LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8593

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 20 March 2014

The Council continued to meet at half-past Two o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN

THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.

8594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.

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 RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.

THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN

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.

THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, B.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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8595

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP

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

THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN

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

8596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK

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

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

THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8597

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE GREGORY SO KAM-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND TAM CHI-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

THE HONOURABLE LAI TUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

MR LAU KONG-WAH, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MRS PERCY MA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

8598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Council will now continue with the debate on the motion moved under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

MOTION UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ORDINANCE

Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 19 March 2014

MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, Honourable Members who spoke yesterday indicated that the dismissal of LI Wei-ling might merely be a case involving the internal operation of a commercial organization and there was no need to make a big fuss of the matter, let alone deploying the "imperial sword" of the Council, that is, invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (the P&P Ordinance) to conduct an inquiry.

Let us try to make reference to some objective facts and examine if the argument can be substantiated. The "removal" of radio hosts enjoying great popularity in the Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited (Commercial Radio) tends to occur once every 10 years. I remember very clearly that 10 years ago in 2004, WONG Yuk-man and Albert CHENG were forced to take themselves off the air. Today, 10 years later, LI Wei-ling was first made to quit her original post as the host for a morning radio programme and switch to host another one in the evening, and was then eventually dismissed. Is this too much of a coincidence? It is of course due to the fact that for Commercial Radio, both 2004 and 2014 are years of significance for its licence renewal. Can such cases be described as mere personnel changes or even personnel disputes within a commercial organization?

Furthermore, this is not only a simple recurrence of similar events after an interval of 10 years, but a case encompasses a series of incidents since Albert CHENG and WONG Yuk-man having taken themselves off the air 10 years ago. President, as we have seen in the last few years, Sam NG was "expelled" by Radio Television Hong Kong in November 2011 and subsequently in March 2012, during a televised election debate for the Fourth Term Chief Executive Election, Henry TANG accused LEUNG Chun-ying to his face of suggesting to the Executive Council that in the renewal of licence for Commercial Radio, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8599 opportunity should be taken to fix the organization. As we all know, LEUNG Chun-ying won the election eventually. In November 2012, Albert CHENG was forced to leave the Digital Broadcasting Corporation Hong Kong Limited (DBC) on the ground of commercial disputes but as the President may recall, a DBC shareholder, Mr WONG Cho-bau, has disclosed that LI Wei-ling was disliked by the "Western District" and the relevant audio recording has been made public. In March 2013, Document No. 9 was issued by the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and later in June 2013, CHEN Ping, publisher of iSun Affairs Weekly, was savagedly beaten after work. In the same month, an axe was placed on the scene when criminal damage was caused to the residence of Jimmy LAI, owner of Next Media, seemingly as a gesture of intimidation. Between June and July 2013, Apple Daily newspapers were burnt in an arson attack and then in July, SHIH Wing-ching, owner of am730, was attacked in his car and the window of the vehicle was smashed with a hammer. In September 2013, there was a hacker attack on House News and President, in January this year, SHIH Wing-ching revealed that advertisements on am730 were being lifted. In the same month, it was announced that there would be a replacement of the Chief Editor of Ming Pao Daily News (Ming Pao). LI Wei-ling was dismissed in February 2014 and she pointed out at a press conference that she had been reminded by someone close to LEUNG Chun-ying to "be careful about her job". Later, Mr Kevin LAU was violently attacked in the same month.

President, given these incidents, is it possible to muddle through with such a simple excuse as "involving the internal operation of a commercial organization"? Why can we not exercise the powers vested in the Council to probe into the dismissal of LI Wei-ling so as to ascertain if Commercial Radio has been pressurized to act in this way so that the renewal of its licence can be secured? Against this background, would it not be self-deceiving and deceptive if, despite some relatively major incidents as I mentioned very roughly and briefly just now having happened in the last 10 years, we still refuse to face the truth and come to the conclusion that an investigation is not necessary since it involves only the internal operation and internal personnel issues of a commercial organization?

I would like to remind Honourable Members of the Council that I moved a motion on "Safeguarding editorial independence and autonomy" at the Council meeting of 22 January. The motion, which was passed by the Council, contains the wordings of "the recent post transfer of a veteran and influential journalist by 8600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 the media organization to which he belongs has once again aroused the concern of society about the impact on freedom of the press and editorial autonomy; … in this connection, this Council expresses concern". Thus, with the passage of such a motion by the Council and the inclusion in its wordings our grave concern about the post transfer of LI Wei-ling, who has even now been dismissed, it would only be rational and logical for us to invoke the powers conferred by the P&P Ordinance to investigate into the incidents thoroughly. Following the dismissal of Ms LI Wei-ling, Mr Kevin LAU was violently attacked and two senior executives of the forthcoming Hong Kong Morning News were attacked by someone armed with water pipes in broad daylight. Should we not carry out an in-depth investigation to ascertain if there is any black hand behind the scene trying to stifle freedom of speech, freedom of the press and editorial autonomy from us? If, under such circumstances, we remain hesitant to exercise such powers, we will not be able to fulfill our responsibilities and live up to the expectations of the general public. Invoking the powers to investigate into the matter is the duty expected of us.

President, there is another very important perspective which I would specifically like to illustrate. Our investigation into the presence or otherwise of political pressure which made Commercial Radio compromise is actually closely related to our ability or otherwise of preserving judicial independence and the spirit of the rule of law. I am of course not in a position to elaborate this point more fully than some senior judges do and from what I recall, in the 44th Anniversary Gala Dinner of the Hong Kong Journalists Association in 2012, the Honourable Mr Justice Kemal BOKHARY, guest speaker of the event, delivered a speech and the contents of it are still very much alive in my memory. The speech was delivered in English and Mr Justice BOKHARY pointed out that the relationship between the Judiciary and the fourth estate was a symbiosis, under which the media was protected by the Judiciary and vice versa. The exact wordings he used in his speech are: "the relationship between the judiciary and the fourth estate was a symbiosis. The judiciary protects the media and vice versa." (End of quote)

Coincidentally, the former Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, the Honourable Mr Andrew LI Kwok-nang, also said in a recent event of the University of Hong Kong to illustrate to this effect: (I quote) "only with the manifestation of the rule of law can the freedom we cherish under the current system, including the core values of freedom of speech and of the press, be protected." He went on to say, "the case of Kevin LAU has aroused the concern LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8601 of Hong Kong people about freedom of speech and thus, it is my opinion that each and every one of us should stay highly alert to safeguard the freedom we enjoy." (End of quote)

At the Honorary Degrees Congregation of the University of Hong Kong, Mr WONG Yan-lung, the former Secretary for Justice and the recipient of Doctor of Laws honoris causa, also said something similar to remind the people of Hong Kong to courageously safeguard our freedom of speech and of the press.

Therefore, President, in putting forward the proposal to inquire into the incident under the P&P Ordinance, we seek not only to safeguard freedom of the press and maintain editorial autonomy, but also to protect our judicial independence and the spirit of the rule of law.

As pointed out by Mr Justice BOKHARY, such a symbiotic relationship is very important because the Judiciary is the last fortress defending our inherent values and systems, and this fortress cannot fall. If we want the Judiciary to continue to play the role of safeguarding our core values and inherent systems, we cannot turn it single-handed since it is hard to clap with only one hand.

This is the reason why when freedom of speech and editorial autonomy are subject to challenge and our core values significantly battered, we should have the courage to come forth and safeguard such values. It is timely, appropriate and proper for Ms Claudia MO to move the motion which seeks to inquire into the dismissal of LI Wei-ling under the powers conferred by the P&P Ordinance to ascertain if Commercial Radio has been pressurized to do so.

I have reminded Honourable Members of the Council just now that we on 22 January passed a non-binding motion to express the Council's concern about the post transfer of LI Wei-ling, who was not yet fired at that moment. If we do not support the proposal today to inquire into the incident under the P&P Ordinance, we are just paying lip service without taking any actions.

Therefore, I very much hope that Honourable Members of the Council will vote in support of the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO. Only through a thorough investigation will we be able to understand if Commercial Radio has been put under pressure, and this will also be the focus of the whole inquiry. Why does Commercial Radio tend to get rid of its most popular radio hosts every time when its licence is due for renewal? Why are all these decisions devoid of 8602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 commercial rationale made whenever Commercial Radio is about to have its licence renewed? What exactly is the pressure faced by Commercial Radio? I hope our inquiry will uncover the truth.

I so submit.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, the renewal of the licence to carry on with the broadcasting business is indeed the Achilles' heel of the Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited (Commercial Radio). No wonder a storm over staff changes and dismissal will break out every decade. The last occasion was in 2004, and now it happens again in 2014. Nevertheless, since its replacement of programme hosts and licence renewal back then in 2004, Commercial Radio has enjoyed some freedom and seen a revival of its outspoken and sharp-tongued style. No wonder people and media reports have been saying that LEUNG Chun-ying prefers a three-year renewal for Commercial Radio as it can ensure that Commercial Radio will constantly operate under the curse of renewal, thus curtailing the room for free speech that it can otherwise enjoy for a decade.

President, with more extensive and informative coverage, the print media can offer more news information and details on government policies to the public. However, the print media cannot serve as a discussion platform which allows people to make phone calls to the newspapers and engage in real-time interactive discussion. The electronic media provide the space for this in response to such need.

Radio commentary programmes are vital to Hong Kong nowadays as they can promote discussions, so that public opinions can be pooled together and take shape. Whether programme hosts can gain the favour of listeners really depends on their ability to present facts and put forward arguments. The best way to convince the public is to replay excerpts of the speeches made by celebrities, political dignitaries and officials on various occasions. In doing so, whether these people have made an about-turn and inconsistent remarks or contradicted themselves will be fully exposed under the sun.

LI Wei-ling is an expert on this. The speech excerpts produced by her are understandably loathed by many who are criticized and whose inconsistent remarks are exposed, but this is the most effective way to help those who cannot LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8603 possibly keep track of every latest development grasp the truth and discern the entire course of events. Nevertheless, nowadays, Hong Kong's print and electronic media have been suppressed one after another, leading to a continual decline in the number of platforms on which the public receive information and engage in discussions. We therefore must follow up this situation seriously.

LI Wei-ling was sacked with immediate effect in quite a brutal and unusual manner. On that day, she was still out collecting information and intelligence, but in the course of performing her duties, she received an SMS message requiring her to leave her position immediately, and she was not even allowed to return to the office to pack her personal belongings. In fact, this is a practice normally applied to senior officers handling highly sensitive issues in the business sector, or officers who are likely to return to the office to destroy all the evidence and signs of the serious criminal offences they committed. But as far as LI Wei-ling's case is concerned, we see no such elements.

While Hong Kong's freedom of the press and the freedom of speech are facing a more and more chilling winter, Commercial Radio should come forward to offer an explanation. But it just attempted to end and evade the issue by making the statement "when two gentlemen stop being friends, they will not say harsh words to each other". It just cannot possibly get away with what it did on that day, which was nothing but a ferocious, callous and fierce action. Whatever flowery rhetoric Commercial Radio uses, it simply stands no chance of glossing over the matter and convincing the public. Many people said that Commercial Radio being a private business organization has every right to handle personnel disputes, apart from any requirement by the Communications Authority, the regulatory authority, to observe the Broadcasting Ordinance (BO). Nevertheless, a code of practice issued pursuant to the BO actually provides that radio stations are required to present news with accuracy and provide a neutral platform. Also, Commercial Radio is the fourth estate of our society. The licence granted to it carries public support and trust, so it is obliged to offer an explanation to the public, and should not attempt to evade the issue simply by making a statement.

Back then in 1967, Commercial Radio anchor Mr LAM Bun had been commenting on current affairs in a several-minute radio session run on a daily basis, even though he was not labelled as a "commentator". At that time, he had been making biting criticisms against those who set bombs to harm the innocent. 8604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

At last, he was set on fire and burnt to death. He died for remaining steadfast in his duty to fight for the freedom of speech. In fact, as a result of Mr LAM Bun's death and his family's pain of losing their loved one, Commercial Radio has secured the long-standing trust of the public ever since 1967. Today, Commercial Radio's programme "18/F Block C", named after Mr LAM Bun's former residence, is still an icon of its determination to uphold the freedom of speech. Nowadays, Commercial Radio still uses the brand effect of the freedom of speech to command trust of the people. Commercial Radio is not an ordinary business organization selling hamburgers. When the public expectations, trust and requests of it go beyond the business realm, it is obliged to explain to the public its decisions on staff changes, rather than evading the issue on the grounds that a business organization should be given full autonomy in handling internal staff changes.

As a matter of fact, there were signs that LI Wei-ling, before her dismissal, had been facing pressure for her biting criticisms against government officials including LEUNG Chun-ying, as Commercial Radio needed to have its licence renewed. Not long after she was transferred to hosting the prime programme in the morning session, she was again transferred to hosting the evening programme to give way to a new comer. What are the reasons? Why do they refuse to offer an explanation? Why was she dismissed soon after her transfer to the evening programme?

Some people attribute this to her making criticisms against the senior management every day, which has dealt a blow to the reputation of Commercial Radio. Of course, Commercial Radio may have this kind of thinking. But honestly, this popular programme host does not develop such a style today. When she joined Commercial Radio a decade ago, she was already like that. Back then the senior management commended her for it, so why do they make an about-turn now, and even refuse to let her go back to the office to pack her belongings after dismissal? Speaking of a host having a strong personal style, who is always talking and never allows others to interrupt, LI Wei-ling definitely does not take the first place among those from Commercial Radio. I believe the former hosts WONG Yuk-man and Albert CHENG Jing-han outperform her by several times in this regard. Besides, this kind of hosting style was once the selling point of Commercial Radio, so why is there such a change now?

To speak for the disadvantaged is the bounden duty of every member of the media. As Mr LEE Cheuk-yan pointed out yesterday, LI Wei-ling has spoken LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8605 for not only driving instructors, but also students of Chun Tok School who reported cases of abuse. For media organizations bent on making sentimental reports, this incident simply does not have any selling point, nor does it require any long-term follow-up. But she used her programme as a platform on which the students and their parents could tell of their personal experiences, and allowed the school time to come up with a response, thus making it necessary for the authorities to seriously address and follow up on the incident.

Apart from speaking for the disadvantaged, LI Wei-ling is also a hardworking member of the industry. In her early years as a programme host, there seemed to be inadequacies in her pronunciation and breath control. But over the past years, we have been witnessing her efforts in making improvements. Nevertheless, our request to form a select committee to conduct an inquiry is not based on these reasons. Rather, we aim to find out whether the brutal dismissal of LI Wei-ling was attributable to her discharging the bounden duty of upholding freedom of the press and the freedom of speech, speaking for the disadvantaged and criticizing the rich and powerful.

Yesterday, an Honourable Member spoke of his personal experiences, feeling that he had been "wronged" by LI Wei-ling. Actually, I have had similar experiences. At the beginning, I kept LI Wei-ling at a respectful distance because my first interview upon joining the Legislative Council was done by LI Wei-ling, and honestly, I have nursed a grudge over the way it was presented. Nevertheless, I believe that the relationship between politicians and the media should be "non-individualized", involving no personal feelings. We should discern whether members of the media have done their best to discharge their bounden duty, and neutrally measure all people with the same yardstick guided by their own set of values. From the perspective of commentators, they will certainly uphold some values at the expense of others. Some of them may side with the leftists and advocate equal rights, including equal rights for people of different sexual orientations, while some of them, being rather conservative, may side with the rightists. However, such value orientations aside, the most important point is whether they measure all people with the same yardstick.

I have to make one point here, too. If journalists or commentators are asked to forfeit their values, and always consult both the leftist and rightist camps using a "fence-sitting" approach, following which they give a green light but make an about-turn afterwards, they will not make a good commentator. A good commentator should be guided by personal beliefs and values, but we hope 8606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 that when making criticisms, commentators will apply the same yardstick on friends and strangers alike without applying any affinity differentiation. NG Chi-sum is such a commentator, so is LI Wei-ling.

Yesterday, Mr NG Leung-sing expressed his views on this motion. I wish to respond to the following point in particular: He wondered whether the invocation of the Legislative Council's power to form a select committee to inquire into an organization's internal staff transfers and changes every now and then will politicize the issue, and discourage media tycoons from investing in the media business. President and fellow Hong Kong citizens, I must make it clear that our utmost concern is why these consortia and tycoons would wish to invest in the media business. Do they intend to politicize the media business and make it a political tool, with a view to facilitating their business dealings with the Mainland? This is our greatest concern.

We welcome those financially capable to invest and get involved in the media business, but we disapprove of their using their financial strength to exert financial pressure with the aim of changing media organizations' stance and silencing them. In the several years prior to 1997, we had seen a number of newspapers change hands. Many commentaries which could be publicized in the past are nowhere to be found nowadays. Some recent commentaries of the Hong Kong Economic Journal have made people feel that its previous style has totally vanished. Are these the consequences and phenomena brought about by those tycoons' investment in the media business?

Mr NG Leung-sing also criticized LI Wei-ling for playing to the gallery and abusing a public instrument for private purposes. In fact, pluralism is what makes the media appealing. Some people may be sensational, while others may be composed. If our media are pluralistic, and the public are also discerning enough to form correct judgments of the media's practices, why should we feel ill at ease with a variety of different views? Truths and facts will become all the clearer through debate.

President, I support Ms Claudia MO's motion. I thank her for moving this motion, and hope all members of the media will remain steadfast in the discharge of the bounden duty of journalists, regardless of the organizations they are serving and the positions held by them.

Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8607

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, Mr CHAN Kin-por complained in the Chamber yesterday that he had had a taste of unreasonable and inappropriate treatment and criticism from LI Wei-ling in a programme of the Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited (Commercial Radio). Speaking of being unreasonably and inappropriately smeared and suppressed by radio stations, especially being the major target of attack by LI Wei-ling, I believe no one in this Chamber can rival me.

Every time during an election, such radio stations will become biased in favour of the Democratic Party and the Civic Party, while smearing and suppressing us who come from the radical democratic camp of People Power or the former League of Social Democrats, literally much more vigorously than Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao throughout the entire election. Such smearing and suppression dealt a blow to our reputation, and many of our original supporters changed their mind as a result of such smearing, thus causing a great loss of votes to us. Hence, based on such personal humiliation and party interests, there should be no reason for us to support the forming of an independent committee of inquiry. But I do not only support it. I was also the one who put forward this idea before Ms Claudia MO did because at the beginning when the storm broke out, I noticed that no one from the pan-democratic camp had proposed to form an independent committee of inquiry.

"Slow Beat", "Long Hair" and I are not attendants of the "lunch box meeting", nor are we one of the 20 or so pan-democratic Members. Hence, we have no idea about the meetings they have had. We learnt from newspapers that the pan-democratic camp had not yet requested an independent committee of inquiry be formed. After making some enquiries, I subsequently came to know that in fact they had conducted internal discussions. They were not willing to move a motion on the forming of an independent committee as some Members feared that there might not be sufficient evidence. This got on my nerve as I saw no reason why they could conclude that there might not be sufficient evidence before any investigation commenced, and thus dared not put forward a proposal on forming an independent committee of inquiry. I therefore indicated that if the pan-democratic camp did not put forward a proposal on forming an independent committee of inquiry, I would do so. Later on, "Slow Beat" and I convened a press conference during which we announced that the People Power supported forming an independent committee of inquiry to do justice to LI Wei-ling.

8608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

After putting forward the proposal, we learnt that Ms Claudia MO also showed much interest in it. When we intended to submit the motion, we found that she had done so the day before, and that made us happy and glad. If a motion is moved by someone from the pan-democratic camp, other pan-democrats will support it. If it is moved by the People Power, other pan-democrats may not support it. It is rather interesting. In the past when we proposed forming an independent committee of inquiry, Mr Alan LEONG of the Civic Party indicated that he would not support it. Members may verify this from past newspapers. When it was Ms Claudia MO who proposed this motion, all pan-democrats indicated their support. This is what makes Hong Kong's democratic camp weird. Sometimes people will question whether they are genuine supporters of democracy, or they are just engaging in "crony politics". Whenever there is a motion moved by someone they disapprove of, especially "Hulk" of the People Power, they including party leader of the Civic Party Alan LEONG will oppose it. But it does not matter. History will tell whose stance is right or wrong ultimately. We are glad to be the first ones putting forward the proposal on forming an independent committee of inquiry. Although this motion is not moved by us, at least it is supported by all pan-democrats unanimously ultimately.

In fact, I have finished drafting my motion. Content-wise, 60% to 70% of it is similar to the one moved by Ms Claudia MO, but not exactly the same. If her motion is not passed today, I can move it again two weeks later. I have already talked to the Secretariat. We came to the view that barring any special need, we should not waste time on it. But we do not rule out the possibility of moving this motion again. Our motion basically requests that section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance be invoked, so as to exercise the powers under section 9(1) of the Ordinance to form a select committee.

Let me now talk about the importance of a select committee and some of my personal views. First, I have to respond to what the "name card Secretary" said. He expressed the concern that the formation of such committees might constitute interference with the media. Upon hearing that, I found it unpleasant to the ear, and also ironic. Buddy, over the past few years, the Government has interfered with the media for countless times. According to some recent information obtained by my colleague from a simple search, the Independent Commission Against Corruption earlier applied to the High Court for a court order demanding iSunAffairs to surrender recordings and interview materials concerning LEUNG Chun-ying obtained during an interview with LEW LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8609

Mon-hung, a former member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. On 3 June 2013, the police applied to the Court to summon TVB reporter HO Wing-hong to testify in the flag desecration case of KOO Sze-yiu. During HU Jintao's visit to Hong Kong in June 2012, after throwing questions about the 4 June incident, reporters together with other journalists involved were detained by the police for questioning. When handling issues involving the rich and powerful, especially those that concern government officials' benefits and interests, members of the media are not only detained and charged, but also summoned by the Court. Nevertheless, when we now discuss whether the Government has interfered with a certain media organization, the authorities have put forward a gibberish reason, worried that it would constitute interference with the media. I therefore hope that you, as the Secretary, could be more sensible when answering our questions later on, so as not to cause any disaster to the Government. Our Information Co-ordinator is an example. He published an article in a newspaper under a pseudonym to criticize the Liberal Party, thus landing the Chief Secretary in great trouble. When answering questions in the Legislative Council, her performance was by no means satisfactory.

Some members of the media hope that government officials can be smarter, so as not to cause any more disasters to the Government. So, Secretary, while handing out your name card, you should also be smarter when answering questions, especially when addressing political issues, and should not make specious remarks anymore. Otherwise it will only become a laughing stock. The worst thing now is that senior government officials often adopt a paradoxical approach in addressing problems, without using their brains to analyse the situation. They literally take side using their "backside", rather than thinking with their brains. I therefore wish to tender them a piece of advice. Since they are paid several hundred thousand dollars a month, they may as well use their brains and do their humblest part, so as not to cause any more disasters to the Government.

President, when it comes to causes and reasons, I would like to make a comparison between the "parrot" of the era of TUNG Chee-hwa ― the polling incident of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) ― and the storm over freedom of the press involving LI Wei-ling of Commercial Radio this time around. The former concerns academic freedom, an allegation against TUNG Chee-hwa; the latter concerns freedom of the press, an allegation against LEUNG Chun-ying. In fact, the allegations in these two incidents resemble each other in details. At that time, Robert CHUNG published an article in the South China Morning Post 8610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 in which he accused Mr TUNG of having sent him clear messages more than once through special channels that the polls conducted by him were not welcomed, and that Mr TUNG were not happy with the polls on his reputation and the Government's credibility conducted by Robert CHUNG. Afterwards, he also put forward similar statements in an article published in the Hong Kong Economic Journal, saying that he had become the negative equity asset of the HKU.

Comparatively speaking, LI Wei-ling's accusation is more concrete and heated than the one made by Robert CHUNG back then, with stronger political elements. She mentioned the remarks made by someone close to LEUNG Chun-ying. At that time, Robert CHUNG only alleged that TUNG Chee-hwa had sent messages to him through special channels, but LI Wei-ling has now directly alleged that someone close to LEUNG Chun-ying told her to mind her job. Obviously, as alleged by LI Wei-ling, such a warning is quite intimidating. Later on, someone even indicated that if the phone-in programme hosted by her could be run in a way similar to what so-and-so did, there would be no problem at all. Hence, in terms of alleged interference with freedom of the press, the seriousness of LI Wei-ling's case exceeds Robert CHUNG's claim about the messages sent through special channels.

In addition, there has been widespread rumour in the political circle ― of course it came from LI Wei-ling's mouth ― that "this 'close mate' is a bespectacled senior government official well versed in psychological warfare, who is now holding position not at the Bureau Director level, and a former member of the accountability team in both the era of Donald TSANG and LEUNG Chun-ying." The statement is categorical, and the interference very much obvious. Speaking of this example, what Robert CHUNG said when he made the allegation then is similar to Mr NG Leung-sing's remarks, and also resembles what many royalist Members said in the Chamber yesterday, that there was no evidence whatsoever. However, the incident back then was not resolved by the Legislative Council. At that time, Martin LEE proposed to set up a select committee to conduct an inquiry, but the motion was negatived under the protection and escort of the royalists, and the committee could not be formed as a result. Nevertheless, at that time, the HKU had set up a three-member investigation panel headed by a Judge on its own initiative. As shown by the findings, there was interference in the polls, and eventually Andrew LO, the "eunuch surnamed LO", was identified to be the one who had made interference.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8611

So, how can justice be done without an inquiry? They dare not form an independent committee of inquiry out of the fear of being investigated and on top of that, the fear of facing the truth, while at that same time, they also have to protect "689" LEUNG Chun-ying. Just like at the beginning, some pan-democrats also dared not move the motion to form an independent committee of inquiry for fear that the allegations made by LI Wei-ling could not be substantiated. Actually, if we wish to do justice to the truth, it is necessary to form such a committee. Those who dare not support forming such a committee have no confidence either in LI Wei-ling, or in LEUNG Chun-ying. It is also possible that they dare not support the proposal to form such a committee as they have much confidence in LEUNG Chun-ying, knowing just too well that he has interfered with it.

Earlier on I spoke of the accusations against me made by LI Wei-ling. Actually it was based on facts. I wrote to the Broadcasting Authority (BA) to lodge a formal complaint twice, respectively on 19 May and 22 May 2009. The BA formally looked into my complaint, and made a ruling in August 2009. It is a formal complaint as opposed to the empty talk by Mr CHAN Kin-por. My complaint was consisted of three aspects. I alleged that her remarks were untrue, and that her accusations against me contained grave inaccuracies. Besides, her attacks on me also distorted the facts. In addition, her remarks amounted to personal attacks and damaged my reputation. The BA's final assessment was that under the circumstances, the remarks of the host, namely LI Wei-ling on Mr CHAN Wai-yip ― I would not repeat them here, as they were excessively abusive attacks ― might have gone beyond what was considered as appropriate, and might be adversely affecting the reputation of the latter. In conclusion, the BA considered that the programme was in breach of paragraph 34 of the Radio Programme Code which stipulates that licensees should take special care when their programmes may adversely affect the reputation of individuals, companies and other organizations. Commercial Radio was advised to observe more closely this provision in the Radio Programme Code.

In fact, I do not have much personal preference. I have told many friends that if I were the boss of Commercial Radio back then, I would not have hired LI Wei-ling in the first place. If I were the manager, I would have dismissed her long since. I personally think that she is weak in analysis and does not express herself well. Her comments on current affairs are often not based on facts, and her understanding of policies is vague. She is practically overpaid, but she is a popular programme host, whose criticisms of the Government are favoured by 8612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 many. Nevertheless, there are facts and prima facie evidence which show that a person who had served Commercial Radio for years was dismissed for political reasons. We therefore have to do justice to her. Especially if we wish to defend the freedom of speech and of the press, we have to form a committee of inquiry to do justice to Hong Kong people.

MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, let me first declare that my wife's family holds shares of the Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited (Commercial Radio), and I have also been a programme host of Commercial Radio for years. Today the Legislative Council will debate on whether the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) should be invoked to set up a select committee to look into the summary dismissal of host LI Wei-ling by Commercial Radio. At this stage, the Liberal Party does not support this motion.

I must say that the Liberal Party and I are very much concerned about upholding freedom of the press and the freedom of speech. Undeniably, as a broadcaster, Commercial Radio is one of the few licensees allocated airwaves, a scarce resource. It should serve as a mouthpiece of society, and give play to the important functions of monitoring and spurring the Government on. Hence, if freedom of the press and the freedom of speech enjoyed by Commercial Radio's programmes may be affected by company policies or internal staff changes, it will definitely draw the attention of society.

In fact, the existing licence of Commercial Radio will expire in August 2016. During this sensitive period in which Commercial Radio is about to apply for a licence renewal, it seems to have failed to offer any substantial grounds for the summary dismissal of Ms LI Wei-ling. And Ms LI has also publicly accused Commercial Radio of succumbing to the Government and dismissing her in a brutal manner for seeking licence renewal, which is quite a serious accusation. The incident has inevitably aroused public concern and invited worries that the freedom of speech has been subject to interference. Although the senior management of Commercial Radio, the Chief Executive and the Government have respectively denied the relevant accusation, they have only told their side of the story without fully allaying public concerns, thus making it hard for people to feel reassured. As the incident concerns freedom of the press and the freedom of speech which have far-reaching implications, I agree that it is justifiable for the Legislative Council to follow up this issue.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8613

However, Members must understand that Commercial Radio is a private business organization. It is an employer-employee relationship between it and Ms LI Wei-ling. In a business world, it surely has the power to make internal staff changes, and dismiss its employees lawfully. Hong Kong is a free commercial society. The Legislative Council just cannot lightly deploy the imperial sword, that is, the P&P Ordinance, to inquire into a business organization's decisions on staff changes every now and then, or it may damage Hong Kong's goodwill and affect the local business environment.

In retrospect, since the passage of the P&P Ordinance in 1985, the Legislative Council has successfully formed a select committee for an inquiry by invoking the Ordinance for a total of eight times. With the notable exception of the Lehman Brothers Incident in 2008, most cases involving the invocation of the P&P Ordinance specially targeted problems with government departments and public organizations, such as the inquiry into the building problems of public housing units including the Yuen Chau Kok substandard piling works case in 2001, and the inquiry into the handling of the SARS outbreak by the Government and the Hospital Authority in 2003. Inquiries solely targeting a private business organization are few and far between.

In fact, rather than rashly forming a new select committee to inquire into a private organization's staff changes, it will be better to first refer the incident to the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting for follow-up at this stage. The Panel may invite all parties and organizations concerned, including Ms LI Wei-ling, representatives of Commercial Radio and government officials to attend a meeting, during which they can present their own cases and give a further account of the incident.

If the Panel can sort out the issue and allay public concerns, the Legislative Council will be spared of bearing the baggage of interfering with the operation of a business organization, and unnecessary impact on the business environment of Hong Kong can also be pre-empted. Hence, at this stage, the Liberal Party does not support the appointment of a select committee to inquire into this issue. President, I would also like to talk about my views on this issue in my personal capacity.

8614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

Earlier on, I mentioned that my wife's family holds shares of Commercial Radio. They are also relatives of Mr HO. I have known this uncle for a few decades, and since his son Mr Joseph HO returned to Hong Kong, we have met quite often. President, I absolutely believe that both of them hundred percent defend freedom of the press and understand Commercial Radio's responsibility towards Hong Kong. This company has been a licensee for over 50 years. I do not believe the current-term Government dares reject the renewal of Commercial Radio's licence for no reason. Hence, I can hardly believe that first, anyone will do this, and second, they will give in or succumb on the issue of licence renewal. Furthermore, the licence renewal will take place two years later, not two months later.

President, earlier on I also mentioned that I had been a programme host of Commercial Radio for several years, during which I had seen how Commercial Radio ran the station, and got a taste of its culture. I do not believe this organization will tolerate its colleagues pointing fingers of blame at one another in public, no matter whether it is initiated by a supervisor against a subordinate, or by a subordinate against a supervisor.

Of course, when I was a programme host of Commercial Radio, I also had no idea when the company would dismiss me. A commercial programme which fails to secure advertisers and listeners will find it hard to continue. Luckily no one conducted a rating survey for my programme at that time as I was just an insignificant host. President, programme hosts are exceptionally sensitive. For a one-and-a-half-hour programme, producers will ask us to stop talking from the 24th minute in order to leave time for news reports and advertisements. If a programme host is still talking at the 28th minute without any break for commercials, he will have to begin to worry about how long the programme can last because after all, it is commercial in nature. Hence, in the several years working for Commercial Radio, I realized that a business organization would face enormous hardships without commercial support as advertising is its only source of income.

Hence, based on what I know about both gentlemen surnamed HO, and my experience with Commercial Radio, I absolutely believe that this issue purely concerns staffing and commercial decisions, and does not involve freedom of the press. Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8615

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, not far into the new year of 2014, on 12 January, I pointed out in my article written for Radio Television Hong Kong's programme "Hong Kong Letter" that we already felt a severely cold winter only two weeks after the new year of 2014. What I mean by a severely cold winter is the suppression of press freedom and the control on the freedom of broadcasting, which sends a chill down my spine. This just happened on 12 January 2014.

President, that day I wrote on this subject because on 6 January, Ming Pao Daily News suddenly announced the replacement of its chief editor, Mr Kevin LAU, by Mr CHONG Tien-siong, a Malaysian Chinese who is not so well-versed in Hong Kong affairs. It has been two months since 6 January, and my feeling is that we are experiencing an increasingly cold and severe winter. Many other incidents happened after 6 January, including the abrupt and unreasonable dismissal of Ms LI Wei-ling by the Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited (Commercial Radio) as mentioned by a number of Honourable colleagues just now, followed by the grave incident of attack on Mr Kevin LAU and the attack on two editors of a newspaper yet to be launched in Tsimshatsui East yesterday. I wonder if our press freedom and the freedom of speech have degenerated to such a terrible state.

Regarding the incidents relating to the abrupt replacement of an editor and a host, many audience and members of the public cannot help harbouring a lot of doubts in their mind: Did the senior management of media organizations make these decisions in a bid to please the Government of Hong Kong or the authorities in Beijing? Were these gestures meant to highlight their neutral position and their reluctance to have a host with an "attitude"? Or did they do so to "prop up" the Government of Hong Kong, making minor criticisms that actually do it a big favour? Were they compelled to replace the host due to the pressure related to licence renewal a couple of years later? As for the other newspapers and magazines, their replacement of editors is probably for the sake of advertising revenue which constitutes a kind of intangible pressure. We will never know the truth behind the incident if we do not set up a select committee by invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance).

Many people, including colleagues in this Council, claim that it being apparently a commercial decision, why should we make such a big fuss and even deploy the imperial sword ― the P&P Ordinance? In fact, many incidents that happened in society can affect our core values, however, they are very often 8616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 packaged as legal matters or commercial disputes, such as the replacement of Mr Kevin LAU, the unreasonable dismissal of Ms LI Wei-ling and the refusal of the licence application by the Hong Kong Television Network Limited. For the incident relating to Ms LI Wei-ling, it is impossible to find similar incidents in foreign countries or any European Union countries. Firstly, there is no provision for fair procedure in the Employment Ordinance, but Ms LI Wei-ling was dismissed without any notice. Secondly, Commercial Radio is not purely a private and commercial organization. With reference to a number of ordinances, for example, the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, a broadcasting organization that uses our precious air waves is in fact a public body. No matter you like Ms LI and her hosting style or not, she is a popular commentator and host of a current affairs programme. The summary dismissal of Ms LI Wei-ling by the management of a public body without giving her any notice nor having any written or oral communication with her is totally unimaginable. Commercial Radio as a public body that uses the precious air wave resources of Hong Kong must give an explanation to the public instead of only giving a brief remark ― "when two gentlemen stop being friends, they will not say harsh words to each other" ― which is most baffling.

A review of freedom of the press in Hong Kong, in particular, the Press Freedom Index 2013, which is an annual measurement of the press freedom of various countries and places across the globe released by Reporters without Borders, Hong Kong ranked the 58th among 179 countries. Some people are satisfied with this mediocre ranking. Hong Kong is always claimed to be an international city, a metropolis and one of the three world financial centres, but last year, we only ranked the 58th in terms of press freedom. Not only have we dropped four places compared to 2012, our ranking is also even lower than that of developing countries like Ghana and Namibia. In the light of the various cold-blooded and violent incidents that happened in 2014, I dare not imagine whether our ranking will plummet further.

Is there reasonable and proper protection for our press freedom? I am sure the Government will say there are many safeguards in place, but is that the truth? Article 39 of the Basic Law embodies the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which ensures that everyone has the right to express personal views and the making of such views should be free from interference. This applies to Ms LI Wei-ling as well, meaning that she can express her views in her programme, and this is a very important point. She has her personal style. You have every right to dislike her, find her questions stupid and unreasonable. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8617

But did Commercial Radio conduct any appraisal with Ms LI Wei-ling before dismissing her? Has she received any warning or complaint? Afterall, she is a very popular radio programme host.

Article 27 of the Basic Law clearly stipulates that all Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, and this applies to Ms LI Wei-ling who shall have the freedom to express her views in her radio programme. There are many methods to stifle or control press freedom and the freedom of speech. Reporters without Borders has disclosed various methods and many countries have adopted different methods. Initially, I did not believe that Hong Kong has gone on such a downfall and become so cold-blooded ― people easily give orders to slay whoever they dislike. In many developing countries, there are innumerable cases of disappearance or murder of investigative journalists without a trace. In many countries, the police can arrest and detain journalists, and force them to reveal the source of news. This kind of incidents will not happen in Hong Kong due to our protective mechanism in place. Some countries have enacted laws on the press, according to which members of the media or the press who have reported news not sweet to the ears of the governments are liable to sanctions in court. Of course, we have not enacted any law like these directly, but we have enacted laws on defamation, and so on. If the Government really wants to invoke any such law, it can find some relevant laws indeed. In January, I still believed that should anyone want to control the media in Hong Kong, they would tend to use methods that are relatively civilized and subtle, for example, the lifting of advertisement, or some methods of placation, such as appointing the senior management of media organizations to consultative bodies or as NPC Deputies or CPPCC delegates. But in the last one month, I noticed when such milder methods as lifting advertisements do not work, the powers that be want to quieten and control the media, in fact they will resort to violence, which is a simple and easy method. What on earth is happening in our city? Is this still the culture of Hong Kong that we have known for years?

In addition to these tricks, there are still many other methods if the Government wants to influence the media. For example, it can do that skillfully through licence renewal as mentioned just now, and another way is, when the Government conducts the so-called "press briefings", it can skip inviting certain two media organizations, which the Information Co-ordinator describes as irrelevant to the occasion, to cover the story. Is it possible to do so? Will the Government do so? In respect of the incident relating to LI Wei-ling, in my view, it is necessary to appoint an independent committee of inquiry to 8618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 investigate the matter by invoking the P&P Ordinance. Some colleagues said this will involve a significant amount of public money. But what we are talking now are the most crucial core values ― the freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Earlier on, Mr Tommy CHEUNG said we should respect the decisions made by a commercial organization, yet I also respect the existing free economy of Hong Kong. For this free economy to function smoothly, the freedom of information and press freedom are two of the key elements, the absence of which will prevent us from making the right commercial decisions because day after day, we will be exposed to false, exaggerated and empty information which defies verification and denies access to independent voices.

I would also like to take this opportunity to quote a remark by Thomas JEFFERSON: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Freedom (including press freedom and the freedom of speech) is most fragile, hence we must keep an eye on it and ensure that it is protected. If we make no monitoring efforts and excuse all incidents as individual cases, commercial decisions or some insignificant decisions, then unknowingly, our freedom will vanish. For this reason, President, today I absolutely support Ms Claudia MO's amendment.

President, I so submit.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, when I spoke on Members' motions in the past, usually I would thank the mover of the motion for giving us an opportunity to discuss the matter. However, today I can only express sheer regret for this motion. The Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) is no longer a strange term to us, even though I have only served as a Legislative Council Member for two years, I have heard about this term frequently. We are eager to draw this "imperial sword" as it has already been tabled before this Council a number of times.

It is believed that an inquiry will cost at least $10 million of public funds. Try to imagine this. Today we spend $10 million on conducting an inquiry, the subject of which is the surmise of a lady and whose personal remarks will be used as evidence in the inquiry. I have this question for the Civic Party: How will you explain this to the taxpayers? Nowadays, some Members would propose LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8619 invoking the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry into trivial and significant issues alike. Once an inquiry is launched, it is set to incur significant expenditure which will in fact be paid by the people. Do members of the public really want to see a situation like this?

To invoke the P&P Ordinance for an inquiry into an incident relating to a commercial organization's decision to dismiss an employee is tantamount to using the "imperial sword" to cut barbecue pork. The Legislative Council is neither a government department nor a governmental body, where can it get the considerable power to investigate a commercial organization? Moreover, if the Legislative Council resolved to investigate the Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited (Commercial Radio), will this not give the public an impression of us interfering with press freedom? Will the boss not outweigh the result? If we interfere with the operation of Commercial Radio due to its dismissal of an employee recently, will this not constitute interference with press freedom?

In addition, Mr Albert CHAN referred to some sort of relationship between Mr TUNG and Prof Robert CHUNG back then. I would like to remind him ― Had Mr Albert CHAN not mentioned this issue, I would not care to mention it ― I noticed some democratic Members have personality disorder, for they always apply double standards when handling issues. Recently, the public opinion polls conducted by the University of Hong Kong (HKU) were criticized as misleading. If the standards of the pan-democratic camp are applied, this issue should be investigated by invoking the P&P Ordinance. Try to think about this. In the past, the Public Opinion Programme of the HKU used to announce certain public opinion poll results on officials only in the form of mean values, without disclosing the primary statistics. It begged doubts about whether the particularly poor popularity ratings of certain officials were made up. We have no idea what they aimed to achieve by doing this, or probably for misleading the people. Subsequently, the Public Opinion Programme centre finally made public its statistics under enormous pressure ― it was probably under pressure from various fronts, such as pressure from the public ― requesting it to release the statistics of its public opinion polls. In the public opinion poll for the Chief Executive, the score given by some interviewees was zero, which should be considered as extreme values with low validity according to the science of statistics.

8620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

As I can still recall, the Math 111 statistics course that I took when I was a Year 1 university student taught about several methods to articulate the concept of mean, including mean, median and mode. In case of extreme values, consideration should be given to the validity of those values and an assessment should be made of whether they are in line with normal distribution. This is in fact basic statistical knowledge that many students are able to grasp. Likewise, when I was a Year 1 university student, I found this concept not difficult to grasp. But a public opinion poll programme led by a group of professors committed this kind of mistakes. Perhaps let me take these as inadvertent mistakes, yet how can the professors be ignorant of something that even a Year 1 university student is well aware of? They should not be inadvertent mistakes, and if these mistakes are committed on purpose, what purpose did they seek to serve? Did they really aim to mislead the people?

The release of misleading figures concerns academic ethics rather than the quality of academic research. Today, the sound academic reputation of Hong Kong is a result of the integrity upheld by our academic community, in which forgery is strictly forbidden, hence the good standing and reputation we enjoy internationally. This is an issue of enormous import as it concerns academic ethics and our core values. We find this a grave issue since the whole thing, led by the professors of a top-notched university, will indeed have far-reaching impact on the mass of students and our community. I have a question for Ms Claudia MO ― though she is not in the Chamber now ― if I propose invoking the P&P Ordinance for an inquiry into the suspected false results of the public opinion poll conducted by the HKU, will she support my proposal? I would like her to give me a reply later on. Is this practice in line with public interest? The answer is absolutely positive … President, I am giving my speech, but I find "Long Hair" disturbing me … this absolutely concerns public interest, has Ms Claudia MO ever said anything on this? No, is this proof of her suffering from personality disorder? Hence, we must not apply double standards when handling issues.

If the Legislative Council inquiries into the dismissal of an employee by Commercial Radio, this is tantamount to interfering with the operation of Commercial Radio. Likewise, in case the public opinion polls conducted by a professor is questioned, and someone comes forth and says he can provide evidence, and if the Legislative Council also inquiries into the matter, somebody LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8621 may accuse us of interfering with press freedom, and some others may as well accuse us of interfering with academic freedom. If so, will such debate go on and on without end?

In respect of things that will cost considerable public money and ought not be done, is leaving them to take their natural course a better way to deal with them? Legislative Council Members should not become the trouble maker who disrupts normal social development and order. I noticed that Ms Claudia MO loves to propose invoking the P&P Ordinance every now and then ― regretfully, she is not in the Chamber right now ― I do hope she can give a reply to my question: If I submit an application to the President tomorrow, seeking to invoke the P&P Ordinance for an inquiry into the incident relating to the public opinion polls of the HKU, would she support my proposal? If the Civic Party to which she belongs renders its support, then I would seriously give it a thought.

Thank you, President.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, Ms Claudia MO is not in the Chamber at the moment. Perhaps let me try addressing the doubt raised by Mr CHAN Han-pan from my perspective.

The Public Opinion Programme of the HKU can be regarded as an opinion poll agency. We can interpret, elaborate and construe the results of its surveys in various different ways. The Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited (Commercial Radio) is a mass media organization operating under the public broadcasting licensing system, and is thus a kind of public instrument. Radio broadcasters have to be subject to regulation because radio is a form of influential mass media. Whether or not freedom of the press is manifested in the broadcast contents and the radio stations uphold the principle of impartiality are very important. As our society continues to develop, we also attach great importance to the mass media, particularly those enabling us to receive information easily. Hence, they should be subject to regulation.

Today, Ms LI Wei-ling has been abruptly, or even brutally, sacked. Indeed, the remarks she made in the past were very incisive and the programme hosted by her was well-received by a sizeable audience. She raised a very serious accusation in response to her sudden dismissal: Commercial Radio has to 8622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

"kneel down" to secure a licence renewal. Has any body exerted pressure on Commercial Radio and caused her dismissal? This incident concerns freedom of the press, and it is by no means a simple commercial decision or staffing decision.

As a radio talk-show host, Ms LI Wei-ling is not unknown to the public. Perhaps Mr WONG Ting-kwong does not know her, but I believe many people of Hong Kong have tuned in to her radio programme before. Due to the remarks she made in her radio programme, and the fact that the programme allowed audience to phone in to express their views, different events had subsequently developed in different ways and caused significant impacts on our community.

Is it apt to say that we are "taking a spear to kill a fly"? Or are we "using an imperial sword to cut barbecued pork" as referred to by Mr CHAN Han-pan just now? Our objective is not to resolve an issue arising from some staffing arrangement or commercial decision. Our concern is freedom of the press; what we are discussing is the question of whether or not the freedom of speech is being suppressed in Hong Kong.

This incident does not pop out from nowhere. Not long ago, "Tai Pan" made open an audio excerpt which revealed that a shareholder of his then radio station had expressed dissatisfaction with LI Wei-ling and opposed hiring her to work for the radio station on the ground of her over-critical attitude towards the Government. From this we can see that somebody behind the scene was not pleased with LI Wei-ling, and it was clearly pointed out at that time that the displeased somebody was the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Even if we set aside the incidents that had taken place quite a while ago, the series of incidents that took place recently shows that our freedom of the press has been subject to suppression. Let me quote a few lines from a speech made by the Chairperson of Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA), Ms SHAM Yee-lan, on 23 February, to this effect: "We have seen: the brutal sacking of LI Wei-ling by Commercial Radio; a new chief editor being parachuted into Ming Pao Daily News from Malaysia; the abrupt withdrawal of advertisements from Apply Daily and am730; a lawyer's letter from Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying to the Hong Kong Economic Journal and its columnist LIAN Yi-zheng; the distortion of columnist Adrian CHOW's article by the Hong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8623

Kong Economic Times; the distortion of an article of columnist LAU Yiu-siu by Sing Pao Daily News; the denial of a free television programme service licence to the Hong Kong Television Network Limited; the South China Morning Post's appointment of a delegate of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference as chief editor and the subsequent curtailment of a detailed report on the death of LI Wang-yang into a brief of little more than a hundred words". All such incidents took place not long ago.

Then, she went on to say, again to this effect "Is that all? Certainly not. There are still some others which are not known to our readers.

1. During the dock workers' strike, a newspaper removed a report on an interview with Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, leaving a space of about 400 words for the journalist to fill.

2. A press photographer had taken a picture showing angry workers throwing large glutinous rice dumplings at cardboard figures of Hutchison Group's senior management personnel LI Ka-shing and YIM Lui-fai, but the picture was not allowed to be published.

3. A newspaper removed a full-page story on the plight of dock workers.

4. In the alleged corruption case involving former Chief Secretary for Administration Rafael HUI and the KWOK brothers of Sun Hung Kai, only pictures of Rafael HUI are posted on papers but not those of the KWOK brothers.

5. Newspapers just pretend to be neutral, but their journalists are barred from interviewing scholars sympathetic to the democratic camp, such as MA Ngok, CHOY Chi-keung and TO Yiu-ming.

6. In writing press reports on the Individual Visit Scheme, journalists are required to focus mainly on the local economy and write about the Scheme's importance and its positive impacts on the retail industry, and they are always reminded of this: "Who pays you if there is no Individual Visit Scheme?"

8624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

7. A listed company took the initiative to disclose a lawsuit in its prospectus in black and white, but when a journalist tried to cover the story, he was banned from doing so by the editor. Perhaps the newspaper did not wish to offend the listed company. The journalist had no choice but to pass the information to the journalists of other newspapers for reportage."

All of these incidents, HKJA Chairperson SHAM Yee-lan believes, are not known to readers and the public.

President, our discussion today concerns an incident in which the core values of Hong Kong like the freedom of speech and freedom of the press are suppressed. The dismissal of LI Wei-ling is just the surface of the matter, is there anybody exerting pressure from behind the scene? What are the reasons? Is this incident part of an organized and systematic scheme? Given all these doubts, we need to get to the bottom of the incident. May I ask the pro-establishment Members in what other ways can we conduct an investigation if it is not conducted on the strength of powers invoked under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance)? What other methods can enable us to see that …

As pointed out in the speech I have quoted of SHAM Yee-lan, while some of the incidents are known to all, some are not know to the public. However, one very obvious point is that the purpose of such incidents is to restrain the freedom of speech in Hong Kong. As Legislative Council Members, should we turn a blind eye to this? What instrument do we have to enable everybody to see the truth of the incident? What methods do we have to expeditiously prevent our freedom of the press and freedom of speech from being further restricted?

In my view, the dismissal of Ms LI Wei-ling is indeed most baffling. Besides, we have learnt from LI Wei-ling's programme that she had offered assistance to many disadvantaged groups. To cite an example, she provided dockers with ample space in her programme to make their voice heard.

Recently, we have been assisting a group of hearing impaired students who have been bullied at school. To this end, LI Wei-ling specifically helped these students to record their heartfelt wishes. On the day when LI Wei-ling was sacked, I attended a candlelight vigil held outside Commercial Radio. One of the Philippine hostage incident victims, YIK Siu-ling, also attended the event to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8625 express her gratitude to LI Wei-ling. I also remember that two years ago, at the Mid-Autumn Festival, a festival for family members to get together, LI Wei-ling and I specially invited a group of low-income people to tell of the difficulties they had to face on festive occasions, so as to enable the people of Hong Kong to understand the plight of the poor. I really cannot see what serious mistakes LI Wei-ling has made, which eventually caused her to be sacked immediately and barred from returning to her office.

If we do not invoke the P&P Ordinance to get to the bottom of this incident, we will never know whether this incident was instigated by anybody and for what reasons. If, after the truth about the incident has been exposed and it is found that the incident has nothing to do with suppression of the freedom of speech, justice will then be done to all the parties concerned. Conversely, given the series of incidents that have happened, one just cannot help but suspect that behind the dismissal of LI Wei-ling there is indeed some sort of political suppression, just as she has suggested.

With these remarks, I support Ms Claudia MO's motion. Thank you, President.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, I studied communications, I learned it and I taught the subject. And for more than 40 years I have been doing that. I suffered persecutions and suppression because I came to the defence of the freedom of speech and I wanted to see justice done. Today when I debate a topic related to this in this Chamber, my heart is filled with feelings. The sudden dismissal of LI Wei-ling, a host of a current affairs programme in the Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited (Commercial Radio), leads to a startled cry from some people: "The freedom of speech in Hong Kong is dead." However, I wish to point out that the broadcasting media using the air waves have long since fallen and it is too late to sound the death knell now.

Ten years ago I was still a well-known host on the radio and I passed judgment on political figures using the most progressive yardstick of democracy. I commented on the political scene in a most scathing manner. I was not afraid of the strong and powerful. In June 2003 I called upon the listeners to my programme to take to the streets on 1 July to oust the then Chief Executive TUNG Chee-hwa and oppose the legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic 8626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

Law. I therefore became the target of suppression by powers that be. I was sacked one year later and boycotted by other media.

In 2004 Winnie YU, the director of Commercial Radio announced to the following effect: "We have decided not to rely too much the venting of emotions but to stress more a rational approach to things …" And the person who replaced me was the lady who has recently been kicked out. At that time she once invited LEUNG Kwok-hung to discuss political affairs in her programme but she forbade him to talk about the sacking of Albert CHENG and WONG Yuk-man. Then in the radio programme she has shown favour to the mild democrats, especially the Democratic Party long term. And for me and people from the progressive democratic camp, she has framed us with wrongful allegations. But she has never given us a chance to defend ourselves. When the League of Social Democrats and the Civic Party initiated the referendum for five constituencies, she belittled the movement as a lame signature campaign for five constituencies. When the Democratic Party bargained with the Communist Party of China (CPC) behind closed doors and lent their support to the bogus constitutional reform package, the People Power started a campaign of "settling the debt of votes with votes" and LI Wei-ling smeared the People Power constantly in her programme as Team B of the pro-establishment camp and even vilified the People Power as a "rascal force". In the Legislative Council Election in September 2012, LI Wei-ling paid no regard to the rules of decorum, walked on the tightrope of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance and did electioneering for the mild democrats in her programme. She smeared the candidates of the progressive democrats and branded them as communists. Now in retrospect, this is the beginning of the bogus democrats in condemning the approach of the progressive democrats.

About the blatant smearing done by LI Wei-ling at that time of me and my party, the poor quality of her programme and the fact that her stand is based on her personal likes and dislikes, I do not think I need to waste time recapitulating them here. But there are quite a number of people who admire LI Wei-ling for her oily tongue and her opposition to the pro-establishment camp. They hail her as the radio host in recent years with the deadliest political power. This is really confusing right with wrong. When we are to judge the character of a media worker, the best test is his persistent insistence on justice.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8627

I wish to quote a comment made by LI Wei-ling on the occasion when Albert CHENG was sacked by Commercial Radio. The comment is a monologue made by LI Wei-ling to the following effect: "Yesterday was the most unhappy day since I started working for Commercial Radio more than a month ago. Personally I have always thought that Tai Pan, that is, Albert CHENG, would never be sacked by Commercial Radio. This is because I do not think that this is consistent with the interest of Commercial Radio … Although I do not like very much the way Tai Pan hosted his programme, I think no one can deny that his programme serves the social function of speaking out to defend justice for the ordinary public. In a commercial society, the relationship between employers and employees is only bound by mutual consent and originally, there is no need to reason, but as Winnie YU, the director of Commercial Radio, has always emphasized, Commercial Radio is not an ordinary commercial organization and the airwaves of a radio station is a kind of public resources to which a social responsibility is attached. Changes of hosts are not simply labour matters for the freedom of speech is involved. The paradox is so far I still do not feel that there is any tightening of the freedom of speech I enjoy in Commercial Radio. Or some people may say, LI Wei-ling, you are not ferocious enough and you are not as influential as Tai Pan, that is why you still enjoy the freedom of speech. I do not hope that this is the case, nor do I think that there are signs that it is. The important point is that I can still express my views on the radio and this applies to the present moment. So even if the incident about Tai Pan has happened, if it is claimed rashly that there is no freedom of speech in Commercial Radio and that the freedom of speech is suppressed in Commercial Radio, it would be unfair to colleagues who work hard in Commercial Radio every day. An important reason for me joining Commercial Radio is that I think Commercial Radio is an organization which deserves our service. Tony TSOI, the Chief Operations Officer of Commercial Radio always stresses to me that social responsibility and conscience are most valued in Commercial Radio. After I have worked in Commercial Radio for more than a month, many things here have proved that this is true. Tony TSOI did not lie to me. I like this organization very much. I like the colleagues here. Now when such an unhappy incident has happened in a company I like so much, I can only say that I feel unhappy." (End of quote) And 10 years later she is kicked out of Commercial Radio.

On 13 February, that is, last month, LI Wei-ling hosted a press conference in which she gave an account to the media on her dismissal by Commercial 8628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

Radio. She pointed out directly that it was 100% the result of suppression by the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration on the freedom of speech and Commercial Radio had knelt down under the curse of licence renewal. She could not accept at all her dismissal which she thought was unreasonable. She demanded an explanation from Commercial Radio. Ten years ago LI Wei-ling defended the wrongful deed of Commercial Radio and today she is dismissed for no reason. It can be seen that history is often a mockery in the sense that what happened to other people in the past may happen to you now.

After the licence of Commercial Radio is renewed for 12 years, outside the studio where live broadcasts are done, a slogan is hung and carries an inscription by Commercial Radio boss, Mr George HO, and a couplet by veteran radio presenter Li Wo to this effect: "Words should be half said and left in the mouth, reasoning is an art of compromising even if truth is on one's side". From this we can see clearly the self-censorship practised by Commercial Radio. Back in those days LI Wei-ling clung to Winnie YU's rational approach and she managed to work as a radio host for 10 years. But now LEUNG Chun-ying with his "689 regime" considers even this kind of rational line an enemy.

I will not take any sinister delight in this affair of the sacking of LI Wei-ling because she was really fired by her employer all of a sudden. Commercial Radio is a social instrument and it really owes her and the public an explanation. The 17th century English poet John DONNE once wrote the following lines: "No man is an island … Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." I often quote these lines. In 2003 after 1 July, the CPC wanted to settle scores and famous radio hosts were ousted. But this did not cause any strong protest from the people. After this, we do not find any progressive views expressed by mainstream media which are radically against the communists and the pro-establishment camp.

People say that there used to be freedom of speech in Hong Kong. But is this really true? Anyone who is interested can read an article I wrote in 1989 entitled to this effect: "Is there any freedom of speech in Hong Kong?" Let me quote a paragraph from it for Members' reference. It is to the following effect: "In Hong Kong which is a market for free expression of opinion, a person may have something to say and he has the freedom to speak. But he may not be able to speak it out and let others hear it. The freedom of speech belongs to a minority, and this privileged class is the opinion leaders.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8629

"When an opinion cannot become part of the media, that means the opinion does not exist. This is a hard fact. But who can become part of the media?

- An individual or group which controls directly or indirectly the media. This includes those who own the media;

- Anyone who has the financial capability to buy space in the pages of a newspaper or air-time for advertisements on radios or TVs;

- Experts and scholars, especially the minority who are well-known and have an amicable relationship with the media;

- Any individual or group which knows to produce news and attract media attention;

- Any person who is in a position to speak easily, such as a political figure;

- Media workers, especially those reporters who because of some personal beliefs and heroism like to advocate their own views by making use of the convenience occasioned by their work."

These people have the right to speak and they have the media which facilitate their speech and what they say can be heard by other people. These people are the ones who have the freedom of speech.

"In the last few months, there have been major upheavals on Mainland China and in Taiwan. There are political turmoils. And in Hong Kong, there are electrifying changes taking place. Eastern Europe is engulfed in a wave of democratic movements. One's eyes are simply dazzled at seeing all these. Our opinion leaders are busy voicing their views.

"According to studies done by scholars in communications, what is found in communications is that in most cases, the contents are first disseminated to the opinion leaders and these opinion leaders will pass on the contents. This kind of communication is called a two-step flow of communication. As these opinion leaders meddle with the communication process, the scope of dissemination is enlarged and as personal influence finds its way into the process, it serves to undermine the effect of communication.

8630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

"Apart from the positive function which these opinion leaders serve in the process of communication, the quality of their opinions is often defective.

"First, those who speak out in the guise of a scholar or an expert are likewise shallow as those who gossip on the streets. Many of these opinion leaders express opinion just for the sake of doing so. Many of them air their views to make them better known. They form their views behind closed doors and generally, these views do not conform to public expectations.

"Second, although these views are not in line with public expectation, provided that they can meet media requirements, these people can speak out boldly. When the media select these views, they do have market considerations. These opinion leaders know what please the media and so it is easy for their views to become part of the media.

"Third, whenever there is major news breaking, the opinion leaders will sit in their homes and offices, waiting patiently in composure for the arrival of reporters. They do not care whether they have an in-depth understanding of the questions at issue. All they care is that their comments will be reported in the newspapers or aired on the TVs. For the reporters, their first priority is to avoid the difficult and approach the easy, in order to facilitate reporting and fulfilling their assignment. So the two parties can become partners easily.

"Fourth, a healthy form of opinion relies on facts as the basis. Can these opinion leaders, especially those with the support given by interest groups or political factions behind their back, provide enough facts? No, they cannot. And what is more, they will often fabricate events or try to form a tendency or stand for a certain opinion, the purpose of which is to meet the purpose of their masters. Can we not see many well-known people who hold public offices and put on cosmetics for the CPC?" (End of quote)

What I have just read out is a paragraph in my article which was published in the Ming Pao Monthly in December 1989. At that time I was the head of the Department of Journalism and Communication in a university and so my article carries a scholastic flavour. However, this old work published more than 20 years ago predicts the fall of the conventional media today. As Dr CHENG Chung-tai, a lecturer of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, pointed out on 15 February in Passion Times, an online newspaper, in an article entitled to the effect of "Revolution to break the old and build the new media", to this effect: "Now the people of Hong Kong experience the ruthless suppression of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8631 freedom of speech in the conventional media and every one should exert their best to resist in their respective posts. When conventional media cannot resist any longer, there are still the new online media. So provided that the new generation of Hong Kong people can brace themselves up for their own salvation, the power of speech in their possession will never diminish and never die. Just change the battlefield and there is no need to feel pessimistic about it."

The Chinese writer LU Xun once said to this effect: "If there are people who really want to continue living, the first thing they should do is to dare to speak, dare to laugh, dare to cry, dare to get angry, dare to scold and dare to fight. And they can beat this cursed age in a cursed place." Now there is this overriding gloom engulfing our political scene and we can see further restriction of the freedom of speech. The citizens should recognize this reality clearly and lend their support to and even to the extent of initiating a New Media Movement. They should boycott or even discard media in the airwaves and turn to listen or view the new online media. This will enable justice to be done and it is a most effective way in the struggle to defend freedom.

The French philosopher VOLTAIRE once said to this effect: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Confronted by this major issue of the defence of the freedom of speech, although I have a strong aversion to the style of LI Wei-ling, I vow to defend to the death her right to speak. I once said in an online radio programme that she was the most crap programme host I had ever seen. But if she was suppressed and oppressed, I would not refrain from speaking out simply because of what she is. I would defend her freedom. So this motion today can be seen as a ritual, something which certain people want to indicate their stand and so Members are given a chance to debate on the issue. President, I am serious about it. Although I am not the mover of the motion, I have written a speech of a few thousand words for the occasion to share my personal experience with Members.

The only reason for my support of this motion is this: If there is anyone who does not believe in what LI Wei-ling says, an inquiry can be conducted. And anyone does not believe in what LI Wei-ling says, he can conduct an inquiry; and if anyone believes in the words of LI Wei-ling but still has doubts, he can likewise conduct an inquiry. After all, since Members like to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, we might as well invoke it again on this occasion. Right? Therefore, with these remarks, I support this motion. Thank you, President.

8632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, the speech made by Mr WONG Yuk-man just now in a mix of modern and ancient Chinese is so fabulous indeed. Recently, an article written in ancient Chinese has become viral on the Internet, particular on Mainland websites. I wonder if this article, which is about Russia's annexation of Crimea, has caught Mr WONG's attention. Perhaps in future, Mr WONG can write an article like that for our appreciation.

President, unlike Mr Tommy CHEUNG, I hardly have any relationship with Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited (Commercial Radio), and I have only met Mr Joseph HO once. Nonetheless, I have been interviewed by Commercial Radio, particularly by Ms LI Wei-ling, for many times. In a number of cases, she suddenly gave me a call while hosting her programme in the morning, therefore I had to receive her interview in my pajamas. Some pro-establishment Members and officials find Ms LI aggressive and difficult due to her strong and poignant style.

Despite this, Ms LI's programme, which was in fact rather entertaining, had drawn many supporters. Now Ms LI no longer serves in Commercial Radio, to me, it is a pity because no one will ring me up and stimulate my nerves in the morning.

However, in my view, invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) for an inquiry into the matter is unnecessary. The sudden disappearance of a popular host has aroused extensive speculations, but I think as responsible Members, we should not lightly propose that the Legislative Council should request an inquiry into the Government by deploying this "imperial sword", simply on the basis of certain imagination, speculation or suspicion in mind. In particular, I find the proposal to investigate the Government with respect to this issue quite unconvincing.

Notwithstanding the incidents of attack on some members of the media are widely discussed in society recently ― another incident just happened yesterday ― and many people worry about the freedom of speech in Hong Kong in the light of these incidents, the dismissal of Ms LI Wei-ling is, after all, a dispute between her and Commercial Radio.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8633

President, anyone who has experience as an employee or employer knows that all employers have the power to ― allow me to express it in English ― hire and fire in any employment relationship. Given that an employer has the power to hire someone, he also has the power to fire him. Many contracts, regardless of whether it is a government contract ― excluding the contracts for those already employed as permanent employees ― or be it offered by large institutions like the Hospital Authority, or small organizations such as think tanks or small political parties like ours, all these contracts contain a provision that allows the employer to dismiss an employee without giving any reason. An employer can fire an employee without any reason by giving a one-month notice, and the employee can be dismissed immediately upon the payment of his or her salary. The reason is that all organizations have to sack employees sometimes.

In my view, this incident is basically a dispute between Ms LI and Commercial Radio. All employers have the power to fire an employee based on commercial or other considerations. Should we insist on conducting an inquiry, I think we should investigate Commercial Radio, but the inquiry may not generate any concrete result. Even though the select committee has the power to invite the boss of Commercial Radio to attend an inquiry, but that does not mean he will necessarily tell the committee his thoughts and motivation. The idea to investigate the Government is even more absurd as after all, Commercial Radio, as its name suggests, is a commercial organization, and the dismissal of Ms LI is only a decision based on commercial consideration.

For this reason, the New People's Party disapproves of invoking the P&P Ordinance to investigate the Government with respect to the labour dispute of a commercial radio station. Having said that, we are very much concerned about press freedom, therefore I intend to make another speech in the next motion debate.

Thank you, President.

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

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, Mr CHAN Han-pan, who has already left, asked just now whether Members would support him should he move a motion calling for an inquiry into the incident involving the public 8634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 opinion polls conducted by the HKU. I voiced support three times, but he thought I was interfering with his speech. This is why he has already left. I will definitely support the relevant inquiry. Simply put, I will definitely support investigating the incident if he can prove that Robert CHUNG was pressurized by the HKU to conduct opinion polls to deal a blow to LEUNG Chun-ying. The reason is that the public opinion programme administered by the HKU is a public instrument funded and operated by public coffers. An organization so funded and operated must not accept orders to target someone. If its target is LEUNG Chun-ying, it deserves to die 10 thousand deaths, right? Why should it seek to deal a blow to such a "revered" and "highly popular" leader "for no reason"? His popularly is so high that it is no longer visible.

President, like children involved in a quarrel, "the opposition to the opposition" are absolutely unreasonable. First of all, how many universities are there in Hong Kong? Universities are public bodies because they are under the University Grants Committee and must uphold education policies. The Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited (Commercial Radio) is not a public body because it is operated according to commercial principles. However, when it was granted a licence in 1960, Commercial Radio signed letters with the British-Hong Kong Government and it was required to serve as the Government's mouthpiece because Radio Television Hong Kong and Rediffusion TV at that time were unable to perform this function. Obviously, it was specified in literature that Commercial Radio had to assist the Government, though we have no idea if there is still such a need now.

What will happen if an inquiry is not conducted? I would like to say a few words about two former radio hosts. One is Mr Albert CHENG, also known as "Tai Pan", and the other is an incumbent Legislative Council Member, Mr WONG Yuk-man, who was still here a while ago delivering a speech. Neither has the Legislative Council conducted any inquiry into the incidents involving them, nor has any Member invoked the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to investigate why Commercial Radio suddenly went out of its mind and dismissed them and under what sort of threat did they decide to leave Hong Kong. In the end, as Members have witnessed, different people have different views. Both WONG Yuk-man and "Tai Pan" Albert CHENG indicated that they had to leave Hong Kong because they were persecuted by the communists and their family members were LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8635 threatened as well. Am I right? That was the result of not conducting an inquiry. That was what happened to them.

Members can see that after the departure of Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr Albert CHENG from Commercial Radio, the situation has continued to worsen and the criticisms against the Government are inadequate in terms of strength, depth and width, right? This is the objective outcome. Fine, let us examine the accusation made by LI Wei-ling today. Her accusation is so serious that only this irresponsible Government will give such a simple response that there is no such thing. LI Wei-ling's accusation is very clear. She said that people beside LEUNG Chun-ying had warned her to be careful about her "rice bowl". She even emphasized that she was absolutely certain about that.

Honestly, Mr CHAN Han-pan, if a person summoned by Members to appear before this Council to testify refuses to do so, he would be tantamount to giving up the opportunity given to him, right? This is perfectly fair. This is why I asked him to come. All the relevant persons are also welcome to come before this Council so that we can ask them whether that was true. In fact, people should not be afraid if that was untrue. There is no need to waste time because we must not make things up. The only exception is the incident involving KAM Nai-wai ― President, please look at me ― I really found it amazing that the probe into the KAM Nai-wai incident had lasted four years, though it was purely fabricated. President, the party to which you belong insisted on an investigation, too. Even though Mr Paul TSE pointed out right at the beginning that it would be very difficult for such an investigation to bear any fruit, Members still insisted on launching it. President, was it a joke? Members still insisted on carrying on the investigation even though it was obviously impossible to do so. This is why we say today that the incident involving LI Wei-ling must be investigated.

President, the communications theories cited by Mr WONG Yuk-man just now were actually the common sense he taught to his students. Let me quote and analyse them. Mr WONG Yuk-man said that many people belonged to the minority privileged class. "Mrs IP" is definitely an opinion leader as well as a politician, right? This is why she has the right to speak. So has Mr CHAN Han-pan because he is a Legislative Council Member. Given his special status, he will still be reported even if he is condemned by someone. If he were not a Legislative Council Member, who would condemn him? The reason is very 8636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 simple. President, the truth we wish to pursue today is: Should someone be interfered with for expressing her views through the airwaves which were described by the Government as extremely precious? Her right to do so is actually expressly provided for in the Basic Law. LI Wei-ling is now saying that there are problems. Does the Secretary, who is responsible for policy enforcement, consider it necessary to conduct an inquiry now that someone has explicitly stated that there are problems? He can definitely not say that the matter should be left as it is, right? The problem now lies in Commercial Radio, but it came forth to say that "when two gentlemen stop being friends, they will not say harsh words to each other" without offering any explanation. If this issue is analysed as an employment relationship, I have to ask the Secretary this question: How many employers must apply for a licence from the Government in order to do business, as is the case of Commercial Radio? Are there any such employers? Furthermore, the Chief Executive will be responsible for issuing the licences. Such a system is not found in other parts of the world. The other day I asked all the Bureau Directors and government officials present at the meeting this question: Is there any jurisdiction in which its President or head with actual powers will personally attend to the granting of a licence to a radio station? This happens in Hong Kong only. Is Commercial Radio not a unique organization? What actually are they doing?

Today, all of the 70 Members here ask the same question: What has a dismissed employee to do with us? Buddy, may I reason with you? President, is there any other organization which must apply for a licence from the Government before it can do business? Furthermore, the Government insists that the spectrum used by the radio station is so precious that it cannot be used incorrectly. Not only have I been caught in litigation every day because of Citizens' Radio, I have also been charged dozens of times. As the Government said that the spectrum was very precious, "Long Hair" ought to be punished for performing so poorly in setting up such a radio station.

So, President, Commercial Radio is definitely not just an ordinary organization, as Members said, and so its dismissal of an employee should be treated as normal. As for those Members who asked what the problem was, may I ask them to do some homework? They must stop making eloquent assertions here. This is the first point. Second, this organization has a poor track record, which is really unpleasant to talk about. Honourable Members, is an inquiry warranted? Can Members still raise objection? Why should an inquiry not be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8637 conducted? As this is a concern to Hong Kong people, we have to bring it up here. Honestly, Hong Kong people are concerned about the incident involving Ricky WONG, too. We have already proposed in this Council that an inquiry be carried out, but again no inquiry has been conducted so far.

President, is the saying that "nothing is trivial when it comes to matters of people's livelihood" not advocated by the party to which you belong? So, are the freedom of speech enjoyed by people since the Renaissance and the freedom of the press associated with the birth of newspapers matters of people's livelihood? Are Hong Kong people not listening to radio broadcasts, watching television or reading newspapers? Or do they need free gifts and seasonal delicacies only? Buddy, in this regard, the most important point is the quest for knowledge, that is, the desire to obtain information, whereas making comments is one of people's greatest desires. Are they not associated with people's livelihood? As the party to which you belong puts it, "nothing is trivial when it comes to matters of people's livelihood". So, why does your party regard this great desire as a trivial matter? Furthermore, this desire is related to whether a person is regarded as a slave, and whether some people are designated to be the ones who can or cannot speak.

President, I really cannot see why "the opposition to the opposition" can oppose investigating the incident involving Commercial Radio. If KAM Nai-wai's alleged improper conduct towards his subordinate is already regarded as a serious matter and must be investigated, why is an investigation considered unwarranted when it comes to the repeated involvement of Commercial Radio in incidents of this sort? Furthermore, the incident involves the Chief Executive who is regarded as a liar, too. Honestly, every matter involving LEUNG Chun-ying must be investigated because he is completely devoid of credibility, right? He should be sentenced to death had he made any interference, so why is an inquiry ruled out?

I have been speaking for 10 minutes, while "the opposition to the opposition" describe today's debate as a waste of public money. President, they are questioning the worth of the debate today. I was not present at the meeting yesterday. According to these Members, the discussion conducted yesterday on legislation was a bit meaningful, but they have no idea of the purpose of the discussion today on this motion with no binding effect as a vote will be taken after the discussion as usual. That said, why do they participate in the debate? 8638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

Why does the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) say this and that all the time, buddy? The "imperial sword" possessed by this Council ― these are their words ― is very useful, but they describe it as a waste of money and decide not to deploy it. What purpose does it serve if it is not deployed?

President, in the ancient times, the inspector of nine provinces would carry out frequent inspections, but no one would complain that he had conducted too many inspections and it was meaningless to do so. Not only would no one make any such comments, but inspections had to be conducted when some people sought redress. What happens now is that someone is seeking redress. The incident at issue is a concern to everyone, including both parties, because some people describe the incident as true but others consider it untrue. President, this incident is really outrageous.

The CPC is really too ugly. For the sake of an organization responsible for conducting public opinion polls … that person is called Robert CHUNG. Honestly, I do not know him very well. When it comes to public opinion polls, someone has gone so far as to seek redress at the meeting of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and then named and criticized this person in front of the media around the world. Mr CHAN Han-pan, you have returned to the Chamber, have you not? I am telling you this. I will support your proposed inquiry into Robert CHUNG with my feet because I have to do him justice. You must act faster and delay no more. Moreover, you must give a good reason. You must not put it in a wrong way so that I cannot possibly support you. You must act faster and refrain from paying lip service only, or I will report you to your constituents. President, will you please supervise him. If he believes that Robert CHUNG has extended favours to someone or is under certain pressure, such as he has received a telephone call from "Long Hair" telling him to deal with LEUNG Chun-ying, then he should produce evidence and summon Robert CHUNG here to testify. The one called Peter LEE Ka-kit should also be summoned over his allegation of someone. Then, another person called CHEUNG Chi-kong is to be summoned, too. They are "a group of duffers gathering together". They can speak freely by all means. President, I can give them a response here. Since nothing is trivial when it comes to matters of people's livelihood, the use of public opinion polls to discredit the Chief Executive should not be regarded as a trivial matter. I hope the DAB, Peter LEE Ka-kit and CHEUNG Chi-kong can pool their forces and come before this Council for an inquiry. Do you agree? How are you going to vote later on, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8639 buddy? You must not "exaggerate" things. You seek to "trump" Ms Claudia MO to prevent her from voicing out … it appears she will speak later on.

I now give you my word, but will you vote in support of us later on? If not, President, will you please teach him what it means by "misfortune finds its way out through the mouth", for words already spoken is similar to spilled water or a married daughter ― it cannot be retrieved. Mr CHAN Han-pan, you should go home tonight to think it over carefully and come up with some good reasons (The buzzer sounded) …

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

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): … for an inquiry into Robert CHUNG …

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

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): My speaking time is up?

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

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, with regard to this motion today, I will, first of all, state clearly the issues that I am not going to discuss in my speech. In fact, many Honourable colleagues have mentioned the importance of the freedom of speech, how the Hong Kong Government and the judicial system of Hong Kong should be monitored, and so on. All these are what we can take for granted, so I do not think I need to dwell on them. As regards the question of whether the freedom of speech is under threat recently or the need for us to be continuously vigilant of possible regression of the freedom of speech, I do not think I should dwell any further on these questions either, because the answers are plain to us all. Besides, unlike some colleagues, I do not know this or that person of the HO family, and I cannot point out how good someone is or why he or she will never do this or that. As for the performance of LI Wei-ling as a radio programme host, her credibility and professional skills, I am not going to 8640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 discuss all of these either. I will not mention any personal grudges, and I will not talk about my views on LI Wei-ling or the Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited (Commercial Radio). Then, what am I going to discuss here?

The themes of this motion today are whether it is necessary for this Council to inquire into the dismissal of LI Wei-ling and whether freedom of the press of Commercial Radio was subject to interference by the Government. These themes are made very clear. One is about LI Wei-ling, and the other is about Commercial Radio. As for other issues, such as the attack on Kevin LAU, the many other problems that occurred recently, the withdrawal of advertisements from newspapers, and so on, all these are probably the backdrop which made us worry about whether our freedom of speech is under threat.

If the themes of this motion are whether the freedom of speech is regressing in Hong Kong, whether the freedom of speech is under threat in Hong Kong or whether the freedom of speech is gradually subject to political interference in Hong Kong, I may probably agree to discuss them because we may actually have a chance to conduct an inquiry into these issues. But these are not the issues under our discussion today. This is similar to our inquiry into whether KAM Nai-wai had really committed the alleged acts, as we would not say that all men have a lust for women, that Members' integrity is ever on a decline or that as public morals are deteriorating day by day, Hong Kong is going from bad to worse, and so on, for all these are other backgrounds irrelevant to the motion. Therefore, I would like to focus my discussion on what this motion is about.

President, in order to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to conduct an inquiry, the most fundamental principle is certainly that a major public incident has occurred or the Government has committed a mistake which warrants our attention. At times, we can see that in some cases, and to cite an expression commonly used in the legal profession, they are cases of res ipsa loquitur, which means that "the fact speaks for itself". When a major incident happened, someone must have made mistakes which led to serious consequences, such as the opening of the new Airport, the incident of substandard piling works, the Lehman Brothers incident and SARS, which are all examples of res ipsa loquitur. When there are these serious incidents wreaking havoc, certainly there must be mistakes committed in government policies or administration or by officials in policymaking, and for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8641 these cases, we do not have to say much but should launch investigations into the causes of the problem at once.

For a "case-specific" incident or an isolated incident, a most fundamental requirement is to establish a so-called prima facie case, which means that there is prima facie evidence. Of course, we are not a court and we do not hear cases and so, it is unnecessary to strictly require the preparation of pleadings or meticulous arguments but at least, if the Legislative Council, being an organization tasked to discuss policies, should suddenly play the role of a quasi-court and conduct a judicial investigation, this stringent attitude as well as the definition and scope of the motion, the most fundamental preliminary evidence, and so on, will all be vitally important and essential. Otherwise, we would not be qualified to and should not waste taxpayers' money to conduct this kind of inquiry or study.

President, in this case, what is the most fundamental evidence? Reviewing the entire incident, I noticed that Ms LI Wei-ling has repeatedly made open remarks on this incident, including the remarks made by her at two press conferences and when attending City Forum, and the other occasion was when she had a discussion with Mr Albert CHENG in radio D100 right away the next day. According to what she has said ― assuming we fully accept her version of the story and there is no issue with her trustworthiness ― she only gave an account of two or three incidents. First, someone who is close to Mr LEUNG Chun-ying (whom LI Wei-ling has known for more than a decade) told her "to be careful of her job"; second, some officials told Ms LI Wei-ling before that she was the person most hated by LEUNG Chun-ying; third, with regard to the appeal case involving her superior, Stephen CHAN, she said that normally a decision will not be made so fast for an appeal but strangely enough, on the day the Court passed a judgment on this case, the Department of Justice immediately lodged an appeal. She said that it was unlikely due to any other reason than the Government specifically targeting Stephen CHAN and she questioned whether Stephen CHAN had taken this step in a bid to improve his relationship with the Government because of his appeal or the appeal that he is going to face. All these are her side of the story.

These are all based on what Ms LI Wei-ling has said as she has had a number of opportunities to speak, and she told these so-called facts without being cross-examined. Then she said that she felt 100% that there must be someone pulling strings behind the stage, interfering with freedom of the press and 8642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 resulting in her dismissal. It should be noted that what she said was what "she felt 100%". When it comes to feelings, we all saw an example yesterday in which there was a great difference between the feeling of Dr KWOK Ka-ki and that of the Chief Secretary for Administration about the same fact.

Had Ms LI Wei-ling left in silence and even shed a little bit of tears in sorrow, I am afraid I, being a third party, might perhaps feel that something had happened. But most regrettably, in the many opportunities she had to speak, all she said was merely what she felt 100%. Even if we fully believe what she said, it is still not enough to be taken as the most fundamental preliminary evidence that I have just stressed, which could otherwise enable us to conduct a judicial investigation.

On the other hand, let us look at some objective facts which are also based on what Ms LI Wei-ling has said, and let us take everything she said as the facts. There are several facts: First, she was unwilling to accept a warning given to her by her superior in Commercial Radio; second, she deliberately refrained from attending the anniversary celebration of Commercial Radio; third, when asked by a reporter for her views on her superior, Stephen CHAN, she said that he was more destructive than constructive; fourth, after receiving from Stephen CHAN a box of chocolate as a gift, she gave it to a cleaner right away. These are the facts told by her. I do not wish to infer at this stage which version of the story has resulted in her dismissal by Commercial Radio because when something happened, usually there are many reasons behind it and it did not happen for one single reason. As for which reason is important and which is not, I think the parties involved know only too well.

President, can we initiate this solemn mechanism based on feelings? Colleagues have mentioned the incident of Andrew LO. I expected colleagues to cite this incident as an example and therefore, I reviewed the remarks made by Andrew LO last night until one o'clock in the morning. First of all, we must make clear several facts: First, a motion was moved by Mr Martin LEE on 22 November 2000. It was consequential to an internal investigation conducted by the University of Hong Kong (HKU) in August and September in the same year, and it was after the results of investigation had been made available and widely accepted without being challenged that the motion was moved. Unlike what Mr Albert CHAN said, it was not true that the HKU conducted an internal investigation because the Legislative Council was unwilling to investigate the incident. He has actually got it all wrong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8643

Second, with regard to the allegations, there are four points which made it a lot different from this case before us now. First, Dr Robert CHUNG expressly stated in an article on 7 July 2000 that persons sent by the Chief Executive had more than once expressed views on the opinion polls. The article did not identify these persons at the time but their identities were subsequently made public, and it was pointed out that the Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the HKU (CHENG Yiu-chung and WONG Siu-lun) had a part to play. Second, in the open hearing conducted by the HKU there were two other witnesses whom we all know, namely, Prof CHENG Kai-ming and Prof Felice LIEH-MAK. They gave an account of what they had seen and heard under oath without being challenged, including what happened at a meeting with Prof CHENG Yiu-chung of the HKU on 11 May 1999, during which Prof CHENG Yiu-chung mentioned Robert CHUNG's opinion polls and the Chief Executive, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, sending his representative to take part in discussions and raised views. There were witnesses, evidence and incidents. Third, not only did this happen to the HKU but The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) also had this problem too. Both Dr Timothy WONG and Prof LAU Siu-kai stated that they had had contacts with Mr Andrew LO, and they had talked about opinion polls. Prof Arthur LI, the then Vice-Chancellor of CUHK, also had contacts with him but Prof LI was clever by not getting involved and telling Andrew LO not to discuss this with him and suggesting that he should approach Prof LAU Siu-kai and Dr Timothy WONG by himself and talk to them instead. Fourth, at the same time, the Asian Wall Street Journal reported that a member of the Council of the HKU, Tony FUNG, was not tactful enough by helping with the listing of Next Media, resulting in his term of appointment being cut short from three years to one year, meaning that he was not offered a reappointment. All these people and incidents were clear, and the then retired Justice POWER was even appointed to conduct an open investigation. As far as I can remember it, the hearing was conducted in a special way as we could watch it through live telecast and the whole process of witnesses giving evidence and being cross-examined was broadcast live. The top Queen's Counsels in Hong Kong at the time also took part in the hearing.

It was only when all the evidence and witnesses were made available that this Council proceeded to debate whether the P&P Ordinance should be invoked to conduct an inquiry. Apart from investigating Mr Andrew LO, the inquiry would also look into the involvement of Chief Executive TUNG Chee-hwa as well as his work relationship with Mr Andrew LO. This was the content of the motion proposed back then and in the meantime, the inquiry would also probe 8644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 into the meetings with Arthur LI, and the shortening of the term of appointment of Mr Tony FUNG. This is the background of that incident. As for this incident under discussion now, although Members have made great play of the major principles which are firstly, freedom of the press, and secondly, academic freedom, and they are said to have been interfered with, we can tell the difference simply by making a comparison. What are the justifications this time around? Is there the minimum prima facie evidence to enable us to exercise or reasonably exercise this power?

President, I agree in some measure with the point made by many colleagues, that the credibility of the Chief Executive is open to question because of what he said to Mr Henry TANG during the election or the disclosure of what he had said at a meeting or his failure to properly account for his unauthorized building works. So, he has troubles to follow up and he has an original sin. Perhaps it was even because of the unprecedented move taken by him of issuing a lawyer's letter to Mr Joseph LIAN. Therefore, everyone concludes that it must be him. People who have some understanding of the legal principles certainly will not accept this conclusion, but some people may not understand them. Perhaps let me cite a simple example ― forgive me if it is not quite proper ― I wish to cite something that happened recently as an example.

If it is found that a Member of this Council who is short may be involved in a case of indecent assault, can we conclude that it must be Mr Albert HO because he had watched AV and then call for an inquiry into him? Should a committee of inquiry be set up to investigate Mr Albert HO on this ground or should we even question why he should be afraid of attending the inquiry to speak the truth if he did not do it? Can we assert that it must be him because he had done these things before or watched these things in the Legislative Council and so, who else is it if not him? Can we say that if anyone has committed indecent assault, it must be Mr Albert HO? Sorry, I entirely have no intention to target Mr Albert HO but I purely wish to highlight the absurdity of this example, and this is also the case of the examples cited by colleagues. Can we use this logic to make inferences without any substantive evidence other than on basis what we felt 100% and then conclude that we have sufficient evidence to require the people concerned to come forth to clear themselves of these allegations?

What is more, who exactly is the person who played the role of a messenger in this incident? Nobody knows. Ms LI Wei-ling said that she would not disclose the identity of the person who had spoken to her in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8645 compliance with her professional ethics. Since she said that she would not disclose it, why should we force her to tell us? Also, she could not tell us what exactly Mr LEUNG Chun-ying had done. As in the example that I have just cited, she made these allegations purely according to what she felt 100%. President, under such circumstances, I am afraid that making us invoke the P&P Ordinance is actually making things difficult for us.

Some people hold that the freedom of speech is regressing or they questioned why they must do it in such a harsh way. There are actually reasons for it. Of course, I would be glad to share my thoughts with Members if I have enough time. But all in all, this motion before us now is not to judge whether the freedom of speech is under threat in Hong Kong. Like many colleagues and Hong Kong citizens, I am similarly concerned about what is happening nowadays, and I am worried about the regression of the freedom of speech. But these are separate issues. This motion today calls on this Council to invoke the P&P Ordinance and conduct a judicial investigation into the incident of the dismissal of LI Wei-ling by Commercial Radio. In this connection, unless there is sufficient prima facie evidence, this Council is not duty-bound to and should not invoke this Ordinance to deal with this incident.

Thank you, President.

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

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): President, I believe that Hong Kong is still one of the most liberal places in the world in terms of the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Although in the recent period of time, international surveys have shown the slip of Hong Kong's scores in these respects, we see at the same time that many countries or regions in Europe or the Americas, which claim to be most liberal or most democratic, are experiencing similar falls in ranking in the areas concerned.

In recent years, the competition among the media in Hong Kong has been growing increasingly intense, resulting in vicious competition as we have all witnessed. From such a perspective, we can understand why some of the media consistently rely on prejudiced comments and verbal attacks on the Government, 8646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 in order to boost their ratings or circulation. Some of them have even resorted to fabricating news stories or paying people for fake reports. Such misconduct has ruined the bedrock of the profession, severely tarnishing the freedom of speech and freedom of the press in Hong Kong. Often, the political inclinations of various newspapers or media organizations are obvious to us, but there is only natural indeed. In a liberal society, anyone can have his own political stance and press organizations are no exceptions. However, apart from biased political inclinations, some of the media are being accused by those reported in the stories of "distorting facts" or "making up news stories" even when those are only community news stories. Such accusations are even more common in showbiz news, as Members may agree. We can see from time to time movie stars or pop singers making statements to rebut news reports on them, condemning the media organizations concerned for their unscrupulous conduct and fabricated reports. Indeed, the media in Hong Kong are losing grip on the values of "impartiality and balance" and "factual reporting". No wonder survey findings published in recent years have indicated the declining credibility of the media. Is it not high time the media in Hong Kong reflected on their performance? Should they not establish afresh a set of professional ethics for their due compliance?

We agree that it is critically important to defend freedom of the press. The freedom of speech and freedom of the press are particularly treasured in democratic societies, for they allows the media to monitor the government or the legislature and to uphold social justice, fulfilling the bounden duty of the media. However, it is imperative for all forms of freedom (be it freedom of speech or freedom of the press) to stay within the limits of law and conform to a set of standards. The British Broadcast Corporation has suggested that accuracy, fairness and impartiality form the core of all journalistic work. As "rights" and "responsibilities" are equally important, media workers should uphold professional ethics, insist on basing their reports on facts, and present only fair and impartial arguments. "Truth-seeking" and "pragmatism" are also among the core values of Hong Kong.

In the dismissal of Ms LI Wei-ling by the Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited (Commercial Radio), we have heard the comments made by both sides. We consider it a typical labour dispute in commercial organizations where conflicts between the employer and the employee can be resolved within the office. Compensations can be sought in accordance with the employment contract or any other relevant laws and regulations, in case of any unfair or unjust dealings. In a society where the rule LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8647 of law prevails, we play by the rules and respect all the rights and freedoms of individuals, unless laws are violated in the exercise of such rights and freedoms. Just as Mrs Regina IP said a moment ago, a company can decide whether to hire or to fire an employee. To "hire and fire" is one of its rights, just like an employee has the right to join or quit a company. So, why does Commercial Radio have to face investigation for firing one of its employees? Can the Government directly interfere with the hiring or firing decision made by an organization? If the Legislative Council carries out an inquiry into such a decision, would this amount to interfering with the freedom of speech and liberal operation of the market? Does it violate the spirit of the rule of law and the principle of free market if we exert political pressure on commercial organizations, imposing undue influence over their decisions?

Furthermore, the autonomy of media organizations in their daily operations and internal management must be assured before freedom of the press can be upheld. Therefore, precisely for our wish to uphold freedom of the press, we should not invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to inquire into the contract termination of LI Wei-ling by Commercial Radio. If one day all media organizations have to come before the Legislative Council for an inquiry whenever they sack one of their commentators, Hong Kong is definitely losing the true spirit of freedom of the press, editorial autonomy and the freedom of speech.

There is a notion which I can hardly agree with in the debate over the incident. The opposition said that as LI Wei-ling was a long-term critic of the Government, the contract termination must be induced by the Government in a bid to suppress the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I wonder if it is reasonable for us to protect a programme host against termination, simply for his guts to blast the Government, among others, without considering the quality of the programme hosted by him. To determine if a host is doing a good job, we should not only focus on whether or not he is critical of the Government to the neglect of the quality of his programme or the validity of his comments. In other words, if a journalist dares challenge the Government, does it necessarily mean that he should be given an iron rice bowl?

Mr WONG Yuk-man is a veteran media worker who claimed to have 40 years of teaching experience in journalism. He is well qualified to comment on the performance of LI Wei-ling. He once presented on YouTube a brilliant piece of commentary on LI. The YouTube footage, however, cannot be played out or directly quoted here, as it is loaded with foul language. According to 8648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

Mr WONG, the ratings for On a Clear Day dropped ever since LI Wei-ling had taken over as the host. He also bluntly denounced LI as the "trashiest" programme host with her unpleasant voice and appalling presentation skills, resulting in an inability to command a prime-time programme. On top of these, she criticized her own boss so often that service termination was certain. We can see from such a perspective why Commercial Radio made the decision to sack her. In other words ― I think this can similarly happen in all other trades and professions ― if your employee always passes poor judgment on you and refuses to co-operate with you, is there any good reason for him to stay in the organization?

From the replacement of the chief editor of Ming Pao Daily News (Ming Pao), the sacking of LI Wei-ling and to the attack on former chief editor of Ming Pao Mr Kevin LAU Chun-to for unknown reasons, the opposition pointed a finger at the SAR Government straight away, without producing any evidence. They even accused the Central Government of interfering in the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, thus motivating people to take to the streets and creating social chaos in the name of "defending freedom of speech". Such groundless accusations made by the media have paradoxically proved the presence of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in Hong Kong. They have at the same time typified the abuse of freedom of the press by the media in Hong Kong. The making of groundless speculations flatly contradicts the professional duties of a journalist, whereas the overplaying and politicization of issues further shows they are harbouring ulterior motives.

The motion moved by Ms Claudia MO to invoke the P&P Ordinance to inquire into the dismissal of LI Wei-ling by Commercial Radio is the sixth time this Ordinance is mentioned in a motion in the current term of the legislature. This is just another vivid example illustrating one of our often-said comments: the pan-democrats are abusing the Ordinance so as to impede the operation of the legislature, wasting taxpayers' money in the process. Which argument has been most frequently cited by the pan-democrats in this debate? It is "LI Wei-ling accused LEUNG Chun-ying of orchestrating her dismissal by Commercial Radio, suggesting that LEUNG has interfered with the freedom of speech. And as there is such an accusation, the Legislative Council should conduct an inquiry and LEUNG should give a detailed account of it". This is just like what Mr Alan LEONG said when he quoted a series of incidents in which journalists were involved ― we must not pretend to have heard nothing, seen nothing and thus do nothing, we should instead conduct investigations.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8649

Hong Kong is a society where the rule of law prevails. How come we have now fallen to such a deplorable state of making accusations without bothering to provide evidence? When making political accusations, we have to be all the more careful; otherwise, we will be overwhelmed by political arguments day in and day out, wasting all our energy on such groundless arguments.

Mr CHAN Kin-por talked about his views on LI Wei-ling's dismissal by Commercial Radio yesterday, and also an earlier encounter he had with Ms LI. The comments made by Mr CHAN surprisingly provoked a violent outburst from Mr Albert HO, saying it was inappropriate for Mr CHAN to criticize Ms LI who was absent on the occasion, as it was unfair to attack her behind her back. Why did Mr Albert HO put so much importance on and raise such a great concern about the criticisms LI Wei-ling got during her physical absence? When Ms LI talked about Mr CHAN on radio that morning, was it not the case that Mr CHAN was absent from the scene as well? Why do you apply double standards in passing judgment on people? LI Wei-ling used to criticize people on Commercial Radio day after day, and the accused did not even have a chance to defend themselves. Have these people been fairly treated? Has Mr Albert HO ever given them due consideration?

While giving an account of the unfair treatment he got from LI Wei-ling, Mr CHAN Kin-por of course expressed certain displeasure over it. And he was criticized by Mr HO for being too emotional. However, does Mr Albert HO know that when LI Wei-ling slammed people on the radio, she would overplay issues, create a big fuss out of nothing and even made groundless accusations of the people in question? When Mr HO found fault with Mr CHAN, was he actually being fair? Where was his credibility? When the Financial Secretary was reading the Budget speech ― his most important speech during the year ― was his mind absent, I must ask Mr HO? Do you think if it makes a case for browsing pin-ups rather than listening to the Budget speech? If it was not you, but some other Member, who browsed the pin-ups on that day, how are you going to deplore him? Are you going to say: such conduct of yours is unbecoming of that of a Legislative Member, you had better resign and browse the pictures at home, so as to avoid setting a bad example for our kids. Have you ever asked yourself whether it is possible to have justice or credibility when you are lenient to yourself but harsh on others? (The buzzer sounded)

8650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

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

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Thank you, President.

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

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, I would like to declare some interests and relationships first. I have been acquainted with LI Wei-ling for more than 30 years, and Stephen CHAN is also a friend of mine. On a number of occasions I have had private meals with Mr George Joseph HO. Having come thus far, close to the end of the debate, I have heard the speeches of many Honourable colleagues. Particularly I would like to respond to some of the remarks made by Mr CHAN Kam-lam in his speech earlier on. We must not look at Commercial Radio as an ordinary commercial organization and regard this incident as an ordinary labour dispute between an employer and an employee. Of course, media organizations may have pure commercial disputes that have nothing to do with freedom of the media or press freedom.

In this incident, LI Wei-ling has told her version of story and given an account on the circumstances surrounding the incident. In particular, she mentioned the feedback and comment she received from Commercial Radio so far, even Stephen CHAN's comment on her after his appointment as the Chief Executive Officer of Commercial Radio. Stephen CHAN had mentioned to LI Wei-ling the licence renewal issue and his court case, and subsequently, he became picky on Ms LI's performance and spoke to her about some trivial matters with a notepad in his hand. In particular, he suggested that she should handle certain interviewees in the manner advised by him, and talked about his plan to produce another programme, so that indirectly, interviews can still be conducted with those who refused to be interviewed by LI Wei-ling.

LI Wei-ling has told her version of story. Commercial Radio can make comments on Ms LI, the popularity rating of her programme, advertisement matters, and so on. Commercial Radio can even explain that if she continues to be the host, it is likely that no one would receive any interview by her, in that case, as the host of a current affairs programme, her failure to give audience to different views is inconsistent with the principle of impartiality and fairness as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8651 required by the relevant regulation. In that case, Commercial Radio would be exposed to a major liability, since it is a licensed public body using the airwaves, specific provisions can also be found in the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. Hence Commercial Radio should voice out any grounds they have.

In addition, Commercial Radio should not use "when two gentlemen stop being friends, they will say harsh words to each other" as explanation, as that can hardly apply considering the nature of the incident. If Commercial Radio is dissatisfied with the programme hosted by LI Wei-ling and her conduct, or if she had stolen $3,000 from the company, they should disclose the information. They should state the grounds, if any. Not even LI Wei-ling can object to such disclosure, or refuse to disclose the information on the excuse of confidentiality of employment relations. Commercial Radio can even say the reason is that she consumes two extra rolls of toilet paper and wastes toilet paper and water every time when she uses the toilet, that is also acceptable. However, the reason as currently advanced by Commercial Radio can by no means convince the public that this incident is merely a labour dispute, which should be brought to the Labour Tribunal or court for settlement. Members of the public will listen to the statements from both sides. I find Commercial Radio's refusal to disclose any detail and its brief remark of "when two gentlemen stop being friends, they will say harsh words to each other" unacceptable. My view is that Stephen CHAN and the senior management of Commercial Radio should elaborate the reasons for her dismissal.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)

The remarks made by some Members just now were very interesting ― in an employment relationship, it is clearly stated that the employer may dismiss the employee without any reason, provided that he makes payment in lieu of notice to the employee. This practice is applicable to commercial organizations in general but not a licensed organization that uses the airwaves. Moreover, given that this incident involves the core values of Hong Kong, Commercial Radio has the major responsibility to give an explanation, and if it fails to do so, we should at least conduct an investigation into Commercial Radio. The decision to dismiss LI Wei-ling may stem from Commercial Radio's anxiety that its licence renewal application, which it is required to submit every 10 years, may be 8652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 rejected in future. This is an internal affair of Commercial Radio that may have nothing to do with LEUNG Chun-ying. Nonetheless, even if it is just a problem of this level, it cannot be regarded as a simple employment dispute. Hence the Legislative Council should launch an inquiry in this context.

Deputy President, a number of colleagues think that the "imperial sword" should not be deployed frequently, and I agree to this point. However, everyone in society have been unsettled by this incident which has put press freedom in Hong Kong at stake. Besides, we have seen a number of similar incidents. I hope colleagues and all members of the public will understand that this series of incidents fans worries over press freedom in society. If the dismissal of LI Wei-ling concerns neither press freedom, the licence renewal of Commercial Radio, nor any tangible or intangible interference by the Government, then we should investigate the matter thoroughly. If the truth is, Commercial Radio, which lacks confidence in future licence renewal, saw fit to use the dismissal of LI Wei-ling as a gift to pave the way for its licence renewal application in the future, the Government would be proved innocent, and Commercial Radio should bear the consequence of facing harsh criticisms. The community may even query, if a media organization uses the airwaves in such a manner, whether it is still qualified for a licence? The case here is very simple: This incident has indeed aroused suspicions and apprehensions over press freedom and the freedom of speech in our society, so the Legislative Council is obliged to carry out an inquiry.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I am very grateful to Members for their views expressed on this question. I made it clear at the beginning of the motion debate that the Government opposes today's motion. The current personnel change in the Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited (Commercial Radio) is purely a matter of internal management of a media organization. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Legislative Council to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to follow up the incident. Both in my opening remarks and on other occasions earlier, the Government has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8653 made solemn clarifications in response to such untrue allegations against the Government that were made solely on the basis of some individuals' feelings and speculations. I hope Members will not keep overplaying some unfounded allegations, because this is extremely unfair to various parties.

From the remarks made by Honourable Members yesterday and just now, we can note that their concern about the current personnel change in Commercial Radio stems from the importance attached to freedom of the press and the media. Evaluations of Ms LI Wei-ling may vary considerably among different people. Some may highly agree with her remarks and style, but I have also noticed that some people do not approve of her hosting style and arguments. Ten people may have 10 totally different views in their evaluation of Ms LI Wei-ling. I believe that, like the SAR Government, we all respect freedom of the press and the media in Hong Kong. Freedom of the press and the media is not a monopoly of pan-democratic Members, because it is an important core value eagerly embraced by everyone in Hong Kong. Like each and every attending Member, the SAR Government and I respect and cherish freedom of the press and the freedom of speech enjoyed by us.

In fact, Article 27 of the Basic Law also stipulates that Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication. The SAR Government will not interfere in the editorial independence, independent operation and internal management of media organizations, and the issue of the freedom of speech or of the press being suppressed do not even exist. Given that freedom of the press and of speech is an important factor in maintaining the status of Hong Kong as an international metropolis and for sustainable social development, the SAR Government will continuously strive to uphold these important core values.

As I pointed out in the opening remarks, Commercial Radio has not yet applied for a renewal of its sound broadcasting license, which will expire in 2016, and the license renewal process has not yet been initiated. The argument that links Commercial Radio's current personnel decision with the renewal of the sound broadcasting licence is unfounded.

In my opening remarks, I also pointed out that the person concerned had voiced her own feelings and what she had heard, and the persons concerned in Commercial Radio have given responses. In the absence of any concrete 8654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 evidence, what can be investigated in the context of the incident? I note that even Mr SIN Chung-kai said yesterday that the so-called evidence mentioned by Ms LI Wei-ling is weak. If our threshold for invoking the P&P Ordinance is so low, then quite probably we have to always conduct many investigations. I think this is actually a futile effort, like a wild-goose chase. What is a wild-goose chase? When a wild goose runs around, of course you will not be able to catch it despite endless chasing. You will end up wasting your time and energy on a forlorn pursuit.

We can well imagine that today, more than a month after Ms LI Wei-ling left Commercial Radio, we have not yet found any substantive evidence for an inquiry into the incident. How can we initiate an inquiry then? What exactly are we to investigate? Why should we deploy so many human resources to elevate some internal management issues of a media organization to the level that warrants an inquiry by the Legislative Council? Hong Kong currently faces many challenges. I often attend regional and international conferences on commerce and economy, where I will notice that many regions, countries and cities have invested a lot of resources into actively striving for room and opportunities for development. We need to cast our vision far and wide. Should we not concentrate our efforts on work that provides substantial support for the development of Hong Kong? I believe that if the Legislative Council passes this motion to intervene in the incident, it will definitely set a really bad precedent of very serious interference with the internal management of media organizations, wasting energy and resources at the same time.

Deputy President, the existing broadcasting regime will not interfere in the independent operation and editorial independence of licensed broadcasters. I hope Honourable Members will, like the Government, respect this long-established and proven regime, and oppose this motion today. I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Ms Claudia MO to speak in reply. After Ms Claudia MO has spoken, the debate will come to a close.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8655

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Whether he is sitting in this Chamber or appearing on television, the Secretary is always wearing that scornful look, as if he is saying "there is nothing you can do about me". Perhaps some may wonder whether this description is a bit too subjective. But then, when making speeches in this Chamber, many Members are not merely expressing their personal views. They can even be described as hurling insults in a most merciless manner. Has this Council really degenerated to such a level? Perhaps the Secretary feels rather gratified now, as President Jasper TSANG has disapproved of my request for adding one more item to the Agenda, which is an urgent question on issues relating to the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN). Otherwise, I am more than eager to see how the Secretary is going to reply from the legal, technological or political ethics perspective. The Secretary is now given one more week's time, as we will wait until the meeting of the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting to further discuss the issue.

The entire issue has never targeted at any single person, but many Members have pointed out in their speeches how much they dislike ― or dislike, depending on how you put it ― Ms LI Wei-ling, criticizing her for treating them unfairly and using a public instrument for private purposes. In making those remarks, these Members have recognized that the airwaves used by the Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited (Commercial Radio) are public resources. Actually, when they speak as Members in this Chamber, they are also using a public instrument for their private purposes, only that LI Wei-ling did not speak here but on Commercial Radio. If these Members believe that they have been attacked or treated inappropriately by her, they should have adopted the course of action taken by Mr Albert CHAN and lodged complaints with the Communications Authority (formerly known as the Broadcasting Authority) to seek redress. Conversely, as we are protected by the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) when we speak in the Chamber, nobody can prosecute Members even if they make irresponsible remarks. Is it fair? This is using a public instrument for private purposes.

Deputy President, just now I have noticed one thing. A number of Members from the DAB surnamed CHAN are questionable in terms of personality; one just cannot help but doubt their behaviour. One of them even named me to accept his challenge. Let me now respond ― I have accidentally forgotten his name, but his surname is CHAN. He fetched the question of this debate far to Robert CHUNG. On the one hand, he accused Members of the opposition of going off on a tangent; yet on the other, he has related the question 8656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 to Robert CHUNG. Let me now respond to this Member. If he really has the guts to accuse Robert CHUNG of the HKU of using public opinion polls to fabricate public opinions, if he dares move a motion to invoke the P&P Ordinance to summon him, I will play along with him throughout the entire process. I am not familiar with Robert CHUNG in whatever ways, but I know he is a modest gentleman, a gentleman who has no secret agenda. The more this Member wants to accuse him, the more eager I will be to invite him to this Council to prove his innocence. One should never duck out of it like some government officials.

I have no ties with LI Wei-ling at all. Some say that she harbours the Civic Party a lot, but I really do not think so. She has worked for Commercial Radio for almost 10 years, but during that period I have but once appeared in her programme to receive an interview, which was about the free television programme service licence. LI Wei-ling is a totem; perhaps someone dislikes her or Mr Albert CHAN and Mr WONG Yuk-man dislike her, but that is not the issue under discussion today. The question of our discussion is whether or not a commercial broadcaster ― though commercially run, the airwaves it uses are public resources ― is using a public instrument for private purposes, succumbs to the Government's despotic power and afraid that the Government will refuse its licence renewal. It seems that in every ten years, the most popular radio programme host of the time will be sacked. Is this the same case this time around? We are not trying to intervene in its internal operation. Besides, its editorial autonomy is totally its own business.

We do not require Commercial Radio to employ LI Wei-ling again, and we are not intervening in the matter. What we wish to find out now is whether there are any official forces behind the scene, and whether such forces have exerted pressure on Commercial Radio directly or indirectly. It is not easy to get a media worker to come forth and give an account of the case. We have prepared for Members' reference a "catalogue" of a series of events that have taken place in this connection, including even the attack on Mr Kevin LAU. However, nobody would come forth and say, "Yes, I have been censured, and some secret forces behind the scene have suppressed me so much that everything has changed beyond recognition". No, this will not happen. Hence, this is really a rare chance that someone is prepared to give a clear account of what has happened. Back in those days, Robert CHUNG was but a scholar and yet he had to face immense pressure. Eventually, he wrote two articles, one in Chinese and the other in English. The two articles were issued simultaneously, with the Chinese LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8657 one published in the Hong Kong Economic Journal and the English one in the South China Morning Post.

Just now Mr Paul TSE pointed out that the HKU had conducted an investigation on its own. Well, as a reputable university, the HKU will certainly conduct an independent investigation on its own. However, can we expect Commercial Radio to conduct an independent investigation and then tell us whether the aforesaid situation has really happened? To this Council, it does not really matter whether or not any independent investigation has been conducted. If somebody is conducting an investigation, Members will say that as an investigation is already in progress, there is no need for us to conduct another one; or if no investigation is being conducted, Members will say that as no investigation is being conducted, this is good proof that not enough evidence is available. Actually, they can say whatever they like, or keep repeating that this case is just some labour dispute within a commercial organization, which can be resolved at the Labour Department.

Some say that conducting an inquiry is but a waste of money and time. Honourable colleagues, this Council have debated many motions with no binding effect, and such debates actually gave Members a chance to speak or even to put their views on record. Were those debates not a waste of time? We have discussed issues like "toilet rolls", "louse killing", and so on, are such discussions not a waste of time? When it comes to the waste of money, the expenses incurred by the conduct of such debates and discussions are all met by the public coffers.

Some say that it does not justify an inquiry if the evidence is but some feelings or wild guesses. They say we are more like going off on a tangent, trying to redress LI Wei-ling's grievances which we saw in our unexplainable dreams the night before. They are saying such things as if LI Wei-ling has never stated her case, and her "track record" has never existed. In their view, it is not proper to conduct an inquiry just because someone named LI Wei-ling has come forth.

What is self-censorship? Yesterday, a colleague in my office asked me to take a look at the express news on the website of Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK), and I noticed that while I had made a 15-minute speech to move the motion, the news report summarized the entire speech in one single sentence. Quite the contrary, the Secretary's official speech was covered in three 8658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 paragraphs. From my 30 years of personal experience in the news media sector, I can tell Members I feel that RTHK is practising self-censorship, and my guess is that RTHK will continue to do so in the years to come. So, this is in effect a form of ideological brainwashing. Do I have any substantive evidence to prove my point? Well, I do not have any. The crux of the matter lies in whether or not people believe in what I say. The feeling I have is based on facts, and the facts are shown in this news report before my eyes. My 30 years of experience urge me to tell Members that I have such a feeling and such a guess. Nevertheless, I am not making everything up out of nothing to express my grave concern. I am telling Members my views on the basis of this news report in my hand. They summarized the speech made by an elected Member into one single sentence, and yet they used three paragraphs to cover the remarks made by a government official emerging from nowhere but earning $300,000 to $400,000 a month. What impartiality do they uphold? What kind of parliamentary assembly is this? What kind of media is this? We have every right to query RTHK, as RTHK is a publicly-funded broadcaster and a public broadcaster. I have to stress again that this is not a mere "public" organization. Some say conducting an inquiry is intervening in the organization's internal affairs, and some say this is a waste of time, a waste of this Council's energy and money. In my view, these Members are really wasting public money, and they should be reminded that their monthly remuneration is met by public coffers.

Deputy President, Christopher PATTEN will soon be visiting Hong Kong again. I think what most people cannot forget about Chris PATTEN is this saying of his ― as I do not have in hand the Chinese translation, I can only read out the English version ― "My anxiety is this: not that this community's autonomy would be usurped by Peking, but that it could be given away bit by bit by some people in Hong Kong." Some say this has nothing to do with licence renewal, as Commercial Radio's licence is not yet due for renewal. Well, can we rule out the possibility that this is a precautionary act? In line with this logic, as Television Broadcasts Limited and Asia Television Limited are now applying for licence renewal, is this not a reason why the Government has to "wreck" WONG Wai-kay and HKTVN? Even though WONG has switched to providing mobile television services, the Government is still striving to "wreck" him. This time, the Government is "pounding" him to death. Is this what the Government wants to achieve? This Government is indeed contemptible! Shame on it! (Some Members shouted "shame" in their seats)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8659

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Ms Claudia MO rose to claim a division.

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

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

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the motion.

Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK 8660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the motion.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the motion.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the motion.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, eight were in favour of the motion and 23 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 33 were present, 17 were in favour of the motion and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The fifth and the seventh Members' motions are motion debates with no legislative effect. I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee: that is, the movers of motions each may speak, including making a reply, for up to 15 minutes and has another five minutes to speak on the amendments; the movers of amendments each may speak for up to 10 minutes; other Members each may speak for up to seven minutes. I am LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8661 obliged to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue.

Fifth Member's motion: The incident of attack on Mr Kevin LAU Chun-to, the former chief editor of Ming Pao Daily News.

Members who wish to speak in the debate on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button.

I now call upon Mr Andrew LEUNG to speak and move the motion.

THE INCIDENT OF ATTACK ON MR KEVIN LAU CHUN-TO, THE FORMER CHIEF EDITOR OF MING PAO DAILY NEWS

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the House Committee, I move the motion as printed on the Agenda.

The former chief editor of Ming Pao Daily News (Ming Pao) was seriously injured in an attack by assailants in public places in broad daylight. Members and all Hong Kong citizens were both extremely shocked and outraged about the incident. Hong Kong is a society where the rule of law prevails and such lawless violence, which is a blatant challenge to the rule of law, should never be tolerated here. Members think that the violent acts of the assailants must be strongly condemned. In order to get this message across clearly, Members unanimously passed a motion at the House Committee meeting on 28 February to strongly condemn the violent acts of the assailants and request the police to spare no effort to arrest the assailants, so as to expeditiously bring them to justice.

As the community is highly concerned about the attack on Mr LAU, Members also agreed that I shall move a motion in my capacity as Chairman of the House Committee at this Legislative Council meeting to express once again the strong stance taken by Members and the community against such intolerable violence.

President, the following are my personal views.

8662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

The former chief editor of Ming Pao, Mr Kevin LAU, was seriously injured in a knife attack on a bustling street, triggering public outrage and arousing concern over the future of press freedom. Deeply outraged by the incident, the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong (BPA) and I strongly condemn such a violent crime. A few days ago, the former Secretary for Justice, Mr WONG Yan-lung, talked about the incident of attack on Mr Kevin LAU. He said that the incident has stirred up a concern among people: how could such violent acts and threats still exist in Hong Kong today terrorizing those who are but dedicated to their calling? He also thought that the incident has set an alarm bell ringing in the Hong Kong community. It has not only violated such core social values as law and order, but also endangered a person's life and safety, as well as threatened our society's bottom lines, such as the freedom of speech and press freedom. Hong Kong is a society where the rule of law prevails and there is absolutely no place for any violent acts here. The BPA urges the Government and the police to handle this matter seriously and expeditiously arrest the main culprits behind the attack.

As far as I know, Mr Kevin LAU is gentle and cultivated, a fair-minded person of an upright character. He is a veteran journalist who is very demanding on news reporting. As to the question of whether this incident has anything to do with his work, we have no idea as we are not the law-enforcement department in charge of the investigation. However, as the Secretary for Security, Mr LAI Tung-kwok, spoke out on it the other day, the police have not ruled out any criminal motives behind the attack on Mr Kevin LAU, including whether it is related to his media work. At the present stage, I think we should not make any wild guesses or even jump to a conclusion. However, one point is certain, that is, Mr LAU is a widely respected journalist. Although there is so far no evidence linking the attack to his existing news-reporting work, a bloody attack on a former newspaper chief editor is absolutely unacceptable in Hong Kong. The incident has really triggered worries about personal safety among media practitioners, and has made Hong Kong people cherish and become concerned more about press freedom.

As we could see, the Hong Kong Police Force released the suspects' photos and issued a territory-wide arrest warrant shortly after the incident. Meanwhile, it also liaised with the public security authorities on the Mainland to zero in on the suspects, so that they could be arrested there. The swift action taken by Hong Kong and Mainland police and their co-operation in extraditing the suspects deserves our praises.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8663

The police held a press conference last Wednesday (12 March) on the latest development of the case. It announced that two suspects had been apprehended in Dongguan, as informed by the Mainland public security authorities in the evening on 9 March. The police also arrested nine suspects allegedly involved in the attack. The Mainland public security authorities handed over the suspects to the Hong Kong police a couple of days ago. The law-enforcement authorities have swiftly started working on crime scene reconstruction.

The police so far have arrested many people. Many of those arrested and released on bail are reportedly local triad members. No matter how many pawns had been hired by the mastermind, how great the number of people involved, and wherever the offenders, be they in or out of our territory, the SAR Government should get to the bottom of the case by making use of the latest electronic monitoring technology and its human resources, so as to uphold Hong Kong's international image and safeguard citizens' dignity of life.

People of all strata, regardless of their political stance, have united in one voice to condemn the incident. It affirms that consensus can be reached in the community when Hong Kong's fundamental values are challenged. I wish that it would not be the last time that we can find common grounds and reach a consensus. Rather, I hope that we will also reach a consensus on other important issues such as universal suffrage and mend the rift in the Hong Kong community.

Two senior executives of Hong Kong Morning News were attacked in Tsim Sha Tsui yesterday noon. Fortunately, they were only slightly injured. Although we do not know the sequence of events leading to this incident, it has sparked a fresh concern about press freedom as the two victims are also media workers. Worries have mounted over whether the violent attacks on senior media executives were intended to curb press freedom.

I cannot agree more with the remarks made by Mr WONG Yan-lung, the former Secretary for Justice, yesterday. He said that all those who are in the front line exercising the right to the freedom of opinion and of the press must do so even more responsibly and perform their duties even more diligently, so that the public can see inherent virtue of such rights. He also pointed out that front-line workers have often overlooked the battle for freedom. He thought that media workers should work harder to convince the public that they are 8664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 trustworthy. The abusive use of rights by some will turn out to be the most destructive agent of those cherished rights.

Like many Hong Kong people, I respect not only press freedom but also media workers, as they are exerting their best to defend our most precious press freedom.

Lastly, I hope that the police will expeditiously uncover the truth of the case and find out the motive behind the attack so as to an account to Mr Kevin LAU, his family members, the media sector, and all members of the public in Hong Kong. Also, I hereby represent all BPA members to extend our deepest sympathy to Mr Kevin LAU and his family members. We wish him speedy recovery soon and early return to work to continue fighting for the freedom of speech and press freedom in Hong Kong.

President, I so submit.

Mr Andrew LEUNG moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That this Council is deeply shocked and outraged about the incident of attack on Mr Kevin LAU Chun-to, the former chief editor of Ming Pao Daily News, strongly condemns the violent acts of the assailants, and requests the Police to spare no effort to arrest the assailants so as to expeditiously bring them to justice."

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Four Members wish to move amendments to this motion. This Council will now proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the four amendments.

I will first call upon Ms Claudia MO to speak, to be followed by Ms Emily LAU, Mr Gary FAN and Ms Cyd HO respectively; but they may not move the amendments at this stage.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8665

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I still cannot fully understand one thing, that is, the rules of procedure concerning the House Committee meeting held on 28 February. I am not questioning or criticizing anything. I just cannot get my head around it. Given that the police have made an all-out effort to investigate the incident of attack on Mr Kevin LAU, I, after going through all the rules, thought that the best way to express our concern is to propose an adjournment motion. For one thing, there is a time limit for an adjournment motion debate, so that it would not be criticized as wasting Members' time, and for another, there will be no voting for such a motion and Members do not have to indicate their stances immediately, as the debate would actually be held soon after the incident. I made such application on Wednesday, seeking to hold an adjournment motion debate. A Member proposed another motion, that is, today's original motion, on Friday morning. The difference between the wording of that original motion and my adjournment motion is mainly the presence of the term "press freedom" in my motion. It does not appear in the original motion discussed today.

At the House Committee meeting that day, Ms Emily LAU proposed replacing my adjournment motion with Mr Jeffrey LAM's motion, that is, today's motion. It came as a bit surprise to me at that time. As I submitted the application as early as Wednesday and another Member proposed such a motion on Friday, before someone else made a proposal at the meeting, the outcome totally defied the logical chronology. I did not quite mind it, as I could still move an amendment to include the term "press freedom" in today's original motion. The amendment I seek to propose now is exactly to add the words "press freedom". Also, I am grateful to Members of the Liberal Party for their comment. They said that no one could possibly raise objection if the motion only reads as "the Legislative Council would try its best to help defend press freedom". Therefore, I have to thank the Liberal Party for its support in this regard.

President, the biggest problem is: I feel gravely concerned that the Legislative Council of Hong Kong would give the public a wrong impression that we would like to play down the attack on Mr Kevin LAU as simply a bloody assault case. We decided to unanimously condemn the violence after the House Committee meeting held on 28 February. Who would welcome violence? Later, the Legislative Council issued a joint statement to express extreme outrage 8666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 over the attack on Mr Kevin LAU and condemn the violence. However, it stopped short of mentioning press freedom, which is most unfair to Mr Kevin LAU.

This incident has caught much global media attention. One obvious example I can cite here is The Economist, a global magazine. The cover story of the relevant issue is about "What's gone wrong with democracy and how to revive it". Although a copy of this global magazine has a few pages only, the story covering the attack on Mr Kevin LAU is given great length. That was not an easy editorial decision. It was made because the attack on Mr Kevin LAU had laid bare the threat posed to the media. I believe Members must have also noticed the case of attack on the editorial and management executives of Hong Kong Morning News yesterday. I have yet to make any comment on it. As it was reported today that the management of the newspaper thought that it might not be related to their media work, I have to wait and see the development of the incident.

President, the amendment I propose today should not possibly meet any objection. It is especially so as we just agreed that this Council should defend such values as press freedom not long ago. I have not specified the ways by which we defend press freedom. Nor have I indicated that Mr Kevin LAU's case has to do with press freedom. However, we care about him not only out of friendship, but also worry about the path that Hong Kong's press freedom is heading down. That is obviously the case.

Despite the belief that "press freedom cannot be struck down", it is not uncommon for journalists to be beaten up. However, no one would pay attention to such instances as they are not management executives or celebrities yet. Despite being beaten to unrecognizable pulp, a press photographer still found it hard to come out to voice his complaint. He could only seek help from the Hong Kong Journalists Association to take some actions. Yet, it actually could not cause any ripples. That is especially the case on the Mainland where journalists being beaten up by public security officers is something expected as a matter of course. Journalists covering Mainland news are all psychologically prepared for it.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8667

President, my amendment today mainly points out that the Legislative Council has to "help safeguard freedom of the press". It is because the Legislative Council, as a legislative body, should not come forth as if it were the responsible authority to safeguard such freedom. Genuine freedom of the press should be safeguarded with the concerted effort of every Hong Kong citizen in the community and the media sector. Apart from the separation of powers among the executive, legislative and judicial branches, the media and the Internet media should be considered as the fourth and fifth estates respectively. That has to do with another topic which we can discuss later.

As for the press freedom under discussion today, Members should have a clear idea about it. The press freedom discussed in the previous motion debate is related to Ms LI Wei-ling. That debate was attended by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, as it touched on money matters which are under the purview of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. As we are now discussing the arrest of assailants, this debate is attended by the Secretary for Security. It shows how weird Hong Kong's political structure is. No one would really put press freedom into the spiritual perspective and talk about it in a responsible manner. Of course, none of the heads of Policy Bureaux would dare claim themselves as the "Secretary for the Press". Insofar as Hong Kong is concerned, I am much more worried than he is.

Military and ideology are what the Central Authorities most anxious to maintain a grip on. As far as ideology is concerned, controlling press freedom is of the utmost importance, while other freedoms and the spirit of the rule of law are out of the question. Without press freedom, we have absolutely no idea of what is happening in courts, under which ordinance people are being charged, and who are in jail. Then, what is the use of protests and debates? Members of the public simply do not have the right to know. The importance of press freedom lies in the fact that it is actually the last line of defence in a civilized society.

Unlike what I did in the previous debate on the motion seeking to invoke the Powers and Privileges Ordinance, I am not going to talk in great length about the importance of press freedom in a civilized society. Members should all have a clear idea in mind. I hope that Members will cast a vote of conscience. No government should interfere with press freedom. "Press freedom" is a term imbued with an untouchable aura. It really is sacrosanct. I, however, have to remind the authorities that, when enacting legislations on security or 8668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 constitutional affairs, it is the Government's mission and duty to cultivate a comfortable, free and civilized atmosphere for fearless news reporting, especially investigative journalism.

The Ombudsman, Mr Alan LAI, just pointed out today that the effectiveness of the Code on Access to Information seems to be questionable. I hope that the Government would not say something like "enhancing", "altering" or "refining" the existing Code on Access to Information. It is useless to say such things, as they have no binding effect in law. This motion debate is not binding either. It just serves to make a record or leave a mark in history. I request the Government to practically work on enacting a law on freedom of information for us. Thank you.

MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of Mr Andrew LEUNG's motion. I hope Members of the Legislative Council can join force to strike home the message that the assailants' brutal attack on Mr Kevin LAU is condemned. While safeguarding freedom of the press and the freedom of speech, we should also call on everyone to protect journalists so that they can work without fear.

I went to see Mr Kevin LAU on Tuesday. He was very weak at that time and had to undergo another surgery again recently. However, I believe his family members are aware of this motion debate. I also told him that this motion would be scheduled for debate on Thursday. I wish he can hear Members expressing concern for the incident and the pressure faced by the media. The former Secretary for Justice, Mr WONG Yan-lung, spoke on Tuesday ― as also mentioned by Mr Andrew LEUNG just now ― indicating that the incident has damaged the core values of society. It not only broke the law and order, but also endangered a person's life and safety, as well as threatened freedom of speech and press freedom. He said that the incident has set an alarm bell ringing. When violence strikes to subdue legitimate rights, our community must respond with strong condemnation and stick to the rule of law to let no criminal go unpunished. President, I very much hope that Members across the political spectrum in the Legislative Council can join force to support and safeguard press freedom, so that media workers need not work in fear.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8669

Another incident happened yesterday, that is, the attack on two senior executives of Hong Kong Morning News. I have listed in my amendment 12 cases happening in the past decade or so which have yet been cracked. At the meeting of the Panel on Security a couple of days ago, I asked the Secretary about the following incidents: the severing of the arm of Mr LEUNG Tin-wai, publisher of Surprise Weekly, by assailants in May 1996; the attack on Mr Albert CHENG of Commercial Radio in August 1998; the parcel bomb and the intimidation letter received by the editorial office of Ming Pao in 2005, which caused blast injuries to a staff member unpacking the parcel; the criminal damage repeatedly done to the printing factory of The Epoch Times Hong Kong in 2006 and 2013; the damage done to the office of Hong Kong In-media in August 2012; the savage beating of Mr CHEN Ping, founder of iSun Affairs, on the street in June last year; the criminal damage done to the residence of Mr Jimmy LAI, founder of Apple Daily, in June last year and the burning of large numbers of Apple Daily newspapers in an arson attack later in the same month ― it is puzzling why such incidents happened so often last year ― the criminal damage done to the car of Mr SHIH Wing-ching, founder of am730, in July last year and Mr SHIH was almost grabbed out of the car for a beating; the attack on Mr SUM Tak-keung, distributor of Apply Daily in September last year; the hacker attack on House News in September last year; and the arbitrary detention of Mr YAO Wen-tian, the person in charge of Morning Bell Press, in Shenzhen in October last year. The victim of the last case was being lured to the Mainland for arrest. Mr Andrew LEUNG said just now that he was very grateful for the co-operation of the Mainland in extraditing the assailants of Mr Kevin LAU to Hong Kong for trial. However, why did they fail to co-operate with us on Mr YAO Wen-tian's case?

There are so many cases, but the Government was unable to do anything. Of course, people can say that these cases may not be as serious as Mr Kevin LAU's case, which has undoubtedly caused public outrage. That was really quite a day. When the Budget was delivered on 26 February, there were, as usual, a large number of journalists waiting outside the Chamber. However, I wonder if the President had noticed that the journalists waiting outside the Chamber at the end of the Budget meeting that day were probably twice the usual number. It was already stunning to see such a large number of cameras there. When the Secretary for Security finished speaking outside the Chamber, there were at least 30 or 40 journalists asking him questions at the same time. Of 8670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 course, journalists were very anxious about Kevin LAU's case. They were also very concerned about whether media practitioners really cannot work without fear anymore.

I have just listed out 12 cases. There are a total of 13 cases if Kevin LAU's case is included. Counting in the case of Hong Kong Morning News, the total number of cases will be 14. Coincidentally, 10 of the cases happened after Mr LEUNG Chun-ying was elected or during his tenure. President, I of course do not have any evidence proving that the incident was directed by or connected with Mr LEUNG Chun-ying. However, with so many cases happening in a short period of time after his assumption of office, what message the SAR Government has gotten across to the media? In the face of such an incident of great public concern, the Commissioner of Police even said such thing as there was no direct evidence linking the case to press freedom and media work.

I have here an open letter issued by the Ming Pao Staff Concern Group to all Members of the Legislative Council. As they expressed, two suspects were arrested in connection with the attack on Kevin LAU, but the truth has yet to be established. The police found that the suspects were hired to commit the crime. While the investigation was still ongoing and the mobile call records submitted by Kevin LAU proved that he did not have any debt trouble, love dispute and personal grudge with others, Commissioner of Police Andy TSANG openly indicated that there was no direct evidence linking the case to journalistic work. For this reason, the Concern Group thought that Mr Andy TSANG's remark was utterly improper and urged him to clarify whether journalistic work had been excluded as a factor of the crime in their investigation, so as not to confuse the public.

President, although the Secretary made different comments at the panel meeting the other day, I still hope that the authorities will clarify here at this debate today. Apart from the Ming Pao Staff Concern Group, family members of Kevin LAU, Members of the Legislative Council, and many members of the public do not understand it very well either. It should be a nice start and good news when the Commissioner announced the arrest of suspects that day. Yet, his remark stole the show, grabbing most of the limelight.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8671

I of course understand that some Members of the Legislative Council believe that the case has nothing to do with journalistic work or press freedom. Therefore, when I attended an interview conducted by Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) the next day, I said that the Commissioner might just want to raise an issue for Members' discussion. However, as the Secretary had come out and said that he did not rule out such connection, I hope he will once again give a solemn clarification here on behalf of the authorities. As the case has yet been clarified through investigation, how could the Commissioner rule out such connection? He might also say that the case has nothing to do with 10 other cases. What is the point of making such a remark? It was especially so at such a sensitive moment. There was a strong reaction from all sides, including the victim, his family members, his colleagues, his peer professionals, and members of the public. Such an act of the Commissioner made people query the motive of the authorities.

Although several suspects have been arrested, people are very worried that it would just like the past case of attack on Mr Albert HO, that the authorities could only arrest the suspect but not the mastermind. It really hinges on the investigation effort of the authorities. Besides, more than 10 cases still remain not cracked. At the panel meeting that day, I asked the authorities for an explanation, but they could not answer me as it was near the closing time of the meeting and everyone only had two or three minutes to ask questions.

I hope that the authorities will give a detailed account here. As so many violent cases and incidents have happened, journalists would like me to tell the authorities that some of them are really living in fear. They do not know when someone will break into their offices to damage things and when they will be attacked after reporting certain stories. Is Hong Kong still a very safe city? The authorities always say that Hong Kong is a very safe city. However, with so many violent cases, can we still make such a claim? Can we still hold our heads high?

President, I know that some Members have indicated objection to my amendment. I do not know why and hope that they will explain it. Anyway, I hope that the Legislative Council will issue a message, that is, we not only condemn the attack on Kevin LAU, but also support press freedom to enable journalists to work without fear.

8672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, since the current-term Government took office, a series of cases threatening or even attacking media practitioners have happened one after another. First came the vandalism done to the office of Hong Kong In-media, then came the violent threat to CHEN Ping, founder of iSun Affairs, Jimmy LAI of Apple Daily and SHIH Wing-ching of am730 respectively. However, the police still cannot crack these cases to date. They have never given an account of the investigation progress to the public. On 26 February, Kevin LAU, the former chief editor of Ming Pao, was slashed six times by a hatchet man in an ambush and was once in critical condition. If we piece these cases together, it is not hard to figure out that some people or forces have repeatedly tried to threaten freedom of the press and the freedom of speech with violence. Yet, what has the Commissioner of Police done? He held a press conference last week and announced in a high profile the arrest of nine suspects here and two hatchet men on the Mainland. However, throughout the press conference, he evaded the question of whether the mastermind had been identified, only stressing five times that the police did not have direct evidence linking the attack on Kevin LAU to press freedom. It was exactly as the saying goes, "He who denies all confesses all."

President, the Neo Democrats is very disappointed that Andy TSANG hastily defining the nature of the case when the hatchet men were still in Dongguan and the police had yet interrogated them. When the police were still searching for evidence, he said that there was insufficient evidence linking the case to press freedom, seeking to lead public opinion. That was not what a law-enforcement body should do. Andy TSANG's attempt to handle the case with political consideration was gravely improper and unprofessional. He should be condemned. It also made Hong Kong people worry that the police would pass judgment before investigation to rule out the factor of press freedom and even hastily close the case, ignoring the culprits who pulled the strings behind scene and letting the truth buried at sea.

President, at the meeting of the Panel on Security this week, the documents submitted by the Government indeed pointed out that the police would investigate the case in the directions of money disputes and love affairs. The influence has already emerged. Although the Secretary for Security has repeatedly made clarifications, it cannot mend the mistakes made by Andy TSANG.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8673

President, the attack on Kevin LAU was indeed planned and organized, stoking fears among media workers about their personal safety. Kevin LAU's family members have indicated several times that they do not have grudges or money disputes with other people. CHEUNG Kin-por, Editorial Director of Ming Pao, also openly expressed his personal judgment that the attack on Mr Kevin LAU must be related to press freedom. Early this month, he also provided the police with more than 10 sensitive news stories handled by Kevin LAU during his tenure as the chief editor. He thought that these news stories might have ruffled some feathers.

At the meeting of the Panel on Security, I openly asked the Secretary for Security, Mr LAI Tung-kwok, whether the police had thoroughly looked into the sensitive news stories provided by CHEUNG Kin-por to see if they were related to the attack on Kevin LAU. However, the Secretary sidestepped the question. I hope the Secretary will provide such information in his response later. The Secretary has changed his tone and said that the police are now investigating the case from the perspective of Kevin LAU's media work. However, he claimed conversely that it would be inappropriate to set a detection deadline. That is another focus of my amendment. He claimed that as the police had arrested 11 people, that should be regarded as some sort of achievement and so the Legislative Council or its Members should not exert too much pressure on the police. I think such a claim is not reasonable. I would very much like to stress that my amendment is not aimed at exerting pressure on the police or front-line police officers. Rather, the pressure is targeted on the Secretary and Commissioner of Police Andy TSANG, demanding them to ensure that no factor is excluded from the investigation and to actively track down the mastermind. As an accountable Bureau Director, LAI Tung-kwok cannot avoid monitoring by the Legislative Council and refuse to give an account to the public.

The Neo Democrats urges the Secretary not to be complacent after arresting several small figures. He should not follow the example of Andy TSANG to rush to claim credit in the Legislative Council. Secretary LAI should learn from Secretary Dr KO Wing-man. Let me cite an example. If someone is found to be infected with swine flu in Hong Kong, having identified the infected patients cannot be claimed as an achievement. It remains necessary to find out the source of infection and take relevant measures to prevent the virus from spreading further to other people. Only then can the Secretary come to the Legislative Council to claim credit for such achievement.

8674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

President, as Mr Kevin LAU had worked as the chief editor of Ming Pao for years, it is absolutely reasonable for the public or Hong Kong people to doubt if the case has to do with interference with freedom of the press and the freedom of speech. As it involves matters of significant public interest, the Secretary for Security and the Commissioner of Police cannot shirk their responsibility. Apart from pledging to set a detection deadline and expeditiously bring the mastermind to justice, it is also incumbent upon them to keep the public and the Legislative Council informed of the police's investigation progress, including the direction and form of investigation. That way, it can demonstrate the determination and political will of the SAR Government in protecting freedom of the press and the freedom of speech from the interference of violence, as well as its commitment to protecting members of the media (including journalists of mainstream and online media, radio programme hosts and columnists) from intimidation. Therefore, my amendment requests the Secretary for Security and the Commissioner of Police to openly set a detection deadline, and undertake to submit an investigation report to the Legislative Council before the expiry of the detection deadline, in order to be accountable for this matter.

The Legislative Council must exert enough political pressure and be prepared to request relevant officials to be held accountable and step down. Otherwise, the dark forces pulling the strings behind the attack will surely remain at large, and incidents of threat and attack on members of the media will just continue to occur.

President, I would like to talk about Kevin LAU's case from the political perspective. Let me quote the specific example of the kidnapping and murder of PAI Hsiao-yen, daughter of actress PAI Ping-ping, in 1997 in Taiwan. The botched investigation by the Taiwanese police led to the further committing of murder and rape by CHEN Chin-hsing and his other violent accomplices while they were on the run. It triggered a public outrage over the Government's incompetence in Taiwan at that time. As a result, over a hundred of community organizations joined force to initiate a mass movement named the "May Campaign". On 4 May of that year, a total of 50 000 Taiwanese people took to the streets. Their demand was very clear, that is, to strive for a safe living space and growing environment for Taiwanese women and their next generation. It LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8675 was exactly that campaign that forced LIN Fong-cheng, the then Minister of the Interior to resign and step down. On 18 May, a march named "May-18th Love Taiwan with Our Feet" was subsequently held during which 100 000 members of the public took to the streets again. This "May Campaign" was an important social movement which marked the transformation of democracy in Taiwan.

President, "with truth at heart and pen in hand, being selfless and fearless is freedom"; this was the message Kevin LAU gave the Hong Kong media during his hospitalization. I hope that the Hong Kong Police Force and the Security Bureau, as law-enforcement bodies, will protect media workers, so that they can freely cover stories without any threat and our proud rule of law can be upheld. We absolutely cannot let the mastermind remain at large, rendering the attack on Kevin LAU a cold case and the truth buried at sea together with other cases of attack on media workers. Otherwise, media workers will always work in the spectre of violence, the soon-to-be graduates of journalism will have fears and worries, and young people who wish to join the media sector will be deterred.

President, I hope Members will support my amendment. I so submit.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, my amendment incorporates the phrase "and demonstrate the authorities' determination to protect the personal safety of journalists" into the motion. In fact, that is also what I said during the discussion on this motion at the House Committee meeting that day. As most Members would like the Chairman of the House Committee to move a motion based on the motion wordings originally proposed by Members, I thus waited until today to propose this amendment.

The attack on Kevin LAU was no ordinary assault case. As the victim was a media worker, the police cannot just handle it purely from the perspective of maintaining law and order and protecting members of the public. If the authorities and the community look on with folded arms and do nothing in response to any attack on journalists and editors, they are actually allowing the dark forces to intimidate media workers. As a result, the media would not report the truth and they would be silenced amid fears of their personal safety. 8676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

Therefore, the victims of this attack are not only Kevin LAU and the personal safety of journalists, but also the public's right to know the truth and the freedom of speech and press freedom. For this reason, we have to come forth to protect it with our utmost.

I have to thank Ms Emily LAU for pointing out some facts just now. She counted the number of violent cases, including criminal damage done to organizations and attack on media practitioners, that have happened over the years. We really have to ask a question: why were there so many such cases in the past 20 months? They added up to a total of 14. All the major cases happened in the past 20 months. Did it have anything to do with the new Government? Did it at least have to do with the inaction and connivance of the new Government? What forces were behind the scene? What were they trying to achieve? When LI Wei-ling was fired by Commercial Radio, she quickly came out and said …

(Mr IP Kwok-him stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, what is your point?

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): I found that Mr Gary FAN has placed a slogan placard on his desk. I wonder what the slogan has to do with the meeting today.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Is Mr Gary FAN present?

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, I am. The reason I display this slogan placard is to show support for Taiwan students opposing the trade in services agreement.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8677

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FAN, any placard displayed at the meeting has to be directly related to the agenda items. The slogan on your placard has nothing to do with the question under discussion now. Please remove the placard. You may display it when we come to the relevant question.

(Mr Gary FAN removed the placard from his desk)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO, please continue.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, when LI Wei-ling was fired by Commercial Radio, she quickly approached the person who told her "to be careful about her job" and asked if her personal safety was endangered. Her friend reportedly told her that the current-term Government would not go to such an extreme. While her words were still lingering in the air, the attack on Kevin LAU happened soon after LI Wei-ling was fired. It seems that the attack did not just mean to give him a lesson, but to cause his death or at least make him not as physically mobile as before.

In fact, the media faced tremendous economic and political pressure in the past, such that many media organizations or practitioners have been muzzled. However, the attack on Kevin LAU, together with cases of criminal damage and physical attack, are a tell-tale sign to media practitioners that their senior management would not fend off the pressure for them, or join force to exert counter-pressure. People are now using knives and swords to threaten the personal safety of individual journalists, editors and senior executives.

In fact, Kevin LAU and his family members have already indicated that they do not have any financial dispute with others. It is believed that the attack on him was definitely not related to love affairs either. As such, the only factor left is the feathers he ruffled in his work. Ming Pao is already a politically neutral newspaper with a slight pro-government lean. Kevin LAU is also a very gentle person. For example, Ming Pao actually would not take a hard-line approach to pursue scorched-earth tactics in response to the two political reforms. What are the forces which would make such a savage move to hire someone to 8678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 carry out a knife attack in order to muzzle members of the media? Ming Pao has already submitted to the police the news stories which might cause trouble to Kevin LAU. However, after the arrest of suspects, Andy TSANG told the public that there was no direct evidence linking the attack to media work. Reading between the lines of Andy TSANG's remark, we got another message, that is, the police were unwilling to recognize the connection between the attack and press freedom. They were unwilling to recognize that a force has emerged in Hong Kong which resorts to mafia tactics to intimidate and muzzle media practitioners, especially so in the last 20 months. What will result from such an attitude of the Police Force? That is the arrest of hatchet men instead of the mastermind. Beside, we are worried that the police would immediately stop the investigation after the arrest of the hatchet men.

The news stories of Ming Pao in the past really pinched a very raw nerve among many of the rich and powerful. During the Chief Executive Election, it exposed the unauthorized building works of Henry TANG, rendering him being obliged to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory". The paper then uncovered that LEUNG Chun-ying had also breached the Buildings Ordinance. It also reported his string of cover-up attempts, displaying his dirty laundry before the public. In addition, Ming Pao also reported the various corrupt acts of the former Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, Mr Timothy TONG. With these accurate reports, the public could know the truth and Hong Kong people did not have to live in lies. They also enabled us to see that the top echelon of the Government was riddled with power abuse and corruption. These reports might not be the cause of the attack on Kevin LAU. However, they are the reasons why we have to uphold freedom of the press and the freedom of speech, and why we are concerned about the attack on Kevin LAU.

Recently, the former Chief Justice Andrew LI commented on a certain occasion that the freedoms cherished under our system, including freedom of speech and press freedom, can only be safeguarded when the rule of law is manifested. Conversely, if we lose the freedom of speech and press freedom, members of the public, in the absence of accurate news reports, would not know even if there were many corrupt acts, and even if the rule of law was undermined.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8679

Also, when the former Secretary for Justice, Mr WONG Yan-lung, was conferred the Degree of Doctor of Laws, he mentioned that Kevin LAU's case has undermined the core social values of Hong Kong. I would like to quote his remarks on corruption. Mr WONG Yan-lung said that according to his work experience in the Government and in private practice, he found that ― his original remarks were in English ― "Money corrupts and big money corrupts massively". Accurate news reports and audacious media organizations can enable us to get a glimpse of how corrupt our society is. It is especially so now as Hong Kong has to co-operate with the Mainland in so many economic activities. It has become all the more necessary to have independent, impartial and audacious media organizations to uncover the truth for us.

Mr Kevin LAU's case has set an alarm bell ringing in Hong Kong. As bloody as it was, the incident touched the hearts of people. Many journalists came together in mass gatherings with the support of the public. In early March, journalists made a giant poster with a very touching picture carrying the words "They can't kill us all". It showed the worry of media practitioners over their personal safety. Yet, they are also psychologically prepared for such risk and understand that they have to fulfil their reporting duties.

Therefore, this Council and the community cannot let media workers face such threat alone. The threat was posed not only to Kevin LAU or any individual journalists, but also to the core values of the whole community. Kevin LAU's incident was only one such violent cases. Many journalists were attacked by unknown people, or even by the police when covering stories. Such examples were numerous in the past. President, I thus would like to call on the police to, when enforcing the law, assist journalists in covering stories, instead of violently impeding them from doing so or even causing the personal safety of journalists to be threatened. Thank you, President.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, the community has become very concerned about a serious assault case recently. At the meeting of the Panel on Security on Tuesday, we discussed the police's handling of serious assault and wounding cases. My colleagues from the Police Force and I briefed members on our work in this aspect and responded to issues of concern raised by members.

8680 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

Today, the Chairman of the House Committee, Mr Andrew LEUNG, has brought this case to this Chamber of the Legislative Council for discussion. Four Members have also proposed amendments to Mr Andrew LEUNG's original motion, extending the scope of discussion to cover press freedom. As such, apart from my response on the investigation progress of the case, the Under Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs will also give a response in respect of press freedom today. I will first briefly explain the police's investigation work on serious assault and wounding cases, before providing Members with some information on the latest development of the investigation into Mr Kevin LAU's case.

As far as investigation is concerned, the SAR Government would never tolerate any violent acts in Hong Kong, a community where the rule of law prevails. The police will probe into every wounding and serious assault case in a meticulous and professional manner, regardless of the identity and personal background of the victims, with a view to expeditiously bringing the assailants to justice. In the course of investigation, the police will search for witnesses and collect exhibits at the crime scene and in the nearby areas, and will take an all-out, all-direction approach to figure out the motive and the modus operandi of the case.

The information provided by members of the public and eye-witnesses is of great help to the police's investigation. Generally speaking, the police will make enquiries with the pedestrians/drivers on the street, people in the shops and all the residents in the neighboring buildings door to door about what happened before and after the crime. Objects with evidential value, such as weapons of assault, clothes of the victims and objects left behind by the assailants on the spot, will be collected at the crime scene and in the nearby areas. The police will pass all relevant evidence gathered to forensic experts for analysis. Besides, the police will obtain CCTV footage from shops in the vicinity of the scene and along the escape route of the assailants, which is of great help to the investigation.

President, as for the relevant statistics, please allow me to provide the following data for Members' reference. In 2013, 6 163 cases of wounding and serious assault cases were recorded, a decrease of 9.6% in comparison with 2012. The number of such cases reached a record low over the last 10 years in 2013. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8681

Amongst them, 4 440 cases were detected and the detection rate marked 72.1%, indicating the highest in the last 10 years. However, about 30% of the cases have yet been detected. I have to point out that the police's investigation work is affected by many uncontrollable factors. As such, it is impossible for the police to crack all these cases. I believe none of the police forces in the world can crack all cases. However, I can assure Members that my colleagues in the Police Force will exert their best to detect all these violent cases within their ability.

As regards Mr LAU's case, the SAR Government and members of the public are highly concerned about this case of attack that happened on 26 February 2014. The attack inflicted by the assailants was brutal. It not only caused serious bodily injuries to Mr LAU, but also blatantly trampled on the peace and stability of the Hong Kong community. The incident is absolutely not tolerated under the law. The authorities once again strongly condemn the violent acts of the assailants. The Chief Executive phoned the Commissioner of Police at the first instance after the incident to require him and the Police Force to spare no effort in tracking down the assailants. As Members are also aware, the police have mobilized an enormous police team to work non-stop for days to investigate the case. Shortly after the incident, the police seized a motorcycle suspected to have been used in the crime, made enquiries with residents living nearby, and set up a hotline. They also released a CCTV image of suspects. We are very grateful for the valuable information the public provided to the police.

After days of hard work, the police successfully arrested nine suspects in Hong Kong. Two suspects were also apprehended in Guangdong and extradited to Hong Kong by the Mainland law-enforcement authorities. The police will make an all-out effort to continue conducting an in-depth and comprehensive investigation into the case and gather evidence, with a view to bringing the assailants to justice. I have to particularly point out that the police would never rule out any possible motives of the crime, which certainly include the connection with Mr LAU's journalistic work. Before the case is cracked, I hope Members can give the police some room, so that they can go all out to investigate the case and gather evidence attentively without any distraction. It is because the police must have adequate evidence before pressing charges against the suspects and 8682 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 bringing them to court for trial. I also call on the general public once again to contact the police immediately if they have any information related to the case.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)

Deputy President, I will make another response again after listening to Members' speeches on the motion.

Thank you, Deputy President.

UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary for Security has just stated the SAR Government's stance on the incident of attack on Mr Kevin LAU and the relevant law-enforcement work. I am going to speak on press freedom.

A motion debate on "Safeguarding editorial independence and autonomy" was held at the Legislative Council meeting on 22 January this year. At that time, I already made clear the SAR Government's stance. I would like to reiterate it here once again: it is the established policy of the SAR Government to safeguard freedom of the press with our best endeavours and foster a suitable environment for the press sector to develop freely and robustly under minimal regulation.

Article 27 of the Basic Law stipulates that Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication. Press freedom is an essential element of Hong Kong in maintaining its status as an international metropolis and ensuring its sustainable and healthy development. The SAR Government will continue to safeguard the rights enjoyed by members of the public under the Basic Law.

At present, there are five local television broadcasters and five local radio stations running news programmes every day. In addition, 50 or so newspapers and more than 700 periodicals are registered under the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance. Also, around 90 international media organizations have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8683 offices in Hong Kong, with some of them using Hong Kong as the base for their regional publications and editions. Apart from the traditional media, the increasing popularity of the Internet has turned it into an easy channel for the public to get hold of information. The mass media in Hong Kong thrives with great varieties. With a free flow of information, members of the public can have free access to all kinds of news and information through such channels as television and radio stations, newspapers, magazines, as well as online platforms.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I will lend an attentive ear to Members' speeches and make a supplementary response later.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, two senior executives of Hong Kong Morning News were attacked by four men wielding iron pipes on the street yesterday. It is intolerable to see such incidents happen one after another. Apart from the aforesaid two victims, other members of the media who have been attacked include Kevin LAU, LEUNG Tin-wai, Albert CHENG, CHEN Ping and SUM Tak-keung. SHIH Wing-ching was luckier as he reacted quickly, or else he could have been attacked. I thank Ms Emily LAU for listing in detail these cases in her amendment.

Although Secretary for Security LAI Tung-kwok quickly came out yesterday and said that even one is too many for incidents like the attack on the two senior editorial executives of Hong Kong Morning News, such incidents keep happening one after another. The police cannot detect all these cases. Even if they could arrest the assailants, the masterminds remained at large. That is totally unacceptable.

The motion on "Safeguarding freedom of information, of the press and of the Internet" moved by me at the Council meeting of 5 June last year was passed by all Members. A similar motion entitled "Safeguarding editorial independence and autonomy" was proposed by Mr Alan LEONG on 22 January this year. However, it was ― almost vetoed ― narrowly passed by a margin of one vote. Why? The reason was very simple, that is, the pressure faced by the media is significantly greater this year than last year. The problem really came when advertisers pulled their advertisements, followed by the incident of Ming Pao. Some Members of this Council even shied away from showing support for 8684 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 press freedom in the name of media ethics. It was tantamount to saying that the media is not without freedom, but without ethics. Why have they become like this? The reason is nothing but the critical moment having come. People know what to say at the critical moment.

It would be much better had the Commissioner of Police just said, "they would not rule out any possibilities". Yet, he added repeatedly that "it has nothing to do with journalistic work". No matter how he glossed it over, Hong Kong people could see through it clearly. Mr LAU was slashed six times in broad daylight. It was obviously a punitive hired attack. Fortunately, WONG Yan-lung has a good heart and said something in good conscience. However, I should not compare WONG Yan-lung with the Commissioner of Police, as it would do the counsel a disgrace.

How did the Kevin LAU case touch the hearts of Hong Kong people? Days after the incident, I made it a point to visit the protest booth of a group of journalists in Causeway Bay on a Friday evening. They collected signatures and let people leave words of encouragement on a long banner of cloth to show their support for Kevin LAU and his family members. I am not good at making appeals over a loudhailer, and thus seldom do so. Yet, I could not stop making appeals over the loudhailer there for two hours or so. I was very touched to see members of the public come forward willingly and leave a message.

As I had to attend a meeting in the United States the following day, I could not take part in the mass march held on Sunday. Over ten thousand citizens took to the streets to convey a clear message: "No violent or lawless acts are tolerated in Hong Kong". Members of the media should not be retaliated against for reporting certain news. When visiting a number of cities in the United States later, I also heard foreigners mention the knife attack on a journalist in Hong Kong. They asked me what was happening in Hong Kong.

The assailants are of course shameful. However, the mastermind hiding far away and secretly pulling the strings behind the attack is the most shameful. I wish the police can realized that the case would never solved if they do not dig out the mastermind and bring him to justice. We will never give up on this cause.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8685

I went to Washington last week and particularly spared a morning to visit The Newseum there. The museum is a microcosm of the history of American journalism. A famous quote from Philip GRAHAM, the publisher of Washington Post, is hung on the wall. It reads "Journalism is the first rough draft of history". It has left a deep impression on me, as the freedom of speech is integral to the protection of civil rights and fundamental to all other civil rights. To maintain the credibility of the ruling regime, the governments of authoritarian countries must control the thinking of citizens. The first step in is to control their access to information.

A famous quote in Cato's Letters, a classic work of an 18th-century British writer, reads, "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of the nation, must begin by subduing the freedom of speech". It means that a person must subdue freedom of speech first before overthrowing the liberty of a nation. No matter how a person emphasizes harmony when controlling the freedom of speech, his agenda is all too evident to all.

In a positive vein, Abraham LINCOLN, the most respected American President in history, so to speak, once said, "Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe". It means that the country will be safe if people can know the truth. Therefore, I really cannot understand why some country rulers, however, have to blind citizens from the truth in the name of national security. In fact, the United States has also done so.

A number of incidents of attack on members of the media have happened in Hong Kong. Besides, the tendency to suppress peaceful protests and public opinion polls is becoming increasingly evident. All these come down to the desire to change public opinion and rewrite history. Hong Kong is gradually transforming into a "semi-authoritarian regime". Our civil rights are subjected continual erosion. Our freedom of speech and press freedom are fast vanishing. Can we accept Hong Kong being turned into a "zombie city" with bogus democracy and freedoms but full of violence and white terror?

Generation after generation of professional journalists have recorded history and left important records for us to know the truth. For this reason, we have to exert our utmost to protect them. As a matter of fact, The Newseum in Washington I mentioned just now has another wall inscribed with the names of hundreds of victims killed because of news reporting. I do not hope that Hong 8686 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

Kong people's names will appear on that wall in the future. Therefore, we must stay highly vigilant.

Be it violent attacks or invisible influences like interference and suppression, it is incumbent upon the SAR Government to strive to curb all violent acts targeting on members of the media, protect the media and safeguard press freedom. However, if the Government has lost the moral ground and cannot protect ― or even deprive ― citizens' rights, we must rise against it.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the original motion and the amendments.

MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, among all the civilized and open societies, the violent threat and attack faced by journalists in Hong Kong may rank the top three, if not the top, in the world. I really have not heard of any other civilized and open society with such a shocking record as ours. Deputy President, Ms Emily LAU just listed 14 cases of violent intimidation against members of the media in recent years. However, she has not taken into account the death of Mr LAM Bun of Commercial Radio and other cases of non-criminal intimidation against Mr WONG Yuk-man, Albert CHENG and Vincent WONG, as well as the dismissal of LI Wei-ling.

Deputy President, our Police Force have been hailed as the best in Asia. They undeniably perform very well in other cases. However, why would the Police Force perform so poorly whenever they handle cases of violent intimidation or attack on journalists? Deputy President, all the 10-odd cases I mentioned just now have yet to be detected. As some colleagues rightly mentioned just now, they really can arrest the hatchet men, but not the mastermind. The police would just stop taking any further action even though they have no idea of the whereabouts of the mastermind.

Deputy President, why is it so intriguing? The Commissioner of Police immediately came out and indicated that there was no evidence linking the attack on Mr Kevin LAU to his journalistic work. It could not possibly be the case that he did not understand his own role and function. To a certain extent, that was certainly a fact at that moment. However, when it came off his mouth, it would give people an impression that he was defending the criminals ― the mastermind. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8687

Deputy President, why did I say so? It is because the functions and responsibilities of the Police Force are different from that of the Court. When the Court makes a ruling, it certainly has to state the evidence. However, that is not the case for the police. Deputy President, the role of the police is to track down the motives of crimes and gather evidence. That is to say, when a crime breaks out, the police's duty is obviously to carry out an investigation based on the information available, instead of indicating with one's arms folded and feet up that there is no evidence linking the case to journalistic work. On the contrary, the police have to work even harder to dig out such evidence simply because they do not have it at the moment. Deputy President, the remark by the Commissioner of Police really broke the hearts of all Hong Kong people. It also showed a serious dereliction of duty on his part. I know that Commissioner TSANG once said, "I would not apologize.". Therefore, I would not request him to tender any apology. However, if he has a sense of remorse, he should tender a resignation.

Deputy President, the importance of press freedom is well known to us all. The two government officials present today both said something nice, indicating repeatedly how important it is. Yet, have they walked their talk to show genuine concern for it? Deputy President, how important is press freedom? I can boldly say that press freedom is at least as important as democracy and the rule of law. Deputy President, is it so important? The answer is yes. Because members of the public cannot correctly or properly exercise their political rights if there is no free or accurate flow of information. In that case, even if election is in place, it will still be useless. Deputy President, what is the meaning of the rule of law? It is not simply about justice being done, but it should be seen to be done. Without press freedom, how can people see that justice is done? Deputy President, some people may just catch this point and think that once press freedom is struck down, democracy and the rule of law will fall apart, just like the collapse of a house of cards. In the face of such a serious attack targeting on the foundation of our core values, how could the SAR Government officials be so "laid-back" with their feet up and just say something nice as if nothing had happened?

Secretary LAI said just now that it is impossible to crack all cases. The Secretary got it right, only that the detection rate is now 0%. Besides, the "Big Brother" of the Police Force, as I just said, is actually not as anxious to crack the case as described by the Secretary. Can the Commissioner of Police come out 8688 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 tomorrow and tell Hong Kong citizens that the police will, in the first place, regard this case as an attack on members of the media and exert their best to investigate in this direction? Can the Commissioner make such remarks? Or does he still insist that there is no evidence linking the attack to journalistic work? Deputy President, that is not what the Commissioner of Police should say.

Therefore, we feel very regret and frustrated now, as government officials just simply indicated here that they will uphold press freedom. Just now, Under Secretary LAU even counted for us the number of radio and television stations, as well as newspapers. So what? Is it the case that they will only be anxious when the staff of all radio and television stations as well as newspapers are attacked? I wish that the answer is in the negative. Deputy President, no matter original motion and amendments are passed or not today, the SAR Government should actually know what to do and take action immediately.

Thank you, Deputy President.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the motion I proposed at the House Committee meeting last week is put under debate today. I think it is a nice arrangement as Members can have more time to express their views on the incident of attack on Kevin LAU.

When the Budget was announced in the morning of 26 February, I suddenly heard the news of the attack on Mr Kevin LAU, the former chief editor of Ming Pao. I was initially very shocked and could not believe it. However, after somewhat regaining my composure, I felt very sad and angry. Yesterday, two senior executives of the news department of the soon-to-be published newspaper, Hong Kong Morning News, were also attacked by four assailants with iron pipes in Tsim Sha Tsui East. Incidents of attack on media workers have happened one after another. It is really a cause of concern and worry.

Hong Kong is a safe city where the rule of law prevails. However, a journalist was seriously injured after being slashed six times on a busy street in broad daylight. I think that is really outraging and intolerable. Such lawless violent acts laid bare the challenge to Hong Kong's rule of law and everyone's bottom line tolerance. Therefore, the Legislative Council must seriously LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8689 condemn the violent acts. We must seriously request the police to spare no effort to track down the assailants and continue following up the case, so as not to let the culprits get away with it.

Deputy President, after the incident, the police took it very seriously and handed it over to the Regional Crime Unit of Hong Kong Island for investigation. The police made enquiries with people working in the nearby restaurants and shops and searched the neighborhood for days to see if there is any material evidence and CCTV footage of the incident that happened that day. They also quickly released a number of CCTV images on the suspects' escape. As we can see, the Hong Kong Police Force have acted professionally, resolute to detect the case. The Mainland public security authorities have also actively collaborated with their Hong Kong counterparts, leading to a breakthrough development in the case last week. To date, the police have arrested two alleged hatchet men and nine other suspects for involvement in the case. The collaboration between the police of the two sides has led to new breakthroughs in the investigation of the assault case. I think it merits our recognition.

The incident has aroused public concern about press freedom, as some people reckon that the attack on Kevin LAU is related to his media work. They fear that it will pose a threat to press freedom and the freedom of speech. Some people even asserted that it must have to do with some sensitive reports of Ming Pao or even certain Mainlanders. Press freedom is in fact a core value cherished in Hong Kong. We absolutely would not let anyone undermine and interfere with it using violent means. The personal safety of journalists must be protected. Therefore, we very much hope that the police will crack the case as soon as possible. However, we should not make too many speculations before the whole truth is revealed. Take the disappearance of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 as an example. Many people guessed that the plane had been blown up mid-air. Some said it had plunged into the sea, while others said it had flown elsewhere. In fact, they were all groundless speculations. What is most important is for the police to expeditiously crack the case and do justice to Mr Kevin LAU.

However, although we do not know who is connected to the incident and what are the motives behind it, I have to acknowledge that the incident has indeed made media workers feel most uneasy. Understandably, they are worried that 8690 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 press freedom will be curbed and their personal safety threatened. Members of the media will continue to work in the shadow of fear if the case cannot be detected. Therefore, it is imperative to get to the bottom of the case to unearth the truth, and bring all people involved in the case to justice. That way, the media workers can cover stories and report news fearlessly.

In addition, I believe the CCTV images played an important role in the arrest of suspects by the police. In my opinion, the community can discuss whether Hong Kong should emulate other foreign countries, such as the United Kingdom, in installing such surveillance systems as "eyes in the sky" or even "ears in the sky" in public places to enable the police to timely arrest suspects once a crime breaks out. Of course, the elaborate CCTV surveillance system in the United Kingdom has also stirred up controversial discussions about the Government's infringement on the privacy of citizens. As such, we need to be extremely careful in handing the issues of privacy and security. We have to strike a balance and make compromise as well.

In closing, I wish Kevin a quick recovery from his physical injuries. Deputy President, I so submit.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have known Mr Kevin LAU for 25 years. When Kevin LAU was undergoing surgery the day he was attacked, I had a telephone conversation with his wife. We did not say much, but both of us wondered why Hong Kong had become such a cold-blooded, violent and disgusting city. In fact, the term "cold-blooded" not only refers to the hatchet men and the mastermind, but also the response of Mr Andy TSANG, the Commissioner of Police. We all have common sense. Yet, he said, to this effect, "We do not have direct evidence showing the attack on Mr Kevin LAU is related to his journalistic work". Even a secondary school student or a member of the general public would know that the incident must be related to journalistic work.

I have known Mr Kevin LAU for 25 years. He is a humble gentleman. According to the statement Mr LAU given to the police, it is clear that he and his family members did not have any debt troubles, love disputes or personal grudges LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8691 with others. His colleague, Mr CHEUNG Kin-por, also believed that the attack is related to the news stories of Ming Pao. Deploying almost all manpower and spending a great amount of time, he identified over 10 news stories and submitted them to the police as clues for investigation.

Deputy President, while the Secretary for Security clarified the day before yesterday that the police had not ruled out any motives behind the attack, two senior executives of the soon-to-be-launched Hong Kong Morning News were attacked in broad daylight in the bustling Tsim Sha Tsui East yesterday morning. Would the police also treat it as an ordinary assault case?

Many colleagues have just cited the violent cases targeting on the media in recent years. Pardon me for naggingly repeating them once again. In fact, they are actually too numerous to mention. On 8 August 2012, masked men rushed into the office of Hong Kong In-media and inflicted damage there; on 30 August 2012, the curtain walls of Sing Dao Daily and Headline Daily were crashed by private vehicles; on 3 June 2013, CHEN Ping, publisher of iSun Affairs, was ambushed and seriously injured by two masked men on departure from his office; on 19 June 2013, the gate of the residence of Jimmy LAI, chairman of the Next Media Group, was rammed by a private vehicle; during the period between June and July 2013, large numbers of Apple Daily newspapers were burned in a series of arson attacks and a chopper was allegedly thrown into the office of the New Media Group; on 30 July 2013, the car of SHIH Wing-ching, founder of am730, was maliciously intercepted and damaged by men in cars of unknown origins.

Deputy President, they represent just a small portion of all the violent cases. However, one thing is sure: the police have yet arrested the masterminds ― I mean the persons pulling the strings behind the scene ― of all the aforesaid violent cases directly targeting at the media. There is entirely no deterrent effect, so to speak, on the dark forces intent on using violence to challenge freedom of the press and news reporting.

Given that violent attacks have happened one after another and all such cases have yet been detected, it has created white terror in the press sector, as all workers have a clear idea of the motive behind the cases.

8692 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

The series of attacks on media practitioners are a matter of concern not just to the press sector. Most importantly, they somehow pose a challenge to the whole community's important defence line for freedom of expression and thought, as well as free flow of information. From another angle, press freedom and the free flow of information, as I pointed out in my speech on Ms Claudia MO's motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, are indeed closely related to the development of Hong Kong's free economy. They have a significant bearing on our economic development. The freedom of speech and free flow of information are integral to the healthy development of a modern society. In order to strike a business deal, we must have free flow of reliable information without censorship and control. Deputy President, if Hong Kong one day loses press freedom and the spirit of the rule of law, what is its competiveness and attraction to foreign investors? These are very important elements.

Deputy President, I would like to take this opportunity to urge the police to seriously handle the case and track down all the masterminds. Also, I very much hope that Commissioner of Police Andy TSANG will not make irresponsible judgment on the case in an arbitrary manner. As we all know, the case is still under investigation. I hope the Commissioner will care about the feelings of the victim, his family members and supporters, as well as other supporters. Also, I very much hope that Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying will walk the walk instead of just talk the talk to live up to his election pledge of safeguarding press freedom.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I would like to commend the police for the swift action taken in arresting the suspects involved in the Kevin LAU case within a short time for further investigation. I believe detecting the case expeditiously and making an all-out effort to bring the assailants to justice is what all Hong Kong citizens would like to see most now.

In Hong Kong where the rule of law prevails, that the assailants inflicted such a brutal attack on Mr Kevin LAU in broad daylight was not only a blatant disregard of the rule of law in Hong Kong, but also a provocative act to the police. They were antagonizing all Hong Kong citizens!

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8693

Yesterday, media practitioners of Hong Kong Morning News were also attacked. We of course have to seriously condemn it. We must make it clear to everyone that violence is absolutely unacceptable and intolerable in Hong Kong. This wave of violent attacks must be curbed!

Deputy President, I understand that many people are very concerned about the progress of investigation on the attack of Mr Kevin LAU. I, for one, am also very concerned about it, because I have known Mr Kevin LAU for a decade or so. I also hope that the case will be cracked expeditiously, so that Mr LAU can have peace of mind in taking rest and focus on his recovery. I hereby would like to wish Mr LAU a quick recovery.

However, a remark made by the Commissioner of Police has drawn criticisms in recent days. Some people even requested the Commissioner to make a public apology in an attempt to politicize the incident. I would like to say a few words here for fairness' sake today.

On that day, journalists kept asking whether the case has to do with media work. I learnt from news reports that the Commissioner's answer at that time was to this effect "there is no evidence so far indicating it is related to media work". As far as I understand it, that remark made by the Commissioner only served to give an account of the preliminary investigation to the media. The Secretary can correct me later if I got it wrong. It was not a conclusion drawn on the case. Nor was it an assertion that the case must have nothing to do with media work or press freedom. I also believe that the police will definitely not miss out any clues and directions for investigation.

I believe the police have strict requirements on their investigation work. They will make judgments only based on concrete evidence. If they classify the case as one related to media work and rule out other possibilities at the initial stage of investigation, it would probably restrict the directions of investigation, and may even affect the investigation being carried out by front-line police officers, rendering it incomprehensive.

As the Secretary for Security said, "they will not rule out any possibilities". As a matter of fact, I think the Secretary's remark is not contradictory to that of the Commissioner of Police. They both spoke on the basis of facts and did not clearly rule out a certain clue for investigation. Just now, the Secretary also 8694 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 promised that the police will gather evidence and seek to arrest the assailants from all directions.

At this moment of time, I believe the whole community shares the common goal of detecting the case expeditiously. I think it is crucial for the police to seize the time to prevent the assailants from getting away scot-free or destroying any evidence. However, I have seen Members keep picking at the Commissioner's remarks today, asserting that the police would not try their best to investigate the case or look for clues of any connection with the media. Is it fair to the police officers who are currently working hard to investigate the case? I believe letting the police stay focused in investigating the case is very important. These demoralizing comments, accusations and criticisms will add unnecessary pressure to the police officers responsible the investigation. Moreover, these criticisms may also cause distraction to police officers, making them unable to focus on their work. Is this what we want to see?

Also, I noticed some citizens criticized the Commissioner of Police for not being politically sensitive enough in making those remarks. And they have drawn a serious backlash as they might really hurt the feelings of Mr Kevin LAU, his family members and colleagues, or cause their misunderstandings. In fact, the same idea can be expressed in a better way. Although the Commissioner is not a professional in public relations or public speaking, I agree that there was further room for improvement in his way of expression at that time. However, the most important task now is to bring the assailants to justice. At this critical juncture, I think we should let the police focus on investigating the case, rather than getting entangled in the question of whether a person's public relations and speaking skill is good or not.

Moreover, as the police could follow the clues and swiftly arrest the assailants within such a short time, it will help in further looking into the case in greater depth. They in fact merit our encouragement and support. I hereby hope that the police will get to the bottom of the case, so that the general public and media workers can have peace of mind.

Deputy President, Mr Gary FAN's amendment requests that "the Secretary for Security and the Commissioner of Police must openly set a detection deadline for the incident and undertake to submit an investigation report to the Legislative Council before the expiry of the detection deadline". I think that is extremely unreasonable and impractical. As we all know, cracking a case is not like putting on a show. We cannot fix a time for it, just as Mr Gary FAN often did in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8695 scheduling when to leave the Council meeting or the breakfast meeting on constitutional reform, among others, to gain limelight. No one can control when a crime case is detected. The Legislative Council should not interfere with any criminal investigation and administration of justice.

We all hope that the case will be detected as soon as possible. As some members of the public told me, they are worried that the police would overlook other cases while concentrating their efforts on investigating this much-publicized case. I believe the Hong Kong Police Force are in fact very professional. They would definitely treat all cases equally and assign police officers to follow up on different cases according to the gravity of the crimes. They will ensure that all district police stations or other serious crimes units will not be affected in following up on their cases. Deputy President, I so submit.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I think we can discuss from two perspectives the incident of Kevin LAU being slashed six strokes. The first perspective is of course the violent attack. The second is the case's implication in view of Kevin LAU being a veteran media practitioner. As we all know, Ms Emily LAU's amendment already lists 12 cases of violent attack on members of the media over the years. However, if we break down the incidents, we will find that 10 cases in total ― including the Kevin LAU case and the attack on the two senior executives of Hong Kong Morning News yesterday ― happened under the current-term Government. They represented the lion's share of the cases.

Suck violent incidents are scary. I think the Government should take this trend seriously. What does it mean? Hong Kong is a society where the rule of law prevails. We always take pride in our city being a safe place. Yet, people resort to violence, knife assault, gun or even bomb attack to settle their personal grudges, money disputes and relationship problems and the police can do nothing about them and fail to crack such cases and dig out the masterminds. Is all this telling us that such violent acts are practical for settling scores? What can the Government and the police do about them?

It makes us worry that Hong Kong has become a violent society since 1 July 2012. There is such implication and we would not like to see it become a reality. The SAR Government and the police must prove with facts and actions 8696 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 that Hong Kong is a safe place. The way to prove it is to arrest the assailants, identify the real culprits, and figure out the underlying motives. In our opinion, the 10 media-related cases that happened since 2012 were clearly attempts to challenge the police, the SAR Government, and Hong Kong's image as a safe international city. I hope that the police will seriously endeavour to detect the cases in a serious manner, proving with actions that recourse to violence in tackling personal or social problems is entirely wrong and illegal, and will definitely be arrested.

From the second perspective, this incident has another implication as Kevin LAU is a veteran media practitioner. Deputy President, I got acquainted with Kevin LAU in the 1990s. In fact, I became acquainted with his wife earlier in the 1980s. His wife once worked as a volunteer in my office. They both are very gentle and polite. They would not speak in a loud voice, let alone quarrelling. Therefore, I really cannot see any possibility that his character, personality and his way of speaking would offend others to such a degree that they would seek violent revenge upon him. I of course have visited Mr Kevin LAU in hospital. I trust both him and his wife. He told me it was impossible that the attack was caused by any personal grudges, money disputes or relationship problems after making a self-reflection. If that is impossible, what else would have triggered the attack?

Deputy President, the only factor left is his work. Was it the cause of this incident? As we all know, Mr Kevin LAU is a veteran media practitioner. He joined Ming Pao in 1995 and worked there as lead writer and chief editor, before becoming the Chief Operating Officer of MediaNet Resources Limited. Many articles or reports written by him might have affected the interest, influence as well as reputation of some people in Hong Kong, the Mainland and even other places. Were these reports the fuse for this incident?

Of course, we have no idea of it. While we had no idea of it, the Commissioner of Police indicated the other day that there was no direct evidence linking the case to journalistic work. We do not mean to pick at a remark made by the Commissioner and dwell on it endlessly. However, as such a high-ranking official, the Commissioner must bear the consequences of such a remark made. Dr Elizabeth QUAT just said, to this effect, "You have to stop dwelling on it, as it will make those involved in the investigation work feel very LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8697 disappointed." That I cannot agree. As a matter of fact, what made people disappointed was the Commissioner's remark. His remark meant that the two had no direct relation, but just indirect relation at most, or even no relation. But the case has yet been cracked and an announcement has yet been made. If he had to say that, was it also necessary for him to indicate one by one that the case had nothing to do with relationship problems, debt issues, personal disputes, and the news stories of Ming Pao? If that is the case, the list is endless. However, he just singled out one factor in his remark. It was obvious that he wanted to blur the connection between this incident and the media.

Deputy President, I feel that the police do attach importance to this incident. Otherwise, the Commissioner would not have come out and made that remark, and the police could not have arrested the hatchet men so quickly in collaboration with their Mainland counterparts. However, if the police take the case seriously, they also have to capture the mastermind. Only if the mastermind is captured can we unearth the truth. Deputy President, the media is the fourth estate that monitors the Government and an important tool to protect Hong Kong people's freedom of speech and press freedom. We earlier saw members of the media say in their assembly, "They can't kill us all". We have a strong media force. Yet, can the SAR Government assure with actions that Hong Kong can enjoy freedom of the press and is a safe international city where the safety of Hong Kong people can be assured?

Thank you, Deputy President.

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the former chief editor of Ming Pao was attacked by assailants with sharp blades on the street in broad daylight. This incident has terrified and enraged the whole community. It was a blatant challenge to the rule of law in Hong Kong. Thumbing their noses at the law, the assailants were callous and cruel. Judging from the overall planning and execution, it was a deliberate and brutal attack. Fortunately, the police forces of the two sides took swift actions to arrest the assailants. Two alleged assailants were arrested in Dongguan, followed by the local arrest of nine other suspects by the Hong Kong Police Force based on information collected. As reported by the media, both of the two alleged assailants are triad members, while some of the other suspects have triad backgrounds.

8698 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

As for the motive behind the attack, the police claimed that "there was no direct evidence linking it to journalistic work" based on information in hand. As the nature of this attack is most extraordinary, I agree with the statement issued by Ming Pao. It urged the police to continue unearthing the truth and act impartially to dig out the cold-blooded mastermind behind the attack, and refrain from dismissing any motives and possibilities before the facts are established. I hereby wish Mr Kevin LAU can get well soon and return to his post in the press to report the truth without favour and fear for the public.

I do not know Mr Kevin LAU. I only know that he is a veteran senior media executive well respected in the sector. Many people who know Mr Kevin LAU have pointed out that he is a gentleman with a disciplined private life who would hardly have grudges with others. Mr Kevin LAU has also issued a statement indicating he has no money disputes, love affairs or personal grudges with others. Moreover, Mr CHEUNG Kin-por, Editorial Director cum Chief Editor of Ming Pao, has also indicated that he believes the attack is related to the past reports of Ming Pao. Therefore, it has sparked widespread speculation among members of the media and the public that the incident was an attempt to suppress press freedom in Hong Kong. People are worried that not only was Kevin LAU slashed six strokes, but so was the core value of press freedom, as the assailants attempted to create white terror.

Deputy President, as there is not much information available, I do not wish to conjecture out of thin air who is the mastermind and why he made such an attack. I only hope that the police will expeditiously unearth the truth and dig out the mastermind, so as to do justice to Kevin LAU, demonstrate the solemnity of the rule of law in Hong Kong, and allay fears among members of the media and the public. Be it targeted on journalists or other people, such violent acts would arouse high public concern and be condemned by the community, as it would erode and deal a blow to our core values. These acts, no matter if they happen to rich tycoons, celebrities or ordinary folks, are unacceptable, both morally and in law.

Deputy President, I have also noted the outsider speculations and worries, especially those among members of the media. I think that such speculations are not unreasonable for the police, after all, investigate cases on the basis of the most reasonable deduction and gather evidence and track down culprits in the most suspicious direction. Yet, before the facts are established, I personally think that the community at large should not hastily make any judgment or jump to any LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8699 conclusion, as it will be unfair to the accused and create unnecessary fears and disputes in society.

When this incident was discussed at the House Committee meeting last Friday, some pan-democrats categorically told me that the offenders in this incident surely could not be arrested. However, two suspects were arrested in Dongguan and transferred to the Hong Kong Police Force just a couple of days later. After the arrest of suspects, some people then indicated that the real culprits surely could not be captured. Such remarks are really puzzling. I hope that we all can have more faith in the police.

Deputy President, press freedom is one of the most precious core values of Hong Kong. The press sector has a mission to monitor the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Hong Kong's prosperous development and the largely fair, impartial and clean environment today would have been impossible without the Hong Kong media's monitoring from all directions. As such, this core value needs to be jointly defended by the Government and all members of the public. Once the police prove that the incident is really related to journalistic work, the Government has to take a zero-tolerance attitude and demonstrate its determination to curb violent acts, protect journalists and defend freedom of the press and the freedom of speech. I hereby hope that the press sector will continue to hold its post fearlessly in the face of power and uphold the media ethics of objective reporting without fear or favour.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I believe no one will oppose this original motion today. I also believe all Members will agree that it is a must to condemn violence and say "No" loudly to violence, with a view to upholding Hong Kong as a place where the rule of law prevails. Meanwhile, I hope that this Council can convey a clear message to the community and the public today that we will never tolerate the use of violence to harm the personal safety of journalists.

This debate today aims to make it clear that we seek to enable journalists to work in an environment devoid of fears, so that they can continue to write news stories as they currently do, avowed to defend the public's right to know and expose the truth.

8700 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

Deputy President, I totally cannot accept Dr Elizabeth QUAT's argument made just now on why the Commissioner of Police, Mr Andy TSANG, said "there was no direct evidence indicating the attack on Mr Kevin LAU was related to journalistic work". I was entirely baffled by her claim that Mr Andy TSANG was making an "intermediate report". If it was an intermediate report, he should not have recklessly jumped to the conclusion. If it was an intermediate report, he should not have ruled out some motives and other factors which were still under investigation.

Dr QUAT also claimed that Commissioner Andy TSANG just lacked public relations skill. Sorry, I bet to differ. The attack on Mr Kevin LAU was a violent case of great concern to the community. Mr Kevin LAU was slashed six strokes. It was tantamount to slashing Hong Kong's core values six strokes, and nobody can distance themselves from the incident. However, the Commissioner of Police, who is responsible for investigating the case and tracking down the assailants, incredibly made the aforesaid remark. Worse still, a pro-establishment Member even spoke in defence of him, saying that he just lacked public relations skill and his remark only served as an intermediate report.

Mr Andy TSANG once made the "black shadow remark" about a hand blocking the video camera of a journalist for no reason. This Commissioner of Police has a record of arguing unreasonably. Despite the fact that he was actually involved in obstructing news coverage, he argued his way out of it by talking nonsense. What did he aim to achieve? Was he using hypocritical rhetoric? Did he try to divert attention but to no avail? The more he wants to divert attention, the more difficult it is to do so. At the meeting of the Panel on Security this week, the Secretary for Security, Mr LAI Tung-kwok seemed to have sensed something wrong and tried to cool down the public censure. He thus mentioned that the authorities would not rule out any possibilities. Secretary LAI's remark was no different to slapping the Commissioner of Police in his face.

Deputy President, why would we be so anxious to discuss this matter and clarify the issues? This violent incident has obviously shocked the whole community of Hong Kong. Members of the media set up booths in Causeway Bay to launch a signature campaign. Over the past two days, I had gone there to lend a helping hand whenever I had the time to appeal to the public to put down their signatures. The public responded positively and expressed their deep worries. While wishing Mr Kevin LAU an early recovery, they were in deep LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8701 worries. It is because the very important core values of "one country, two systems" and press freedom, as well as the personal safety of journalists, are being directly challenged by violence.

Amid widespread community concern, how could they make so light of the matter, arguing that "the Commissioner of Police just lacked public relations skill" and "his remark only served as an intermediate report"? We cannot accept these unreasonable arguments. Nor can we tolerate the mere arrest of the hatchet men involved. We must continue to follow up on the case, with a view to digging out the mastermind and finding out the motive of the attack.

Earlier many Members cited the violent incidents involving journalists. They include the damage done to the office of Hong Kong In-media, the damage done to the car of Mr SHIH Wing-ching, the arson attack on a newspaper delivery truck of Apple Daily, and the damage done to the gate of the residence of Mr Jimmy LAI, among others. People are really shocked at seeing violent incidents happen one after another in Hong Kong. Yesterday, two senior executives of Hong Kong Morning News were also attacked. All these incidents have sparked worries among Hong Kong citizens.

Deputy President, I seriously request the Government to get to the bottom of the case of attack on Mr Kevin LAU and find out the mastermind's motive behind the attack. The Government should not think that it can muddle through after the arrest of the hatchet men. I also request the SAR Government to clarify its stance on freedom of the press and the safeguarding of the same.

I hereby sincerely wish Mr Kevin LAU a speedy recovery. Meanwhile, I would also like to encourage all journalists to continue defending Hong Kong's core values, such as press freedom and the freedom of speech.

I so submit.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): That the police could arrest two alleged hatchet men and other suspects two weeks after the incident of attack on Mr Kevin LAU must be the result of police officers having worked tirelessly around the clock in order to make this preliminary achievement. Their toil should be recognized. Unfortunately, we saw the Commissioner of Police state at the press conference on the arrest of suspects that "there was no direct evidence indicating it had to do with the victim's identity as a journalist" when he 8702 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 commented on the motive behind the attack. His remark sullied the effort made by police officers over the past two weeks. In making that remark, I think Andy TSANG tried to deliberately make light of the connection between the case and journalists in order to mislead the public. It was extremely unfair to Mr Kevin LAU.

Both Mr Kevin LAU and his wife stressed that they did not have any debt disputes, love affairs or personal grudges with others. They believed the attack was related to Mr Kevin LAU's identity as a journalist. However, while the mastermind remained at large and the motive of the attack remained unclear, Andy TSANG indicated at a press conference that there was no direct evidence linking the incident to Mr Kevin LAU's journalistic work. While an investigation had yet been launched, the Commission of Police already indicated that there was no direct evidence of this connection and ruled out this possibility. Does the Secretary for Security not agree with this view? Worse still, the "number-one man" even made that remark several times, making people very mad at him.

As the victim, Kevin LAU believes the attack has much to do with his work. If the attack is related to his work, it touches press freedom, a value cared and cherished most by Hong Kong people. If the incident has nothing to do with journalistic work, it will purely be a crime of violent assault. However, as the victim has excluded other possibilities by indicating that he does not have grudges with others, why did the "number-one man" of the police rule out the judgment of the victim before looking into it? It made people wonder the intention of the "number-one man". Is it not necessary for him to explain to the public why his remark was so different from that of the Secretary for Security? When an investigation had yet been launched, why did he state in a high profile that the six slashes on Kevin LAU had nothing to do with press freedom and his identity as a journalist?

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

In fact, members of the public and the victim, Kevin LAU, generally believe that the incident was directed against press freedom, seeking to give journalists a lesson. Besides, the attack on Mr Kevin LAU was not an isolated incident. It was the bloodiest among the various incidents of silencing the press sector. While the attack case of Kevin LAU had yet been detected, another LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8703 incident of attack happened yesterday. Two senior executives of the soon-to-be-published newspaper, Hong Kong Morning News, were attacked by four men wielding iron pipes in the bustling district of Tsim Sha Tsui in broad daylight. For the time being, we do not know the connection among these incidents. Yet, the whole community is concerned about the violent threat posed to journalists and the series of bloody attacks faced by them. Members of the public think that these incidents were actually a blatant challenge to the rule of law in Hong Kong, to the investigation capabilities of the Police Force, and to the audacity of journalists. Members of the public are all worried about whether journalists will be able to discharge their duties fearlessly in the future.

President, we feel gravely concerned that such situation will continue. Ms Emily LAU pointed out in her amendment that many cases of violent attack on journalists remain not detected. In 1996, LEUNG Tin-wai of Surprise Weekly almost had his left arm severed by assailants in the office. In 1998, Albert CHEUNG was also attacked by two men. In 2013, publisher of iSun Affairs was also beaten by two assailants with clubs. In the same year, assailants attacked SHIH Wing-ching of am730, smashing the window of his vehicle when he was on his way to work. Many of these cases have yet to be detected. The recent attack on Mr Kevin LAU and yesterday's attack on two senior executives of Hong Kong Morning News have further added to that list. It makes people wonder whether the police have seriously investigated the cases and have the capabilities to conduct investigations and identify the culprits. To date, many such cases remain on the back burner. As for Mr Kevin LAU's case, I wonder if the swift arrest of suspects was attributed to the reward offer or the grave public concern. However, we still do not know who pull the strings behind the scene and their whereabouts. I hope that the Secretary for Security and the police will get to the bottom of the case and bring the mastermind to justice.

President, despite it was Kevin LAU who was slashed six strokes by assailants, it seemed that we all were seriously injured and the press freedom of Hong Kong was also dealt a serious injury. We cannot stand another violent attack again. President, I hereby strongly wish to boost the morale of all journalists. Let us stand firm in telling the truth with moral courage. Meanwhile, we hope that the police and the Government will spare no effort to protect journalists and bring the culprits to justice.

With these remarks, President, I support the motion.

8704 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, Mr Kevin LAU has published an article on the Ming Pao website almost every day since 10 March. I have been reading the articles eagerly. Today is the eighth day. Why have I kept reading his articles? Because he has insisted on writing despite the injuries and in the course of recovery. What he has expressed in these eight articles is his persistence for the profession of journalism. It has also demonstrated the broadness of mind and insistence of Mr LAU as a journalist. This may serve as a wakeup call for many of the Hong Kong people who are lost in a thick fog but still believe that Hong Kong remains the Hong Kong of the old days, and freedom of the press is order of the day.

When I read the eighth article he published at 3.20 pm this afternoon, my heart sank. It revealed that Mr LAU had to undergo another surgery in the operating theatre on Monday. According to his article, blood leaking from one of the blood vessels in his left thigh has caused the forming of a clot. The doctors diagnosed that it was the reason for his low grade fever for several days in a row since 13 March. President, in the latter part of the article he published today, he said with a deep sigh to this effect, "The journey of life is undulating with ups and downs, it turns out that the journey of recovery is just the same". We have learnt from his seven articles already released that he was given a transfusion of 4 litres of blood. He is happy and thankful that he can sit up like a normal person, or turn his sleeping position most naturally in the middle of the night. President, should all these happen to him?

We should feel very heartrending when we read this passage in the seventh article of Kevin LAU (I quote to this effect): "The situation of freedom of the press and the freedom of speech in Hong Kong is facing the most severe challenge since the reunification. If you choose to join the profession, you should be psychologically prepared. Journalistic work is not at all romantic. The process of uncovering the truth is extremely complicated and difficult. But you must believe, if only you can dig out facts of news value, in this era when the Internet is highly developed, nobody can suppress the publication of these facts." It was a letter he wrote to the students of the School of Journalism and Communication of The Chinese University of Hong Kong. He said with humour at the second last paragraph of the letter, "Lastly, if you choose to join the profession, but your parents are worried and disapprove of your decision, fearing that you will be hurt some day, I would suggest you give them this response ― those who are attacked and wounded are usually the ones holding the position of the chief editor. As long as you are not the chief editor, the danger LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8705 you face is very limited. This reply may not be very good, but if your parents love you and wish to help you achieve your goal, they may accept this explanation with one of their eyes closed." (End of quote)

We have also seen someone from the Ming Pao Staff Concern Group indicating that in the face of the invisible hand, they can stand firm; however, they do not know how to defend themselves in the face of blades. President, in our society, why must people be prepared to face a martyr's death before they can work as reporters? Is this not a great irony? Kevin LAU said that everyone should be able to enjoy freedom from fear. Many Hong Kong people have all along taken it for granted that we can be free from fear and should be able to enjoy freedom. I only hope that the inappropriate remark made by Commissioner of Police Andy TSANG on that day was ― just like what Dr Elizabeth QUAT said ― a momentary public relations blunder; otherwise, his meanness, and his alienation from the feelings of Hong Kong people, are simply unforgivable.

President, in order to enable our journalists to enjoy freedom from fear, and enable them to continue to work as the eyes and ears of Hong Kong people, continue to expose the dark side of society and the unrighteous acts of those in power or with vested interests, what the Secretary ― who is present today ― can do is not only to arrest the assailants, but also to track down the mastermind, so that when journalists leave their homes in the morning and say goodbye to their families, they need not worry this is their final farewell. This is what the SAR Government should at least do. This is what officials who have commitment to freedom of the press in Hong Kong and who do not pay mere lip service should at least do.

I so submit.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, Mr Kevin LAU, the former Ming Pao chief editor, and currently the chief operating officer of MediaNet Holdings, was attacked in Sai Wan Ho last month. He was slashed and seriously wounded. Society was shocked by the incident. Hong Kong has been reputed as the safest city in Asia where people are law-abiding and self-disciplined. That assailants attacked an unarmed member of the media in broad daylight is a publicly challenge to the rule of law which is downright infuriating. The 8706 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) strongly condemns such violent acts that flout the law. Stitches were removed from the slash wounds on Mr Kevin LAU's back. However, nerves in his legs were damaged by the slashes. He will have to face a long process of rehabilitation. Once again, the DAB and I wish to convey our concern and regards for him, and hope that he will recover soon.

President, I have known Mr Kevin LAU for over 10 years. Two or three months before he was attacked, members of the DAB and I visited the office of Ming Pao and exchanged views with the management (including Mr Kevin LAU) of the company. My impression of Mr Kevin LAU, and I think this is the impression shared by Members, is that he is a journalist with passion and commitment, as well as a man of gentle disposition. Hence, when he was suddenly attacked and wounded, we were most surprised and shocked. Based on Mr LAU's personality and style, it is difficult to imagine that his attack is related to his private life. A more reasonable deduction is that this is related to his journalistic work. What actually is the truth of the matter? It is still awaiting the in-depth investigation by the police. The incident this time around is very complicated. Too many preconceived judgments will not be conducive to the police's focused efforts in detecting the case. It is the wish of the DAB that the police will uncover the real facts expeditiously, so that the truth of the matter can be uncovered and justice can be done.

Undoubtedly, this incident will cast a great shadow on journalists who will be worried for their personal safety. Hong Kong is a society where the rule of law prevails. Journalists should be able to enjoy freedom from fear, which will in turn enable them to exert their best in discharging their duties, tell the truth and take up the role of monitoring by public opinion. After this attack on Mr LAU, media organizations of the leftist, centrist, and rightist camps; political parties of the pro-establishment and pan-democratic camps; as well as all sectors of the community, have spoken with one voice to condemn violence. Although various groups hold different views on whether this assault incident is related to suppression of freedom of the press, their basic stance of anti-violence and supporting freedom of the press is the same.

We must defend freedom of the press, which is a core value of Hong Kong. However, some incidents that took place in media organizations recently ― such as the replacement of the chief editor of a newspaper by the boss; the newly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8707 appointed chief editor who has yet to report duty being alleged of being intent on suppressing freedom of the press; business decisions of clients not placing advertisements in certain newspapers being asserted as suppressing freedom of the press ― have been linked to suppression of freedom of the press at every turn. The DAB has reservations about all this and does not subscribe to them.

Just now I have listened attentively to the speeches of many pan-democratic Members that referred to the remarks made by the Commissioner of Police about this case, particularly how he replied when reporters mentioned the relationship of this incident with journalistic work. He pointed out that he did not rule out other possibilities and mentioned there was no direct evidence indicating it had to do with journalistic work. I heard vigorous criticisms levelled by many pan-democratic Members at his remarks. In the course of this, I have also received the public letter from the staff of Ming Pao who has strong views on those remarks. I fully appreciate the feelings of the staff of Ming Pao.

Just as I pointed out in my speech just now, Mr LAU is certainly a media worker; thus, my view is that, the attack being related to this front poses the biggest possibility. However, as a senior police officer who has a pedigree in criminal investigation, if his remarks are not based on the information or facts he has currently on hand, I believe this is, in fact, unfair to him. Hence, I hope that we can, on the basis of facts, leave the investigation into this case to the police.

President, as for the amendments proposed by Ms Emily LAU and Mr Gary FAN, we cannot support them. This is because one of the amendments mentions that the authorities must give an account of the reasons for the relevant cases. Mr FAN has even proposed that the police "must openly set a detection deadline for the incident", and "undertake to submit an investigation report to the Legislative Council before the expiry of the detection deadline". We hold that this is not appropriate (The buzzer sounded) …

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

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Thank you, President.

8708 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President, in this society of modern days, we cannot tolerate anyone being the subject of vicious knife attack. If a friend we know is the subject of such an attack, we will be even angrier. If the slashing of Mr Kevin LAU is due to personal reasons, it will be another matter. However, just as many Members mentioned in their speeches just now, the Kevin LAU Chun-to we know is an upright media worker. And in recent years, many news reports of Ming Pao won acclaim for the outspokenness. The newspaper is bold to criticize people from the business sector, political circle, entertainment business, or people from any other sector. Of course, those who are targets of their criticisms are not happy with them. However, once people realize that those news reports are accurate, they will support Ming Pao or Mr LAU in continuing with the work.

Of course, we are aware that the police have arrested two assailants and are conducting an investigation. However, I hold that the police have not accomplished a very important task, and that is, identifying the mastermind. I believe the Secretary will also agree that this is a very important task. If the police manage to arrest the assailants only, but fail to arrest the mastermind, and this kind of assault incidents continue to happen, I believe members of the public will query if we do not have the ability to even detect the cases, what we can do then. Reviewing all cases of similar nature that occurred over the past few years, we have found that there is indeed not much Hong Kong can do. Very often, we have to rely on the Mainland to help us track down the assailants because the assailants can easily escape to the Mainland after the attacks. Although the Government has not made an official announcement, with the assistance of the Central Government, the assailants were expeditiously apprehended in Dongguan and transferred to Hong Kong. I believe the Central Government also holds that this incident requires handling at a high level. Since this is the case, is it possible for the police to further identify the organizers of the crime and continue to follow up one by one? I am not familiar with matters in this regard, but I can imagine that the mastermind knows very well how to draw a clear line, so as to segregate the assailants from some other middle-men ― we have no way to know whether they are the intermediaries ― it may be very difficult if we really wish to identify the genuine mastermind. Still we hope that the Secretary and the police will exert their best in the investigation. This is because if we fail to find the mastermind, but manage to arrest two front-line assailants only, even if they are sentenced to imprisonment for whatever number of years, I believe this is not what members of the public expect of our Government, the Security Bureau or the police.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8709

As for matters in other aspects, what we can do is also limited. Apart from expressing our condemnation, requesting the Secretary to continue to track down the mastermind of the attack, and wishing Kevin a full recovery, our further actions will touch on the subject of freedom of the press. Initially we might not have noticed it, but Ms Emily LAU's amendment has listed so many cases that have yet to be detected. At first we could not believe it, but this is really the fact. Over the years, in 1996, the first one being attacked was Mr LEUNG Tin-wai; then in 1998, it was our former colleague Mr Albert CHENG; and at a later stage, it was Mr CHEN Ping and several others mentioned just now. As a matter of fact, the track record of the overall crime detection rate of the Hong Kong Police Force is good. Then why have so many cases of this category ― 11 or 12 cases in total ― yet to be detected? I hope that the Government or the Secretary will make a brief supplement later. Perhaps there are similar cases which were successfully detected, just that Ms Emily LAU has not mentioned them and has only listed cases which have yet to be detected. If the Government has information in this regard, I believe members of the public will like to learn more about it. Nevertheless, Ms LAU has pointed out that 12 cases have yet to be detected. What actually are the reasons attributable to this? Why have no results ever come out of the investigation into cases involving vicious attacks on media workers and journalists? It is stated in the last paragraph of Ms Emily LAU's amendment that "this Council considers that the Administration has the responsibility to protect journalists to enable them to work in an environment free from fear, so as to manifest freedom of the press". We think that this should be supported.

As for Mr Gary FAN's amendment, we find it a bit difficult to support. How are we going to set a detection deadline? Can we really set the detection deadline at a period of six months, a year or two years? According to Mr Gary FAN, he wishes to follow the practices of other places, that is, at the expiry of the deadline, the Bureau will be required to come up with an explanation and the Secretary may be even asked to resign. We hold that this is not appropriate.

The thrust of the amendments of Ms Claudia MO and Ms Cyd HO is to request the Administration to demonstrate its determination to protect the personal safety of journalists. The Liberal Party holds that we can support all of these proposals. However, at present, the most important point is for the 8710 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

Government and the Secretary to spare no effort to investigate the cases which have yet to be detected and bring the mastermind of these cases to justice.

Thank you, President.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, freedom of the press is a fundamental right of Hong Kong people protected by Article 27 of the Basic Law. It is also one of the important constituent elements of the principle of "one country, two systems" under which our way of life remains unchanged for 50 years. For this reason, we must be careful in upholding freedom of the press so that this core value of Hong Kong people will not be undermined. Similarly, Hong Kong is a society where the rule of law prevails and justice is pursued. With regard to incidents of using violence to resolve problems to the extent of inflicting bodily harm intentionally on others so as to force them to comply, one such incident is too many. They must be denounced severely.

While this Council was preparing for today's debate on the problems arising from the case of attack on a member of the senior management of a media organization, another case of attack on members of the senior management of a media organization actually happened in broad daylight in a street in Tsim Sha Tsui yesterday. Two people involved in the preparatory work for the publication of a new newspaper ― Hong Kong Morning News ― were attacked together. It has even been alleged that the female member of the senior management had received a so-called "benign reminder", warning her not to organize the publication of a new newspaper.

If the rumours are true, the situation is really acute. This is not only a serious threat to the newspaper undergoing preparatory work for publication; it is also an open challenge to the overall rule of law, order and freedom in society. The police must spare no effort to bring the assailants and the mastermind to justice. We absolutely must not allow people to disregard the rule of law in Hong Kong, and let them elude the dragnet of the law.

Returning to Mr Kevin LAU, the former chief editor of Ming Pao, he was slashed six strokes in broad daylight by two assailants and his life was threatened in the morning of the day when the Budget was announced last month. The incident has given rise to strong reactions among members of the public. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8711 key lies in Mr LAU being generally regarded as a man of gentle disposition who does not have any personal grudges with others. Just as stated in his family members' solemn declaration after the attack, his family is not involved in any disputes over money, relationships or personal grudges with others. Friends of Mr LAU have also confirmed that Mr LAU is a "Mr Nice Guy". They do not believe that he has personal grudges with others. So, who actually is the mastermind behind the scene who ordered the vicious attack on this former chief editor of Ming Pao? What kind of lesson or warning did he want to give to Mr Kevin LAU? Is this related to his work in the media organization? These are the focal points of public concern.

Insofar as members of the press are concerned, they certainly feel that their personal safety is being threatened. That was why the five major news media had earlier joined hands and come forth to show their support for Mr Kevin LAU, requesting the police to spare no effort to track down the assailants and say "No" to violence. Over 10 000 members of the press and public came forth to show support. Mr Andrew LI, the former Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, and Mr WONG Yan-lung, the former Secretary for Justice, said directly that the attack on Mr Kevin LAU had sounded an alarm to freedom of the press in Hong Kong.

Fortunately, the police attach great importance to this case. Mobilizing a lot of manpower and resources, the police had been working at full steam day and night to collect leads related to this case. Eventually, after examining numerous footages from CCTVs, they had identified the suspects. With the co-operation of the Mainland public security authorities, two suspects who had absconded to the Mainland were successfully apprehended and brought back to Hong Kong for investigation and trial in court. The police have taken expeditious actions this time around and promptly arrested the suspects. I believe members of the public in Hong Kong will show their appreciation, express their support and feel happy about this. However, I believe we all hope that the police will take it further, pursue the threads, and ferret out the mastermind, so that the truth of the case can be uncovered. It is only through this that the concern of the press and the public can be addressed.

President, with regard to the incidents of media organizations facing violence in recent years, to date, a number of these cases remain to be detected. This is, indeed, not desirable. I understand that the clues of some cases are not obvious, and the cases are not easy to detect. Nevertheless, I hope that the case 8712 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 of Kevin LAU this time around will achieve a "zero break-through" in the detection of these incidents, so that the mastermind will not be able to elude the dragnet of the law.

I agree with Mr Kevin LAU that journalists should be able to enjoy freedom from fear. I firmly believe that as long as members of the media devote their efforts and stand united, remain steadfast in discharging their duties with a professional spirit without fear or favour, and continue to provide us with fair and impartial news reports ― this will be the best bulwark for protecting freedom of the press. Of course, they will need the protection provided by law-enforcement agencies to in accordance with the law before they can carry out their duties without fear.

Lastly, I would like to wish Mr LAU and the two members of the media in the latest attack a speedy recovery, so that they can rejoin their journalistic posts, continue to engage in their professional journalistic work, and support the police in sparing no effort to track down the assailants.

With these remarks, I support the anti-violence motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG today. Thank you.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, last week the Commissioner of Police Andy TSANG mentioned specifically to the effect that "there was no direct evidence at this stage indicating that the attack was related to journalistic work". This remark had aroused a huge outcry from the Hong Kong Journalists Association and members of the public. They called on the Commissioner to clarify the justification for his remark. Another high-profile action of the police recently was the arrest of suspects. Through the re-enactment of the case, the police have shown their efforts of arresting the assailants and bringing the offenders to justice right before the eyes of the public. However, it has yet to be seen how the police will handle the mastermind behind the so-called suspect. Who actually is this mastermind? What is his motive? As a matter of fact, the matter quite resembles the police and gangster movies we often watch. When a person has been apprehended, who actually is the "black hand" behind the scene? What actually is his motive? I hope that through further efforts of the police, the truth will be uncovered.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8713

Let us not discuss whether the Commissioner's remark was appropriate or not for the time being. The fact that the Commissioner had specifically made such a remark which sparked the strong reaction from the public is precisely proof that members of the public in general believe the attack on Mr Kevin LAU is related to his work in a media organization and freedom of the press. In the past, whenever incidents related to freedom of the press occurred, someone would immediately come forth to say that we should not link these incidents with freedom of the press. According to these people, we needed sufficient evidence before we could claim that the incidents were related to freedom of the press, and then we could further explore the matter. It was also like that in the course of our discussion on the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance this morning, when a colleague also advanced such a viewpoint.

In fact, that such a viewpoint is advanced is a very weird phenomenon. Whenever such incidents occur, journalists will say that they are the best evidence as they feel it first hand, and these are the issues they have to face on the job. But then some members of the public or some "harmonious" voices will also come forth and say that such comments must be supported by proof before they can be made. However, our colleagues' view is quite different when the discussion involves other issues. For instance, regarding the issue of the shortage of front-line staff of the Hospital Authority (HA), doctors came forth and used actions to demonstrate that they were facing problems such as excessively long working hours and the shortage of manpower. We then asked the HA to address these problems squarely. But had we required doctors to provide specific evidence? Another instance was last year's labour dispute which led to the strike of dock workers. We had sympathy for the workers and believed that the employers had used various means to exploit workers. As such, when reporters describe the work pressure they experience and their journalistic work being interfered, why do our colleagues and the "harmonious" voices in society come forth and require them to meet a higher criterion before their viewpoint can be substantiated?

President, whenever we suspect freedom of the press is being suppressed, officials, some colleagues of this Council, or certain organizations will come forth to say that freedom of the press in Hong Kong has not experienced any regression. The Government will also point out that it absolutely respects journalistic work, and will spare no effort to protect journalists. However, let us look at a number of incidents in which reporters were attacked. How strong is the Government's determination in detecting these cases? When so many cases 8714 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 remain to be detected, have the police elevated the level of the handling of these cases so as to give the impression that the police have the greatest resolve to uncover the truth and bring the assailants to justice? This has given cause to the public to query whether the police have actually adopted double standards under which they will turn a blind eye to certain incidents or handle certain cases in a low profile.

When many people are concerned about whether the Government has the determination to protect freedom of the press, the Government should do some soul-searching and ask itself what actually it has done to make journalists feel at ease. Of course, some people will say the police have made every effort to track down the assailants, while re-enactment of the case has been telecast. Such is the performance of the police. However, we are more worried that this kind of violent behaviour will only create a chilling effect. Hence, in claiming that it has the determination to protect the personal safety of journalists, the Government must not pay lip service only. It has to take specific actions to convince the public that it will genuinely spare no effort to track down the assailants. In fact, the police or the Government can indeed do a lot more in this incident, such as taking voluntary action to enact a law with the objective of removing obstacles to freedom of the press. This will also convince the public and journalists that the police and the Government have the resolve to do a good job in upholding freedom of the press.

Nevertheless, no matter how many times this Council or journalists have requested the Government to legislate on a freedom of information law or enact an archives law, with a view to safe keeping these valuable raw materials, what is the attitude of the Government? As a matter of fact, the working attitude of journalists in seeking the truth and uncovering facts is one of the important core values of Hong Kong society. But regrettably, the support given by the Government to journalists in this aspect of their work is very little. The support is also difficult to come by, if any. The difficulties they encounter do not only come from the Government. There is also enormous obstruction from the pro-establishment camp in this Council. When we propose to uphold freedom of the press in this Chamber, have we accomplished any practical work to promote freedom of information much required in freedom of the press, so as to allow the public and journalists access to archives and records? Have we drawn up directions of work on this? In the course of our discussion related to government archives just now, we could see that in the keeping of records, each government department has different regulations for such handling. Hence, to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8715 ensure freedom of the press, it is necessary for Hong Kong to expeditiously enact an archives law (The buzzer sounded) … to facilitate the free flow of information, thereby …

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

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): … protecting freedom of the press. Thank you, President.

MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, Mr Kevin LAU, the former chief editor of Ming Pao, was attacked and seriously wounded. The incident has not only shocked and grieved his family, but also aroused strong reactions from the entire society. We hold that this attack on Mr Kevin LAU is not only his personal catastrophe. Reviewing the series of incidents of assault on members of the media over the past decade or two, it is only natural for us to feel that freedom of the press in society as a whole is still under threat in an atmosphere of terror.

President, I have known Mr Kevin LAU for almost 30 years. In the 1980s, Mr Kevin LAU worked in the office of Mr Martin LEE. Back then he and I were colleagues. We gave support to Mr Martin LEE's research on the Basic Law as part of the work of the Drafting Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The Kevin LAU I know ― and many people will agree ― is a scholar, and a man of integrity. Gentle and friendly, he speaks and acts cautiously. We certainly believe in Mrs LAU's view ― he is not involved in any personal grudges, nor is he in debts or disputes over illicit affairs. Under such circumstances, by logical inference, this sudden attack on him is related to his work.

This is particularly so when we take a look at the newspaper he was in charge of. The newspaper has, over the past couple of years, or even a longer time, undertaken a lot of investigative news coverage of a very sensitive nature, which will certainly arouse dissatisfaction from powers that be. Such sensitive investigative news reporting has touched on Mainland leaders hiding assets overseas, or exposed the illicit activities of a number of local syndicates engaged in illegal bid-rigging, and many others. We do not know, and have no way to 8716 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 know, who actually is so vicious as to inflict bodily harm on him. But I believe Mr Kevin LAU, his family, friends as well as public opinions, have a distinct feeling that someone wanted to take revenge on some of the investigative news coverage and reports of the newspaper led and being in charge of by Mr Kevin LAU.

Not only is the entire society eager to have the hatchet men and the mastermind behind the scene arrested and brought to justice, we also wish to know the cause and background of the entire incident. While the suspects had been arrested and the police were about to launch a full investigation, the Commissioner of Police Andy TSANG came forth in the first instance to say that there was no direct evidence indicating the case was related to journalistic work. It was really weird. Why did he specifically say that? This is beyond the comprehension of everyone. As a matter of fact, there is no direct evidence showing the case to be related to many other things. But the way he put it seems to tell members of the public that you people are too suspicious. Why must you instruct the police on how they should conduct their investigation? Someone holds that this is an inappropriate remark in public relations. But I am more worried that this is a Freudian slip which reveals what was in his mind, and that is, he does not wish that the future investigation will be pushed towards this conclusion, or he is not very keen on or interested in this direction of investigation because he does not believe that it is the case. If this is the case, it will affect the direction of the professional investigation of the entire Police Force as well as the enthusiasm of police officers in such work. It is absolutely undesirable if his remark has given this kind of an incorrect message. Fortunately the Secretary is cleverer. Following this, he made a supplement in the Legislative Council by saying that he could not rule out it being related to journalistic work. The way he put it was better.

When I read the acceptance speech delivered by Mr WONG Yan-lung, the former Secretary for Justice, at the time he was conferred Doctor of Laws honoris causa by the University of Hong Kong, I found that his argument was even clearer and could better respond to the public expectation. I must quote some of his words. Mr WONG Yan-lung said the incident had impaired the core values of society. It had not only breached the law, upset the social order, endangered the safety of people, but also threatened the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. He held that the alarm bell had been rung. That was really well put. Unfortunately he is not the Secretary for Justice now. I do not understand why LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8717 many people seem to be more intelligent, more courageous, and can even develop a better personality after they have left the Government. And I do not wish that official duty will prevent people from speaking their true minds.

President, I hope and I firmly believe that Mr Kevin LAU and many members of the press will not back off because of this incident; nor will they lose the sense of obligation and courage in their work and in the continuous upholding of freedom of the press. I would like to quote some words of exhortation made by Mr Kevin LAU in the ward, to this effect, "The objective of violent attacks is to make us scared. If we are scared, we will lose our freedom … freedom cannot be presumed to exist or remain unchanged. It requires efforts from each of us to uphold it in order for it to live on." Allow me to cite this as an encouragement to all of us. I also hope that Mr LAU will recover soon. Lastly, I have to point out that I cannot support Mr Gary FAN's amendment in which he has proposed to set a detection deadline. I believe this can certainly be done by the Mainland public security agencies. We can set a detection deadline for them or even set the number of assailants that must be arrested. But I believe it is impossible for the Hong Kong Police Force to achieve this. For this reason, I cannot support this proposal. (The buzzer sounded)

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, when I was interviewed by the media on the attack on Kevin LAU, I indicated that it might be related to the "princelings" of the Mainland. It was just a casual comment, as it may involve relevant issues.

Even I know such theories, then why does Andy TSANG not know these theories? Andy TSANG could have indicated that the case might be related to the "princelings", and might be related to bid-rigging, but there was no direct evidence for the time being. This guy really resembles LEUNG Chun-ying. His first response was he would not rule out any factors, but he could see no direct evidence indicating the case was related to journalistic work. It was tantamount to saying nothing at all. President, you had lived among the groups of "theme comes first", right? Now he is saying that the press had misunderstood his words. Why were they misunderstood? It was because he was repeating what he wished to say. And the sentence "will not rule out any possibilities" was just a sentence of insignificance. As a matter of fact, this is not the first time Andy TSANG has said something like that. Take the "dark shadow" theory as an example. A reporter had only asked HU Jintao a question 8718 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 and he was taken away for interrogation. All words were spoken in bai hua (the regional colloquial language) ― I am not referring to Cantonese ― but bai da hua ("white lies").

President, if one day you were slashed, and I told others that the incident involving Mr Jasper TSANG was related to illicit affairs; or possibly it involved not repaying a loan, would you think that I was insulting you? I hold that if one day you were slashed, the incident must certainly be related to your current public office because you are the President of the Legislative Council, right? This is very simple logic. Of course, you can still put forth many possibilities. An anti-intellect Government is like this. All people in Hong Kong think there is a possibility that the attack on Mr Kevin LAU is related to freedom of the press; in fact, it may not necessarily involve the "princelings". We are talking about freedom of the press only, and that is, he may have done something which has displeased someone, and thus, he was slashed. It is really ridiculous that even this view is refuted. I really wish to ask Andy TSANG whether he has found other factors being involved in this case after investigations have been conducted in a number of directions.

President, Kevin LAU said that at the University of Hong Kong, he had seen a poster on which the following was written, "With truth at heart and pen in hand, being selfless and fearless is freedom". Those were past events of the old times. WANG Xizhe was imprisoned for 14 years because he had published an article entitled "DENG Xiaoping was wrong" in a Mainland journal. President, today, it is useless for us to discuss this incident here because this motion has no binding effect. However, I would like to point out that, Secretary, I had chided you at a panel meeting. You had also refuted. It was related to the investigation into several cases which the Judge had specifically called for. You had not conducted the investigation. The first case involved Barry CHEUNG, the right-hand man of LEUNG Chun-ying. The Judge had indicated clearly that he should be the defendant. Nevertheless, the speakers were sincere in presenting their views, but the listeners shut their ears. So far, Barry CHEUNG has still eluded the dragnet of the law. I am not going to talk about the others. This incident alone is enough to expose the inherent problem in you when you are engaged in the process of weighing the pros and cons. Will you deal with it? Furthermore, talking about the media, cases involving media bosses include the assault case of CHEN Ping, the owner of a weekly publication which specializes in exposing scandals in the Mainland; as well as the cases of Jimmy LAI and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8719

SHIH Wing-ching. What have you done? Time has passed, but has there been any progress?

President, I have often told him I would not force him to conduct investigations into the cases. If the Mainland authorities want to conduct investigations, they will certainly be able to detect the cases. They need only arrest a person and the case is considered detected. The question is you have to explain to this Council what methods you have adopted, how much police manpower has been deployed, and whether you have this kind of report now. Are the cases of CHEN Ping, Jimmy LAI and SHIH Wing-ching handled by the Regional Crime Unit? Has the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance been invoked or have other methods been adopted? They have not accounted for all these questions. Their investigations are also fruitless. Frankly speaking, the fact that these people were able to elude the dragnet of the law after committing such crimes has indeed encouraged the attack on Mr Kevin LAU to take place this time around. Another incident has just occurred. Members of the senior management of the Hong Kong Morning News had been attacked. What is the conclusion of this? At present, the clear message is: violence will be used against the press. As you have arrested the offender today, I will launch an attack on another one tomorrow. What other good methods do you have?

President, many members of the media were treated this way over the past years. I am not going to talk ingeniously anymore. I hope that the Secretary can expeditiously report to this Council the progress of investigations into the several cases I mentioned just now. Otherwise, this is dereliction of duty on the part of the Secretary. Regarding the several cases mentioned by me, I hope the Secretary will respond in an earnest manner later on, and stop talking about other things. If you cannot do that, you can call Andy TSANG, or even tell him to come to the Council to account for how he has conducted the investigations, and at what stage are the investigations, why (The buzzer sounded) … Forget it.

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, when the Financial Secretary was announcing the Budget for the next financial year in the Legislative Council on 26 March, suddenly we learnt about the news that Mr Kevin LAU, the former chief editor of Ming Pao, was slashed in an attack. I was focusing on the contents of the Budget at that time. The news of the assault made me feel very uneasy. Hong Kong is a place where the rule of law prevails. Someone had 8720 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 actually dared to viciously attack a journalist publicly in broad daylight. This is indeed infuriating.

It cannot be said that Mr Kevin LAU is an acquaintance of mine. However, I have been a reader of Ming Pao for several decades. I have read many articles of Kevin LAU. While the line of thought of his commentaries is carefully structured, his analysis is insightful. Indeed, he is an admirable writer. According to reports, Kevin LAU was slashed many stokes in this attack. It is estimated that it will take a long time for him to recover. Here I would like to extend my best wishes to Kevin LAU and hope that he will recover soon. I also hope that members of his family will be able to overcome this unpleasant experience and lead a new life as soon as possible.

With the assistance of the Mainland public security department, two suspected hatchet men were expeditiously arrested in the Mainland and a number of people in Hong Kong suspected of being related to this case were also arrested. Despite the fact that the mastermind has eluded the dragnet of the law and his motive of the offence is still unclear, the high efficiency of the police demonstrated in the expeditious detection of the case is commendable. According to media reports, apart from the Mainland public security departments sparing no effort to assist in the detection of the case, the CCTV and telephone signals had also helped in tracing all the way the escape route of the suspects. Images of the faces of the suspects were captured by cameras and handed to public security authorities which took action to arrest them. In daring to choose to challenge the law in broad daylight on the day of attack, believing that their acts were concealed and done in great secrecy, the suspects had never dreamt that their whereabouts were captured by the "eyes in the sky".

Although the crime rate in Hong Kong is low, many cases remain undetected due to the lack of leads. In fact, this incident has shown that information technology can play a very important role in the detection of cases. I hope that the police will employ more advanced technology to help the investigations into cases or prevent crimes from happening. At present, when crimes take place, the police will ask shops to carry out a search of their CCTV footages. However, the quality of these footages varies. As a matter of fact, CCTV cameras are installed in many private cars now. We have to follow the practice of other international metropolises and install more of the police's "eyes in the sky". I am aware that this issue is quite controversial. However, it still merits our discussion and consideration.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8721

I hope that all staff of Ming Pao will endeavour to uphold the editorial policy adopted through the years, including making balanced, impartial and comprehensive reports, so that readers will be able to gain a comprehensive understanding of the actual situation. These are the traditional values Ming Pao has been so proud of over the past years.

I so submit.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): In the light of the attack on Mr Kevin LAU, Mr Andrew LEUNG has moved this motion debate today. Although it is called a "debate", in fact, there is no need to debate at all. Because the motion has proposed to strongly condemn the violent acts of the attack. I believe Members of the pro-establishment camp will agree to this, and with respect to the request on the police to spare no effort to arrest the assailants, the police will also exert their best in this regard. At the meeting of the Panel on Security held on Tuesday, Secretary for Security LAI Tung-kwok presented a huge array of statistics when he explained how the police handled serious assault and wounding cases. The Secretary also mentioned these figures in his opening speech today. He said that in 2013, 6 163 cases of wounding and serious assault cases were recorded, a decrease of close to10% in comparison with 2012. The number of such cases reached a record low over the last 10 years. The detection rate marked 72.1%, which was about 29% higher than the overall crime detection rate of 43.2%. This figure was also the highest in the last 10 years.

The Hong Kong Government has all along adopted this kind of logic and thinking to respond to questions. When members of the public say that the problem of violent assaults is becoming increasingly serious, the Government will immediately present a huge array of statistics to refute the view, asking the public not to say something like that, but should see clearly the facts instead. It also advises the public that Hong Kong is very safe, never been so safe. What is the meaning of all this? Is it telling us that the current attack is an individual incident? Will the presentation of these figures as a response make the public feel at ease and feel better? The answer is obvious: No. We cannot deny the fact that the police have been highly efficient in handling the case this time around. Initially, we should be happy that the hatchet men have been arrested. But in reality, are we happy? I do not think so.

8722 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

The Ming Pao Staff Concern Group has issued a statement which expresses its hope that the police will continue with the investigation and arrest the real culprit behind the scene of the Kevin LAU case. In fact, society as a whole thinks that this case is not that simple. The arrest of the assailants does not mean the case has been detected. The police must continue to investigate and ferret out the real culprit behind the scene. The statement of the Concern Group points out that since whether the mastermind of the case has been arrested or not is still unknown ― this was put in a most cautious manner ― it is hoped that the police will continue to spare no effort in investigating, uncovering the truth, and identifying the real culprit of this assault case that happened in broad daylight.

As a matter of fact, we are rather worried. A magazine has carried a cover report on the incident. It points out that "Hatchet men have been found but not the black hand". What does the latter part of the heading refer to? It refers to the worry that the police will stop probing or become slacken in their investigation. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary will give an account to the public today. With regard to the detection rate mentioned by the Secretary, may we ask what actually is the so-called detection of a case. Is an arrest of the assailant considered detection of a case? What were the instances in the past? If an arrest of the assailant is regarded as detection of a case, how do the police handle the cases not yet detected? Are they shelved for a period of time before being put in the freezer and left unattended? The public certainly hopes this is not the case. Just now Secretary LAI said that there was no 100% detection rate in the world, and that 30% of the assault cases in Hong Kong remained to be detected. Ms Emily LAU is very meticulous. She has found and listed in her amendment a number of cases not yet detected. Coincidentally, the cases related to the media remain to be detected. What actually is the current status of these undetected cases? Are the police sparing no effort in their continuous investigation, or have they shelved them or placed them in the freezer?

It is said that we often relate such incidents to journalistic work, which is tantamount to passing a judgment before trial; and that to consider the Kevin LAU case is related to journalistic work is irrational based on such deduction. I do not intend to argue over this here. I also consider such argument unnecessary. I hold that the public knows whether this is related to journalistic work, and whether there is a reasonable doubt. When Members suggest this direction, the police will not object to carrying the investigation in this direction. Regrettably, the Commissioner of Police Andy TSANG made an inappropriate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8723 remark. A number of Members have said today that he indicated the assault was still under investigation and the police would not rule out any possibilities. As to the question of whether this is related to journalistic work, he said that at the moment there was no direct evidence indicating the case was related to journalistic work. Why did he repeat the word "direct" several times at the press conference? Did he wish to make people think that there was an inside story regarding the attack on Kevin LAU? Was it because he was secretly afraid of something, or was it a slip of the tongue, or was it because he did not wish the case to be related to journalistic work?

He could have said there was no evidence indicating the case was related to journalistic work. He could also have said he would not rule out that it could be related to journalistic work. But he opted for the worst way of expression. A Member said it might be a public relations blunder. If this is the case, he should voluntarily admit he was wrong and apologize in the first instance. However, I bet he will not do so. Today, when he attended the meeting of the Southern District Council, he said that with regard to the attack on Kevin LAU, the former chief editor of Ming Pao, the police or he himself had never ruled out any possibilities.

I remember that the former Commissioner of Police TANG King-shing had tender apologies on three occasions during his office, and was mocked as "Sorry Sir". But he replied by saying that to make an apology was a show of commitment and responsibility, because the prerequisite of performing police duties was winning the trust of the public. The current Commissioner of Police Andy TSANG has also a famous remark. In March 2011, he said that an apology was something of a fantasy. Today, I do not wish to argue whether he should tender apologies, or whether he should step down as suggested by a Member. I only hope that the Government will spare no effort to track down the assailants, instead of presenting to us figures with a view to making the public feel that Hong Kong has never been so safe.

Thank you. I so submit.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, on the 26th of last month, like Honourable colleagues in the Chamber here, I was listening to the Budget speech of the Financial Secretary, when I received news that Mr Kevin LAU, 8724 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 former chief editor of Ming Pao, was seriously wounded in a knife attack. This incident came out of the blue and I believe most colleagues, like me, were shocked and outraged by this.

Hong Kong has always been a safe city with a low crime rate. But this time, the assailants brutally attacked an unarmed man in broad daylight, in flagrant defiance of the law. They were atrocious indeed. Hong Kong society cannot tolerate this kind of violent acts, and no one, especially no journalists, should be intimidated by and be subjected to violence. The brutal attack on Mr Kevin LAU is not only a challenge to the rule of law in Hong Kong, but has also challenged the bottom line of society.

In the wake of the incident, there was a strong reaction in public opinion, and all newspapers and members of the media, irrespective of their standpoints, issued statements to condemn the violence. The "Protest against Violence" march organized by several media organizations was joined by nearly 10 000 members of the press, political figures and citizens. This reflected people's great concern about the incident, about Mr Kevin LAU, and about press freedom, and demonstrated that violent acts against journalists would not be tolerated. No matter what the motives were behind the assailants' attack, in the face of such a brutal act, Hong Kong people will certainly unite and condemn such naked and brutal atrocity in the strongest terms.

President, journalists who report the truth conscientiously and abide strictly by journalistic ethics should have the right to work without fear. Society also has the responsibility to provide them with a safe environment, so that they can work without worry. Last week, we heard that there was a breakthrough in the case. The police said that two suspected assailants had been arrested in Dongguan, and nine others involved in the case arrested in Hong Kong, showing a certain degree of efficiency in the police investigation. As for the reasons behind the attack, which Mr Kevin LAU and all Hong Kong people are most anxious to find out, Secretary for Security LAI Tung-Kwok said that the police do not exclude any possibility for the motive, including whether it may have been related to Kevin LAU's journalistic work.

President, I do not know Mr Kevin LAU personally. But from many colleagues and reports, I have learnt that Mr LAU is a gentleman. Most people do not believe that he has made enemies, and we tend to think that the attack may LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8725 have something to do with his work and the reports he has written. In any case, until the truth comes out, there will continue to be different speculations in the community. As far as I know, Mr CHEUNG Kin-po, the current chief editor of Ming Pao, has collated their relatively sensitive reports over the past year and handed them to the police. That is why I personally do not wish to make too much speculation. I just hope that all relevant parties can provide more leads to the police and assist in the investigation, so that the truth will come to light as soon as possible.

In fact, there are many possibilities as to why Mr Kevin LAU was attacked. Currently, the case is still under investigation. I hope the police can make extra efforts and identify the mastermind behind this incident, in addition to the assailants. Apart from protecting people's lives and property, they should demonstrate their determination to protect freedom of the press and the freedom of expression, and ensure the personal safety of journalists, in order to quell the anxiety of journalists and Hong Kong people, ensure that Mr Kevin LAU's attackers are brought to justice, and boost the morale of journalists.

President, next, I wish to respond to the amendment moved by Mr Gary FAN. I agree that the investigation of crimes is the duty of the police, and that the Force should spare no effort to track down the assailants and bring the mastermind to justice, in order to be accountable for the case. I also appreciate Members' anxious wish to find out the motive behind the incident. However, the investigation into a criminal case takes time. It seems a bit impractical to set a detection deadline for the case. For this reason, I do not agree with Mr FAN's amendment. I will support the original motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG and the amendment proposed by Ms Cyd HO. Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity today to wish Mr Kevin LAU a speedy recovery.

I so submit.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, on 26 February, Mr Kevin LAU, the former chief editor of Ming Pao, was attacked and suffered serious injuries. While his condition is no longer critical, he will have a long recovery due to the great bodily and mental harm done to him. Even though I am not acquainted with Mr LAU, those who know him all praise him for being a gentleman and a professional, ethical media worker. We deeply deplore the attack on Mr LAU. 8726 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

No matter what the motives were, we cannot tolerate such a vicious attack in broad daylight and using violence to flagrantly challenge the rule of law.

Mr LAU is a well-known figure in the press sector. In January this year, Mr LAU drew public attention in the replacement of chief editor by Ming Pao. Since the scandal involving his replacement as chief editor and the attack happened in such close succession, people would inevitably link the two incidents together and make all sorts of speculation and association. This is understandable. However, until the whole truth comes to light, it is irresponsible to those involved and to society if we speculate on the reasons behind the incidents, and draw conclusions in the media about the motives of the incidents without any facts to support them.

Recently, two suspects related to the attack on Mr Kevin LAU were apprehended in the Mainland and handed over to Hong Kong. So far, 11 suspects have been arrested for connection with the case. In the span of two weeks between the attack and the arrest of suspects by the police, there is now a major breakthrough in the case. I support the original motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG expressing shock and outrage about the incident and condemning the acts of the assailants. There are now obvious leads in the case. I hope all parties will give the police the space required to investigate the case without interference, so that the truth will be uncovered as soon as possible, in order to ally the public's doubts. Until the police have come to any conclusions, we as Members of the Legislative Council should not make any unfounded speculations, or join the denounciation of the Commissioner of Police for his remarks, thus moving the focus and affecting the police's investigation into the truth of the incident.

President, in recent years, there have been various attacks on media operators and journalists. CHEN Ping, the publisher of iSunaffairs Weekly, Jimmy LAI, owner of Apple Daily and SHIH Wing-ching, owner of the daily am730, were attacked or threatened. However, there has been no progress in these cases and the assailants are still at large. With Mr Kevin LAU seriously wounded and the attack on two senior executives of the Hong Kong Morning News yesterday, the personal safety of media practitioners is under threat. They live in fear and worry that harm may come their way too, and that freedom of the press will be in peril due to the acts of violence. Under these circumstances, I hope that while conducting an investigation into Mr Kevin LAU's case at full LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8727 steam, the police will not give up their investigation into the series of cases in the past, and bring the assailants to justice.

Lastly, I wish Mr Kevin LAU a speedy recovery, and hope that all pending cases will be cracked and the truth uncovered very soon.

President, I so submit.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, on the 26th of last month, a brutal attack on a media executive took place. Mr Kevin LAU, the former chief editor of Ming Pao, was slashed six strokes in the street. The incident sent shock waves through the press sector. In addition to political and economic control and self-censorship, Hong Kong journalists are now engulfed in the threat of violence. Their situation has never been so dangerous. During the Republic of China era, LIANG Kai-chao said, to this effect, "In my view, newspapers have two great missions: one is to monitor the government, and the other is to guide the people." Standing at the front line of society to monitor the government and guide the people, journalists make enormous sacrifices in defending the people's right to know and social justice. The brutal attack on Mr Kevin LAU is a threat to journalists and to all Hong Kong people. We strongly condemn the brutal acts of the assailants and the mastermind, and wish Mr Kevin LAU a speedy recovery and resumption of normal life.

After the bloody incident, international media with high credibility mentioned in their reports Ming Pao's earlier collaboration with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) on the investigation of the offshore assets of senior officials of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Later, the Global Times, the CPC mouthpiece, pointed out in an editorial to this effect: "Some members of the opposition in Hong Kong have linked the attack on LAU with specific reports in Ming Pao, suggesting that he met with this fate because he had offended senior Mainland officials. This kind of unfounded, premature conclusion of the case in the media should be condemned." Whether a coincidence or not, many in this Chamber have made similar remarks. The editorial added, again to this effect, "Their objective must be to play up the impact of the crime by emphasizing the sensitive identity of the victim, in order to arouse doubts and cause commotions in Hong Kong … By not being swayed by "speculations" with clear political inclinations before the case is cracked, [the Hong Kong community] would be hitting back at those responsible for the crime." In order to exercise tight control over every sector of society and to hold 8728 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 on to power, totalitarian governments will resort to blocking the free flow of information, which will naturally arouse the people's suspicion. The CPC's intervention in Hong Kong's internal affairs is obvious to all. By making clumsy denials, the editorial in the Global Times all but admits such intervention.

Ever since LEUNG Chun-ying, an underground CPC member, came into office, we have seen a multiplication of different kinds of threats to the media. After the issue of solicitors' letters by "689" (LEUNG Chun-ying) to threaten the press and commentators and the lifting of advertisements by a large number of Chinese enterprises, we now have armed attacks on journalists. The entire press sector is threatened by white terror. Who caused it? Who is responsible for it?

After the attack on Kevin LAU, many Hong Kong people are asking questions like "Am I still living in Hong Kong?" and "Why has Hong Kong come to this?". Actually it is pointless to ask those questions. Do they realize it only today? Everyone knows the answers to those questions. But are we ready to face and deal with them? This is the critical point.

There was a famous saying in the student movement in France in 1968: "If you're not part of the answer, you're part of the problem." At this moment, Hong Kong society and the Hong Kong press are in peril. If we continue to turn a blind eye to this series of suppression, fantasizing that the problems will be resolved in their natural course, we are deceiving ourselves. Then, we will become part of the problem, and accomplices of the totalitarians. We must have the courage to face up to the reality that the totalitarians are trying to control the press, and that someone is trying to create white terror to suppress freedom of the press and the freedom of expression. We have to conscientiously wake up other Hong Kong people and unite in defending our "freedom from fear", and stand up against the gangsters infringing on our freedom.

On the third of this month, journalists organized a "Protest against Violence" march, in which 13 000 people took part. One of the organizers, the Press Coalition Against Violence, submitted a petition and 30 000 signatures and comments to the Government. Outraged marchers dressed in black hoisted banners saying "We are all Kevin LAUs" and "They Can't Kill Us All". These are all customary protest methods and may not be able to exert enough pressure in terms of public opinion. The resistance in Hong Kong is weak and ineffectual. The "peaceful, rational, non-violent, no-foul language" approach of the moderate pan-democrats is to blame. Most disgusting of all, Mr Albert HO and Ms Emily LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8729

LAU, former and current Chairman of the Democratic Party, posed for photographs at the Central Government Offices and made a V sign for victory. They should be ashamed of their frivolity before the journalists who monitor the government, guide the people and risk their lives for the truth. It was outrageous behaviour. What does this V sign stand for? How could they make a V sign, when someone was almost chopped to pieces?

Lately, Ming Pao has been going through stormy times. In February, Kevin LAU was replaced by CHONG Tien-siong, the pro-establishment chief editor of the Malaysian Nanyang Siang Pau daily. It was followed by the attack on Kevin LAU. Early this month, Maria TAM, head of the delegation of Hong Kong Deputies to the National People's Congress, suddenly declared ― actually she did not declare, but "boasted" during a meeting with ZHANG Dejiang ― that she would step up her "co-operation" with Ming Pao, publishing articles to explain Mainland affairs, and "advertise the major policies of the Central Government". Whether Ming Pao can continue to uphold the public's right to know and social justice hinges on whether the journalists can persist in their posts.

In my view, the journalists at Ming Pao should escalate their action and go on strike to protest against political, economic and internal control. When they return to work, they should strengthen their investigative reporting to slam the bigwigs, and issue a clear message against white terror. Otherwise, they would just end the protest as a matter of ritual, such as signalling that an interim victory has been won in view of the large number of people who have turned up, and asking everyone to clap their hands. It is the same old story every time. But tomorrow is another day. How could you put pressure on the officials like this?

If the Hong Kong press really feels that a storm is looming, can the electronic media stop broadcasting news for one day? Can the print media stop publishing for three days? They can't, right? That means they quail. It is just like this motion. We discuss it as a matter of ritual and it will be passed, whether we vote or not. No one will say it is wrong to condemn violence. The Members who proposed amendments have their own views and try to put pressure on the Government. But it is useless. Whether they can crack the case or not depends on their capability. But even if the two hatchet men are arrested, prosecuted and convicted, what good would it do? It would not dispel Hong Kong people's misgivings (The buzzer sounded) … Thank you, President.

8730 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, like all Members seated in this Chamber, I sincerely wish Mr Kevin LAU a speedy recovery. At the same time, I hope and urge that the police will step up their efforts on this case so that the truth will be uncovered early.

No matter what the motives are, we should condemn any kind of attack, and the assailants and mastermind involved should be brought to justice, and not be allowed to get away with it. However, there are now many comments that are obstructing the investigation, such as speculations over the motives, or Mr Ronny TONG's suggestion that the Commissioner of Police should resign for making an inappropriate remark. If we apply the same standard to Mr Albert HO, who made the mistake of viewing some amusing photos during a Council meeting, I believe it would win recognition of the public.

President, the motion today seeks to urge the public and this Council to take press freedom seriously and demand that the assailants be brought to justice. I do not think anyone would oppose this. However, that some Members deliberately shifted the focus to attack a remark made by the Commissioner seems to me to carry clear political considerations. When I told colleagues and members of the public about this feeling of mine, they also shared my sentiment. Those perceptions have become something like "common sense", which Mr Kenneth LEUNG referred to earlier. How the public perceive the incident is described as common sense. But since when has our society governed by the rule of law accepted common sense as proof or testimony?

President, I have carefully reviewed the news footage of the Commissioner of Police on the day the incident happened. The comment made by the Commissioner was to this effect: "We do not dismiss any possibilities at present. But at this stage, based on the information we have, there is no direct evidence to indicate that the incident was related to journalistic work." Actually, on the day the incident happened, the Commissioner already said that they did not dismiss any possibilities. Hence, what Mr Kenneth CHAN suggested earlier is not true. The fact that the Secretary for Security later reiterated that no possibilities were dismissed at present was not a slap in the Commissioner's face, since the Commissioner had already said so himself. That no possibility is dismissed is an important element of an investigation, especially at the initial stage. Some might think that the investigation could have yielded results very quickly if the police had focused their efforts on certain directions earlier. But we must note LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8731 that if they categorized the case or drew a conclusion on it too early, they would be dismissing other possibilities, which would only restrict or limit the work of investigation.

Hong Kong is a society where the rule of law prevails. Evidence is the most important pillar under the law, especially when it comes to criminal cases. For this reason, the Police Force in charge of the investigation must not allow common sense to replace testimony or evidence. They can only work hard to collect evidence, investigate the case, and use the evidence on hand as the only guideline. It is the only method to conduct meticulous investigations. That is why I think the comment made by the Commissioner, who represents the investigating agency, was totally appropriate that day.

President, in this Chamber today, many Members have attempted to use "common sense" as a weapon to do harm to the Commissioner of Police. It is also a kind of political attack that should not be encouraged. Actually, this will only stir up unnecessary complications, and prevent the police from focusing on the case. It is most harmful and has no merit at all. I hope Members will refrain from quibbling over the details. Instead, we should urge the police to investigate the case meticulously and uncover the truth as soon as possible, or even assist, encourage or support them in their investigation. Thank you, President.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, I have been acquainted with Kevin LAU for two decades. In 1994, I happened to visit Germany together with him, who was already a journalist, to study the political system there and other matters. As regards the current motion debate, I support the amendments proposed by Ms Claudia MO and Ms Emily LAU.

I would like to respond to Mr KWOK Wai-keung's earlier remark. The Commissioner was actually doing something uncalled for. His first remark to the journalists was that no possibility was ruled out at the time, which should have suffice as a remark. Yet, he intentionally added that there was no evidence indicating it was related to journalistic work. If what he meant was that no evidence had been found at the time concerning the relevance to journalistic work, the remark would have been different. Hence, in his subconsciousness, he 8732 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 deliberately wanted to play down the relationship between the incident and journalistic work. Mr KWOK Wai-keung's accusation of us is that highlighting the Commissioner's remark at this moment would prejudice the investigation. On the contrary, in my view, if we do not highlight the Commissioner's remark, it would prejudice the investigation.

In fact, either the victim (that is, Kevin LAU himself) or his family has ruled out the factors of illicit affairs or money. A lot of Members here may also be acquainted with Mr Kevin LAU, who leads a simple life. There are reasons for Members to believe that after ruling out the abovementioned reasons, the incident is definitely related to his work ― since he is a journalist, so the incident is certainly related to his work or news reporting. The logic is as simple as that.

As for the Commissioner's deliberate remark that no evidence was found for its connection with the press at present, I would like to ask the Secretary, has the Commissioner found any evidence indicating that the incident is unrelated to the press? Perhaps the answer is "no", either. At this stage, no evidence has been identified as to whether the incident is related to the press or not. Given the Commissioner's remark, which contained just half of the message, did he convey subconsciously that he wanted to play down the relationship between the incident and the press? Does it prejudice the investigation? What did his subordinates think after he had made that remark? Regarding the ongoing investigation, did he hint to his subordinates the direction of investigation? If the direction is wrong, the investigation will deviate further. It is like the missing Malaysia Airlines plane, which may have flown to the Indian Ocean, but the team just keeps searching in the sea off Vietnam, so they of course end up with nothing found given the wrong direction they have taken.

Therefore, at this stage, we have to look at the matter seriously. Ming Pao has handed to the police scores of news articles which they claimed may have offended others, and called for police investigation. The Commissioner made the remark in his capacity of a political appointee vested with political responsibilities. I am not sure if he is carrying out a political mission ― actually I am even not sure if he is called a political appointee, but at least he is a principal official appointed by the Central Authorities. He is a civil servant but not an accountable official, but I am not sure if he has any hidden political mission.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8733

President, the situation facing the news media is unprecedentedly critical. It is more than a severely cold winter. It can be likened to the Ice Age. As for freedom of the press, I believe this year's ranking may drop by dozens from 60th or so to outside of 100th, which is really a shame to Hong Kong. A year or so since the inauguration of the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration, I am not sure if any of the international ranking has gone up, and what Secretary LAI as a principal official would feel about it. What can be done for Hong Kong's freedom of the press ranking to regain its original position?

The freedom of the press ranking is important. Regardless of what we say about promoting economic development, such ranking is still essential to every advanced country or economy alike. When has Hong Kong become so awful that journalists are subject to violent intimidation? I recall that the day when Kevin LAU was slashed, we convened a press conference where Ms Cyd HO, our Honourable colleague, particularly noted that the risk of being slashed that Mainland journalists have to face should not spread to Hong Kong. No sooner had that remark been made that two persons in charge of a soon-to-be-published newspaper were beaten up today.

Secretary, the alarm is loudly ringing. We need not only put off the fire, but also do it quickly. The detection of a single case is not enough, since 12 cases are pending on the table, right? Which cases can be detected? I believe that undetected cases will remain as they are. The Government may just be reluctant to detect cases like the one involving The Epoch Times, as well as the load of cases mentioned earlier, like those involving CHEN Ping and Jimmy LAI.

I am not sure how the Secretary feels about these cases, what strategies he has in place, and what resources he will deploy to protect journalists or media practitioners in Hong Kong from having to work under intimidation. We note that many from the younger generation work for news media with great passion. In terms of remuneration, journalism may compare unfavourably with all other sectors, yet they still engage in it to pursue their goals or aspirations. Nevertheless, what they may not expect is that their families can be subject to intimidation, and that the work would even put their own personal safety at stake.

I hope our security forces under the Secretary's leadership can make a name for Hong Kong. Apart from demonstrating his determination, he really has to deliver. I so submit.

8734 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, I am very concerned about the case of attack on Mr Kevin LAU, the former chief editor of Ming Pao. The day of 26 February this year is no doubt a day of darkness for Mr Kevin LAU, and marked the very day on which the perpetrators mounted an open challenge to the rule of law in Hong Kong. That is indeed scandalous. I am deeply heartbroken by the violent crime happening in such broad daylight, and I strongly condemn the assailants' atrocity.

A few days ago, two suspects who had been at large were transferred to Hong Kong by the public security authorities on the Mainland. The progress made in the case in just two weeks' time can be attributed to the highly efficient detection effort made by the police throughout the days, as well as the co-operation effected by the Mainland's public security units and the Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department in locating the suspects and arranging for their transfer, which I believe is a key in the rapid progress made. Therefore, here I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation for the efforts made by the Hong Kong Police Force and the Mainland law-enforcement units in this respect, and wish that the former will keep working towards a speedy detection of the case.

Hong Kong is a society where the rule of law prevails. Article 5 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights stipulates that "everyone has the right to liberty and security of person". The use of violence for whatever reasons is unacceptable, and such universal core value should never be trampled upon. Violence not only endangers Hong Kong people's personal safety, but also tarnishes the territory's image. Regarding any illegal or unlawful act of violence, we hope that the police can expeditiously bring the assailants to justice to uphold the rule of law and ensure peace for Hong Kong.

Mr Kevin LAU, the victim of the attack, is a media veteran. Some people may associate the incident with freedom of the press in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, according to what the police have uncovered at this stage, it seems that an equal sign cannot be drawn between the two. President, of course, I hold that Members should not make any speculation in this regard at this stage, since doing so may be unfair to the parties concerned. In any event, freedom of the press is a core value of Hong Kong that we are determined to uphold.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8735

Freedom of the press is named the "fourth estate" or "monitoring power" in addition to the executive, the legislature and the Judiciary. Article 27 of the Basic Law stipulates that "Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication". The media play the essential roles of monitoring the Government, overseeing the work of the Government and reflecting the true picture of society, and so on. Hong Kong is a free society where freedom of the press is one of the indispensables. Recently, members of the press went hand-in-hand to voice their strong protest against violence, and many, including me, were moved by their concerted action. Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of Hong Kong that must be protected and upheld.

President, in every country and region, the personal safety of its people should be protected under the local law. Those who illegally harm others are subject to due punishment, which is a significant manifestation of the rule of law in a society. The violent attack in question not only marks a regression for a civilized Hong Kong, but also sounds an alarm awakening our society's concern over violence of any kind. The condemnation against the assailants by different parties of society in one voice demonstrates the care and support that the community as a whole dedicates to Mr Kevin LAU, as well as its strong desire to defend the rule of law in Hong Kong.

Here, I would like to wish Mr Kevin LAU a speedy recovery and extend my warmest regards to his family. At the same time, I hope that the police will keep exerting their utmost in following up the case, so those who intimidate others with violence may understand that the use of violence on others is punishable under the law and considered despicable by society as a whole.

President, I so submit.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, it is meaningful for this Council to discuss a motion on the attack on Kevin LAU today, because Mr LAU will undergo a second operation. Given the complications that arose in the course of his recovery, he made a most lamentable remark that everything might have to start afresh, because these might be the reason why his injured legs would need a bit longer time to recover.

8736 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

It is also a special day in that two consecutive motion debates of this Council, namely the motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance dealt with previously and the motion in question, are both related to freedom of the press.

When Kevin LAU was transferred to work for Ming Pao website in January this year, we took this as the onset of a cold winter for journalists, because a well respected former chief editor of the newspaper was unreasonably replaced by CHONG Tien-siong, who comes from Malaysia and is unfamiliar with Hong Kong. Yet, the ensuing developments turned even worse one after another.

The dismissal of LI Wei-ling shocked people throughout Hong Kong. Several public assemblies were then held to condemn Commercial Radio as well as the intangible pressure the Government exerted on the radio station over its licence renewal. Nevertheless, something more terrifying happened towards the end of February, when Kevin LAU was slashed. As he put it, he originally thought that the attack was merely a kind of intimidation aimed to silence him. Yet, as his attending doctor said, it was fortunate that the knife was blocked by his bones, otherwise every one of the slashes could be fatal.

When has Hong Kong become like this? What is more agonizing to us is not the Kevin LAU incident per se. Instead, it is the attitude demonstrated by the Government as well as the Commissioner of Police in handing the incident that we think is more terrifying.

Those acquainted with Mr Kevin LAU should know that he graduated from the HKU Faculty of Law. If he had chosen to work as a lawyer of any kind at the time, I believe he would probably have had a better income, an easier life, a higher social status and brighter prospects than now as a newspaper executive or a member of the media.

He turned his back on the legal profession and joined the journalist sector with a view to realizing his personal goals and aspirations for more than two decades. He is a rather unsophisticated learned man. I happened to meet with him only once or twice, so I am not familiar with him. But from those familiar with him, I learn that he is a simple man, a typical intellectual or learned man. His family is also a very simple one free of financial disputes, and there is no LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8737 rumour of him being involved in other disputes or illicit affairs, and so on. Anyone who has some common sense may have inferred that the harm inflicted on him is related to his occupation.

Over the past year or two, Ming Pao under his chief editorship has covered a number of breaking news stories, including Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying's unauthorized building works, and unceasing reports on the countless instances of corruption on the Mainland, especially those involving the princelings. Much has been mentioned by Members who spoke earlier in this regard, including a featured report on the princelings he worked on with a global research unit which alleges that the graft involves an amount in excess of US$3,000 billion. According to the report, the grafters have deposited the money at the British Virgin Islands. No one knows if the attack on him has anything to do with his joint effort with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists because, despite the arrest of the two suspects, we all know how easy it is for any traid society to hand in two scapegoats. The Secretary should not be unaware of this.

Hence, I believe that the truth may never be uncovered. Perhaps what Commissioner Andy TSANG said is right, given the impossibility of finding out the truth. Given the huge influence of the mastermind who plotted to hurt him, the party's identity will not be revealed easily. Yet, this is exactly why the slashes were inflicted not only on the body of Kevin LAU alone, but also on all members of the media as well as Hong Kong people.

Coincidentally, two respected figures in Hong Kong's legal sector, namely Justice Andrew LI and former Secretary for Justice WONG Yan-lung, expressed worries over freedom of the press in Hong Kong one after the other. The two, one a former senior official and another a former justice, have worked for government authorities for a long time. They are not the same as us in the sense that they will not easily call for safeguarding freedom of the press. While they saw it as way over board, the SAR Government just turns a blind eye to it. This makes me think of an ensuing report by the Global Times, which calls for Hong Kong not to make uneducated guesses. There is so much similarity between them.

Members should recall the fates of LAM Bun and DENG Tuo, the latter being a distinguished chief editor of the People's Daily in the 1960s. Members 8738 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 should understand that the press is always full of dangers. Nevertheless, we should not give up because of this. We must defend freedom of the press, and we hope to see more Kevin LAUs who are not going to be intimidated.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

MR DENNIS KWOK: President, the brutal attack on Mr Kevin LAU is a brutal attack on press freedom. It is a brutal attack on our rule of law; it is a brutal attack on our civic conscience. The attack on Mr Kevin LAU is a brutal attack on a gentleman, a gentleman who has dedicated his lifetime's work to journalism; a gentleman armed with nothing but the pen, the mightiest of swords, a sword which Mr Kevin LAU has fearlessly wielded against the powers that be, time and time again, without fear or favour, fulfilling his professional obligations. And these, in his eyes, are the sacred duty of a journalist.

Yet, a gentleman of his calibre, of his standing, was left lying in his own pool of blood on the side of a pavement, fending for his life, fighting to survive after those cold and heartless blades had cut through him without mercy. At the very same time, Mr Kevin LAU's attackers have also cut through the fabric of our society, the bond which binds us all.

But make no mistake about it. The attackers and the people behind it will not win. Indeed, they will find that this brutal attack has only brought out the fineness in our society; the fineness in Hong Kong; the fineness shown in the love and care that were poured out towards Mr Kevin LAU and his family; the fineness shown in the solidarity and the right-thinking members of society uniting behind Mr Kevin LAU; the fineness shown in the civic consciousness that was aroused in protecting and defending our core values.

The rule of law cannot survive in isolation. No matter how independent our Courts are, no matter how independent our legal profession is, there can be no rule of law without our fundamental rights and freedom intact. That includes the freedom of expression, the freedom of thought and the freedom of the press. These rights and freedoms are the manifestation of our civility, without which there can be no society to speak of. This is why an attack of such nature is an attack on the very foundation of our society. It is an attack that affects every single one of us as members of the community.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8739

Let us be frank. Members of the press and those in public office, those in political positions, have always enjoyed, or rather not enjoyed, an easy relationship. But today, we have seen Members from different sections of this Chamber speaking out for Kevin LAU, speaking out for press freedom. Why is that so? I believe ― I hope ― it is because we know that the freedom and rights we speak of in this Chamber today transcend us all. We are the servants and guardians of these core values, holding them on trust for our next generation. If we allow these attackers to damage these core values to our freedom through their cold and brutal blades, we let them damage our most important legacy for our children, for our next generation. That, they will not succeed. This is the message that they must hear from us.

Let all members of the press, all members of the community know that we shall join them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in Hong Kong. And, let every other power know that this city intends to remain the master of its own house. If we hold true to our values and to our freedom, we shall observe not a victory of the rule of law, but the celebration of freedom. These freedoms shall be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.

Last but not least, our hearts and prayers go out to Mr Kevin LAU and his family. May we wish him a full recovery and a speedy return to the work and life that he loves. May his pen continue to wield against the powerful for the truth, and may it continue to shine for press freedom in Hong Kong and in this country.

Lastly, if I may quote from Psalm 34 as a prayer for Mr Kevin LAU: "The righteous person may have many troubles, but the Lord delivers him from them all; he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken. Evil will slay the wicked; the foes of the righteous will be condemned. The Lord will rescue his servants; no one who takes refuge in him will be condemned.".

Thank you, President.

8740 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): President, when I went after government officials in this Chamber for answers to certain issues or cases in the past, I had often heard that they were not in a position to make any reply for the cases were under investigation or the judicial process had already begun. As such, I have been very hesitant as to whether I should speak on today's motion and I look forward to hearing how the Secretary for Security and Secretary Raymond TAM are going to respond to a case under investigation.

I have heard what Mr Dennis KWOK said earlier, and I felt that it was similar to a scene in the movie Young and Dangerous. He said that the suspected assailants who were arrested were actually people found by the "big brother" of a triad society to take the blame. But, no matter what happened, this is a most unfortunate and sad incident. Mr Kevin LAU, the former chief editor of Ming Pao was madly slashed six strokes in broad daylight by the assailants at the end of last month. He was badly injured, hospitalized and only barely survived. Fortunately, though Kelvin LAU is of the quiet scholarly type and does not appear to be very strong, he managed to report the case to the police on his own and was taken to the hospital by ambulance men who soon arrived at the scene.

As a matter of fact, this incident has caused a furore in the whole territory. It has caused not only concern among members of the press, but also caused the police to be highly concerned, deeply shocked the public and given rise to much discussions. Many people have speculated on the reasons why the assailants had been so blatant as to slash a scholarly journalist six strokes in broad daylight. Some people speculated that it was related to his previous journalistic work, some think that it was related to freedom of the press, and we have learnt from his family that this has nothing to do with financial, extramarital or other personal disputes, thus it can be said that opinions greatly differ. Some people have speculated whether it was due to the fact that he has condemned others both in speech and print, said too much, said something wrong or not pleasing to their ears in the course of his previous work and thus caused the knife attack? All in all, there were a lot of speculations and many bold assumptions. However, I hope that everyone would not make indiscriminate rash judgments, leaving it to the police to investigate and uncover the truth of this incident.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8741

Hong Kong is a civilized society where the rule of law prevails and any act of violence will not be tolerated. Many government officials have rightly said and we agree that one act of violence is too many. Therefore, the police must be resolute in combating violence; otherwise, Hong Kong will become a violent and disorderly society with no social tranquillity and popular disquiet. In fact, violence is not the best solution to problems and those who have committed crimes will eventually be punished by the law and brought to justice. Even if they can manage to escape from arrest and punishment for the time being, they will certainly have a guilty conscience and will not find any peace in their sleep or waking hours.

The police has expeditiously arrested a number of suspects 10 days or so after the incident and, with the co-operation of the Mainland authorities, two suspected hatchet men were handed over to the SAR Government. I believe that the Government can only make a breakthrough within such a short time is attributable to the large amount of conscientious work done by the police over the past days. To my understanding, the police have searched through a large number of CCTV footages in the course of its investigation and locked on the clues found through the assailants' mobile phones. And the present outcome has been achieved only through unravelling threads of evidence round the clock without any sleep or rest. Here I would like to commend the police (front-line police officers, in particular) and pay them tribute for arresting the suspects, hatchet men and accomplices expeditiously. There is no doubt that the police must continue to work hard to get to the bottom of this incident, so that the case can be detected, the mastermind be ferreted out and brought to justice, and let the injured and the public know what was the motive and reason behind the attack, so that members of the community will no longer have to live in fear every day.

However, from this unfortunate incident, we can see that co-operation, not only in economic and cultural aspects, but also in terms of social order and social harmony between Mainland and Hong Kong is very important. As a matter of fact, thanks should go to the public security officers of the Mainland for arresting the suspected assailants within such a short time on the basis of evidence provided by the Hong Kong Police Force this time, and this fully reveals that co-operation is very important.

8742 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

On the other hand, although there is still a long way to go before Kevin LAU can fully recover, I believe that we have to thank the high quality medical services of the medical professionals in Hong Kong for the fact that he can make such satisfactory progress from being on the verge of death to being on the mend after being slashed six strokes and in this regard (The buzzer sounded) … I would also like to pay tribute to the medical team of Hong Kong.

President, I so submit.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, while we debate on the incident of the attack on Kevin LAU, we also learn from media reports that Kevin LAU has suffered complications. He was languid and had a fever last Thursday, but the reason could not be found upon examination. His condition further worsened on Saturday and suffered from cramps in his left thigh muscles, and later, it was found that there was a fist-sized lump on the inside of his left thigh which, upon scanning turned out to be an accumulation of extravasated blood resulting from vascular leakage, therefore, the doctor decided that another surgery had to be performed. Kevin LAU and his wife had struggled over the decision for the stitches in his wound had already been removed and the wound which had basically begun to heal after the surgery had to be reopened again. Consequently, he went through another surgery which was successful, several days ago. After the surgery, he found that everything were back to square one, for the dates for removing stitches, changing foot casts and discharge from the hospital have to be rescheduled all over again. There are ups and downs in our lives and it turns out that the same goes for rehabilitation. Here, we earnestly hope that Kevin LAU will soon recover and we, all the people of Hong Kong, are willing to share the physical and mental pain he is suffering from and hope that he can continue to persevere.

Kevin LAU has written a number of articles on his thoughts and reflections during his recovery from the injuries and the title of his sixth article is "The meaning of suffering and reflections of life", which was written about three days ago, in which he stated his feelings at the time quite clearly. He said that when he woke up in the Intensive Care Unit on the next day after the incident, when he still had difficulties in speaking, he had already struggled to write down three words on a piece of paper, and that was "take a statement", in the hope to fulfil his obligations as one who had reported the crime as soon as possible. When his statement was taken by the police, he agreed to authorize the police to go through LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8743 the records of his two mobile phones, on which the original records of all his communications with different parties, with the exception of protected news sources, over the past several weeks were stored. He did not believe that there would be clues to the attack but at least the police could see that the incident should not be related to financial, extramarital or personal disputes, and can thus concentrate their efforts on investigations with regard to his journalistic work.

However, over the past weeks, we have heard the "Number One Man" of the law-enforcement agency, the Commissioner of Police, repeatedly stress that according to the evidence collected so far, there was no evidence indicating that the attack on Kevin LAU was related to his journalistic work. For this reason, Mr LAU's wife had to come forth again to make another statement and emphasize that they deeply believe that the incident is related to his journalistic work and are deeply puzzled by the remarks of the Commissioner of Police for they are not involved in any financial, extramarital and personal disputes.

Kevin LAU has also made reflections on his life in the same article. He said he has been a churchgoer since teenage and learned that his goal in life should be to glorify God, do good to man and strive to serve others. In the past, he has always thought that service means that he should offer his intelligence, ability and time to do things which are beneficial to the community and through which to glorify God and do good to man. For example, he can bear testimony to the world by studying hard and getting good grades; and for example, he has given up the legal profession that can make more money and become a journalist for pursuing his interest and mission and has also taken as much time as possible out of his work to teach and hold public offices. This is how he strives to serve others, glorify God and do good to man.

I do not know Kevin LAU very well and we are not close acquaintances, but Prof LAM Pun-lee and I have published articles on a number of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University's management problems in the past, and Ming Pao was willing to carry these articles on its frontpage back then. I found that he is a very cautious and careful person with high standards and had asked for sufficient supporting evidence on every specific detail, which in my personal opinion, was already quite clear. He has studied law and though our acquaintance had been very casual, my impression of Mr Kevin LAU was very strong for his standards were often even higher than those of us in the academic circle.

8744 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

A man like him had been subjected to such unfortunate acts of violence. This serious case of violence is evidently a challenge to the rule of law in Hong Kong. The slashes on such a prominent journalist in the brutal attack on him in broad daylight were also inflicted on the freedom of expression in Hong Kong. However, to our surprise, the "Number One Man" responsible for law enforcement had come forth time and again to say that there was no evidence indicating that the incident was related to journalistic work. So what does this imply? Is he thinking of retiring soon and hoping to be appointed as a delegate of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, as in the case of the former "Number One Man" TANG King-shing or the very "marvellous" Timothy TONG? Is it necessary for him to act in a manner which brings his own Police Force into disrepute? As the leader of the law-enforcement Police Force, he has time and again "given himself away" by indicating that "there is no evidence indicating that the attack is related to journalistic work". How much (The buzzer sounded) … harm has he done Kevin LAU and his wife and their family? Thank you, President.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I believe that like me, all people of Hong Kong were deeply shocked when they learnt about the attack on Kevin LAU, the former chief editor of Ming Pao. I believe Kevin LAU and I should belong to the same generation for I was attending The Chinese University of Hong Kong when he went to university in 1986. As a matter of fact, many fellow students of my generation also joined the journalistic profession back then.

Yesterday, LEI Lun-hun and LAM Kin-ming, two senior executives of the Hong Kong Morning News, were also attacked. Though they are not very well-known to the public at this stage, that they were attacked made me wonder again why such incidents have happened again and again. Regardless of how many possibilities there are, I believe any person of reason will think it is likely that the series of attacks is related to their journalistic work. I think that this is a very reasonable concern and, frankly speaking, will this not make public figures like us who have often voiced our opinions feel a chill down our spine? I believe that such feelings are unavoidable. No matter whether the attacks are serious or not, I think they are unacceptable to the whole territory. We also hope that the police will arrest the assailants and masterminds behind the attacks expeditiously.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8745

In fact, Kevin LAU and I may not necessarily see eye to eye with each other in terms of our political views, and during the time when I ran in the election, Ming Pao devoted a lot of coverage to reports on "going after" me ― as described by my supporters, and I was even unjustly criticized in some of the reports, but I do not hold any grudges against it. From the perspective of journalistic work, what I think the most important is that their statements should be based on facts, but it is unavoidable that their comments will be biased in some measure by their personal political views. As Edward SNOWDEN has said, Hong Kong is a place where there is most freedom. We value this freedom greatly and though people may have different views, the most important point is these views can be respected, something which must be protected in Hong Kong now. According to the news reports, regardless of the fact that the Hong Kong Morning News is not a pro-pan-democrat or pro-opposition newspaper while Ming Pao may be more pro-pan-democrat, the senior executives of both newspapers were attacked. I think Hong Kong people should really ponder together over what exactly is happening.

The press is the "fourth estate" in Hong Kong, and journalists are truly "uncrowned emperors". Actually, I have also been through very hard times. When I proposed to amend the Legislative Council Ordinance in 2011, I came across an article which said that many members of the media, in particular, commentators who supported the pan-democrats had decided to "go after" me. A senior independent member of the media wrote an article in which it was said that a "pursue and attack order" had been issued by the media to "go after" Priscilla LEUNG and I was really puzzled for that was the first time I saw people using a "pursue and attack order" in association with the media, and this made me feel that the media was very powerful. However, I reckon that I have already survived those hard times and do not wish to think about those things again because I think everyone will eventually understand after going through certain experiences. I am sharing these views with Members in the hope that friends of the media will really work together with the people of Hong Kong to protect freedom of the press, and hope that freedom of the press will be respected by all parties and groupings.

Today, Joseph LIAN Yi-zheng wrote in the Next Magazine that the Hong Kong Economic Journal seemed to have taken "an about-turn" for it has published a series of articles written by those, including me, in the pro-establishment camp. I think that this statement is very unreasonable, simply based on political speculations, and it is another case of slinging mud at other 8746 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 people. I believe that even if we have made contributions to the Hong Kong Economic Journal, we actually do not know how long we have to wait before approval will be given for the articles to be published. Therefore, I feel that they should not suddenly say something like this at a time when people in the whole territory, regardless of their affiliations, should speak up whenever newspapers operators encounter treatment which we regard as totally uncivilized, not in line with the social system of Hong Kong and the spirit of the rule of law. Hong Kong people … please do not unjustly criticize other people again ― as Joseph LIAN has listed a number of people, I must read them out ― on the contrary, there is one thing I hope the media will do ― my friend has specifically told me ― for example in the case of Rafael HUI, a newspaper journalist had gone to his church and recorded the contents of a prayer for him. This is really very offensive to many religious people and as I was the first one who criticized such act in a high-profile manner, I was afraid I might have "offended" some newspapers back then, but I earnestly hoped to find out at that time whether members of the press would come forth to criticize such action in a high profile? Though, I failed to see such actions back then, I hope they will do so in future.

In fact, as regards what happened to Mr Kevin LAU, Ms LEI and Mr LAM, can those of different political parties and groupings and friends in the press be united as one to give people an impression that we value freedom of the press most highly, instead of giving people the impression that there are problems with the ethics of our journalists? We hope that the ethics of the journalistic industry will be on par with that of doctors and lawyers. Instead of targeting on the political views of individuals, their reports must be based on facts. I had been through a lot during those six months and had seen many shocking news reports. As such, I very much hope that the journalists of Hong Kong can really earn the support and respect of all Hong Kong people, and I also hope that our Police Force will step up their efforts in arresting the assailants. But I do not agree with Mr Gary FAN's request on setting a deadline. I think that the Hong Kong Police Force have already worked very hard, and he should not turn the gun against the Secretary for Security or the Police Force because they are working with us together.

I hope that this incident can bring about solidarity among Hong Kong people and that we can work together to protect freedom of the press in Hong Kong. I also hope that freedom of the press should belong to everyone, instead of just to certain groupings or parties (The buzzer sounded) ― President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8747

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

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, this Council has debated on freedom of the press for five consecutive years since 2009. Apparently, Article 27 of the Basic Law provides that Hong Kong residents shall "have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication", but the fact is, freedom of the press has been under great threat since the reunification of Hong Kong. According to the latest World Press Freedom Index Report publicized by the Reporters without Borders in February 2014, Hong Kong has fallen from the 58th place in the last year to the 61st place. And compared to the 18th place, when Hong Kong was first ranked in 2002, it has drastically fallen by 43 places within a span of 12 years and it can be said that there is no lowest but only lower ranking. We do not know to which place we will fall next year? An alarm has long been sounded on freedom of the press, but the majority of the people have yet to become aware of the seriousness of the threat. The case of attack on Mr Kevin LAU, the former chief editor of Ming Pao has evidently reminded us again that the price for freedom of the press can be very heavy.

Acts of violence targeted at journalists in Hong Kong had also happened in the past, and these included cases in which Mr LEUNG Tin-wai, former publisher of Surprise Weekly and Mr Albert CHENG, a former programme host of the Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited (Commercial Radio) were attacked and injured, but though handsome rewards were offered, these cases remain to be detected. Such cases of violence have not only posed serious threats to freedom of the press, but also challenged our rule of law and civilization. Personal safety is a basic human right: Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person". The masterminds of the attacks have intended to intimidate the press and create white terror in the community. However, some people have claimed after the attack that it does not politics, and Andy TSANG, the Commissioner of Police, even said at the press conference on announcing the arrest of the assailants that "there is no direct evidence indicating that it is related to journalistic work". The police discovered that the two suspects were acting on contract and the investigation has not yet been completed. Moreover, Kevin LAU has also handed over the communication records on his mobile phone to prove that he is not involved in any financial, extramarital or other personal 8748 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 disputes. Though the suspected assailants have been arrested, the truth has yet to be uncovered. However, members of the public must be wondering why Andy TSANG had so eagerly indicated at the start of the investigation that "there is no direct evidence indicating that it is related to journalistic work", and we are also wondering why the Commissioner of Police, the head of a law-enforcement agency, should find it necessary to emphasize so hastily that the attack is not related to journalistic work. What are the reasons?

At noon today, we learnt about another attack on two senior executives of the Hong Kong Morning News, which preparations are now being made for its publication, in Tsim Sha Tsui by four men wielding iron pipes. This is another incident of senior executives of newspapers being attacked in the public in 21 days since Kevin LAU was slashed and injured on 26 February. Is there any end to such attacks? Is there any way to protect the safety of journalists?

Many people have speculated that the attack on Kevin LAU is related to his work with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) on the investigation and report on the assets flow of Mainland senior officials and their families. The mission of journalists is precisely to report the truth and expose corruption and it is also the reason why freedom of the press is indispensable. Power corrupts and those in power can easily abuse their powers in the absence of supervision. If the Government is to be effectively monitored, in addition to the implementation of democratic governance and separation of powers, we also have to rely on monitoring by the media. In fact, freedom of the press is the most concrete manifestation of the freedom of speech and political freedom, but journalists must enjoy personal safety in order to fulfil their missions.

For this reason, no matter how much Thomas JEFFERSON, the founding father of the United States of America, hated the press for their slanders, ridicules and attacks on him, he did not hesitate to choose the latter when he had to choose between the government and the press, for he deeply believed that freedom enjoyed by the people was built upon freedom of the press; and any restrictions on freedom of the press would eventually make people lose their freedom. Thomas JEFFERSON's great foresight was evidenced after his death. The media had played a very important role in monitoring the government over incidents like the Panama Canal and the Watergate scandals and in promoting the development of civil society.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8749

When the freedom of the press of a place is restricted and when journalists have to worry about their personal safety every day, government will inevitably tend to be corrupted, and the community will be inevitably be permeated with fear and conspiracy theories. Today, when we find it difficult to make the next step in our democratic development and when the rule of law has increasingly been attacked, things will come to a dreadful pass if we lose freedom of the press.

As a teacher for more than 20 years, I have a profound understanding of the interdependent relationship between the press and the education sector. Both the press and education are indispensable elements for promoting the development of civil society. Both journalists and educational workers have been striving to give full play to independence and freedom of thought. Similarly, all these should not be subjected to any form of political interference or threat. By exposing social injustices and upholding the public's right to know, journalists can exercise reasonable checks and balances on the Government; and by disseminating knowledge and developing the ideological and moral qualities of our next generation, educational workers can nurture good citizens. As such, the functions of the two are similar though their approaches are different. Therefore, from the perspective of an individual or the entire government alike, a proper job should be done on both aspects.

President, on the one hand, the greatest threat to our existing core values has emerged from public powers; but on the other, a more significant and greater threat has emerged from our tolerance, silence and indifference. Freedom of the press cannot be defended by a single newspaper or just a group of journalists. But such protection requires the concerted efforts, especially under the lead of the Government and this Council. We will definitely not tolerate violence. I hope that one day, violence can (The buzzer sounded) …

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

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): … be removed from the political arena of Hong Kong.

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

8750 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, the freedom of speech is the foundation of all freedoms and it is protected and guaranteed by freedom of the press, but right now freedom of the press in Hong Kong is in great peril. I am very grateful to Ms Emily LAU for compiling this list, and for listing the 12 incidents in her amendment to the motion. From the 12 incidents listed by her, we can see that four of them happened in 1996, 1998, 2005 and 2006 respectively and the number suddenly increased drastically to eight in 2012. So, what exactly happened in 2012?

Hong Kong has formally entered the era of LEUNG Chun-ying's governance in the latter half of 2012 and from then onwards, a series of attacks began. Firstly, damage was done to the office of the Hong Kong In-media; on 3 June 2013, CHEN Ping, the founder of iSun Affairs was savagely beaten on the streets and I still remembered that we had held a press conference together at that time; in fact, as early as back in those days, such violence acts had already lit a red light on freedom of the press. On 19 June in the same year, the residence of Jimmy LAI was criminally damaged; on 26 June, a large number of Apple Daily was burnt in an arson attack; later the car of SHIH Wing-ching, founder of am730 was criminally damaged. A number of similar incidents had repeatedly occurred and eventually led up to the attack on Kevin LAU. Each of the six slashes inflicted by the assailants on him has been inflicted on freedom of the press and on all journalists in the territory as a threat.

The first debate today was on a motion moved by Ms Claudia MO under the Legislative Council (Power and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the incident of Ms LI Wei-ling of Commercial Radio, and we then moved on to discuss the attack on Mr Kevin LAU, the former chief editor of Ming Pao. Both incidents show that our freedom of the press is now facing great threats. The LI Wei-ling incident which we talked about earlier and the other series of incidents, which certainly includes the earlier incident in which the chief editor of Ming Pao was replaced, have all shown that once the capital and the boss of a business have been controlled, the boss would naturally exercise self-censorship if he wants to do business with the Mainland, and his employees, the journalists, can do nothing but strive hard to persevere.

Money is already very terrible and its power has now been given full play, and this is definitely related to LEUNG Chun-ying. The reason being, in the earlier incident of the Standard Chartered Marathon, it was rumoured that after he LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8751 had refused to officiate at its opening ceremony, threats were made on withdrawing advertisements from certain newspapers. I do not rule out the possibility that some people may say that I have rich imagination, but all these were reported by the media in the whole territory, something which everyone have talked about. The other side of money is blood, which is even more terrible, and it seems that someone is waiting to see how long these journalists can hold on under the threat of violence and blood. The press is now relying on journalists to sustain, but how can they still hold on when it has now come to a point where violence was committed and blood drawn?

There is no doubt that Kevin LAU himself has been a great encouragement to all journalists and he has used his own example to encourage all people of Hong Kong. I remember that he has said in a recorded speech to the effect that: "'with the truth in our hearts and pens in our hands, we will be free if we are selfless and fearless', the media can only make a real impact by using the pen in its hand if it holds fast to integrity, the truth and justice, and people can enjoy freedom if only they can be selfless and fearless. The purpose of violent attacks is to make us fear and we will lose our freedom if we are scared. I hope all journalists will have no fear and believe that justice will be done. We have to do our duty selflessly and fearlessly and our freedom can only be upheld if we write down the truth with our pens." No one said it better than Kevin LAU himself, and this message is undoubtedly the biggest encouragement to all journalists in Hong Kong and he uttered these words in pain, in the hope that journalists can continue to persevere.

What made me most sad is that this is an era which calls for heroes and the fact that journalists are required to become heroes made me even sadder. Has Hong Kong really fallen to such a state that it cannot protect the lives and personal safety of journalists, that violence has spread in the community to threaten the pens in the hands of journalists or even stab a knife at them? Though journalists have been very brave and shouted out loud that "They can't kill us all" and declared that they were not afraid, it hurts me to think why this era has given journalists the feeling that they are at the front line on the battlefield and has got them into such a sorry plight?

However, the police have also made people very disappointed for Andy TSANG has, to our surprise, said that the assault on Kevin LAU is not related to his journalistic work. Although some people said that you, the Secretary, seem to have slapped the Commissioner of Police in his face by saying that we cannot 8752 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 rule out the possibility that this incident is related to journalistic work, I think the Secretary should not only slap him once in the face, but also terminate his services! How can the "Number One Man" of the Police Force jump to conclusions arbitrarily and said that the incident was not related to journalistic work when the truth has yet to be uncovered? What kind of behaviour is that for a professional police officer? If the Commissioner of Police has set such an example of only looking at things from a political perspective, how will officers under his command be able to perform their duties? What will the entire Police Force become? Therefore, he definitely has to be fired and the public can only be appeased if this unprofessional Commissioner of Police steps down.(The buzzer sounded) …

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

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): … Thank you, President.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, the attack on Kevin LAU has made everyone very shocked and sad. And, I am also very much aggrieved after hearing what Members have said in this debate.

President, I remember that many people were very happy on receiving the news that the suspected assailants had been expeditiously arrested by the police and were proud of the fact that the Hong Kong Police Force have mobilized all the manpower and done a lot of work to arrest the suspects so expeditiously.

Some Members including Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan have questioned the remark made by the Commissioner of Police at the press conference that there was no direct evidence indicating that the case was related to journalistic work and thus created a great storm and said that someone should be fired. In fact, many Hong Kong people think that even if the case was not directly related to his journalistic work, it will still be indirectly related. Mr LAU and his wife have also said that, in principle, they are not involved in any personal, financial or extramarital disputes, and suspected that the attack may be work related. And, Ming Pao has also been collecting all sensitive materials to see if it is work related.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014 8753

Since everything is now still under investigation, do you expect the police to come out and say that it has been proved that the assault was definitely related to journalistic work, and demand the suspects to admit to that. Do you want the police to say that? As Members of the Legislative Council, how can we say such things in this Chamber? I have learnt from news reports that the defence lawyers have already claimed that the confessions of the suspects were forced by the Government. Why did that happen? However, we are very clear and all Hong Kong people know that the Government is now dealing with this matter and the police have made every endeavour to follow up the case. Every member of the public is concerned about this incident and hopes that the case can soon be detected. Therefore, I hope that the police can crack the case as soon as possible, and I would also like to pay them tribute for arresting the suspects expeditiously.

President, a number of Members have talked about freedom of the press today. I also remember that Ms SHAM, chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) has said that in the 32 years she has worked in the press, this is the gravest time for freedom of the press in Hong Kong. I do not know how old is Ms SHAM? However, when we talk about 30 years, everyone is well aware that Hong Kong was under the rule of the British-Hong Kong Administration 30 years ago, so how can the present situation be worse than that of the British Hong Kong era?

Mr SHIH Wing-ching, founder of am730 has said that the reality is the media has become more daring in criticizing the Government after the reunification of Hong Kong, for at least there is no meddling from the Special Branch. All old editors in Hong Kong can verify and tell you that freedom of the press in Hong Kong may now be at its highest point in history. Everyone knows that no Hong Kong media was so bold as to condemn the British Royal Family in the colonial days. Who would be so daring as to condemn the Government? No one.

Come to think about this. Nowadays when we turn on the radio every morning, we can hear people criticize the policies and performance of the Government; when we turn the pages of newspapers, we can see that the selling point of all mainstream media is basically to condemn the Government. Sometimes, many government officials of the SAR Government are really criticized very severely. What is amusing is that some people have taken to the streets and shouted that there is no freedom of the press in Hong Kong.

8754 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 20 March 2014

CHEUNG Kwai-yeung, a veteran journalist, has said that the biggest crisis for Hong Kong newspapers at the moment is not the replacement of chief editors or self-censorship, but that no distinction is made between facts and comments.

Ms POON Lai-king, the former deputy editor-in-chief of the Next Magazine has also said that she appreciates the concerns of Hong Kong journalists, but "the most basic professional code for journalists is to speak in terms of evidence".

Therefore, President, I only hope that there will be freedom of the press in Hong Kong. Many of those of us who are now present grew up in an environment where there was freedom of the press and we hope that freedom of the press can continue to flourish. However, an important statement in Article 3 of the Code of Practice of the HKJA states that: "journalists should endeavour to ensure that the disseminating of news is fair and accurate, and refrain from treating comments and speculations as news and to avoid creating false information through distortions, partial selection or false quotes."

I so submit. Thank you, President.

SUSPENSION OF MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It is now barely past 10 pm, and I believe there are other Members who would also like to speak on the motion. I now suspend the meeting until 9 am tomorrow.

Suspended accordingly at two minutes past Ten o'clock.