because of a severe delay. Norman LO, the Director-General of Civil Aviation, was strongly condemned by the Legislative Council PAC last year for negligence with regard to the replacement of the air traffic control system. Consequently, the CAD made a request for the creation of an additional Deputy Director-General post, for supervising the preparatory work leading to the rolling out of the new system. How ridiculous! When a serious blunder occurs in a department, we propose to cut its expenses or the emolument of its head so as to highlight the problem and hope to exert the greatest possible pressure on the Government with the debate held during the Committee stage of the Budget. However, after the Legislative Council, including the PAC, has given out strong condemnation, the result is not a reduction in expenses of the CAD but an addition of post. This is so ironic. With regard to those under-performing departments, we suggest cutting their emoluments and expenses, not exactly for paralysing them. Though many debates have been held previously, we all understand that we do not really want to shut down the Fire Services Department, the Immigration Department or the 8348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department. We only want to take the opportunity to discuss their performance and identify problems. Now the reverse is true. To deal with an under-performer, we have to increase the provision of resources, manpower and post to it, so that the relevant project can be properly taken care of. This is fine in a way, provided that problems can actually be tackled this way, and especially given that we have already spent so much on the air traffic control system. We have paid $1.5 billion to acquire the system but there was nobody responsible for its management. Of course we can discuss whether a Deputy Director-General is needed to manage the system, but it is surprising that the Director-General is not held responsible in any way, not even now … Recently there happened the airport incident, that is the incident involving a daughter of the Chief Executive. I have no idea if the Director-General was on leave or on duty visit, but in any case he did not make any public appearance to face the trade union. However, as I understand that a lot of Members are going to speak on the CAD and because of the time constraint, I am not going to comment on the Department now. I will instead focus on the most crucial issue, the issue I am most concerned about this year, the "Internet Article 23".
Of course, I have to tell Members that filibuster is not an issue now. Whoever wants to speak can press the button. Regardless of whether you are from the pro-establishment camp or the pan-democratic camp, you can sit down to listen if you like; otherwise you are free to leave. If a quorum is not present, I will ask for the summon bell and you can return if you like; if not, the meeting will be adjourned. It does not matter if the meeting is adjourned as the voting will be done next week anyway. In fact, with regard to the procedural questions that I have asked just now, the Chairman has only answered half of them. It is fine if you cannot make a reply now, but I hope you can give me an answer tomorrow. How are you going to draw the line within which those Members who have not spoken before can make a speech, and thus allotting time for the Government to reply? And if time is available afterwards, it will be the turn of the 13 Members who are movers of the amendments … you know there are such a lot of them and we do not know for how long the Government will speak. The arrangement, therefore, is very interesting. But I hope the Chairman can let us have an idea about the arrangement with regard to this joint debate. I notice that many Members are gradually … I am not sure how many of the 13 movers of amendments are present and prepared to speak today. A joint debate is good to me. I can speak on the topics belonging to the subsequent debate, or more on those under the initial debate and skip those under the subsequent one. I can LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8349 also focus on criticizing Gregory SO, the Intellectual Property Department (IPD) or the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, as I am free to use my time. But then, other Members must be informed of the arrangement. Furthermore, Chairman, another question which you have left unaddressed is about the adjournment of meeting due to the absence of a quorum. How are you going to deal with it? Are we going to vote next week without giving the Government a chance to reply? You do not have to give me an answer right now. It is fine so long as you can make a reply tomorrow.
Chairman, after speaking for seven minutes, I now formally begin my speech. I would like to speak on Amendment No 171 with regard to "Head 78 ― Intellectual Property Department", in which I propose to cut $2,683,800, an equivalent of the estimated annual emolument of the Director of Intellectual Property. Why do I propose to cut the emolument of the Director of Intellectual Property? Of course, everything happens for a reason. The underlying reason can be found in the "Internet Article 23", that is the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 (the Bill). The Legislative Council's scrutiny of the Bill spanned two years. And, it took four months or five months from December last year to April this year before my motion on the adjournment of the Council was passed to remove the Bill from our agenda.
The IPD plays a very important role throughout the Bill's mooting, consultation and tabling to the Legislative Council. Last December, before the resumption of Second Reading of the Bill, the Director of Intellectual Property appeared in a media interview in which she said, "Open-ended exceptions as proposed by netizens are not an acceptable option at the present stage." She stressed, "The Bill has been adequately discussed and the Legislative Council is called upon to allow 'passage first, review later'." In other words, "pocket it first". "The Legislative Council should pass this Bill first and review it later." Of course, it is fair to say that in this debate, Amendment No 171 is directed at the Director of Intellectual Property. The brunt of our criticism on the problem, however, should be directed at the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Gregory SO. Of course, I will just leave it to them to review whether the IPD has misled Gregory SO to believe that the Bill has secured adequate support in terms of votes as opposition voices have been suppressed and it was time to table the Bill to the Legislative Council. But it is only fair to say that the IPD has tried hard in handling the Bill during the last couple of years. According to community organizations, when compared with the previous Government in handling the then abortive copyright bill, the IPD under the 8350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 current Government has adopted a new approach in the new round of consultation. That is to say, the then IPD was tougher, but the IPD now is more communicative and talks to netizens readily. I know the Deputy Secretary attends all seminars and forums held by netizens and willingly talks to people till midnight in arranged meetings. I would like to give them due recognition for the hard work they have done during the process.
But hard work does not guarantee success. Negligence and errors made in the process may lead to the situation we see today. Many netizens hold that the copyright exceptions granted under the Government Bill which are limited to such areas as parody, satire, pastiche, caricature, and commenting on current events are inadequate. The limited exceptions, which netizens described as sugarcoated poison, pose restriction on the subject matter of creative works. Moreover, there are many grey areas in the Bill and members of the public may breach the law inadvertently. For instance, is a secondary creation which falls outside of the scope of parody or satire protected by the exceptions? If you can still remember, the pan-democratic Members have not moved a sea of amendments with regard to the Bill, they have not moved hundreds or thousands of amendments so as to prevent the passage of the Bill. We have only put forward three sets of amendments which include restricting contract override, introducing open-ended exceptions to allow fair use and user-generated content, so as to extend the freedom of creative activities and expression beyond the several exceptions granted under the Bill as originally proposed by the Government.
But how did the Director refute their arguments then? She said that the scope of open-ended exceptions was even harder to delineate than that of fair dealing proposed by the Government. She said that the exception provisions were drafted with reference to overseas case law examples which indicated that whenever the scope of exception was under dispute, it must be determined by the Court. She therefore held that open-ended exceptions were not more progressive when compared with those granted under the Bill. Even though fair use provisions were adopted in the United States, there were only several types of case laws examples. Hence, the drawback of open-ended exceptions was their lack of clarity and this might lead to more litigations. She also reiterated that fair dealing exceptions as proposed by the Government sufficiently covered everyday online activities and wondered what else should be included if more exceptions were to be introduced.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8351
With regard to the above, I have told the Government, the Secretary and the Director, both in public and in private, that they are actually misleading the public. She compared fair dealing with fair use and highlighted the drawbacks of fair use, and published them on newspapers. This is what I call misleading the public. I believe that even the Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association has been misled and hence has drawn a comparison between fair dealing and fair use. But we have made it clear early on that our amendments do not conflict with the fair dealing provisions put forward by the Government. We have not proposed to delete any word from the Government Bill. Instead, we are just putting in new content, adding in open-ended fair use exceptions to the six exceptions. We did not have the chance to discuss this during the Committee stage and hence I want to say a few words more on this now to enhance our understanding.
Even if fair use is unclear and may call for determination by the Court, I have not asked for the deletion of the Government's fair dealing provisions. Therefore, if their Bill is clear enough, even when I add something new to it, the addition is only a door or a net. This door or net may call for litigation or determination by the Court, but only when the problem is not resolvable by the six fair dealing exceptions. However, I do not think the Government, including the Director of Intellectual Property, do not understand that the amendments proposed by the pan-democratic Members are not exclusive but rather are supplementary in nature. But they used this sort of discourse during the early discussions to mislead the public, or even the Members. We all know that during the early stage, Member simply did not even know what streaming was. It was only after five months of intensive scrutiny that they had a better grasp of concepts. The Director is held responsible for the implementation of the process. There are a lot more that I would like to share with you, but I have to wait for the next chance to speak.
Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 28 be reduced by $929,661,000 in respect of subhead 000."
8352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have proposed amendments to the Budget in this debate session, but I will talk about my amendments as well as others. This debate session is different from the previous ones. Unlike the previous debate sessions, in which we could have four to five times to speak for each part, our speaking time in this debate session is shortened and it will be difficult for us to speak several times.
The scope of this debate session covers commerce and industry, economic development, financial affairs, innovation and technology industries, broadcasting and telecommunications, as well as maritime and aviation. I am more involved in some of the areas because my work touches on these areas.
The first department I wish to talk about today is the Civil Aviation Department (CAD). Some of Members' amendments are also related to the CAD, such as cutting the operating expenses of the department, its annual estimate and the salaries of the two Deputy Director-Generals of Civil Aviation. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). In the public hearings held by the PAC, we found numerous problems in the new CAD headquarters and its air traffic control (ATC) system. The delay in the deployment of the ATC system has wasted a lot of public money and the new system turned out to be useless. To date, the new system is yet to be commissioned.
Following the previous public hearing, we have strongly condemned Director-General of Civil Aviation Norman LO in the PAC Report for his negligence in discharging his duty. But, Chairman, it is impossible to dismiss a civil servant under the existing system in Hong Kong. If I do not propose an amendment to cut his salary at the Committee stage before the Budget gets its Third Reading, and to torment, lash out at and condemn him, what other opportunity do I have to vent my anger on behalf of the Hong Kong public? He will retire in a few months. By then, he will receive almost $10 million as pension, plus roughly $70,000 or $90,000 every month. How unfair! He does not need to take any blame. How much money has he wasted on the ATC system? He does not need to take responsibility for the blunders he made in the CAD headquarters project. The Secretary for Transport and Housing ― he has left now ― said that the matter would be dealt with internally, but what has the Secretary done so far?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8353
A year or so has quickly passed since then. The main function of the CAD … Especially having learnt the recent scandal of the Hong Kong International Airport involving its security checks and the loophole in the security system, we are even more worried about the ATC system. We actually went to see the new ATC system because we were very worried about this issue at that time. The commissioning of the new system has been delayed for quite some time. We asked all sorts of questions at the public hearings. If Members have read the PAC Report, they will understand. If not, Members can also refer to the chapter on the ATC system in the Director of Audit's Report, and they will be as worried as we are. The Hong Kong International Airport is an international aviation hub, but it has run into a series of problems. First, the commissioning of the new ATC system is long overdue, and then the system which the CAD has been using failed to function properly; and the brazen acts of the LEUNGs have also exposed a major loophole in the airport. He again does not need to take responsibility for any of these incidents. We are all very concerned about the safety of the airport … Buddy, it is a matter of life and death. Chairman, if you need to go somewhere by air, will you not be afraid of the ATC system? We will be afraid. We really are afraid because we have seen it with our own eyes.
In the PAC Report, we urge the authorities concerned to follow up the matter. Anthony CHEUNG undertook that he would commission a consultancy firm to conduct a research. But when I put an oral question to him on this matter, he did not tell us the name of the firm in the main reply; he only did so when he replied to supplementary questions. He unwillingly told us the country the firm was located, not the name of the firm. The PAC later had to request him to hand over the related information in writing. Some time later, the Director-General of Civil Aviation said the ATC system had to be launched in phases. This is a bunch of nonsense. I thus wrote to him again and requested the PAC to summon him for another public hearing. The PAC is now conducting close-door discussion and has come up with an approach. As it is a close-door meeting, I will not disclose the details here.
All these examples are related to the Director-General of Civil Aviation. As all these concern the CAD, so I must propose an amendment to cut his salary. Chairman, you did not approve my amendment. Fine. I can put up with that. After a few more months, after this Budget debate, you will complete your job. What you are doing now is only for the next President, so that your successor can follow your footsteps. You have political talent. I cannot think of anyone who 8354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 can replace you as the President in the next Legislative Council. Your successor will definitely come from the pro-establishment camp, but I cannot think of anyone there who can replace you. That is why you have put so much effort in what you do. You want to set an example for the President of the next Legislative Council to follow. You have sorted out all the difficult parts, so that your successor can continue to do what you are doing, as long as he does not make things worse. He can even use you as an excuse, saying forcefully that President TSANG has already set a precedent. You are so astute.
How could Members say that we are filibustering in this Budget debate? It has already been decided that the Budget will be put to vote on 11 May. How can we still filibuster? The debate is near its end. How can they say that we are filibustering? There are only the few of us who speak. How can this be regarded as filibustering? You can ask "Long Hair" whether this can be regarded as filibustering. It all began with the universal retirement protection, which was a heated topic then. But take a look, you already have it "taken care of". Perhaps when you travelled with your rival, you have already settled everything with him. Now, with hindsight, based on a conspiracy theory …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, in what way is what you are saying related to the CAD?
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): I am saying that the main duty of the Director-General of Civil Aviation is to enforce the Civil Aviation Ordinance, including providing ATC services for planes operating within the flight information region of Hong Kong. When a plane runs into an emergency situation or an accident happens on a plane, the CAD has to co-ordinate search and rescue operations. This is the job of the CAD job. Chairman, I do not know how much you know about the ATC system I just mentioned. We held a few public hearings and published a report about it. Every one of us in the PAC are worried. We are all very nervous about when the system can start to operate and whether there will be any hiccups when it operates.
The CAD has spent $1.5 billion to procure the new ATC system, but the commissioning of the system was delayed for almost four years. Isn't it astonishing to learn that the commissioning has been delayed for four years? Director-General of Civil Aviation Norman LO told us categorically at the public LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8355 hearing held by the PAC on 11 March last year that the new ATC system would be in full operation in the first half of this year (2016). But in a meeting held by the Panel on Economic Development on 24 March 2016, in which the delayed commissioning of the new ATC system was discussed, the CAD again changed its tune and said that the new ATC system would be launched incrementally from June 2016 onwards. But its original pledge is that the system will be in full operation in the first half of this year.
I raise this point because I wish to tell Members how unreliable and untrustworthy the CAD is. We cannot trust it at all. Although it said that the new system would be launched in phases from June onwards, I can guarantee that the system will not be launched in June. Its original pledge is that the system will be in full operation in the first half of this year. This pledge is made by the Director-General of Civil Aviation in a PAC public hearing held on 11 March. But then he changed his pledge again on 24 March. I thus wrote to the Chairman of the PAC, requesting him to summon the Director-General of Civil Aviation to the Legislative Council again to attend another public hearing to sort out the matter. But the Legal Advisor, in discussing my request in the Legislative Council, said that there was no such precedent and he was uncertain of the feasibility of my request. We are still discussing this matter. We have held one meeting so far, but I will not disclose what has been discussed. But my point is that we need to hold him accountable for the delay.
What does the CAD mean by having the system launched in phases? Does it mean that some planes will be controlled by the old system and some others by the new one? How is it going to launch the new system in phases? He did not specifically said how. As we may be aware, when the new airport was commissioned in 1998, it was a very important matter because it involved the relocation of the entire airport. But the relocation ended up in a mess. The CAD said that the new ATC system in question now would be launched in phases from this June onwards. But how many phases will there be in order to do so? When will the new system be fully launched? These are the questions we need to pursue. Hence, I take this opportunity today to talk about it here because other Members may not be as familiar with the ATC system as I do. But you often travel by air. I wonder which rival you will be travelling with next time. But touch wood! If anything happens to you, who is going to take the responsibility?
8356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
The authorities are not any better than the CAD. They use one lie to cover up another lie. In March 2016, the Transport and Housing Bureau submitted a paper to the Panel on Economic Development of the Legislative Council. Many points in the paper are very misleading. Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG has now left the Chamber. This debate session covers the CAD, which is also related to him, right? Not only did he not clarify the situation with members of the Panel on Economic Development, he actually made things worse.
Let me give an example. According to him, large airports in the world all use the ATC systems and products developed by that company. Actually, only very few countries have used the AT3 air traffic control system. We already confirmed this at a public hearing of the PAC. But he still dared to repeat this point at a meeting of the Panel on Economic Development. This Government is really very deplorable! How can they deceive people all the time? But they could hardly deceive us because we already clarified the case by asking questions at PAC meetings, and the report of the Audit Commission was already released. Even the Delhi International Airport in India is merely using the AT3 software instead of the AT3 system. This was already clarified at a PAC meeting.
Now, the Delhi International Airport is considering the abandonment of this system. Therefore, before the Raytheon Company placed its bid, there was no proven record in the world to show that the operation of the AT3 system was satisfactory. Nevertheless, he kept misleading those Legislative Council Members on the Panel on Economic Development. Those Members were actually unclear about the whole thing as they did not do any preparation or read the reports of the PAC or the Audit Commission. This matter is honestly serious, and from the delay of four years, we can already tell the gravity of this matter. $1.5 billion has already been spent on this ATC system, and the money has basically gone down the drain. More ridiculously, we are still paying money to the company. Despite the delayed commencement of the system, we are still paying money to the company. I do not know how the contract was signed at the time, and we spent much time on discussing the contract. If Members had done any preparation, they should have questioned him at meetings of the Panel on Economic Development. But in the end, we had to take the first strike instead.
I must point out that the Hong Kong Government has paid an additional $20 million as repair and maintenance fee a year, or $55,000 a day on average, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8357 for the delayed commencement of this new system. As stipulated in section 7 on "Delays" in the tender document between the authorities and the Raytheon Company, the company will be subject to a penalty of $52,190 for a delay of one day in phase 1 of the ATC system. The penalty for delay is even less than the maintenance fee. In other words, the Hong Kong Government is instead paying several thousand dollars a day to this successful bidder for the latter's delay in system commencement. How can this be possible in this world? Have Members heard of such contracts?
The Government is wasteful all the time. Regarding the cost overruns of several billion dollars and $20 billion in the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge project and the XRL project respectively, it urged us to grant funding, saying that if we did not do so, the projects would be left uncompleted. They tried to force us to grant funding. Then, those strike-breakers who claimed to safeguard workers' interests echoed and complained loudly that many workers were unemployed. This is utter nonsense! Members should take a look at these sums. So, Chairman, shouldn't the Director-General of Civil Aviation be shot to death?
We discussed airport security at the meeting of the Panel on Security yesterday. This is under the charge of the Director-General of Civil Aviation. But the Deputy Director-General of Civil Aviation was nonetheless designated to attend the meeting. Seeing that the Director-General of Civil Aviation was not present, I uttered a few words and asked the Chairman of the Panel on Security, Mr IP Kwok-him, "Where the hell is he?" Then, he reprimanded me and said that I should ask "Where is he?" instead of "Where the hell is he?". He earned a handsome salary, but he caused a mess before departure. The new Secretary is now present, so he had better listen. Being a Bureau Director is really enjoyable. He is the Director-General of Civil Aviation, a civil servant who will not be fired. This is also the case with the Secretary. In Hong Kong, the so-called "accountability officials" can rest assured that they will only get promoted and make a big fortune without having to be held accountable and step down. And, the case with the directorate grade officers in the CAD is just the same. Members can imagine this. He is now snickering as he already received some $10 million before departure and got himself out of all this. Is any corruption involved? Have they funnelled any benefits to the Raytheon Company? Who knows? They are not subject to any investigation now. The incident involving the ATC system is obviously an ICAC case, right?
8358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
For these reasons, the ICAC should initiate an investigation based on the PAC's report. How can all this be possible? While the commencement of the new system has been delayed, the company is charging the Hong Kong Government a repair and maintenance fee. And, as long as there is a delay in the disuse of the old system, the Raytheon Company can get some more money every day. How can all this possibly happen? Yes, in the CAD, Chairman. All these absurdities can be ascribed to this deplorable Government.
Actually, long ago ― before the Audit Commission disclosed the problems with the new ATC system ― such problems were already uncovered by the media. It was only afterwards that the Audit Commission conducted an inquiry. This new air traffic management system is plagued by many problems. For example, it once malfunctioned during a system test. Anyway, problems have been found in many previous tests.
At a public hearing of the PAC, I urged the Government to set a deadline for the defective ATC system for the purpose of cutting its loss, and to conduct another tender exercise. As my words sounded disagreeable to them, they of course rejected. They could not possibly take my advice on aborting the system and engaging another company. But the $1.5 billion has already gone down the drain. So, shouldn't these people "get lost"?
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, this debate covers a wide range of subjects, yet the only government official present is Secretary Nicholas YANG. So, Chairman, I must start by lashing out at the Innovation and Technology Bureau.
Secretary Nicholas YANG did of course overcome many difficulties before he was able to take the post, but what has become the talk of the Internet or the focus of media coverage recently is not the official duties of his Bureau or the two subordinate departments. Instead, what catch our attention are the scandals arising from the setting up of two offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands during his tenure in The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. The incident has nothing to do with his current position, yet what concerns us most is that the Bureau, as an institution which involves public policies, should be subject to monitoring by the Government or the public. However, as a Director of Bureau, he made such an arrangement at that time, yet he has been evasive in the face of media enquiries. We are deeply worried about this.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8359
Upon reviewing the information about the Innovation and Technology Bureau, I find that there is indeed nothing new under your leadership, except for "handing out money" by granting a series of funding, including establishing different funds under the Hong Kong Science Park. Chairman, I am worried about this. I definitely do not want to see an ICAC investigation as mentioned by a Member just now.
Innovation and technology is absolutely not only about "handing out candies" or "handing out money". After years of discussion on innovation and technology in Hong Kong (which is of course unrelated to him), what does it mean by creative technology and innovation and technology indeed? Your predecessor, that is, the one sitting next to you in the Chamber, the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, did have the responsibility to create a better environment for broadcasting and television service, as well as for innovation and technology in Hong Kong. But then, how is the outcome? The development of free television service in Hong Kong has regressed rather than progressed. When we discussed whether a new licence should be issued, Asia Television Limited (ATV) was on the deathbed, and the Hong Kong Television Network Limited's application for a new free television licence was rejected by the Government and the Executive Council. Upon the adding of a new player and the deduction of an old player, there remains at present the ViuTV and the Television Broadcasts Limited who wishes to monopolize the market. Even Cable TV, having applied for a licence, has not made any concrete action, despite the fact that it should have commenced offering free television service by now.
Under this circumstances, do broadcasting or television issues have at least some relation to Secretary Gregory SO in the beginning? Should he have attracted young people through different networks or various new technologies? But this did not happen. Secretary Gregory SO told us here that this is not necessary, stating his concern over a lack of business adequate for sustaining the sector. As a result, the sector officially fell into decline. However, it should not have been the case. We can still recall that, at the time when ATV had not ceased broadcasting yet, there were those practitioners who have dedicated years of service in the sector and the young new blood ambitious for leveraging their talent. And the outcome? Not only did the Government not allow this, Chairman, probably owing to some kind of pressure from the North, it instead tried its best to suffocate the broadcasting and media sector in Hong Kong, even targeting television and radio broadcasting, exactly the areas where innovation and technology were needed most.
8360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Second, at least it is good that the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 was not passed, which was indeed a bill that most seriously restricted the room for future innovation and technology. Do secondary creation and emerging industries require more freedom? Secretary, you are amazing for having met with Steve JOBS before. After staying in the United States for so long, you must know well that freedom of speech and room for the media are exactly the things that are essential in the States, but are lacking in Hong Kong. The conventional media is increasingly deprived of genuine freedom as consortiums with "red" background have controlled the lifeblood of many media organizations. Youngsters who wish to join the sector must either do according to their instructions or quit the job. So, the news department of the major television station constantly experiences staff resignation, with another group of staff member departing recently.
Under this situation, it is sheer fantasy to trust the Government with the promotion of innovation and technology and training of fresh talents, as it has kept on killing the room for speech and innovation in Hong Kong, despite its mention of the intention to develop innovation and technology. If one does not follow the direction of the Government, such as the Belt and Road Initiative included in this debate session, and now we even have to deploy a large sum of money from the funding on civic education to sponsor the exchange programme on Belt and Road. This is just like the way political economic projects run in the Mainland where everyone will scramble to follow what the leaders and Grandpa said, that is, to promote Belt and Road, lest they will fall behind in terms of flattering. In the end, everything is about Belt and Road. Economic development means nothing but Belt and Road now. But, interestingly, even LI Keqiang does not mention this recently, and XI Jinping refers less frequently to this as well. Is the SAR Government following too close? I suggest them to be cautious and not to blame anyone in case of a crash, as the Mainland has already started to quit mentioning Belt and Road, yet we are still stubbornly going on with Belt and Road.
Certain researches indicate recently that one third of students in the United States come from the Mainland, forming the largest groups of foreign students. So, this does not only happen in Hong Kong. If the Mainland is said to be such a good place, why do Mainland students need to study abroad in the United States? This is an evil place with democracy, freedom and vice. It is not right, politically not right, to send so many people there for studies. However, interestingly, the higher the rank, the more likely will officials in the Mainland LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8361 send children to the most evil places like the United States, Europe, Australia or the United Kingdom, as these are places that believe in democracy and freedom. The same happens in Hong Kong. Why do they do so? It is because the body speaks the most honest words. They know that they can freely express their creativity in these places.
Hong Kong does not lack the quality. Hong Kong has most, if not all, of the qualifications required. In Asia, we are still … Of course, we do not have the quality to be an international city in the world, yet our tourism industry has put all our eggs in one basket in recent years, that is, the Mainland market under the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS). So, now that the Mainland economy is ailing, coupled with the singing of red songs and the fight against corruption, corrupt officials can no longer come and shop for luxurious items and real estate at will, and Hong Kong is not able to bear this. That said, the Government and the tourist sector still insist on their own ways, and the issue frequently mentioned by them these days is whether to extend the "multiple-entry individual visit endorsement" arrangement and develop the city into a destination of IVS.
We will certainly see no way out if we put everything in one pocket. Did Hong Kong not need to develop before IVS was introduced? Was Hong Kong on the road to death before IVS? Of course not. Let us refer to the figures. In fact, over half of Mainland tourists do not stay overnight, and a countless number of them only come to Hong Kong for parallel-trading. Despite repeated claims by them that tourist arrivals have fallen, what do we find out at the same time? Without regard to tourists staying for a short period or a long period, the number of arrival has not fallen, but risen. As told by some members of the tourist sector and expressly pointed out in some phone-in programmes, the situation is the result of the Government's own making. Throughout the years, regardless of whether it is the Government or the Hong Kong Tourism Board, the only idea was to look north. All of our economic policies were solely formulated to cater for the Mainland, in the hope that some cash will drip down to us. Why are we so unambitious like this? Since when have we become a city like this? Never did we rely on one single route of development. True, we should handle the issue of Mainland tourists well and receive quality tourists from the Mainland, instead of those taking part in parallel-trading in Hong Kong.
Second, the Government connives at the tourism sector. When operators of inbound tour groups complained loudly about decreased tourist arrivals, the overall number of visitors during the last Golden Week had increased rather than 8362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 decreased. What does this imply? It turns out that agencies receiving inbound tour groups in Hong Kong are still engaged in rip-offs. Lately, the media has uncovered an incident in which tourists were locked up and forced to make purchase by a travel agency through such "one stop" service offered under these inbound tours. After all these years during which we demanded the prohibition of these "low-fare" or "zero-fare" tours and the establishment of an independent institution to monitor the tourism industry, did the Government do anything? No, nothing. The Government opts to turn a blind eye to the problem and would rather allow something like the "Ah Zhen" incident or the death of a Mainland tourist outside a jewellery shop to happen in Hong Kong and grab the headlines. Apart from the fact that these incidents affect Mainland tourists, how will visitors from other countries see Hong Kong? Without thorough knowledge, they will believe that Hong Kong is still promoting these low-end tourism operation under which tourists are coerced to make purchase. "Zero-fare" tours are simply a mess of zero-regulation. How can the Government still shamelessly brag about the importance it attaches on tourism? The Government has not fulfilled its duty to regulate the tourism industry.
Second, continuous reliance on "old capital". The so-called tourist facilities developed over the last few years again targeted only one market. For example, while we are claiming how the Hong Kong Disneyland Resort can attract Mainland tourists, yet Shanghai's own Disneyland is about to open. Is the Government still thinking about this kind of attraction? We have numerous advantages in such terms as attractions related to our heritage. Has the Government made good use of them? No. As always, it gives up promoting them. The so called policy on monuments has overlooked the conservation of attractions which can draw tourists staying relatively longer in Hong Kong. It just sticks with its short-sighted attitude to allow the damage of places with historic interest.
Worse still, the Government almost closed the Avenue of Stars, a spot where one third of tourists will visit, in an attempt to favour a certain property developer and continue engaging in colluding with the business sector. While a Policy Bureau vested with so much power conducts its business like this, the Government then makes excuse for the decline in tourism by blaming those who kicked suitcases of visitors. Has the Government looked at itself in the mirror? If Hong Kong is to rely on this group of officials for developing tourism, then to make it boldly, we really have to bet on our luck. But we will not have any luck at all.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8363
So, after all, we must strengthen ourselves to lead Hong Kong into the road of openness in areas like overall economic development, tourism, innovation and technology, and so on. And, what is the current practice? Media operation is harshly suppressed, and freedom of speech is under constant pressure. Regardless of whether it is the real Article 23 or "Internet Article 23", these steps are on the cards. Being aware of this, even those young people with creativity will fear that they will be subject to fastidious judgment, unable to see the future. Therefore, instead of an issue about tourism development, this is an issue related to education and economic policies as a whole, which are directed only to the Mainland market. What are they hyping these days? The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will hopefully set up an office in Hong Kong for financing. The Government really cannot change its spot.
There will be not luck and no way ahead for the development of tourism, economic activities and innovation and technology if the Government still refuses to change. It is because Hong Kong has all along been an international city facing the entire world, but not only Asia. Other Asian cities like Korea or Singapore are developing towards the world, attracting talents from other places and devoting hard effort in software and hardware. Instead, we have been restricting freedom of creation, restraining the media and speech and making ourselves look like a city which cares about one single market only. Under this condition, the Government should not merely try to give excuses. It is undeniable that the Government is the cause of todays' situation. This is why so many Members have proposed cutting the salaries of those ineffective officials in this debate.
I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have prophetic vision and a crystal ball, and I can tell that Members of the pro-establishment camp would criticize us for staging a filibuster in their speeches to be delivered. As a matter of fact, they have made lengthy speeches to launch personal attacks on Members who engage in filibustering and I therefore have to give a response.
First of all, it seems that Members of the pro-establishment camp have forgotten one thing, and that is, two conditions have to be met for suspending this Council. In order to suspend a Council meeting or adjourn the Council due to a lack of quorum, two conditions must be met, namely a sufficient condition and an essential condition.
8364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Chairman, a lot of people have complained to me and advised me through WhatsApp messages that I should beware of these mean guys because whenever they are invited to attend celebratory and festive events, they will remark openly that Members are remunerated but have failed to perform their duties, and that Members cannot do their job since we keep requesting a headcount. These complainants consider it necessary for me to give a response and I would therefore try to do so now. However, only Mr TAM Yiu-chung of the pro-establishment camp is present in the Chamber. Mr TAM Yiu-chung, should Members on your side do their job? There are over 40 of them but only you are here to act as their representative.
This should not be allowed, Chairman, though I originally had no intention to request a headcount. Those who are watching television broadcast of this Council Meeting are urged to note that among the 43 Members of this camp, one is sitting there presiding over the meeting, another one is in his seat, and they dare to criticize me for not doing my job. Chairman, please summon them back to the Chamber under Article 75 of the Basic Law. Please take a good look and have the scene videotaped …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please sit down. 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 LEUNG Kwok-hung, please continue with your speech.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I have finally summoned all Members of the pro-establishment camp back to the Chamber and will staff members of television stations please have the scene videotaped. Mr WONG Kwok-hing is the first to leave his seat and these people are actually thieves calling on others to catch a thief. Let me repeat once again, the quorum of Council meetings has already been prescribed by law and it is stipulated in Article 75 of the Basic Law, our constitution, that the quorum for meetings of this Council shall be not less than one half of all its Members. According to the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8365
Rules of Procedure of this Council, I can say with certainty that a quorum is not present now and there is a solid legal basis for the assertion.
Nevertheless, I recall that the Chairman had refused my request for a headcount since a quorum was present in the Chamber. Hence, if it is proven that a quorum is present as it is the case now when some Members remain in their seat like Mr CHAN Hak-kan, while others are busy surfing on the net like Mr CHAN Kam-lam, meetings will definitely not be adjourned. Therefore, it is the pro-establishment camp which has made us request for a headcount because if all of the 43 Members belong to the camp are present in the Chamber, we will have utterly no ground to request for a headcount. If Mr TAM Yiu-chung is the only Member of the camp present, just like what happened just now, I have to summon them back to the Chamber. If they do not leave their seat, I will not have the chance to request for a headcount later. Hence, they are calling on a thief to catch a thief … thieves calling on others to catch a thief. (Laughter) They are laughing now and the atmosphere in the Chamber has livened up, but I do not think they will be able to laugh as I continue with my speech.
Secondly, the Budget this year has won the support of many people, including the Democratic Party, and they have queried the rationale for staging a filibuster. The financial surplus recorded this year is about $75 billion if the fund of $45 billion set aside by Secretary John TSANG for injection into the Housing Reserve is also included, and it has become normal for Hong Kong to record such an amount of financial surplus. How should the surplus of $75 billion be used then? The Financial Secretary decided to keep on "handing out candies" and thus, a mere $3.4 billion will be spent on reducing profits tax and waiving business registration fees, while $28 billion will be used to reduce salaries tax and waive rates. These measures will cost the Government a total of over $30 billion but for some unknown reasons, the measure put in place for many years to provide a one-month rent waiver to public rental housing tenants has been removed.
How much of the surplus of over $70 billion is used in this year then to bring benefit to the poor who are living in dire straits? The answer is $3-odd billion, representing a ratio of 1:9. May I ask Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing and Mr CHAN Kam-lam of the pro-establishment camp what have they done in this respect when they visit local communities every day and urge the Government to render more assistance to the poor?
8366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please speak on the amendments covered in this joint debate.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): What I am saying is of course relevant to the policy areas covered in this joint debate, which include youth and economic development. How can we develop our economy when the poor have nothing to eat?
I would like to make one more point. There was no filibustering in the past and the whole thing started in 2012. From 2006 to 2016, the accumulated surplus underestimated has amounted to nearly $600 billion, meaning that $60 billion should be available for use every year. What kind of a concept is this? For example, if $60 billion can be set aside to help the poor this year, the Government may distribute $6,000 to everyone as in the case of what it has done in 2011, when the proposals on "cash handout" originally put forward by John TSANG recklessly were unacceptable to Members of the pro-establishment camp and he was asked to benefit all Hong Kong people by giving out money to everyone. As the experience in 2011 has shown, the measure would only cost the Government $30-odd billion and more than $20 billion is still available for implementing other improvement measures, such as the provision of residential care homes and the setting up of a universal retirement protection fund. Chairman …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please speak on the themes of this joint debate.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Alright. Hence, while the pro-establishment camp is engaging in empty talks here on the implementation of a universal retirement protection scheme for the elderly people of Hong Kong, I have staged a filibuster for the purpose in each of the past four years. I make it clear every year that the tactic will not work anymore since Jasper TSANG has invented such thing as cutting off the filibuster, and coupled with his attempt this year to "tailor" the filibuster, we will not be able to do anything. This has already happened but no one has ever grasped the opportunity over the past four years, and it will be even more difficult to stage a filibuster in the future. Yet, I am not going to talk about it anymore since the Chairman will definitely stop me from speaking. Let me talk about something else. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8367
The request of the League of Social Democrats is very simple. We will stop the filibuster immediately once a universal retirement protection scheme is implemented by the Government, but we should not be blamed now since the Chairman has already "tailored" the filibuster. If the Government is willing to pay back $10,000 to each citizen, we will also stop the filibuster at once. However, what is there to be afraid of when the Chairman has already "tailored" the filibuster? It will then not be possible to force the Government to allocate $60 billion for handing out …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please focus your speech on the themes of this joint debate.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Let me then talk about the Youth Day since today is 4 May and the Chairman should know very well that this is the Youth Day of the Communist Party of China. It is said that the youth work conducted by the Government is ineffective. The Chairman's younger brother, the former Secretary for Home Affairs, was fired and the Home Affairs Bureau is the Policy Bureau responsible for youth work. It is even worse to assign Gregory SO to take up the duty of arranging activities for the Youth Day this year since money matters are all that he knows. Holding him responsible for the job will only bring the issue to a dead end. Is it impossible to assign the responsibility to a government official who is not in charge of money matters? Chairman, were people talking about "money money money" when the May Fourth Movement happened back then? This was not the case …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, which amendment are you speaking on?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am talking about this because the policy areas covered in this debate session include youth, arts and culture and sports. The function held today to commemorate the Youth Day is just an instance of "discharging black excrement after taking pig's blood jelly". This is grossly disappointing that a Bureau Director in charge of money matters is invited to deliver a speech at the function.
8368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
However, Chairman, I am the one speaking now. The May Fourth Movement took place after the war, in which Germany was the defeated country while Japan was one of the victors. It was thus suggested that there should be an exchange of the powers and interests enjoyed by the two countries in China and the Chinese territory occupied by Germany should be handed over to Japan. The suggestion caused the backlash of the people of China and as the Chinese Government then was betraying the country, students staged a procession which has subsequently led to the burning down of the ZHAO's Mansion. If the throwing of stones in Mong Kok today should be called a riot, how about the burning down of the ZHAO's Mansion? People never learn from past lessons.
What is the meaning of the slogan "resist foreign subjugation externally and eradicate traitors internally" chanted then? Who does the term "traitors" refer to? It refers to warlords, the dominating force then when the Republic of China was decaying. What are the characteristics of warlords? They are arrogant and believe only in absolute power …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I still cannot see how are the contents of your speech related to the amendments and the heads covered in the debate.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am exercising my power to educate the youths of Hong Kong on behalf of the Secretary for Home Affairs. This is the reason why I do not propose to cut his remuneration and he is only expected to sit there and listen to what I say. It happens to be the Youth Day today but no one has said anything about it, so how can we show our love to our country? This group of patriots are just like missiles and they will only fly back to their home when something happens. Chairman, you are interrupting my speech.
Just now I was saying that China was dominated by warlords who colluded with foreign forces and people did not have the right to vote, thus causing the backlash of the people. Hence, after the series of incidents took place in 1919, the Communist Party of China was established in 1921. When it comes to the Communist Party, you cannot stop me from speaking. Up to this point, I cannot help but ask: What is so strange about the discussions today on the independence of Hong Kong and self-determination? MAO Zedong advocated years ago in Hunan the inter-provincial autonomy movement for the purpose of driving ZHANG Jingyao away. Who is ZHANG Jingyao? He was a warlord in Hunan LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8369 and we are just doing the same thing today, aren't we? What we are trying to drive away are the plutocrats of Hong Kong and LEUNG Chun-ying, the "big liar". They sought to "drive ZHANG away" and achieve inter-provincial autonomy, while we want to "drive LEUNG away" and conduct a referendum to decide the way forward for the people of Hong Kong.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, if you keep on digressing from the subject, I have to "drive LEUNG away" and ask you to leave the Chamber.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I understand. In this connection, I would like to tell all of you that there is significance in commemorating the May Fourth Movement today. It seeks to demonstrate that any government, no matter it has guns in its hands, or it is dominated by warlords or plutocrats, or it is an oligarchy, it cannot impose its will to rule and govern on its people arbitrarily, otherwise its people will be forced to rebel regardless of whether the government has colluded with foreign forces. Take MAO Zedong as an example, he advocated the inter-provincial autonomy movement, didn't he?
Therefore, in this connection, as the function held today to commemorate the spirit of the May Fourth Movement is too awful, I have to point out to all of you that since the respectful ZHANG Dejiang, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, will come to Hong Kong shortly, I am not sure if you have to make appropriate arrangements to proceed to voting as early as possible. Fellow Members, I also suspect that ZHANG Dejiang is coming to deal with a very serious issue but Chairman, please do not take me wrong, I am not referring to the issue of Belt and Road but the problem of LEUNG Chun-ying. I would like to point out that it is a waste of time for us to have the debate on the Budget here since you have already arranged everything and "tailored" the filibuster. What I am going to say is that in order to commemorate the spirit of the May Fourth Movement and let young people be the master of Hong Kong's future, we have to state aloud when ZHANG Dejiang is coming and tell him that the 31 August Decision is ill-timed, as in the case of the May Fourth Movement when …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I have repeatedly reminded you that the contents of your speech have nothing to do with the current debate.
8370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): But they are related to the future, is the future more important than the present? It would be important for us to have a prospect for the future. Chairman, I know that you will soon expel me from the Chamber but I am fine with this since you have already arranged everything for the filibuster. There is nothing to be afraid of and I need not endure humiliation as in the past in order to discharge an important duty.
Chairman, let me tell you once again that the LEUNG Chun-ying regime can only bring disasters to Hong Kong, and that LEUNG Chun-ying is even worse than a brutal autocrat, a traitor or a warlord back in those years. Therefore, Hong Kong people should come forward when ZHANG Dejiang is coming to tell him that it is wrong to have the 31 August Decision and we want genuine universal suffrage. The power to govern should be handed back to the people of Hong Kong if they do not want to see any discussion on the independence of Hong Kong. Please accede to the request, ZHANG Dejiang, can you hear me?
I know you are going to "drive LEUNG away" and I will leave on my own accord. Let me tell you now, when ZHANG Dejiang is coming, all of us should pluck up courage and come forward.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, stop speaking immediately.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, in these two debate sessions, I have put forward nine amendments in total, two of which are to cut the remuneration of the Secretary for Home Affairs and the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development. In regard to the annual assessment of the performance of principal officials, I will air my views if I have another chance to speak. It is because my other seven amendments are on the items being bundled up with the Budget after bypassing the Finance Committee. With reference to the records over the past few weeks, it is very likely that I only have these 15 minutes to speak. I do not know when the meeting will be suspended. Therefore, within these 15 minutes, I will try to explain these seven amendments as quickly as possible. If I have the second chance to speak, I will then discuss each of these amendments in detail. Chairman, please do not say that I am repeating my arguments then.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8371
I will speak in the order of the amendments. The first two amendments are Nos 134 and 135. These two amendments are related, and they concern the Communications and Creative Industry Branch under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. One of the items is the expenditure of $110 million on the CreateSmart Initiative. The total amount of expenditure for the coming few years is originally $400 million, but the Government only applies for the first part of funding of $110 million this year. The other item is the funding for the Hong Kong Design Centre (Design Centre). It is also a kind of non-recurrent expenditure involving $6.1 million, which will be used especially for the development of fashion. This was the project successfully fought by the Liberal Party last year.
First of all, I will talk about the Design Centre, which focuses on the development of fashion. We frequently talk about the nurturing of home-grown design talents in Hong Kong. However, design is actually about making things prettier. Frankly speaking, it is just the pursuit of more refined taste, not a daily necessity. If we want our new generation in Hong Kong to appreciate the good of pursuing refined taste, to have loftier aspirations in life, we must give them a kind of reasonable living. Otherwise, if people are all preoccupied earning a subsistence living, they will never appreciate the good of pursuing refined taste and have any loft aspirations on life. They will not care about design either.
Therefore, this explains why we need to have universal retirement protection. Chairman, this is the objective of filibustering according to Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung. As he did not mention this in his speech, I will explain on his behalf. If we have universal retirement protection, the new generation or those who want to start their second round of career in their forties can pursue their goals without any worries. Young people and fresh graduates are venturesome and they dare to try new things, as they do not have to worry that their working life is getting shorter and shorter. Nevertheless, when you reach your thirties or forties, at which time you may have accumulated some money which however is not sufficient to provide a comfortable life in your old age, you really have a lot to consider if you want to set up your own business. If there is universal retirement protection in Hong Kong, people will have more capital to take risk, because they know that even if they fail in their businesses, they can still have very basic protection during their old age.
8372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
I know a person who should be 32 years old this year. At present, he has to make a very important decision of whether to take up a very dry but stable job with 5% increase in his salary each year but without any chance of showing his talent or interest, or to remain in the media group with the prospect of promotion to the position of editorial writer. Nonetheless, as we also know, if you are doing well in the media sector, you may be sacked in the evening on the same day. The better you perform, the higher is your risk of being sacked. Hence, if there is retirement protection, he shall have no fear or worries and can just remain in the media sector. However, at present, he really has to consider giving up his interest and finding a stable job with salary increase every year so that he can save up money for retirement protection.
He has chosen stay with a job that does not require any creativity, but we can thus see that if we want Hong Kong people to choose those jobs that suit their talents and interests, there must be stable social security, so that they can try new things without any worries. Otherwise, if people always think of saving money and having to rely on their own savings during old age, many people will sacrifice their own talents.
Chairman, concerning the textile industry, I actually want to discuss a very practical issue, fashion design. In fact, Hong Kong is not particularly strong in fashion design. We are strong the textile industry instead. It has been recently in the news local research talents have successfully found out how to make fibre cloth by recycling food waste and crab shells ― Chairman, not lobster shells. How? The protein from crab shells will be extracted, polymerized and then turned into fabrics through extrusion. Hence, there can really be lobster clothes in the future, as the compositions of lobster shells and crab shells are similar. Thus, there can be lobster clothes. But I have no idea whether you can bully other people once you put that on. Anyway, this kind of textile, which is produced by special technology, will have a special function.
At present, children in Hong Kong lack opportunities to nurture their aesthetic perception and aesthetic education is also inadequate. All they can see in the streets are signboards and buildings. In that case, should we still to force ourselves to develop fashion design? Why don't we invest more resources in textile technology? Another new research is also of very great environmental relevance. Fabrics can be made not only from crab shells but also from food waste. Similarly, the protein from food waste will be extracted. This is killing two birds with one stone, as we can repurpose what regard as waste and make good use of them.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8373
The Design Centre is far behind the times in one way, and we thus have to make up for the inadequacy through the provision of "co-working space". The Design Centre aims to invest in nurturing new enterprises and talents. However, new enterprises in their start-up days are generally unable to afford exorbitant rents and even basic office stationery and equipment. Therefore, some private and social service groups, such as The Good Lab founded by my good friend, Ms Ada WONG, have actually been providing a kind of offices called co-working space. The idea is to rent out a standard size office with a correspondence address at a very low rent, probably close to a four-digit figure or at most $2,000. Inside a co-working space, people of different occupations. In the case of creative industries, in particular, people engaged in different industry segments like typesetting and design can come together and achieve some kind of synergy. You can meet people engaged in the same occupation, and work together with people in the upstream or downstream of the occupation. At present, this kind of co-working space is already provided in the private market. The funding schemes of the Government lack such foresight, but the private market is leading the way instead.
Are there anything else in the private market which are worth mentioning? There is one thing about venture capital fund. The Secretary for Innovation and Technology is now present. He once came here to discuss this issue with us. However, has he noticed certain online crowdfunding activities at present? They are very successful. In contrast, the funds set up by the Government have still not achieved any success. Nowadays, people will upload their newly designed products to the Internet. If people like these products, they can place online orders without having to make payment immediately. After receiving enough orders, designers can then go ahead with actual production and other work without any worries. Why are all the publicly-funded schemes of the Government always unable to keep abreast of the times? The Government intends to provide the soil necessary for nurturing new enterprises, but why must it set up these funding schemes anyway? You know, the approval criteria of these schemes are unclear, and this has led to suspicions of public resources being used for private purposes and funnelling of benefits. In fact, all this should be discussed in detail in the Finance Committee.
About the CreateSmart Initiative, the Government has actually told us in a paper that it will go through the procedure of submitting this proposal to the Finance Committee after listening to the views of the Panel concerned. And, the paper mentions that this initiative involves an undertaking of $400 million, while the expenditure for 2016-2017 will be $110 million. I have checked those minutes of meetings. In fact, pro-establishment Members also spoke a lot in the 8374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 meeting. They did not remain silent and did present lots of views. So, to begin with, I must say I am very dissatisfied with these Members. Since they have so many views, how come they now allow the Government to bypass the Finance Committee and bundle this initiative with the Budget? I must of course put this question to them. Also, many pro-establishment Members say that pan-democratic Members have proposed so many amendments and their purpose must be filibustering. They are in fact saying that every time we speak, every time we ask any questions, we must be filibustering. I think this criticism is definitely absurd. In return, I want to ask pro-establishment Members, especially those who voiced their views in the Panel meeting, to raise their questions here to the Secretary and to the government representative later in this meeting.
Moreover, many Members have aired their views on the subject related to the insurance sector. My three amendments concerning the insurance sector are Nos 318, 319 and 320, particularly on the Pilot Programme to Enhance Talent Training for the Insurance Sector and the Asset and Wealth Management Sector. I really have to read out from the minutes of meeting. Mr CHAN Kam-lam queried the entry remuneration level of this sector. He thought that this was unattractive and emphasized that the Government had to step up the professional training in universities. Besides, the most remarkable speech was delivered by Mr WONG Kwok-hing. He said that it might be more cost effective to engage university freshmen and to provide them with early exposure to opportunities offered by the insurance sector and the financial sector. At the same time, he also opined that the two sectors should take up the responsibility of enhancing their attractiveness to potential new entrants, and the expenditure on training the personnel should be borne by the sectors instead of the Government. This Pilot Programme to Enhance Talent Training for the Insurance Sector and the Asset and Wealth Management Sector need a funding of $21.7 million this year. Mr CHAN Kam-lam and Mr WONG Kwok-hing are not the only Members who think that the responsibility of training the personnel should be taken up by the sectors. In fact, some other Members also share the same opinion. However, the Government is still applying for public funding in order to implement this programme. The sectors thus do not need to spend any money. Why? Can Members voice their opinions, so that the public officers present can relay their views to the officials concerned after the meeting?
Furthermore, this programme was put forward to the Panel on Financial Affairs. In the paper submitted by the Government to us, it is said that the programme would be submitted the Finance Committee for deliberation. However, the programme and the Budget are now being bundled up quietly. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8375
Since Members do not have a chance to air their views in the Finance Committee, we have to continue questioning here. Having put forward the programme to the Panel, public officers are now sitting dutifully to listen to the debate, but the original programme and the Budget are now bundled up. They hope that the programme can be passed together with the Budget, in which case Members will be unable to follow up the matters afterwards. What should we do? Chairman, in fact we know that it is impossible to put the motion on this programme to a vote in the Finance Committee. Even if it is put to a vote in the Finance Committee, frankly speaking, it will also be passed. Nevertheless, we can at least follow up the matter in the Finance Committee in that case.
After putting forward this programme to the Panel, the Government said that it would accept the views. However, has it altered any administrative details or any details for funding approval? If we do not speak or follow up the matter here, why should the Government alter the details? In this Chamber, more than 40 Members are harbouring the Government, so they just bundle all the items up with the Budget. Even though the paper says that the programme would be submitted to the Finance Committee in the future, the Government has quietly bundled up the programme and the Budget so that it can completely avoid questions from Members. This is just like that suitcase. Any time you forget to bring it along, someone will bring it for you to the checkpoint for security inspection, and no one can know what the suitcase carries.
Hence, Chairman, I hope that I can have the second chance and the third chance to speak later on. If so, I will discuss each amendment in detail. But here, I will also call upon those pro-establishment Members who have raised questions and queries to continue to speak.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, please speak.
8376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, first I would like to talk about the amendment related to the Marine Department. I have mentioned earlier the problem that the authorities have time and again circumvented the scrutiny of the Finance Committee (FC) of the Legislative Council, and one of the items concerned is about the procurement of vessels. Apart from the procurement of vehicles we have mentioned just now, there are items concerning the procurement of vessels, such as fireboats and speedboats; then there are other items about the respective procurement of vessels by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) and the Marine Department. All of these are about vessels.
Chairman, procuring vessels is a straightforward task, but how come the Government can end up in such a mess? The items have all been approved. It is indicated in the record of enquiries made during the relevant special meeting of the FC that the Marine Department had answered questions related to these few vessels. The public can refer to the contents and see how their money was wasted. The AFCD should have procured a vessel in 2013-2014, and the cost was $10 million then. The amount has increased by 40% to $13.95 million now. Moreover, the Government further bundles the procurement with the Budget as a new item of application for a funding of $13.95 million, with an amount rising by 40%. The Department should have given the FC an account of its failure in procuring a vessel after a few years have passed. Furthermore, the amount of funding has to be increased by 40% after the delay. Instead, the Department merely bulldozes through the procedures without giving any explanation. The Chairman also knows that we, the Labour Party, firmly hold a clear stance against the Government's deviation from the established procedures regarding the submission of funding application to the FC. In contrary, the Government now follows the colonial practice in the 1980s when items were bundled with the Budget at that time. We hope the arrangement will not repeat next year. To be honest, we will submit much fewer amendments if the situation does not recur next year, as our amendments are mainly about two types of issues relating to, namely, salary cut for ineffective officials and funding applications circumventing FC's scrutiny.
I want to specifically talk about the Marine Department, but to whom do I talk? No representative of the Audit Commission is present. I really hope the Audit Commission can review why the Marine Department are unable to procure a vessel after a few years' time. It cannot even fulfil such an easy task to procure a vessel.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8377
In fact, there are a few vessels in concern, one for the AFCD, another one for the Marine Department, and the application in respect of the latter one, called Hydro 1, was even submitted as early as a few years ago in 2011-2012. Yet the procurement is still not completed by now. How does the Department justify this? We have requested for an answer, but the biggest problem is, as the Chairman may know, there is not an official present to offer any answer. A few reasons were given by the Department: there was a large number of vessels in need of replacement. Apart from the Marine Department, many vessels in various departments became obsoleted and needed replacement too. This is the first reason. Second, the Marine Department is reviewing its procurement procedure. I do not know what kind of review has been conducted, neither has the Marine Department offered any explanation. No answer is given here too, as all of us can witness that only Secretary YANG is present, who is not going to answer questions related to the Marine Department. Therefore, I do hope the Audit Commission can conduct an audit on the Marine Department, as we know nothing about its procurement procedures. Then another absurd reason was a lack of staff with relevant experience. Why did they not hire if there was such a problem? We always consider that it is fine to hire if necessary. They attributed the delay of a few years to insufficient staff with relevant experience, but how much money was wasted because of this? As I have mentioned just now, the cost has risen by 40%, but it is the figure for one of those vessels only. An increase of 40% means an additional cost of $3.95 million. How much persons could be hired with this sum of money? They would sooner squander money on the delay than spent it on recruiting persons with the right experience. One more reason given by them was inflation in manpower, material and insurance costs of the ship building industry, and any delay would result in such a situation. These were the answers given by them.
In fact, the incident is the outcome of a mess created by the Marine Department. Why is it so difficult to buy a vessel? Upon realizing a shortage in relevant manpower, why no recruitment was conducted? Moreover, they should know of the need to replace the vessel, and such a requirement did not emerge all of a sudden. Information related to service life of the vessels was kept in the records, and they certainly would have ideas on the approximate time for replacing a large fleet of vessels. The Government would not possibly miss these matters. However, it turns out that the whole issue is handled in such a ridiculous manner with so many years' delay, leading to such a needless wastage of public money. How on Earth could this happen?
8378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Another predicament involving the Marine Department is the frequent use of outsourcing arrangement. But, this poses a problem. As the Marine Department uses outsourced or rented vessels to intercept speeding speedboats, this may give rise to an absurd phenomenon under which officers of Marine Department, in the capacity as law-enforcement officials, will have to ride on outsourced or rented vessels for intercepting the speedboats. I wonder how can they know whether the rented vessel itself is related to the speedboat under target? I of course do not have any proof, nor do I mean to claim that the ship owner must relate to the speedboat. However, why do law-enforcement officers have to ride on rented vessels? I find such an outsourcing arrangement unreasonable, so this is another mess created by the Department. Image if a police officer is going after a thief, will he rent a car for the task? Of course he will drive a police vehicle to do so. Equally, how come officers of the Marine Department can carry out the mission on rented vessels? However, the question remains unanswered, and they just go on making this outsourcing arrangement.
Recently, due to an insufficient number of vessels available, and their failure to replace vessels with higher speed or deploy more vessels on operation, they have to rent vessels again. For example, after the recent Kap Shui Mun Bridge incident, the Marine Department had to rent three vessels for a term of three years to monitor the adjacent waters. Should the Department has a fleet capable to carry out the task, then it did not have to do so. However, it was not the case. Therefore, under such an absurd situation, we consider that it is truly necessary for the Audit Commission to conduct an audit on the entire Marine Department. With such an outcome, our money was all wasted.
So the status is that we have already committed public money in the procurement, same as what pro-establishment Members like to say most: having committed public funds already, how can we not go on procuring the vessel? The same happens every time. However, the current issue differs from two other cases in which public funds were also committed, namely the Express Rail Link and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, as the two cases can still be discussed under the FC, while the issue at present had not even gone through the FC. It is instead submitted directly to the Legislative Council, while no action will be taken to follow up the situation after Members have listened to our words. With such an indifference to the wastage of public money, a single vessel can squander a few million dollars after a hike in the cost by 40%. This is the first point that I would like to specifically point out.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8379
Another amendment I am going to talk about is not proposed by the Labour Party, but by Mr WONG Yuk-man in respect of the support offered to the Standard Working Hours Committee (SWHC). In fact, the SWHC does not bring about any effect at present. The whole thing is the Government's joke with Hong Kong people and SWHC members. What is the purpose? To accommodate the business sector and procrastinate the issue so that it cannot be resolved in LEUNG Chun-ying's term of office.
The Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions staged a protest against LEUNG Chun-ying during the Labour Day reception a few days ago. One of his remarks then really made me feel bothered. He described himself as someone working against all odds. However, he himself is the "odds" in fact. He is the biggest obstacle to legislation for standard working hours (SWH), yet he presented the scene as if he has to strive against all hurdles ahead for the benefit of workers. This kind of bullshit is truly ludicrous. The fact is that LEUNG Chun-ying has refused to keep his words, and this is why we have to bring up the issue again today and demand LEUNG Chun-ying to fulfil his promise. We will keep on chasing him.
SWHC has been established for a few years, and has conducted a consultation the result of which has clearly indicated a majority support among employees and employers for the legislation for SWH, and that the SWHC has also studied the topic. Why do we have to hold a second consultation? In particular, the second consultation did not cover the means of legislation, but returned to the first question on "whether to initiate legislation". This is practically a waste of time. I do not see what did LEUNG Chun-ying mean by his claim of "against all odds" when he is actually the one who creates the problems in the first place and obstructed the progress. The fact is, we are fighting against all odds because of his procrastination. We aim to demand him to honour his pledge and expeditiously enact legislation on SWH. This is the first big question about manpower.
The Labour Department has another problem in manpower, that is, the Department's overall handling of wage default, and we are greatly dissatisfied with this. The recent default concerning the Asian Television Limited (ATV) is widely known in society, and for the last two years the Labour Department has been dealing with the issue. In fact, the only way to deter employers, especially deterring directors from defaulting wage payment, is to render them liable legally. section 64B of the Employment Ordinance states that directors or persons in 8380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 charge can be liable, but this is rarely invoked by the Department. Probably they will invoke this against small and medium enterprises, yet never do they do so against consortiums. Now that everyone knows of ATV's default, and it was crystal clear that the representative of ATV shareholders expressly illustrated before ATV employees that this was a default in wage payment, requesting employees to tolerate for one more month until payment was to be made then. They had confessed to a default, but no prosecution was initiated by the Labour Department.
Chairman, not even one person in charge of ATV was prosecuted by the Labour Department so far. The prosecution of IP Ka-po before was in fact an attempt to make him the scapegoat. He is indeed not the person in real charge. However, there is one thing he is not right, that is, his refusal to name the persons truly in charge. Should he decide to do so, he himself will be liable no more, yet he has to bear the guilt instead of his superiors. I wonder if his superiors have offered him a sum of money to take care of his families. It is pathetic for such a high-ranking figure like him to receive this offer, as he will have to go to jail in place of his bosses in all probability. However, Chairman, the Labour Department has not sued any one of the ATV directors by now. So, what has the Department done in the aspect of manpower? The problem remains unsolved today.
One can realize that many departments actually experience similar problems. Organs of the entire Government are procrastinating, leaving tasks unfulfilled. Another fatal industrial accident occurs in North Point today, causing the death of a worker on board a barge. In fact, there are at least a few cases of fatal industrial injury each week this year. If this goes on, we are actually building our infrastructures with the blood of workers, no matter how splendid they look like. Do we really want this kind of infrastructures at the expense of human lives?
How come the Labour Department is unable to prevent work injury up to now, despite its frequent claims of the importance attached to occupational safety? Particularly in the areas of fatal and serious industrial accidents, they have achieved nothing at all. We feel that the Labour Department gives people an impression that it always tends to do less, merely maintaining the old tasks without taking extra steps to offer more. This is a phenomenon generally existing among various departments in the Government. Probably it is a result of low morale and the numerous occasions of meaningless steps taken by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8381
LEUNG Chun-ying which serve simply to waste time. I believe staff in the Civil Aviation Department has already spent countless working hours only for repairing the harm inflicted by him alone. As civil servants are required to rectify many of LEUNG Chun-yin's issues and messes, it is without surprise that they have a poor morale. However, the greatest problem of poor morale among civil servants is the degrading service quality, which in turn will jeopardize the interests of the people. Currently, many issues are left unresolved without even recording any progress, including the handling of work injury mentioned just now. The Labour Department merely investigates after accidents take place, and it does not look like having any clues to the matter, nor does it plan to work on preventing the recurrence of such tragedies, including conducting inspection.
Finally, the problem of biggest concern is the fact that excessive workload is the true reason behind workers' death or occupational injuries. Therefore, they already have to retire in their fifties. But the Labour Department has never taken this factor into account, nor do they have any regard to the unduly long working hours and occupational injuries sustained by workers. As these injuries are not considered as occupational diseases, workers are not entitled to any compensation after suffering casualties, injuries or becoming disabled. As for the Government, it shows no concern about the issue of occupational diseases.
Therefore, we consider that the Government's performance on manpower is also utterly disappointing. So, in the end, Matthew CHEUNG's salaries should as well be reduced in full.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): During each debate, I will call upon all movers of amendments to speak first. As Dr Helena WONG is the only mover of amendments present at the moment, though Dr Kenneth CHAN has not moved any amendment, he is scheduled to speak after Dr Helena WONG. However, if other movers of amendments enter the Chamber when Dr Helena WONG is delivering her speech, I will reschedule Dr Kenneth CHAN's speaking order backward. Members please understand this.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will now speak on Amendment No 350 I propose, which seeks to cut the annual estimated expenditure (approximately $3.58 million) for the emoluments of Secretary for Education Eddie NG under head 156.
8382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Chairman, I believe that apart from me, some other Members will also propose similar amendments. The Policy Address and the Budget this year have the same drawback of injecting $1 billion into the scholarship fund for students from the Belt and Road countries. The Government will lavishly spend $1 billion of public money not for local students, but to subsidize students from the Belt and Road countries to pursue university studies in Hong Kong. The idea was first put forward by the Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, and then complemented by initiatives proposed by John TSANG in the Budget this year. I consider the idea controversial and have thus visited local communities to gauge public opinions on the subject. It occurs to me that the proposed initiative in the Budget in this regard has created intense dissatisfaction and negative feelings among many people. In my opinion, doing so is putting the cart before the horse. This is not only a gesture made at taxpayers' expense but also sheer neglect of the aspirations of local students studying in self-financing institutions, the appeals of their parents as well as the fact that these students and parents are subject to immense financial pressure.
According to the statistical information provided by the Education Bureau, 135 000 secondary and primary students were studying in international, private or direct subsidy schools in 2015 and the number is quite significant. How come they have chosen to study in direct subsidy, private or international schools instead of publicly-funded secondary and primary schools? Many of them are more or less dissatisfied with the basic education funded by the Government and are of the opinion that insufficient resources have been allocated by the Government in this respect, thus rendering various aspects like curriculum design of publicly-funded education programmes not entirely satisfactory. Therefore, parents would rather spend a lot of money to send their children to non-publicly-funded schools.
If the Government really has the resources to render assistance to Hong Kong people, parents and students, why not use the $1 billion earmarked for injection into the scholarship fund for students from the Belt and Road countries to improve the situation of universities and primary and secondary schools currently funded by public monies? If the resources used to subsidize such aspects as school systems, curriculum design, and so on, in our basic education are well co-ordinated, parents may not need to send their children to schools charging expensive school fees and pay the expenses out of their own pocket.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8383
Chairman, you were once a teacher and should know very well the education situation in Hong Kong. The Secretary for Education and the Education Bureau should use our limited education resources in a responsible manner. As far as the use of education resources is concerned, being accountable to taxpayers (that is, the people of Hong Kong) should of course be the most important criterion. The principle of according priority use of education resources to Hong Kong people is a golden rule to be observed by the entire Government. However, as we can see, the Government is now spending a huge sum of public monies to subsidize non-local students. In the current term of the Legislative Council, I have repeatedly pointed out the problem in my speeches over the past four years and the problem can first be witnessed in research postgraduate programmes.
In the past 10-odd years, under the leadership of the University Grants Committee and the Government, postgraduate research institutes have placed much emphasis on internationalization. It has been asserted that the principle of merit-based selection would be adopted in working out their admission criteria so that candidates with the best academic results would be admitted. After years of promotion of internationalization, a large number of non-local students are finally admitted but in actual operation, internationalization has resulted in Mainlandization because it is indeed impossible to admit so many students from other countries. Nicholas YANG is now the Secretary for Innovation and Technology but he was once a teaching staff member in The Hong Kong Polytechnic University and should know very well that in actual operation, only a limited number of students could be admitted from other countries under the policy of internationalization, while most of the students admitted to local postgraduate research institutes are actually Mainland students. In other words, the so-called internationalization has already deformed.
I do not mind adopting the policy of internationalization since I believe that it would be a good thing to have a certain kind of mixture in universities with the admission of students with different backgrounds, but the problem is that our research postgraduate places are now mainly offered to non-local students. I am not talking about self-financing postgraduate programmes like Master of Arts programmes but am referring to Master of Philosophy (MPhil) and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) programmes. Currently, an average of 70% to 80% of students admitted to research programmes run by postgraduate research institutes in several local universities are non-local students but unlike what it was at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, when I was admitted to the 8384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 postgraduate research institute of The Chinese University of Hong Kong on a self-financing basis, students admitted to MPhil and PhD programmes at present are basically subsidized by the Government. The amount of subsidy granted is so generous that they should have no problem in paying the tuition fees and meeting the living expenses.
If 70% to 80% of postgraduate students admitted are non-local students, how can we explain the fact that there is no difference in the granting of subsidy to different types of students? Will the Government be responsible for all expenses incurred until graduation once these students are admitted, be they children of taxpayers or students from other countries or the Mainland? The average student unit cost for research postgraduate programmes at present is about $475,000 per annum and generally speaking, it takes at least two years and three years to finish a MPhil and a PhD programme respectively. Hence, about $1 million will be needed to subsidize a non-local postgraduate student admitted to a two-year MPhil programme, while at least $1.5 million will be required to finance one admitted to a PhD programme (excluding the provision of other scholarships for attending international conferences overseas).
Nevertheless, though the admission of some non-local postgraduate students to stimulate critical thinking, debate and research is worth supporting as I mentioned earlier, the Government has no reason for not reviewing the funding mode and examine whether different fee charging systems should be implemented for local students and non-local students. Singapore is also striving very hard to attract non-local postgraduate students to engage in academic research or take up research postgraduate programmes in its universities but different fee charging systems are applicable to permanent residents of Singapore, Singapore citizens and students from other countries. Those who are not permanent residents of Singapore will definitely be required to pay a much higher tuition fee. Other arrangements will then have to be made by non-local students themselves to have the expenses involved for furthering their studies in Singapore financed by scholarship, and so on.
However, this is not the case in Hong Kong, and I have repeatedly criticized the Government for this. How about the scholarship for students from the Belt and Road countries then? It seeks to apply the yet-to-be-rectified and erroneous funding mode adopted for research postgraduate programmes to undergraduate programmes and spend $1 billion to assist students from other countries to enrol in subsidized university programmes provided in Hong Kong. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8385
I think this is putting the cart before the horse and why? Since the supply of subsidized university places in Hong Kong is falling short of demand, many students who can meet the admission requirements of local universities are not offered a university place and have to solve the problem themselves if they wish to pursue higher education. Hence, they have to enrol in associate degree programmes offered by private universities.
The introduction of associate degree programme is most unfair to parents and students of Hong Kong because this is a policy adopted to create the impression that the Government has already achieved a higher tertiary education popularization rate but as a matter of fact, the number of subsidized university places has not been increased for many years and has remained at the level of 15 000 first year undergraduate places a year. However, the number of students who can meet the university admission requirements is 25 000 every year. In other words, the Government will take care of the need of 15 000 local students but the remaining 10 000 who can also meet the university admission requirements will be left on their own, while public monies will be spent to subsidize students from the Belt and Road countries to further their studies in local universities. How can students taking associate degree programmes and their parents not boil with rage and demand the dismissal of Eddie NG?
Initiative like this should only be adopted as the icing on the cake, when the problems faced by parents of Hong Kong and DSE graduates have been resolved and all candidates sitting for university entrance examination could be offered a subsidized university place. If the Government's attempts to put icing on the cake, lick the boots of "Grandpa" and adopt some measures for window dressing are made only after the education demand of local residents has been fully met, a huge uproar would not have been aroused to ask for a cut of the annual emoluments for the Secretary. As Eddie NG is not present today, it seems that we are putting the blame on Secretary YANG, but I know the matter certainly has nothing to do with him. I hope the Secretary would be present later when a reply is given.
Thus, the proposal to set up a scholarship for students from the Belt and Road countries is under serious attack once it is put forward, and nearly all members of local communities I have consulted on the idea have indicated their opposition to the initiative. Knowing that the idea is not welcome and even the Liberal Party has criticized the Government for doing so, a fine-tuning proposal is formulated. It is said that the Government is planning to fine-tune the proposal 8386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 by switching to a 1:1 funding mode, that is, half of the funding earmarked will be used for subsidizing students from the Belt and Road countries to further their studies in local universities with the full costs met by the Hong Kong Government, while the other half would be used for setting up a scholarship for Hong Kong students, who may apply to further their studies in universities of the Belt and Road countries. I have already made it clear that the Democratic Party objects to this fine-tuning proposal of adopting the 1:1 funding mode. The proposal only seems better than the original one but under the principle of giving priority to the local people, it would be impossible for us to use half of the funding, that is, $500 million of the $1 billion earmarked, to bring benefit to students of other countries. The policy still remains indebted to students of Hong Kong.
There are many community colleges at present which have admitted a large number of associate degree students. Although some articulation programmes have been provided by the Government so that these students would be awarded an associate degree upon completion of a two-year programme, most of them would not seek employment after they are awarded the degree and thus, studying in an associate degree programme has actually put them in a dilemma. We have repeatedly brought the issue up at Panel meetings and asked: Whether the introduction of associate degree programme is intended to make it the final stop or a midway stop of higher education? Even though the Government would like to make associate degree programme the final stop of continuing education, this is actually not the case since many associate degree graduates and their parents are eager to pursue higher education qualifications. Their aim is to complete a degree programme formally and attain their first degree and hence, though completing an associate degree programme, they have only achieved half of their goal.
Students taking a two-year associate degree programme would be very busy adapting to the course in the first year while in the second year, they would be in a state of great anxiety since those who are not doing well would have a very slim chance of getting admitted to the articulation programmes offered by the Government. If associate degree graduates are admitted to such articulation programmes, they can go on to the third and then fourth year of other subsidized university programmes and complete the whole degree course. However, not many places are offered by the Government in this regard and there is only a small increase in such places over the years.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8387
The Government has announced in the Policy Address last year that third year undergraduate places offered in various universities will be increased by 1 000 places so that 5 000 associate degree graduates will be able to articulate to subsidized degree programmes each year. However, as I mentioned earlier, at least 10 000 students who can meet the university admission requirements are admitted to associate degree programmes every year, and together with those who cannot meet the university admission requirements but are also admitted to such programmes, there are nearly 20 000 associate degree students each year. As only 5 000 places for articulation are offered by the Government, the 10 000 associate degree students who can meet the university admission requirements at the outset will have to compete for these 5 000 places, meaning that only one can survive in every two of them. Once you are admitted, the classmate beside you has to bow out, the whole thing is just too cruel, is it not?
How come our resources are so abundant that subsidy can be granted to students from other countries for furthering their studies in Hong Kong, but priority cannot be given to using such fiscal resources to meet the education demand of local students? Therefore, the Democratic Party objects to the fine-tuning proposal. Although it seems better than the proposal originally put forward, it still runs contrary to the principles of giving priority to the local people and according priority use of resources to local students. To our knowledge, the tuition fees charged for many associate degree programmes are very expensive, ranging from several tens of thousands of dollars to $110,000 each year. The tuition fees required for taking a two-year programme should be over $200,000 and in order to pursue higher education qualifications, students may have to take out a loan of hundreds of thousands of dollars. It will not be possible for them to repay such debts even though they can get a job after graduation and what they are facing will only be a most miserable life. Chairman, I so submit.
MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): Chairman, the amendment I have proposed is Amendment No 361, which seeks to reduce head 156 by $35,500,000 in respect of subhead 700. The proposed reduction is allocated for the Vocational Training Council (VTC) to take forward the Pilot Training and Support Scheme (Pilot Scheme). Actually, the Labour Party supports this allocation. We have proposed an amendment to it mainly because we wish to show our stance towards the Government's approach in bypassing the scrutiny of the Finance Committee of this Council before including this item in the Budget.
8388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Chairman, since the beginning of this school year in last September, there have been more than 20 cases of student suicide. This has aroused much concern among different sectors of society and sparked heated discussion on the subject of secondary students pursuing further studies and seeking employment. Upon completing examinations, students who fail to meet the minimum entrance requirements for university study will have to work out a future path or a further study plan. They will also have to struggle over whether to start working or not. Hence, as a responsible and far-sighted Government, it should not generalize the problem of student suicide as the personal problems of individual students; but rather, it should start from improving the present education system. Hence, while the Government takes forward grammar education, it must also develop vocational secondary schools and universities, and strengthen the development of different industries, so as to provide more options and development pathways for students pursuing further studies and seeking employment.
Hong Kong should vigorously develop vocational education to provide an additional option for students unsuitable for grammar education to seek further education. But the Government all along has put scanty effort in developing vocational education. According to the Annual Digest of Statistics for 2015 of the Census and Statistics Department, the Government has only spent 4% of its total education expenditure on vocational education in the past 10 years, while its expenditure on secondary education accounted for 30% to 40% of the total in the same period. It is evident that vocational education has long been excluded from the grammar-oriented mainstream education. Hence, the Government has proposed in the Policy Address this year that the Pilot Scheme, as one of the vocational education schemes, be extended. Actually, we should support the corresponding allocation in the Budget, but we have proposed cutting this allocation because we have reservation about the Government's approach in handling this allocation.
(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
The allocation for the Pilot Scheme was approved by the Finance Committee in July 2014 for implementation by the VTC in the 2014-2015 academic year. The Task Force on Promotion of Vocational Education taking charge of the Pilot Scheme proposed after a review that the Pilot Scheme should be extended. According to a paper of the Panel on Education titled "Progress of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8389
Implementation of Initiatives to Strengthen Vocational Education", the VTC conducted a series of review sessions with the participating employers and trainees of the Pilot Scheme in March 2015, after which the Government concluded that the Pilot Scheme was well-received by both employers and trainees.
However, if we refer to the paper on examining the Estimates of Expenditure 2016-2017, as of February 2016, about 900 trainees have participated in the Pilot Scheme, which is far less than half of 2 000 trainees as originally set down for the Scheme. But the Government still decided to extend the Pilot Scheme, citing the good response to the Scheme as the reason. Hence, the Government must explain in detail to the public why the Pilot Scheme was so well-received but it only met 45% of the target participant number. Besides, the Government must also make public the details of the review report on the Pilot Scheme and the recommendations for improvement. Against this backdrop, the Government should never have bypassed the Finance Committee's scrutiny of the proposed expenditure of $35,500,000 and directly included the proposed expenditure into the Appropriation Bill 2016. Its approach shows no respect to the participating trainees, employers and the Legislative Council.
Deputy Chairman, the Pilot Scheme seeks to "attract and retain talent for specific industries with a keen demand for labour, by integrating structured apprenticeship training programmes and clear career progression pathways". According to the paper "Progress of Implementation of Initiatives to Strengthen Vocational Education", the electrical and mechanical trades of the construction industry, printing, watch and clock, automobile as well as testing and certification industries have joined the Pilot Scheme. This mode of co-operation between industries and vocational education should certainly be acknowledged, but it remains questionable as to whether the Government has strengthened the ancillary support for these industries.
We should bear in mind that the industries which recorded a 40% employment rate increase in the past 10 years are real estate, financial services, insurance and construction, and that financial services, tourism, trading and logistics, and professional and commercial/industrial support services remain the four pillar industries supporting the Hong Kong economy. To date, this commercial-oriented homogeneous industry profile has remained unchanged, and we have yet to see any concrete measures from the Government to change this 8390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 monopolized situation. If the Government does not diversify the industries in Hong Kong, it remains a serious question as to whether the Pilot Scheme trainees can develop their career in the respective industries.
Besides, the industries which have joined the Pilot Scheme are still very limited in variety. The Government should attract more emerging industries to join the Scheme, such as environmental and agricultural industries, to better utilize local resources for the promotion of vocational education. At the same time, a greater variety of industries can also provide more diversified options for vocational trainees in course selection as well as in profession selection after graduation.
Deputy Chairman, the Pilot Scheme exhibits a prototype of the dual-track system adopted in the Germany vocational education. Under the Pilot Scheme, trainees are required to complete an one-year full-time elementary course provided by the VTC before proceeding to on-the-job training in a part-time mode. As far as we know, the dual-track system of the vocational education in Germany requires their students to receive classroom learning of subjects related to their chosen profession for one to two days per week. The students are then attached to enterprises providing relevant training for the remaining three to four days of the week. About two-thirds of the students under their dual-track system are offered full-time jobs every year by their training enterprises.
On the other hand, under the Pilot Scheme in Hong Kong, upon completing the Scheme, students will be awarded a Diploma in Vocational Education equivalent to Qualifications Framework Level 3. If they wish to continue their study, the VTC provides a follow-through progression pathway for them to attain a higher diploma or a degree in a part-time mode. In this connection, when the Government reports to the public on the effectiveness of the pilot scheme, it must clarify which of the following is the major indicator of effectiveness: the employment of the graduates by their training enterprises, or the ability of the pilot scheme to serve as a stepping stone for its trainees to progress up the courses offered by the VTC.
If the Pilot Scheme graduates not offered full-time employment by their training enterprises have to complete the VTC follow-through studying pathway anyhow in order to find a job, then the Scheme is a duplicate mechanism. Participating in the Pilot Scheme is then a waste of time to its trainees and is incapable of finding new entrants for the participating enterprises. The Scheme LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8391 is only a delaying tactic adopted by the Government to temporarily solve the problem of underemployment of Secondary Three to Secondary Six school leavers. Hence, instead of extending the Pilot Scheme, the Government should expedite the implementation of a dual-track system for vocational education in Hong Kong, so that the Pilot Scheme trainees can have a bridging education system.
In fact, three vocational senior secondary schools in Hong Kong have already implemented a dual-track system even earlier than the Pilot Scheme of the Government. Besides, their students are able to secure employment or obtain a full-time job from the enterprise or sector in which they have completed their apprenticeship training. The Government should draw reference from the development experience of these three vocational secondary schools, and develop vocational senior secondary schools into a mode of conventional secondary education.
We know that the number of secondary students will continue to drop in the coming few years. We hope that the Government can actively lay down a plan to develop vocational secondary schools and universities, so that students upon completing junior secondary education can choose between mainstream grammar education and vocational education, and make a suitable and informed decision in progressing further. It is because there are many students every year who cannot progress to university or tertiary education wish to study in vocational senior secondary schools and they have such an intention when they were junior secondary students. Hence, in the long run, it is incumbent upon the Government to develop the Pilot Scheme into dual-track vocational senior secondary education to sustainably increase the supply of young new entrants for the relevant industries. The Government should not make piecemeal extension of the Pilot Scheme, nor should it extends the Pilot Scheme before completing its medium-term review.
Deputy Chairman, in this Policy Address, the Government has not made any commitment on expediting the development of vocational education into mainstream education. Although the Policy Address mentions that the Pilot Scheme will be extended, it does not show that the Government is determined in developing mainstream vocational education in the long run. Given that the Government has chosen Secondary Three to Secondary Six school leavers as the target participants of the Pilot Scheme, it should at least try to understand that not all secondary students cope well with grammar education. If the Government 8392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 thinks that vocational education is important to secondary students, it should examine the Pilot Scheme in detail in respect of the justifications for scheme extension, development direction and medium and long-term effectiveness, rather than causally saying that the Pilot Scheme is well-received by its trainees and employers and then including the estimated expenditure of $35,500,000 into the Appropriation Bill 2016.
More importantly, as the Government has allocated $1 billion for the Belt and Road scholarship, it should give priority to local education and spend more efforts in developing local vocational senior secondary schools and universities. Only by so doing can it facilitate the diversification of local industries and provide a greater variety of progression and employment pathways for local students. It is because developing a full spectrum of local education and industries is the only way to let local students and talents transcend to the international level.
Deputy Chairman, I so submit.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I request a headcount.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Kenneth CHAN, please speak.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8393
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in this debate session, I would like to speak on the following amendments. They are Amendment Nos 121, 122, 313 and 350, concerning three Secretaries, namely Secretary for Education Eddie NG, Secretary for Home Affairs LAU Kong-wah and Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Prof K C CHAN, and particularly a Budget funding of about $8 million on an exchange scheme for young people from Belt and Road countries under the Home Affairs Bureau. The policy area involved in the scheme is the item of discussion in this session, and that is education, youth policy and Belt and Road policy.
There is one strange thing here. Dr Helena WONG from the Democratic Party asked a question earlier. When there are insufficient undergraduate places in Hong Kong, and more than 10 000 secondary school graduates with scores admissible to universities cannot get government subsidized places in universities each year, why would the Government propose to inject $1 billion into the Scholarship Fund for implementing the Hong Kong Scholarship for Belt and Road Students? I think we all should know what is going on and have the answer to this question. It is because the election year is coming and they have to make contributions, "shine the shoes" and support the Belt and Road strategy of President XI Jinping of the country. Anyway, ZHANG Dejiang will come to Hong Kong to attend the Belt and Road Summit later. In regard to the government officials sitting opposite to him, such as Deputy Secretaries or other civil servants, how much do they know about the Belt and Road strategy? Do they know what we are discussing? They may say that there are more than 60 countries and then count them out one by one. However, how important is this strategy and how is it related to Hong Kong so that a funding of over $125 million has to be allocated to it in this financial year, when the overall funding to it will be over $200 million, in addition to the $1 billion for the Hong Kong Scholarship for "Belt and Road" Students, for the implementation of this "shoe-shining" strategy, a generous strategy which is at the expense of taxpayers, and which will make a lot of secondary school graduates in Hong Kong sad and even angry?
I have recently read a booklet ― actually every Legislative Council Member should have received it. I am not sure whether my colleagues will read it, but I will read it. It is about a lecture organized by The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Secretary Prof K C CHAN was the speaker of a lecture titled "One-Belt One-Road: Opportunities for Hong Kong". I am rather interested in 8394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 it, as after all, he is at the very top level of the Government, in charge of financial affairs and is also a professor in the School of Business and Management. He must be very clear about the policies concerned and I have to learn from him. Unexpectedly, when I opened the booklet, I found that while its title really had the word "Opportunities", its content was about how Hong Kong could integrate with the Yangtze River Delta, including Shanghai, and the Pearl River Delta, and how they could step up exchanges. Then, in the last few paragraphs of the whole speech ― please do not mind what I say. This speech was probably written by his colleague in the Government. I have no idea whether he has read it beforehand. He might just read it out during the lecture ― Belt and Road was only mentioned four times, but there was not any substance. It only said that the opportunities would come, when the Belt and Road policy was being implemented, the opportunities would come, and we had to grasp the opportunities. This is just like the advertisement of the Best Prices Electrical Appliances which called upon people to rush to the shop to buy the products. However, there is not any substance about the "Belt and Road" strategy in his whole speech.
As a principal official under the accountability system, he is also very closely related to the Executive Council which has meetings on Tuesdays, from morning till late afternoon. As he is always mindful of his own business area, he should have a lot of matters to deal with. Besides, as he is also in charge of financial services which are related to trading, why could he not add any substance to his speech? His performance is worse than those Members from the related sectors here, who may tell you more details. I want to make a correction. He did not mention Belt and Road for four times, but five times, as Belt and Road was also mentioned in the title. Hence, there were five times if the title was inclusive, but there was no substance at all. Afterwards, he said that we had to learn well and should pay special attention to the Southeast Asian region. He then finished his speech.
I find that there is an interesting area. Why are our government officials so concerned about promoting the Belt and Road strategy? It is because of their worry that if they are a bit slow, they will be unable to take credit for others' achievements and to "shine the shoes" for leaders. Nevertheless, the problem is that a lot of students in Hong Kong, after working very hard in their studies and getting good results, should be able to study in universities but are now being shut out. The Government, however, introduces such a scholarship scheme. They LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8395 will think that the Government comes from an outer planet and has just landed on earth in Hong Kong. Why is the language of the Government so different from theirs? Why are the ideas of the Government so distant from what we think for all these years ― this is not any new question ― why is the Government unwilling to first deal with local educational needs, as well as the rights of parents and students? Why are they not getting the priority but giving way to this kind of "shoe-shining", flattering and fawning strategy which needs to spend taxpayers' money?
At present, with the censure of the people, Secretary Eddie NG can also see the problem and he says that the scholarship will be two-way instead of one-way. In other words, through the scholarship, not only can the students from Indonesia come to Hong Kong, but the Hong Kong students can also go there for exchanges. Nonetheless, he probably does not know much about education ― not probably, but he actually does not know education, even after these few years in his position ― In fact, among our higher education institutions, there has been an international strategy for many years. This is not any Belt and Road strategy, but international strategy. In the high education area, this will seriously study how Hong Kong, as an international city, can encourage the institutions to have more opportunities for exchanges and contacts for academic studies and co-operation with the top institutions in various places of the world. I am teaching in the Department of Government and International Studies of the Hong Kong Baptist University. I have been serving it for 18 years. The students whom I have taught come from various places in the world, including the Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, Switzerland, as well as Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam, Myanmar, Kazakhstan. There are such activities going on. It is thus unnecessary for them to deliberately erect a banner there when they have no idea of what they want to say or what they are doing. After all, they just implement the policy without consulting any Members.
Therefore, this kind of vanity projects and "shoe-shining" culture has really frightened our university students. In terms of university admission, the formal answer is that policywise, universities have autonomy in admission of students. They do not get funding allocated from the policy, and then have to recruit students from the designated place and push the students to certain places for exchanges. We are asking for a global and international strategy for admissions and exchanges, instead of a strategy only for Belt and Road countries, about 8396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 which even the government officials have no idea of what they want to say. As I have already said, Secretary Prof K C CHAN is being bound by a matter about which he does not know what he wants to say. He does not need to flatter other people, but only need to naturally conduct his ongoing business.
What makes it even more bizarre is that LAU Kong-wah, who is in charge of youth policy and not resigning to playing second fiddle, introduced almost immediately a Funding Scheme for Exchange in Belt and Road Countries in the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education. Everything is hurriedly done under this Scheme. They ask the schools to register as soon as possible and say that it will soon be the deadline of the Scheme. What is the content of this Scheme? Similarly, we do not know what it wants. In short, it asks the students to go there for better understanding of the place, so as to bring about in-depth exchanges and fostering "people-to-people bond" among them ― there are all these catch phrases of no significance ― Formally, students are required to participate in an exchange meeting before they leave Hong Kong, so that they can learn about the Belt and Road policy of the country. How do they learn? They will read the speeches and scripts of President XI Jinping, and may also read the Policy Address of LEUNG Chun-ying ("Belt and Road" was mentioned for a few dozen times in the Policy Address this year). They are to parrot and to read out accordingly before they set off. After the exchanges, there will also be some activities. This is very strange indeed.
The more ridiculous point is that in the funding for the Home Affairs Bureau, the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education is totally … The Government allows students to choose places, but the places that they can choose include Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Nepal or Egypt. I do not harbour any discrimination against these countries and places, and I absolutely respect these places and people. However, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has issued Red or even Black Outbound Travel Alert on the above-mentioned places. What is the Government doing? Before making clear of the situation, it asks students to go to these places for learning. In fact, government officials are in great need to learn, as they are the most ignorant people who push students to these Belt and Road countries without completely knowing the picture, but just rushing wildly with the others for this purpose.
This is not the behaviour of a government with good management practices. Therefore, to many young people and those teaching in universities, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8397 not only is the Government completely impractical, but it is also turning its back on the Hong Kong people. In the eyes of many people in the education sector engaging in youth work and in the eyes of the young people, the Government is walking towards the opposite direction. Particularly when it is 4 May today, we should have talked about the spirit of the May Fourth Movement. When can we talk about self-determination of the people? When can we talk about democracy (not dictatorship) of the people? When can we tell the people that we, building on past achievements and heralding the future, are upholding the spirits of democracy and science of the May Fourth Movement and will work for their sustainable development? There is nothing like this. We only have these government officials, who do not completely understand the picture, copying these catch phrases and then applying to Hong Kong. If you ask them, they cannot answer the questions either. It is no wonder that this kind of policy promotion will only meet with a rebuff.
We have to learn more. As a person who has such experience, I have been to not a few Belt and Road countries mentioned by the Government. Nowadays, people in these countries want an explanation for their certain traditional industries or businesses being bought up by large amounts of Chinese capital. Recently, a Czech student told me that from what we saw in the television during President XI Jinping's visit to the Czech Republic, President XI Jinping and the President of the Czech Republic were planting trees and they seemed to have very good relations, but in fact, there were severe grievances among the public. The Chinese people, with large amounts of capital, have bought a traditional chain of hotels to which they have placed importance and have strong attachment. They think that this is a kind of threat. The Government asks students to go to these places for exchanges. If they really choose the Czech Republic, they may think that it will be great fun, as Prague is very beautiful and they can act like art enthusiasts, discussing Milan KUNDERA's The Unbearable Lightness of Being or The Book of Laughter and Forgetting. They may think that it is purely chatting with local people, but the local people will ask such a question. How can a "people-to-people bond" be fostered among them? How will the Government deal with this question?
The government officials really have to consider these matters in detail. They cannot simply push the students to go to these countries because of the policy and the funding being allocated for the purpose, and then list out the amount of funding for this year and the number of students going to the Belt and 8398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Road countries in an account, just for completing the assignment and getting a score for the re-election of the Chief Executive. What is their next step? Has the Government properly dealt with youth work, communicated with young people, properly handled the education challenges and high education problems that Hong Kong is now facing? Has it got the solution for all these? Hence, the Belt and Road scholarship under the $1 billion fund will, in fact, waste a lot of talents in Hong Kong. It is because many students who are qualified to be admitted to universities will be unable to get subsidized places, thus wasting their hard work in studies for all these years in order to get good results, to continue to affect and change their lives through education, and to find their own future. On this question, it is a matter of injustice and a mistake to have them taking a longer route and making a detour.
Therefore, the Government should not expect us to support the $1 billion Hong Kong Scholarship for Belt and Road Students, or other Belt and Road related funding items. It is not possible for us to support them. In regard to these matters, the Government simply does not know what to do. But it asks us to follow it. Where are we heading towards? To seek re-election campaign, LEUNG Chun-ying uses public money to give himself credit, and other government officials are only parroting and reading out from the scripts, not considering in detail how they are really resolve the actual deep-rooted conflicts in Hong Kong. Whether in education area, youth policy or youth thinking, have the authorities properly communicated with the young people, and really understood their needs? After they have participated in these activities and being brainwashed with the phrase of "Belt and Road" for 100, 1 000 or 10 000 times, will they love their country more, become closer to the country and to the opportunities brought by the country, so that they will not forget such experience for the lifetime and will be grateful and thankful to the central authorities?
The Government is actually going backwards in this policy, this attitude and strategy. We are asking for a genuine international strategy. If the phrase of "Belt and Road" is removed and the activities concerned are changed into international, global, and worldwide activities and programmes, we will fully support them. Because rather than adopting the Belt and Road policy, this is the correct way of continuously building up Hong Kong's and our students' positions in the international society.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8399
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, two days earlier, Dr LAM Tai-fai tested the Government with a Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) question, which the Government did not even know how to answer. Today I also have a TSA question for Dr LAM Tai-fai.
Today is the 4 May, a day to commemorate the May Fourth Movement. My TSA question for Dr LAM Tai-fai is: how many years ago did the incident of "the burning of the House of the Zhaos" and the May Fourth Movement initiated by the students took place? Will he tell me which one is the correct answer: 64 years, 97 years or 689 years?
DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, please allow me, as the Chairman of the Panel on Education, to answer this question. Or else others may think that I am dumb.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr LAM, this is not the time for you to speak.
DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): The May Fourth Movement was mainly initiated by a group of young students. It was a student movement took place in Beijing on 4 May 1919.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr LAM, this is not the time for you to speak. Please sit down. Mr Albert CHAN, please continue with your speech.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): To my surprise, Dr LAM Tai-fai could answer this TSA question correctly. But our government officials did not even know how to answer these simple TSA questions. Shame on them!
Deputy Chairman, there is a point for the people of Hong Kong to know more about the May Fourth Movement because it is education-related. This movement took place 97 years ago. Yesterday I did not show up at all in the Chamber, and today I was also absent most of the day. I was outside attending a 8400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 court trial as we were prosecuted earlier for burning the white paper. Dated back to 97 years ago in Beijing, a group of universities students set fire on the House of the Zhaos, which was the residence of CAO Rulin, the Minister of Communications of the Beiyang Army government, and assaulted a diplomat. The Beiyang warlords released the students subsequently. But today, four of the protesters were prosecuted in Hong Kong, including WONG Chi-fung who was only 10-odd years old by then. This shows that the communist regime in Hong Kong is even worse than the warlords 97 years before. What a shame!
Just now Dr LAM Tai-fai managed to answer this TSA question correctly. This slightly helps to save the face of the royalist Members. The quality of government officials is even worse than that of our royalist Members. Shame on them!
Deputy Chairman, return to the subject of TSA, you may still recall that a motion had been raised by me earlier in the Council calling for the suspension of the TSA. But as the royalists strongly guarded against anything opposing the TSA, and a number of Members who supported the motion did not follow their conscience when casting their votes, the motion was negatived at the end.
One of my amendments on the Budget seeks to cut the annual estimated expenditure of $74 million on the TSA. But the President did not allow me to move this amendment as he considered it frivolous and meaningless. I must condemn this decision on the ground that the abolishment of the TSA for Primary Three students is an issue of utmost significance to tens of thousands of parents and students. Hence this amendment is absolutely not frivolous and meaningless.
If we review the record, since the start of this academic year, 20-odd students had committed suicide. This figure has exceeded the total number of student suicides recorded last year. Six student suicide cases were reported in less than a half month in early March. All political parties, Members and everyone in the education sector are concerned. I can therefore say that Hong Kong people unanimously call for the abolishment of the TSA. If any political party dare say that not all parents and students in Hong Kong look forward to the abolishment of the TSA, I do hope that they have the courage to come forth and defend for their standpoints instead of being a coward.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8401
They used to be like that. Recently, in a publicity road show, we saw the Members of some trade unions vow that they support the provision of seven days of paternity leave. Ironically enough, they voted against the relevant amendment in the Legislative Council back then. What a big shame! At that time, the democratic camp call for the provision of seven days of paternity leave, but when it came to voting, the Members of the pro-Mainland trade unions voted against the relevant amendment. We can check the record of the meeting. Now they tell everyone that they support the provision of seven days of paternity leave, how shameless and pretentious! Where is Mr WONG Kwok-hing?
Deputy Chairman, I request a headcount. Please summon Mr WONG Kwok-hing back to the Chamber.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
(A number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please continue with your speech.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I reproach the Members who voted against the provision of seven days of paternity leave back then for acting cowardly. Just now I requested a headcount in order to summon them back to the Chamber. They just returned to their seats, yet when they saw me standing up to continue my speech, they hastily left again because they felt guilty.
Chairman, talking about my amendment seeking to cut the annual estimated expenditure of some $70 million on the TSA had been crossed out, I think we need to put this down on record as this decision has let many people down, and some Members are disgruntled by not given the opportunity to vote on this amendment. 8402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
I call on Members to support another amendment (No. 347, head 156), which seeks to cut the estimated expenditure of $96.4 million on sponsoring Mainland exchange programmes for students. In our view, this kind of arrangement aiming to "broaden the horizon" of students is absolutely not civil education. These "brain washing" programmes would have negative influence on our young people instead of helping them to grow and mature.
Moreover, it is unfair to our teachers if they have to co-ordinate these exchanges with the rich and the powerful. The teachers of Hong Kong are already seriously overloaded with work. According to the information provided by Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, our teachers have to work 60 hours a week on average, one fourth of teachers even need to work up to 71 hours a week. If these teachers are even assigned the extra duty to take care of these Mainland exchange programmes, this would absolutely affect their work.
Chairman, as you know, our police officers exchange most frequently with the Mainland, and many conduct problems involving prostitution, gambling and drugs ensue. If teachers are encouraged to lead these Mainland exchange programmes, they may be easily influenced by the corrupt behaviours in the Mainland. Some "dirty cops" who had frequently looked for entertainment in the north of the border were found indulging in prostitution, gambling and drugs. The education sector must stay away from these vices. We hence call on Members to support the amendment concerned.
In addition, I have put forth an amendment (No. 345, head 156) seeking to cut $2,102,160,000, which is an amount equivalent to the annual operating expenditure on "Programme (7): Policy and Support", from the expenditure of the Education Bureau. One of the major initiatives in this aspect concerns the "Belt and Road", and the expenditure will be mainly spent on the Mainland University Study Subsidy Scheme, overseeing the implementation of the Basic Competency Assessment and the Hong Kong Scholarship for Belt and Road Students. The impact of this series of initiatives will be far-reaching.
We support the amendment seeking to cut the expenditure on "Belt and Road"-related educational initiatives on the ground that these initiatives are absolutely beyond the scope of local education. Moreover, we should do justice to Hong Kong people. As Members are aware, many fresh graduates of tertiary institutions are debt-ridden. If the Government is financially capable, shouldn't it support the young local students for it really takes them a lot to obtain a degree? Many young graduates not only worry about their future and job search, they LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8403 even have to repay the debt for fear that any default of repayment would bring trouble to their family members. Chairman, if we review the number of university student suicides, it is worth noting that the number of suicide cases of final-year students is the highest. This proves that the graduation-related pressure, particularly the financial burden, faced by tertiary students must not be underestimated.
Besides, Chairman, perhaps you still remember that on various occasions, I had time and again criticized the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) for, among others, the navigation system it recently installed, the Director-General of Civil Aviation's decision to build a grandiose office and a dancing room, and so on. While my amendment seeking to cut the emoluments for the Director-General of Civil Aviation was rejected by the President, he smartly accepted another amendment put forth by me seeking to cut the emoluments for the two Deputy Director-Generals of the CAD. Up till now, I still have no idea why the Director-General's emoluments shall not be cut, but that of the two Deputy Director-Generals can be cut. This is probably beyond comprehension unless one is as wise and insightful as the President.
As the President has given a green light to my amendment seeking to cut the emoluments for the two Deputy Director-Generals of the CAD, I have to point out that the responsibilities of both of them have something to do with air traffic control. As everyone knows, the air traffic control system has incurred cost overrun and its implementation has been delayed. These problems are in fact very common among government projects in recent few years, just that the cost overruns and delays now faced by the CAD and the Highways Department are the worst. The delay in the implementation of the new navigation system procured by the CAD and the cost overrun related with the new system has shamed Hong Kong. Back then I had pointed out that the entire tender process for the navigation system … we also know that after the conduct of investigation into some departments, it is impossible to prosecute certain persons due to the lack of evidence. But anyone well versed in the procedures of public works knows that the entire tender process is unusual. From the decision making, tender format, drafting of papers, relevant policy making to the arrangement of extra funding lately, the entire process is unreasonable.
If you ask me for advice, my advice is that all officials responsible, including the Director-General, Deputy Director-Generals and Assistant Director-Generals, should be fired. Comprehensive reform should be 8404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 conducted. The successors who replace these officials will see if any further information can be provided to the relevant authority for the conduct of criminal investigation or even prosecution. If the existing officials are not replaced, how is criminal investigation supposed to be carried? These officials would harbour each other, and any useful information would possibly be destroyed. We have seen many such cases in the Mainland, they call this the succession of generations and leaders. The new leaders, when they are in power and have obtained adequate evidence, would prosecute the corrupt officials after their stepping down. In fact, several former senior officials of Hong Kong, including the former Chief Executive and the former Chief Secretary for Administration, were prosecuted only after stepping down. I guess "689" would also be prosecuted after stepping down, let us wait and see.
The blunder by the CAD is a serious one. Fortunately, they did not insist to implement the navigation system in question, or else it may likely cause accidents even more tragic than the incident of shipwreck. The incumbent Director-General will retire soon, I do not know what internal arrangement will be made accordingly. If one of the incumbent Deputy Director-Generals will be promoted to become the new Director-General, I am afraid not much information will be available for investigation. Hence I maintain that all responsible officials must be replaced, so that we still have some chance to probe into the truth. Moreover, a change in the responsible officials can maintain the quality of our air traffic control, and ensure that no accident will occur under the new navigation system as no corrupt behaviour and dereliction of duties will be tolerated.
I of course know that there is a change in the policy recently. Unlike the traditional practice of internal promotion, the Government will appoint some administrative officers to fill several newly-created vacancies of Deputy Director-General of Civil Aviation. This is probably one of the ways to clear up the mess. But this also means that some people can circumvent the legal consequence for their unscrupulous behaviours. I have followed up on this issue for several years. The Director of Audit finally proved that my complaint is valid. I am glad that at least this issue was not left unfollowed.
I will try to elaborate other issues and the justification for me to raise the relevant amendments if I have to opportunity to speak for the second time.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8405
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN and other Members time and again said they did not understand why I only gave the green light to some of the amendments. While I have written to Members to clearly explain my decision, here I would like to explain the rationale of my decision once again in order to avoid repeated query from Members.
According to the Rules of Procedures, any amendment to any head of expenditure to reduce the sum allotted thereto in respect of any item therein may be moved by any Member. In other words, an amendment can only reduce the sum allotted to a subhead of a certain head of expenditure in effect. If the amendment is passed, it will have no binding effect on how the department concerned should use its resources. That is to say, even if an amendment aiming to reduce the emoluments for a certain official is passed, the department concerned may not necessarily do so according to the amendment.
As Mr CHAN Chi-chuen had explained more than once, Members want to move amendments because they would like their criticism on certain government officials or the overall performance of certain departments to be put down on record. Hence I came up with the decision that each Member (including Mr Albert CHAN) is allowed to move the amendment seeking to reduce the highest sum among all the amendments he or she intends to move with respect to the subheads of a certain head of expenditure. This can actually serve the record purpose as mentioned by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen because Members can express their views on the department or official concerned in their speeches. Mr Albert CHAN just now questioned why I disapproved Member's amendment to cut the emoluments of a certain official, but accepted another amendment to cut the emoluments of another official of the same department. This is because I allow Member to move the amendment seeking to cut a higher sum. I believe this will give Member a bigger room to elaborate his arguments. I hope Mr CHAN would not raise similar question again in his following speeches.
Mr IP Kin-yuen, please speak.
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, this is the fourth year in my term of office in this Council and the first time for me to move an amendment in respect of the Budget. As mentioned by the Chairman just now, the objective is to put on record my severe criticisms of the education problems in Hong Kong.
8406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
The wording of my amendment is as follows: "Resolved that head 156 be reduced by $3,580,000 in respect of subhead 000", and the amount is equivalent to the estimated expenditure for the annual emolument of the Secretary for Education. I think it should not be difficult for fellow Members who are present here and the general public to understand the reason why I propose the amendment. The amendment is proposed because of the poor performance of the Secretary for Education, Mr Eddie NG, in the past one or few years. He has all along been performing so badly that teachers, parents, students and even members of the community are very disappointed, and sometimes he has even put the education sector and Hong Kong people to shame.
In the past few years, I have been participating in the discussions of our education problems in a calm and peaceful manner and I think all of you would agree that in this Chamber, I can hardly be regarded as the harshest critic of Eddie NG. Very often, I would focus my discussion on policy matters, offer suggestions and try not to hurt his dignity when making criticisms. However, my earnest and well-meaning advices have ended up in profound disappointment. Eddie NG has so far done nothing to convince us that he, as a Bureau Director, would try to assume a more active and satisfactory role. Actually, I understand that Hong Kong has to deal with a lot of difficult education problems, and it is always my opinion that we should give him some more chances. It has been my hope in the past few years that he would make some improvements but most regrettably, the situation is deteriorating.
It is hoped that by proposing an amendment today to cut his salary, he would ask himself honestly what education problems he has handled for the education sector in these four years when the Education Bureau is under his leadership, and what policies he has put in place to genuinely try to treat teachers and students fairly. Teachers and students have been working very diligently and attentively and shall we have a Bureau Director who perform equally well or even better? In this connection, the Secretary's attitude is very clear to me and he has also indicated to the media in March this year that he felt aggrieved, but I would like to tell him the education sector and the entire community are even more aggrieved. Teachers are striving to perform their functions dutifully year after year and they really deserve a competent Bureau Director.
Under the leadership of Eddie NG, the long-standing problems in local education have not been solved while new issues keep arising, thus intensifying the work pressure faced by teachers. After the delivery of the Budget this year, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8407 it is noted that not a single new item has been proposed for the policy area of education, and work in this regard has ended up with nothing. This is not the first time for me to describe the situation as "ending up with nothing" in this Chamber. I recall that during the question session for the Budget, I have asked the Financial Secretary about the reasons for this. Was it because Eddie NG had not put forward to him any budget proposal for the policy area of education, or his suggestions were really "no good"? The Financial Secretary replied that he had never refused any budget proposals put forward by accountability officials as long as they were good suggestions made at the ripe time, a consensus had been reached in the community and feasible administrative and financial support could be provided. It thus occurs to us that if the Budget has nothing impressive to offer as far as the policy area of education is concerned, is it due to the fact that Eddie NG has not done his work well and put forward reasonable budget proposals?
As a matter of fact, since Eddie NG took office, it has been quite obvious that he does not have the ability to handle the many controversies over local education, and neither has he tried to properly deal with the problems faced by the education sector. In 2012, when faced with the controversies over the introduction of the Moral and National Education subject, he has already assumed an attitude of refusing to listen to public opinions. When a hundred of thousands of people were in procession to voice their objection, he replied that only a hundred of thousands of people had participated in the demonstration, while several million people of the silent majority were in support of the introduction of national education. People were infuriated by his remarks and the tension was further heightened by his forced implementation of the policy. Finally, the controversial curriculum guide of the subject were shelved.
The incident took place a few years ago and I am now repeating this same old story again to remind fellow Members that when Eddie NG first assumed office, he has already taken an obstinate and self-opinionated attitude as he is now in executing his duties. The problem is that he has never learnt the lesson, never tried to understand the aspirations of teachers, parents and students, and has even belittled the views expressed by Members in this Council.
One of the policies introduced perversely by the Education Bureau is the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA), which a number of Members have also mentioned today. The problems concerning TSA have been bothering both teachers and students for many years. The findings of a survey conducted by the 8408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union (HKPTU) in 2011 reveal that the problems of deviation and over-drilling have emerged when implementing TSA, and the situation is so serious that teachers and students are made to suffer very badly. Yet, no attempt has ever been made by Eddie NG to tackle the problems since he assumed office in 2012.
Last year (2015), the HKPTU completed its third questionnaire survey on TSA and 70% of the responding teachers considered that the implementation of TSA had affected their daily teaching commitment and the holding of tests and examinations, while 65% of them objected to the implementation of TSA. A press meeting was convened to publicize the findings of the survey but surprisingly, the Secretary responded a few days later that according to the views received by the Education Bureau, the majority of schools and teachers in Hong Kong welcomed the implementation of TSA. The views cited by him are just the opposite of the findings obtained from the survey, and this can best reflect that he is actually turning a blind eye to public views. As we are all aware of the subsequent developments, not long afterwards, a huge uproar was aroused in parents' groups on the Internet and it was only by then did the Secretary realize that stepped-up efforts had to be taken to deal with the situation. Even so, he still failed to meet the common aspirations of teachers, students and parents and abolish the Primary Three TSA.
He suggested the implementation of a tryout study but indicated before the study has actually begun that the implementation of TSA would be fully resumed in 2017. If it is already decided that the implementation of TSA would be fully resumed, what is the point of implementing the try-out study? He is only being self-contradictory and what is he exactly driving at?
Eddie NG has been most criticized for his behaviour earlier when public hearings were held by the Panel on Education of this Council to receive views on TSA. There were a total of four sessions in the hearings held that day, with over 100 parents attending to express their views and another 300 odd parents participating in a public assembly outside the Legislative Council Complex, but what was Eddie NG doing then? It turned out that all of these pressure and problems were not as important as red leaves and sushi for him. How come he has attached such a great importance to his private travelling plan? Should he be responsible for alleviating the pressure faced by teachers and students and rendering assistance in solving their problems?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8409
The problem of excess lead in drinking water is another example. The first incident of excess lead in drinking water in primary schools was reported in August last year. We immediately made a request jointly with HKPTU to the Education Bureau, urging the Government to accord priority to conduct water tests for high risk schools so as to protect the safety and health of teachers and students. However, as all of us may recall, the Secretary responded by saying that efforts had to be made to strengthen education on the correct attitude in consuming water. He has also indicated that the duration of exposing students of half-day schools to water with excess lead should be very short. Members who have followed up education issues should aware that the health condition of school children plays a very crucial role in their growth in the future. How come Eddie NG has chosen to bury his head in the sand when faced with the problem, deceiving himself and turning a blind eye to the core issue? In response to the public concern about the impact of excess lead in drinking water on school children, Eddie NG has only given an irrelevant answer.
When incidents of excess lead in drinking water in kindergartens were also reported later, the Education Bureau was requested to conduct water tests, install water filters, and so on, for kindergartens, but the Secretary still appeared to be unconcerned and I really do not know what he was doing then. Finally, it was again the "nanny" who intervened, when a decision was made by Chief Secretary Carrie LAM to conduct water tests for schools in phases. It was until then that the Secretary for Education began to come to his senses.
Frankly speaking, the Secretary also performs very badly in this Council. Meetings of the Panel on Education are convened once every month. Dr LAM Tai-fai, the Chairman of the Panel, is present in the Chamber now and as he is fully aware, only several agenda items will be included in the agenda of each meeting but very often, the Secretary will only attend the discussion of one or two of these items. I have once asked him out of curiosity what was the problem, and what made him not attending the discussion of some important agenda items and attend instead the discussion of only one less important agenda item included in the agenda. He replied that there was another more important meeting which he had to attend, and that he might not be the most suitable public officer to attend the discussion. He also said that he would appoint the most suitable officers to attend the discussion of these agenda items, and that we could rest assured because the views expressed by other public officers such as the Under Secretary could also reflect his views.
8410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Members have to rack their brains to come up with some good suggestions when various education issues are discussed at meetings of the Panel on Education. As the final decisions are rested with the Secretary, we would like to have him at Panel meetings to personally receive our views. If he is not available to receive our views personally and give us a prompt reply, we will not be able to solve the problems involved. Nevertheless, as he has said that he was required to attend a more important meeting, and that he might not be the most suitable public officer to attend our meetings, what else can we do?
The Secretary failed to reflect on himself when faced with criticisms, and his indifferent attitude towards the well-being of teachers and students has also worsened. In March this year, a student protest was staged in a secondary school when the Secretary attended a function held there to commemorate the anniversary of the founding of the school, but he just sat in his car, kept his eyes on his cell phone and did not bother to take a glance at the students. He refused to take the trouble and time to get out of his car to listen to the aspirations of the students. Subsequently, in the afternoon of the same day, the Secretary poured out his grievances to the media and said (I quote), "Should any problem arise, the education system in Hong Kong are badmouthed and has to take the blame. I do feel aggrieved. How can our hard work be completely denied with a single comment that the education system in Hong Kong has left much to be desired? I am not convinced at all." (End of quote) I would like to ask the Secretary what exactly is the hard work he has put in? We will all agree with the Secretary if he is saying that teachers and students have already tried their best, but what hard work he has personally put in? This is what we are most concerned about. As the Secretary has boasted that he is gifted with a high reading ability and he has made frequent overseas duty visits, what exactly has he acquired to assist the education sector of Hong Kong?
In 2013, the Government proposed in the Budget to inject $480 million to set up scholarships for 20 outstanding students to pursue studies overseas each year so that teaching training would be offered to the awardees. The plan has been widely criticized as a waste of public money since it could only benefit a very small number of students, and the methods adopted for the training of teachers are impractical. As the so-called new initiative is not down to earth and a consultation has never been conducted on the proposal, it has finally been dished up in a new form under strong opposition from the public. In fact, the policy could have been implemented much more smoothly if the Secretary is not being so obstinate and self-willed, and if he is willing to listen to opinions. In LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8411 my opinion, he will only repeat the same old mistake again when taking the proposal forward to set up a scholarship for students from the Belt and Road countries.
According to the findings of all surveys, including opinion surveys conducted by universities and the HKPTU, the support rating of Secretary Eddie NG has always been very low and I think there will be no need for me to cite the relevant findings here. It would only be normal for any political figures to have a slip of the tongue and commit certain mistakes sometimes, but the general public would not mind giving them a chance if they are willing to offer an apology humbly afterwards. However, I am sorry to say that as we see it, Mr Eddie NG has never tried to reflect on himself and make improvements. He has on many occasions reduced himself to a negative example of our children. Is it really worth spending over $3 million public money every year as emoluments for a Bureau Director like him?
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President Jasper TSANG, you made the last move yesterday, combing the fifth and the sixth debates into one debate to ensure that all debates can complete by this week, so that we can proceed to voting in the Legislative Council meeting next week. I believe that you, President Jasper TSANG, have set a very bad precedent before you leave your office, making it possible for the next President of the Legislative Council to restrict Members' right to speak even more blatantly. This is your destiny and character given your pro-establishment background. I must criticize your move.
Chairman, this debate involves three amendments proposed by the Neo Democrats, including Amendment No 333 concerning a cut in an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on promotion in the Mainland market drawn from the subvention to the Hong Kong Tourism Board under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch); Amendment No 336 concerning a cut in an amount approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure for six months' emolument of Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory SO; and Amendment No 355 concerning a cut in an amount approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure for six months' emolument of Secretary for Education Eddie NG.
8412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Chairman, for the first time, Financial Secretary John TSANG mentions in the Budget this year a "quality-driven" development of the tourism industry. The Neo Democrats did propose cutting the respective annual estimated expenditure on promotion in the Mainland market drawn from the subvention to the Hong Kong Tourism Board during the scrutiny of the Budgets over the last three years. A reason was to urge the Financial Secretary to accept that Hong Kong's tourism development should direct towards "quality" rather than "quantity". Therefore, the Neo Democrats certainly welcomes the review proposed in the Budget, so that tourism development in Hong Kong will no longer focus blindly on increase in tourist arrivals.
However, it turns out that Hong Kong Tourism Board has not reduced the expenditure on Mainland market promotion, still deploying as much as HK$40 million public money on attracting Mainland tourists. Although Mainland tourist arrivals have shown a down trend in recent months, the number is still high in both terms of number or proportion. It is really too high. The number of arrival from the Mainland during the 1 May Golden Week holiday this year has even reached 473,000, an increase of 7% year on year (that is, as compared with last year), hitting a three-year peak. The Neo Democrats pointed out time and again in the past that solely relying on the Mainland as the single source of tourist arrivals will lead to our tourism industry's total dependence on economic condition in the Mainland. Fluctuations in tourist arrivals are indeed a making of the Government's own.
Figures in the first quarter of 2016 indicate a 15% decrease in overall tourist arrivals from the Mainland. Non-Mainland arrivals have, however, increased. It thus turns out that Mainland tourists exert a driving out effect. Non-Mainland tourist arrivals have risen by 5.4% in the first quarter, in which proportion of tourists from specific places has stayed as high as 36%, including Thailand, while proportion of German tourists has increased by 14%. That said, the Government and the tourist sector still eagerly attempt to resume the "multiple-entry individual visit endorsement" arrangement, instead of rectifying the situation and developing Hong Kong into a destination for tourists worldwide, as in the case of the past. There are opinions advocating for continuous expansion of Individual Visit Scheme (IVS) to more cities in the Mainland and the resumption of "multiple-entry individual visit endorsement". It was even rumoured the other day that Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying told the Hong Kong Travel Agent Owners Association that, if Hong Kong people could promise LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8413 not to "kick suitcases" and harass tourists, he would immediately request Beijing for abolishing the policy of "one-entry-per-week permits" and extending IVS to more cities.
The Neo Democrats believes that such a remark distorts cause and effect, ascribing the fall in Mainland tourist arrivals to the lack of hospitality among Hong Kong people. Yet, the reality is that Hong Kong people have long been enduring the impact on their daily life due to the incessant arrival of Mainland tourists.
Let us look at Macao where no "kicking suitcases " or "anti-locust" protests take place. Owing to the fall in the number of Mainland tourists after the economic downturn in the Mainland, the tourism industry and the retail sector of Macao have indeed suffered a harder blow than those in Hong Kong. This is a matter of fact, some unequivocal facts. However, LEUNG Chun-ying refuses to confess to the burden of excessive Mainland tourists created on Hong Kong people's everyday life. Tourism in his eyes is not merely a development of a tourist destination, but also a tool for him to create an image in which the economy of Hong Kong depends on the Mainland, and to blindly promote integration of China and Hong Kong. LEUNG Chun-ying stated publicly at the end of last month that the whole of Hong Kong will have to pay the price for advocacy of "Hong Kong independence", as doing so will seriously damage the mood of Mainland residents, discouraging them from visiting Hong Kong, as they attach much importance to national unity.
Chairman, so it turns out that, on top of being hospitable, Hong Kong has to be politically correct in order to develop tourism. This indicates how much LEUNG Chun-ying values the Mainland, but not Hong Kong. He cares about the mood of Mainland tourists more than the numerous social conflicts in nowadays Hong Kong. The idea of "Hong Kong independence" originates exactly from this. However, the Neo Democrats believes that using political ideology as a means to draw tourists will only receive lukewarm response. Why is it the case? It is because the frequent boycotts against Japanese goods in the Mainland, or even the recent sales organized by some shops in celebration of the Kumamoto earthquake, can only produce an extremely ironic result in which Japan gradually becomes the prime destination for Mainland travellers whose action speaks their minds. On the contrary, Hong Kong is losing its edge as a tourist destination.
8414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Chairman, the Neo Democrats has been cautioning against the concentration of tourism development on one single market and one tourism pattern. The shopping-oriented pattern is indeed taking Hong Kong's tourism industry to a dead end, or will even lead to such problems as "zero-fare" tours or "negative-fare" tours and shadow tour group members. Secretary Gregory SO in charge of tourism issues is incapable of tackling the problem. In effect, he is even conniving at these rip-offs, so that such incident in which a Mainland tour guide had bitten a Mainland tourist to death can happen in Hong Kong now. This is the true culprit of the damage to Hong Kong's image as a prime destination for tourists.
In 2003 when there was no IVS, never did such incident happen in Hong Kong. We were a shopping paradise then, famous for our hospitality. However, a tourism policy that gives weight to "quantity" instead of "quality" has blackened the name of Hong Kong and "Mainlandized" tourism development in the city. Our Secretary declines to talk about this, unwilling to speak the truth. Members from functional constituencies refuse to face the facts, merely pressing endless demands for extending the coverage of IVS to more Mainland cities and the restoration of the multiply-entry arrangement, while ignoring the many problems affecting the life of people in Hong Kong.
Chairman, the National Geographic Channel has named the MacLehose Trail in Hong Kong as one of the 20 best trails in the world lately. In fact, there remains many natural beauties in Hong Kong which can be enjoyed by tourists from all over the world, but not those from China only. We have the potential for enhancing the kind of tours with local characteristics, such as eco-tourism and cultural tourism, rather than solely depending on shopping.
Secretary Gregory SO is unable to handle the problems brought by tourism development during his term, simply asking Hong Kong people to "wait for another train". This is indeed dereliction of duty. However, Gregory SO's pitiful performance of course does not limit to one area only. He has done equally bad in his tasks in communications and creative industries. The biggest stain of Gregory SO in his office was the negligence of duties in dealing with the issuance of free television programme services licences. One major television station has been dominating the free television market for years, and it was not until last month that another new free television station commenced broadcasting, yet it only took over half of a digital channel from the then Asia Television Limited (ATV). This indicates how Secretary Gregory SO was ill prepared for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8415 the aftermath of the non-renewal of ATV's licence. However, he opted to reject the licence application from Hong Kong Television Network Limited, placing political concerns above the professional judgment made by the Communications Authority, and this has practically damaged Hong Kong's reputation as a free market and undermined investment confidence in the business sector.
On the other hand, Secretary Gregory SO behaved high-handedly when pushing forward the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 (the Bill). Despite holding a duty to consult public opinions, he was pre-set with a position inclining to protect the interests of copyright owners without regard to the many worries over the Bill in society, while bulldozing the people to accept the Bill proposed by the Government. In respect of such proposals related to limiting contract override, fair use and user-generated content, the Government did not only make no concession, but also refused to reshuffle the order of agenda items to create room for negotiation. Contrarily, it only directed heavy criticisms against Members for filibustering, spoiling the chance of reaching a consensus among different parties through rational communication. This is the actual reason behind the political stalemate in the Legislative Council for three months, an entire span of three months.
As a matter of fact, pan-democratic Members had been connecting closely with civil organizations throughout the scrutiny of the Bill with a view to initiating meaningful discussion in the Council, yet our words had fallen on deaf ears. Gregory SO simply did not bother to narrow the gap in society. When civil organizations and even the copyright owners took a step forward and commenced a four-party meeting to try forging a consensus, Gregory SO suddenly set a deadline, warning that Members must pass the Bill in the Legislative Council or the Government would leave it at that. In the end, it had to withdraw the Bill and bore this embarrassing situation. As the chief culprit, the Secretary has an undeniable responsibility. Therefore, the Neo Democrats considers it justified to cut Gregory SO's salary for his lack of achievement during his term of office, or even the harm he caused to business environment and the relationship between executive authorities and the legislature.
Chairman, the last amendment concerns a cut in an amount approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure for six months' emolument of Secretary for Education Eddie NG. In my opinion, Eddie NG is the perfect example of non-discharge of function among the cabinet members of the current Government. Prior to taking office as the Secretary for Education, Secretary 8416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016
Eddie NG worked in the field of human resources consultation, lacking knowledge in education policies. Having accomplished nothing during his term, he was unable to correct the existing defects in the education system and cared only about the political missions handed by LEUNG Chun-ying, turning school education in Hong Kong into some "brainwashing" patriotic education. He repeated numerous dreadful mistakes in handling controversial issues such as the lead in water incident and Territory-wide System Assessment, and is not up to standard in both respect of personal ability and popularity. It does not require a background in human resources for the general public to critically judge that Eddie NG and the Education Bureau are the burdens for the Government. So, he should be held accountable.
Chairman, tragedies involving student suicide have been a source of torment to many people, students, teachers and parents in Hong Kong throughout the last year. However, not only did Eddie NG fail to shoulder the right responsibility, in the face of criticisms from the community over the education system, he also shamelessly expressed his "dissatisfaction", even claiming that critics could make up any reason to attack him intentionally. Chairman, it is human lives that are at stake. This is a question concerning not one or two persons, but more than 20 human lives. It is about attempts made by young people of the next generation to end their own lives. As an official with no attainment, Eddie NG will only lay blame on those criticize him; when encountered with young students demonstrating in front of him, Eddie NG was unwilling to receive the petition, opting to bow his head and play with his smartphone without listening. It is not Eddie NG who is qualified for showing "dissatisfaction", but those students and young people suffering from the education system in Hong Kong, those teachers under intolerable pressure of work and those parents helplessly watching their children undergoing hardship.
Chairman, regarding crisis management, Eddie NG is merely a source of problems, incapable of leading the Education Bureau to find solutions. No matter whether it is about issues of pressure or lead in water, Eddie NG had made mistakes. Not until he was under pressure of Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM that he modified his remarks, stating that the Government would conduct water tests for all kindergartens and 80 primary and secondary schools throughout the territory, overriding his own words that water testing would not be conducted, or would not be encouraged, by the Government.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8417
Therefore, Chairman, the bulldozing of the implementation of patriotic education to promoting using Putonghua as the medium of instruction for teaching the Chinese Language Subject in primary and secondary schools, teaching of simplified Chinese characters in schools and exchange programmes on the state of affairs in the Mainland have all led controversies and it is necessary for us to move this amendment to demand cutting the salary of Eddie NG as the Secretary for Education. We hope he can step down and be held accountable formally, so that education policy in Hong Kong can possibly get back on the right track.
With these remarks, Chairman, I move the above three amendments concerning the cutting of expenditures.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO has proposed several amendments which seek to deduct the $450 million for the establishment of the Independent Insurance Authority (IIA), the $1 million for the exit package for the Insurance Officers, and the $21.7 million for the Pilot Programme to Enhance Talent Training for the Insurance Sector and Asset and Wealth Management Sector (Pilot Programme). As the representative of the insurance sector, I oppose these amendments. I will explain the importance and urgency of establishing the IIA and launching the Pilot Programme to the development of the industry.
All the three items are new initiatives. Some Members think that the Government's arrangement of putting them before the Legislative Council together with the Appropriation Bill 2016 is a move that bypasses the Finance Committee and denies Members of the opportunity for scrutiny. I wish Members can understand that these three items, which do not have much direct impact on people's livelihood, were once put on the queue of items waiting for inclusion in the agenda of the Finance Committee, but the wait has been in vain. Owing to the urgent need for their implementation, there is no alternative but to put them before the Council together with the Budget. Otherwise, their implementation will be delayed indefinitely. Although this arrangement is not satisfactory, it is far better than putting these three items indefinitely at the end of the waiting queue. Actually, as the Chairman of the Finance Committee, I have repeatedly reminded its members that if they continue to filibuster, it will not be possible to have any timely scrutiny of many items. I have explained that in order to avoid delay, the Government will put forward these items together with the Budget, in which case the Finance Committee will lose the opportunity of 8418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 scrutinizing them. Thus, Members have long since been aware of this Government action today, and they all understand that this is the side effect of filibustering.
The Bill for the establishment of the IIA was passed by the Legislative Council last year and the Government immediately started working on its establishment. The plan is for the IIA to take over the statutory functions of the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI) by the end of this year, and to take over the supervision of insurance intermediaries in two to three years. The Government has appointed the Chairman and seven Non-Executive Directors of the IIA and established a preparatory working group responsible for staff recruitment, formulation of internal regime, office accommodation and procurement.
All such work has not yet started because it is necessary to wait for funding approval by the Legislative Council. Under the plan, the IIA should begin operation within this year but up till now, it still does not have an office and staff recruitment has not started. Even if funding approval is given this month, there are only six months left. It is very doubtful if the IIA can take over by the end of this year as scheduled. If funding is not approved, it will be even more disastrous.
The Government has said that in case funding cannot be approved as scheduled, the OCI will continue its operation. In fact, although the OCI is still in operation, it has already entered the stage of pre-dissolution preparations. Its staff are awaiting departure or transfer. Although I have faith in their professionalism, I must still say that the entire office is already like the setting sun. If the IIA cannot be established soon, there will be serious impact on the work of supervision.
Actually, our passage of the Bill last year was preceded by thorough discussion on the workings of the IIA. We were also aware that the IIA would need government funding in its initial days and would become self-financing thereafter. Regarding the financial arrangement proposed by the Bureau, there were also in-depth discussions. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not correct to say that there has been insufficient time for the Legislative Council to discuss the issue throughout the process of enacting the Bill and seeking funding approval. Quite the contrary, our passage of the Bill on the establishment of the IIA should in principle imply our approval of the financial arrangements for the IIA.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 8419
The insurance sector has high expectations of the IIA. The sector hopes that the IIA can better protect policy holders and boost public confidence in the sector. In addition, the IIA will have new functions, including facilitating the sustainable development of the insurance market and enhancing the competitiveness of the sector in international markets. In other words, the IIA will take part in taking forward the sector's development and enhancing the sector's competitiveness. In the past, government efforts in this regard were very limited. The sector hopes that with the impetus from the IIA, it can expand its market opportunities.
There have been studies showing that Hong Kong as an international financial centre has been surpassed by Singapore. We have dropped out of the top three spots. It is imperative that we boost the competitiveness of the financial services industry (including the insurance industry) as quickly as possible to ensure that our status as a financial centre can be maintained. Therefore, the insurance industry has great expectations of the IIA and wishes that it can be established soon.
Furthermore, there is an amendment seeking to deduct the $1 million for the exit package for the Insurance Officer grade. I think Insurance Officers have always been dedicated and have made a lot of contributions. I have to express my heartfelt gratitude to them. Now, they are forced to retire because the grade has to be scrapped; they should be given ex-gratia compensation under the conditions set by the Government. This is only fair and I really see no reason for the deduction. Thus, I absolutely oppose this amendment.
Finally, I would like to discuss the amendment seeking to deduct the $21.7 million for the Pilot Programme. The Pilot Programme was already put forward as early as 2014, but no funding application has been made until now. It is expected to be launched in the latter half of this year and will run for three years. The Pilot Programme includes talent training for the insurance and wealth management sectors. I will focus my discussion on issues involving the insurance sector.
In recent years, Hong Kong's insurance industry has been developing well but there is always a lack of professional talents, especially in the area of general insurance business. Let me take marine insurance and cargo insurance as an example. It is very difficult to attract young people to join as a lot of professional knowledge is required and it takes them a long time to get familiar 8420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 May 2016 with the business. Moreover, the industry also faces a serious shortage of professional talents in the areas of underwriting, claims management, compliance and policy operation. All these are highly professional areas. They offer good salaries and prospects but are always short of manpower. At present, young people in Hong Kong have very few opportunities for career advancement. It is also not easy for them to get a good job. Therefore, through the Pilot Programme, the Government can encourage young people to join the industry. This can address the industry's problem of having insufficient talents and can give it more room to develop. Also, quality job openings will be made available for young people. In my opinion, the Government is too late in rolling out such a good programme. I cannot see why it has to be delayed. So, I hope Members will oppose all the amendments.
SUSPENSION OF MEETING
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9 am tomorrow.
Suspended accordingly at 7.44 pm.