LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5475

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 23 March 2017

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

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

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG#

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

# According to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court on 14 July 2017, LEUNG Kwok-hung, Nathan LAW Kwun-chung, YIU Chung-yim and LAU Siu-lai have been disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legislative Council, and have vacated the same since 12 October 2016, and are not entitled to act as a member of the Legislative Council. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5477

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

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

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI

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

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN

5478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

THE HONOURABLE NATHAN LAW KWUN-CHUNG#

DR THE HONOURABLE YIU CHUNG-YIM#

DR THE HONOURABLE LAU SIU-LAI#

MEMBERS ABSENT:

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.

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

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

# According to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court on 14 July 2017, LEUNG Kwok-hung, Nathan LAW Kwun-chung, YIU Chung-yim and LAU Siu-lai have been disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legislative Council, and have vacated the same since 12 October 2016, and are not entitled to act as a member of the Legislative Council. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5479

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

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

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

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

MR RONALD CHAN NGOK-PANG, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

5480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning. Debate on motion with no legislative effect. This Council will now deal with the motion debate on "Ensuring the fair conduct of the Chief Executive Election".

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

Before I ask Dr YIU Chung-yim to speak and move the motion, I would like to remind Members that the Chief Executive Election will take place in a few days. The Election is regulated by law to ensure that it is conducted openly, honestly and fairly, and the purpose of this motion is to ensure that the Election be conducted under fair conditions. Therefore, Members must take note of the requirements provided by the election legislation and guidelines.

To avoid affecting the fair conduct of the Chief Executive Election, Members should focus their speeches on how to ensure a fair conduct of the Election and express their views on the election system. Members should not disseminate messages that may be seen as causing or obstructing the election of any candidates or may achieve a similar result. Specifically, during the debate Members should not name names or imply that they support or not support any candidates; they should not comment on the merits or demerits of individual candidates; they should not comment on reports or hearsays that are unsubstantiated but may cause or obstruct the election of any candidates; and they should not display any objects that may achieve the aforesaid effect.

If I consider that the speech of any Member will have an impact on the fair conduct of the Chief Executive Election, I will remind the Member not to make such comments. If the Member ignores my instruction and continues to make such comments, I will ask the Member to stop speaking.

I now call upon Dr YIU Chung-yim to speak and move the motion.

ENSURING THE FAIR CONDUCT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ELECTION

DR YIU CHUNG-YIM (in Cantonese): President, fellow Members, the election of the fifth Chief Executive of Hong Kong will take place in less than 72 hours. As Hong Kong people demand a fair election system free from any interference, I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5481 propose: "That this Council requests the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to ensure that the 2017 Chief Executive Election be conducted under fair conditions; this Council also urges the various departments of the Central People's Government not to interfere in the Chief Executive Election, including but not limited to causing a certain candidate to be or not to be elected, or pressurizing members of the Election Committee into making voting decisions against their own wills."

To our great regret, at present we do not have the power of civil nomination in Hong Kong, and only 1 194 people have the right to vote in this coterie election. As the election system is already unfair in itself, if even the election is not conducted fairly, it is a dereliction of duty on the part of both the Chinese Government and the Hong Kong Government.

Prof MA Ngok, a local scholar, published an article titled "Fair conduct of election and stability of the regime" in 2015, in which he quoted the findings of a study conducted by Pippa NORRIS, a political science scholar, on democratic election. According to the findings, people's impression of the fairness of an election is very important, so much so that it will influence their attitude towards other political issues, including their recognition of a regime, their satisfaction of the government's performance and their attitude towards political participation, and so on. People's discontent may come from: unfair distribution of resources, such as a certain camp's monetary resources far exceed that of its opponents; media partiality to a certain candidate, normally it means the ruling camp gets more coverage and more positive comments; and blatant election fraud and manipulation. If members of the public think that an election has been manipulated, they will be relatively more reluctant to abide by the rules of the game laid down by the government and the national assembly, making governance even harder.

Moreover, it is pointed out in the Decentralization and Local Democracy in the World: First Global Report published by the World Bank in 2008 that intervention of the central government in the democratic election of the district government, by means of appointing the leaders and council members of the district, controlling the political decision of the district, prior examining the candidates to ascertain approval, and so on, is harmful to democracy and to good governance of the district government.

5482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

Article 22 of the Basic Law provides that "[n]o department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law." Apart from Articles 13 and 14 of the Basic Law which stipulate that the Central People's Government shall be responsible for the foreign affairs relating to and defence of Hong Kong, no other provisions permit the intervention in any of the affairs of Hong Kong by the Central Authorities.

As regards the legislative intent of the Basic Law, in 1993, the People's Daily quoted the words of LU Ping, the then Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council. He clearly stated that the Central Government would not interfere in the constitutional development of Hong Kong as long as it was made with the endorsement of the Legislative Council and the consent of the Chief Executive, and "reported to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for the record, and approved by the Central Government is not required". This indicated that the original intent of the Basic Law was that constitutional affairs were Hong Kong's internal affairs; by the same token, since the constitutional system was an internal affair of Hong Kong, the turnover of government officials should also be protected under Article 22 of the Basic Law and should not be interfered by the Central Authorities.

It is a shame that since the start of the election campaign of the Chief Executive, many press reports have pointed out that a number of Mainland officials have made comments that crossed the line. In a press report on 2 February, when a candidate was asked whether pro-establishment members of the Election Committee ("EC") have received incessant phone calls from the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") asking them to change their stance, the candidate responded that there was no ground to ask LOCPG to stop canvassing on his/her behalf.

On 7 February, it was reported in the press that ZHANG Dejiang came south and told political leaders and businessmen about his support for a certain candidate in a high-profile manner. On 2 March, it was reported in the press that a certain candidate said that there was nothing wrong for LOCPG officials to express views on this election. On 7 March, another newspaper reported that when ZHANG Dejiang attended a committee meeting of the deputies of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to the National People's Congress, he said directly that the Central Authorities had the right to be concerned with the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5483 election of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong and the Central Authorities would impose a higher standard on the election of the Chief Executive.

The aforesaid responses and some non-groundless news, some of which even claimed to be originated from Beijing, all indicate that the Central Authorities are trying to influence the election. We have heard of four theories. The first is the theory of "red light". It was reported in the press on 1 December last year that at the nomination stage of the election, it was widely rumoured that a person intending to run for the Chief Executive was barred by LOCPG, as Beijing did not give the green light for his candidacy. Despite such reports, the Central Government did nothing to dispel our suspicion. On the contrary, as the Election Day is getting near, it continues to make comments supporting a certain candidate. As such, Hong Kong people have a stronger feeling of Beijing favouring a certain candidate and manipulating the whole election.

The second is the theory of "photo-taking of ballot papers". On 2 March, another press report said that LOCPG exerted greater pressure when nomination ended. In order to ensure that a certain candidate would win the election by a large margin without losing some ballots, it asked EC members to take a photo of the ballot paper they cast as proof. Although Raymond TAM, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, later reiterated at a Legislative Council meeting that the voting process was confidential, we do not see any measures taken by the Government to ease the people's mind or to ensure that the election is free from political pressure; neither are there any guarantee that EC members would not take photos of ballot papers during the voting process.

The third is the theory of "fingerprint examination". According to another press report on 3 March, when the voting was over, all ballot papers would be sent to the Mainland for fingerprint examination to identify for whom EC members voted. Although the Registration and Electoral Office made a clarification later, all EC members are all on tenterhooks.

The fourth is the theory of "non-appointment". Another press report on 5 March reported that if the candidate elected was not the one favoured by the Central Government, that candidate would not be appointed. Such a remark has totally disregarded the constitutional crisis, coercing EC members to vote according to the will of Beijing to ensure that its favoured candidate would be elected. Despite the prevalence of such a theory, the Beijing Government has never made public the criteria for not appointing the Chief Executive-elect, for example, the Chief Executive-elect is convicted of the offence of corruption. 5484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

For authorities with the power of not appointing the elected candidate, clear criteria should be laid down for the purpose of self-restraint, so as to gain the public's confidence in the fairness of the election. Without the criteria for not appointing the elected candidate, it will only give people the impression that the Central Authorities are exerting pressure on EC members by threatening not to appoint certain candidates.

Hence, I hope the Hong Kong Government and also the Central People's Government will ensure that the 2017 Chief Executive Election be conducted under a fair system, so that Hong Kong can elect the new Chief Executive fairly and justly and that the new Chief Executive will be able to lead Hong Kong back onto the right track and prevent society from further tearing apart.

With these remarks, I move the motion.

Dr YIU Chung-yim moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That this Council requests the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to ensure that the 2017 Chief Executive Election be conducted under fair conditions; this Council also urges the various departments of the Central People's Government not to interfere in the Chief Executive Election, including but not limited to causing a certain candidate to be or not to be elected, or pressurizing members of the Election Committee into making voting decisions against their own wills."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Dr YIU Chung-yim be passed.

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

I will call upon Members who move the amendments to speak in the following order: Mr Charles Peter MOK, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Paul TSE, Ms Starry LEE and Mr Alvin YEUNG; but they may not move the amendments at this stage.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5485

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, this morning, right at the beginning of this meeting, you have spent a lot of time explaining to us in great detail that Members should not say this and that; we should not indicate support for or opposition against a certain candidate to be elected, so as to avoid undermining the fair conduct of the election. President, what you said was so right and agreeable, but I do hope that you will find some time to repeat the same words to the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG").

In this Chief Executive Election, intervention of LOCPG has accelerated and is the most intense of all time, both in terms of duration and intensity, and intervention started much earlier and more in-depth. Furthermore, LOCPG had tried to avoid having more than one candidate, such as someone may not get enough nominations to stand for election. Regarding the background and details of these facts, I think members of the public should have a clear picture, notwithstanding what argument and explanation may put forth later on. We may also tell people's attitude towards this election and their impression of the candidate being manipulated. Nobody likes to see a candidate, who willingly becomes a puppet, being elected, but the fact is that members of the public do not have the right to vote in this election, so they are not going to like this candidate.

From this Chief Executive Election, we may also notice another feature, and that is a reflection of the people's power as well as their sense of powerlessness. Let me first talk about the sense of powerlessness, it means our inability to elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote". As I am pretty sure Members of the pro-establishment camp will put forward the following argument, so let me say it out loud first. They will surely say that the reason why we cannot elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote" this time is due to the pan-democratic Members' vetoing of the constitutional reform package back then. However, they will be silent on the fact that they had not even cast their votes. More importantly, they will not mention the details of the 31 August framework, but will merely stress the fact that we cannot vote. This tactic has been employed a number of times within these few weeks. Notwithstanding that, we are obliged to remind members of the public that under the 31 August framework, a person seeking nomination is required to obtain endorsement of more than half of the members of the nominating committee. In other words, even if the person seeking nomination has a popularity rating as high as 56% or even over 60%, as evident from the present election, he will not be able to run for the election, and he simply will not be allowed to enter the race.

5486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

On Monday, an audience phoned in a radio programme. He said that in the past, he did not quite understand what had happened, all he knew was that some people voted down the proposal for Hong Kong people to elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote". However, the ongoing election process has opened his eyes and he finally realized what has happened. We, seven members of the Professionals Guild, displayed some signboards on the streets to express our opposition against the intervention of the Chief Executive Election, but the signboards have been vandalized, which is indeed very common. Most ridiculously, a member of the New Territories District Council placed a signboard in the designated location next to ours, and pointing at our signboard, he asked members of the public to bear in mind that we were the ones that disabled Hong Kong to elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote". If we had not opposed, Hong Kong could vote now. This is so ridiculous. Some Members of the pro-establishment camp even took pictures and then uploaded them to the Internet to share with other people. And yet, people have sharp eyes. What is written in their posts is meaningless; the comments are most important which are self-explanatory. Members of the public are not fools.

In this Chief Executive Election, even our Honourable colleague failed to secure nominations to stand for the election. If the 31 August constitutional reform package was really passed, we should be able to choose from "CY 2.0" or "CY 3.0" or "CY 4.0" by "one person, one vote". This election is most educational in that it fully reflects the shortcomings of the 31 August framework. This is why people have a sense of powerlessness. On the other hand, however, the election has also demonstrated people's power. In the Election Committee ("EC") election held on 11 December, colleagues of the Democrats 300+ had swept all seats in a number of subsectors, including education, higher education, legal, social welfare, IT, health care, etc., the success achieved was unprecedented. Although we had encountered some obstacles in certain subsectors, such as Chinese medicine, we still managed to get the first-ever seat. The key is unity, solidarity and unanimity.

LOCPG had intervened in the EC election but not the Chief Executive Election at the outset, but this is certainly nothing new. Either the Legislative Council election or other elections, there were in-depth interventions. Owing to solidarity, we managed to win a small battle on 11 December, which might be of great significance. The impact of this battle on Hong Kong for the next five years is that LEUNG Chun-ying will not be re-elected. When it comes to nomination, we are well aware of the importance to nominate strategically. As LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5487 we have stated, nomination and voting can be separated. Under the control of LOCPG, the pro-establishment camp can only nominate candidates who claim to be "CY 2.0", so in order to increase competition, we have to make sure that the candidate with the highest popularity can enter the race. We did it. We have done our best to strategically fight against manipulation and intervention, hoping to offer a glimmer of hope for Hong Kong people that the candidate who is genuinely supported by Hong Kong people and will not continue to tear Hong Kong apart will be elected as the Chief Executive

In less than 70 hours, the election will be held. Most of our team members have announced that 98% of the votes would go to the candidate having the highest popularity. In the coming few days, members of the social welfare, accounting and medical subsectors will also announce their voting intention. For the pan-democratic camp of a very broad spectrum, it is not easy to attain solidarity and this is attributable to people's power. Now it all depends on the election to be held on Sunday. Will EC members of the pro-establishment camp vote according to their conscience, respecting what Hong Kong people think, believe and support? Or, do they have another more important master to serve?

We are so glad that in this election, the pan-democratic camp is so united. This bottom-up solidarity is built on the need to foster a consensus and resist interference. What kind of authority do we 300-odd democrats have to bundle our votes? On the contrary, the pro-establishment camp is willingly to bundle their votes. I know that the Central Authorities is eager to see a unified Hong Kong, then why don't various political parties and affiliations, including the pan-democratic and pro-establishment camps, take this opportunity to genuinely unite Hong Kong people and listen to their aspirations? When can we have a candidate who can genuinely unite Hong Kong people? When can we have a unified bottom-up political force?

If the Central Authorities or Members of the pro-establishment camp really comes across such a candidate, please give Hong Kong people an opportunity to make their own choice as they are already deprived of the right to vote. Even if there is no universal suffrage, please do not interfere in EC members' voting decision. Though there is no much time left before the election, I still want to get this message across to LOCPG. It has been a long time since Hong Kong people are so full of hope, so eager to get something, so desperate to resolve 5488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 dissension and so anxious for harmony in the next five years. Do they really want to disappoint more than half of the population of Hong Kong? How can someone rule without popular support?

President, I certainly support Dr YIU Chung-yim's original motion and some Members' amendments, but I must point out that the amendments proposed by Mr Paul TSE and Ms Starry LEE have removed a very important part from the original motion, and that is, "this Council also urges the various departments of the Central People's Government not to interfere in the Chief Executive Election, including but not limited to causing a certain candidate to be or not to be elected, or pressurizing members of the Election Committee into making voting decisions against their own wills." I have no idea why they think this part has to be concealed.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Five years of governance by LEUNG Chun-ying, five years of catastrophe; many Hong Kong people are most worried that LEUNG Chun-ying's line of governance will continue for five years. Red terror is prevalent in this small-circle Chief Executive Election due to the strong influence of "Western District" ruling Hong Kong.

President, you have reminded Members at the beginning of the debate that their remarks should not affect the equity and fairness of the Election as far as possible. When I listened to an interview on Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") this morning, I heard Mr WONG Kwok-kin from the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") talk about his views and those of FTU on the three candidates and their voting inclinations. I really do not understand how a person who is a Legislative Council Member and also a member of the Election Committee can casually express his views on RTHK, a public radio station, while we are subject to unknown prohibition in the Legislative Council. I hope that the remark just made by the President is not self-censorship or even self-castrating the rights to speak in this Council.

On the strong influence over this Chief Executive Election, everyone is aware of the red influence coming to the south from Beijing. Some demand for evidence; Dr YIU Chung-yim has just shown us a catalogue, the so-called evidence is only a one-sided statement. Some have also said that the person LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5489 involved is anonymous and only casual remarks are made, what is to be afraid of? Once a Beijing leader asked Hong Kong people, "What are you afraid of?" But we are really afraid.

At one time, someone mentioned the frightening phone call in the middle of the night, but that is still a one-sided statement; has anyone confirmed the occurrence of such an incident? Has anyone denied such an occurrence? However, this kind of feeling and the political atmosphere of our society are really bad. Is there any strong influence from "Western District" or from the north? Both you and I are aware of that, and we do not need to name names. Regarding small-circle election, even in the case of the election of a class prefect, of the three students running for election, if the most popular student is not elected but the least popular student is elected, isn't the election manipulated by the class teacher? Things are crystal clear.

There is also a saying, if the democrats think that the whole thing seems to be a done deal, why do they still make comments? We just cannot give up fighting, "If you fight, you may not get it; but if you don't fight, you will never get it"; "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely".

While we are talking about "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy", why do some people keep talking about "'Western District' ruling Hong Kong"? Mr WONG Kwok-kin said this morning that "Western District" referred to civil servants of the Central Government and they conveyed the messages and intentions of the Central Authorities. This is most horrifying. What are the intentions and messages of the Central Authorities? If the intention of the Central Authorities is to get certain candidate elected, but they have spread the message that appointment will not be made, an election might as well not be held, and announcement be made instead: We prefer a certain person to be the next Chief Executive of Hong Kong.

Does "Western District" really have no influence on politics in Hong Kong? Their practice is in contravention of Article 22 of the Basic Law. For example, rumour has it that Mrs Regina IP visited "Western District" before the results of the Legislative Council election was announced. She initially denied but she later admitted that she just went there to give a book. However, nobody knew what actually happened. In 2012, LEUNG Chun-ying visited "Western District" to express his gratitude after he was elected the Chief Executive; do Members still remember such a scene?

5490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

I used the word "Mainlandization" in my amendment and I defined "Mainlandization" as fake, greedy and abuse of power. Fortunately, I believe there is no fake vote in Hong Kong for the time being; there is no such thing. Nevertheless, greedy does not necessarily involve pecuniary or substantial interests, but the interests derived from power and deferred interests. Abuse of power is known to all; some large projects are implemented suddenly, apparently to pave way for a certain candidate; a "good fighter" indeed.

"Mainlandization" involves intangible relationships, and we all know that it is associated with all kinds of interests. In Mainland China, the Chinese term "關係" cannot be literally translated into connection or relationship. The Oxford Dictionary has simply used the transliteration "Guan Xi", meaning mutual interests. You scratch my back and I scratch yours; the political ecology is to give different treatment to people of close and distant relationships and gang up to make money together. Guan xi is integrated into politics and involves small circles among intimate small circles. How unbearable is that!

We really have to prevent the election in Hong Kong from being "Mainlandized". In a word, the so-called "Mainlandized" election is an election with anticipated results. Before the election is held, and we do not have to count down and say that there are more than 70 hours to go before the election, the election result is already known. What is the point of holding the election? Of course, this is a known fact, do I only realize by now that this is a small-circle election? Buddy, don't go too far. Messages unfavourable to other candidates have now been spreading around, and these messages may probably originate from Beijing. Do Members think this is fair?

In response to a question raised by Members from the pro-democracy camp, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau stated that when the election is held on Sunday, the venue arrangement and security arrangements, including a 2.5 m high barrier, will ensure that nobody can peek at the electors. The original CCTVs in the venue will all be removed beforehand, which eases my mind a little. On that day, electors are not allowed to talk with one another or make comments; it seems that the venue should be quieter than the court. Although the authorities disallow photo-taking in the venue, some smart watches can still take photos which worries me. The authorities also require that mobile phones should be put away; but will each elector be given a smart watch to take photos after he has voted? Such action will not be easily noticed. Do the authorities have any countermeasures?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5491

The main point of this motion is that Hong Kong people would like to enjoy "a high degree of autonomy" and this "high degree" cannot be continuously suppressed. We oppose "'Western District' ruling Hong Kong". Thank you, President.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, in ancient times, people waged wars for political powers. Later when civilization sets in, people hold elections instead. If elections are wars, it is a game of every man for himself, and people will stop at nothing just to win.

Surely, we do not want something like this to happen. That is why as society progresses, certain restrictions or ground rules, or even stringent laws will apply. If a place is more civilized, a better election culture or some so-called conventions will be developed such that people will know clearly what things cannot be done. This is exactly the answer to the question raised by Ms Claudia MO a moment ago. She queried why Mr WONG Kwok-hing, a former Member, could say whatever he wanted on a radio programme, while incumbent Members must be bound by certain restrictions. It is because the Legislative Council is a place where very high standards must be observed. More importantly, the law provides that speeches made by Members in Council are protected by immunity. Even if the statements we made have contravened the relevant electoral laws, it is unlikely that we have to bear any civil or criminal liabilities. That is why we should exercise even greater self-discipline.

Speaking of self-discipline, it is precisely the crux of our motion debate today. In my opinion, all parties concerned must exercise self-discipline. In other words, our action should not comply with the most basic requirements or in strict accordance with law, but we must also exercise self-discipline. Hence, I consider that all parties concerned, be they the Beijing Government, agencies of the Beijing Government in Hong Kong, agencies of foreign governments in Hong Kong, media moguls, religious leaders or even academics, must to a certain extent exercise self-discipline other than mere compliance with the most basic rules and laws. The greater the influence of a person, the higher the standard he should set for himself in terms of being law-abiding and exercising self-discipline.

Of course, we have seen some brilliant practices lately. Take for example, the remark on the fable of Nuwa who patched up the sky with coloured stones. This is a clever way of expressing views about the upcoming election 5492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 without actually breaching the laws or crossing the bottom line of acceptable commentary under our election culture. On the other hand, some practices are more unconventional or unorthodox, such as the saying that the Central Authorities have the power not to appoint the Chief Executive-elect, or that not supporting a particular candidate means acting against the Central Government, etc. In my view, such comments border on dangerous. But of course, it is still a matter of speculation or guesswork as to whether the persons concerned have actually made those comments or under what specific circumstances such comments have been made.

In any case, I think we should obey the law as far as possible. Ideally, Hong Kong should serve as a good example for our compatriots in different provinces and cities of China, so that they will stop resisting democratic elections or thinking that such elections can only happen in Western countries―in fact, it seems that the electoral system in Western countries has been plagued by increasing problems―and that they may even consider the system of democratic election a tool to help our societies become more civilized and advanced. But for us to do so or move towards such a direction, all parties concerned must exercise self-discipline. Otherwise, everything would be in vain.

As I said, elections are like wars, and they have high stakes. That is why different factions of power will stop at nothing to win. Problems relating to election tactics or arising in the course of elections not only happen in the small city of Hong Kong, but also for the presidential election of the United States. During such an election that spanned a long time, many problems have occurred. As we can see in the last presidential election, the race is not only about the struggle for power among local state agencies or traditional political forces, but also the influences waged by Russia or even the allegations involving the Central Intelligence Agency, and so on. That is why it is just natural for problems to occur. But, all in all, the most important principle is that Hong Kong must have the necessary framework to maintain the ground rules.

So far, regarding the so-called dangerous or inappropriate acts reported by the media, I have yet to see any incident which may have contravened sections 13, 14 or 26 of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance. Section 13 is about the use of force or duress against electors to promote or prejudice the election of a particular candidate. Section 14 is about deception or deceptive behaviour. Section 26 is about publishing false or misleading statements. It is clear from past elections of the District Councils, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5493

Legislative Council and the Chief Executive that different tactics would be deployed as the election becomes more important. As far as the present election is concerned, though I consider quite a number of comments have overstepped the line, legally speaking, it seems that there are no substantial evidence so far which necessitates intervention from law enforcement agencies.

After all, President, I think different incidents will happen in different games. In this election, we note that a media mogul's talk about "vote-snatching" may impact on certain members of the public or electors and hence, depriving a certain person of the chance to stand for election. Then there is also the so-called theory of "principles" versus that of "strategy", or the so-called battle between the "principle faction" and the "strategy faction", which again has deprived a certain person of the chance to stand for election. Separately, some academics have tried to organize campaigns or activities or use other means to cause certain things to happen. Some Members of the Legislative Council have inadvertently or unintentionally used the Council's premises for activities in relation to the election, which may breach certain rules. But generally speaking, such incidents are still within the acceptable limits of the law.

Then there is the allegation that the present election exemplifies the impossibility to hold a fair election under the 31 August framework. In this connection, I must point out that different strategies or tactics would be used to play different games. In simple terms, if my understanding is correct, when the 31 August Decision was made, it was envisaged that two or three candidates could secure nominations and stand for election, while each member of the Election Committee or the nominating committee could have two to three choices. Under such a mechanism, the present situation may not happen at all. When people make certain comments, I hope they can bear in mind that different game rules will spawn new game plans. As the previous set of game rules is adopted for the present election, it would of course be contested with a different game plan. That is why all sorts of things have happened.

Criticisms aside, it would be most important for us to act in strict compliance with the relevant laws and avoid overstepping the limits. Hopefully, this election can also set a good example. During the election process, agencies having more powers must act with even greater caution and exercise greater self-restraint, while people or organizations having more influence must exercise even greater self-discipline, regardless of whether they are media organizations, 5494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 religious leaders or even members of councils (including Members of the Legislative Council). Therefore, unlike what Mr Charles Peter MOK said, my amendment is not being partial or titling towards any particular person. I hold that if we criticize one party, we must also criticize the other party, so that both parties are subject to the same set of rules. Such a debate forum or motion would be more appropriate and fairer. That is the general direction of my amendment. Thank you, President.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, just now Mr Charles Peter MOK said that pan-democratic Members would vote in accordance with public opinion this Sunday. I really find this ironic. If public opinion is really so important, decisive and crucial, how come when the constitutional reform package was put to the vote, the opposition camp did not support the constitutional reform package to enable all Hong Kong people to elect the Chief Executive this Sunday?

Today, this Council discusses again the arrangements for the 2017 Chief Executive Election after the last constitutional reform package was vetoed. As today is so close to Sunday, I really have strong feelings. The public originally had a chance to elect the Chief Executive, but as things stand, the upcoming Chief Executive Election remains one in which only 1 200 people are allowed to vote, while the public can only continue to watch from the sidelines. Who deprived the public of "one person, one vote"?

President, the second point I would like to make in response is that as I understand it, and as Mr Paul TSE mentioned just now, under the framework of the 31 August Decision, it is possible to establish through local legislation a secret-ballot nomination process whereby each nominating committee member can cast more than one vote. As far as this election is concerned, even though members of the opposition camp hold 300-odd votes, they claimed at a very early stage that one of the contenders could never secure enough nominations to enter the race. I am afraid this is not true.

I now come back to today's motion. From the sound of it, interference in an election seems to be very serious. I have tried to understand what interference means. I have looked it up in the dictionary, and asked my friends in the legal profession about it. In fact, there are indeed many interpretations of it. Enquiring and meddling may be regarded as interfering. To put it plainly, different people may come to different conclusions about the same remark or conversation according to their respective judgment and feelings. Let me cite an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5495 example. Suppose a concerned mother discovers that her daughter is dating someone, and says to her daughter, "You should not date your boyfriend. He is unambitious and lazy. He will drag you down to his level. You should study hard. You are forbidden to go out tomorrow." The daughter may think that her mother is being completely unreasonable and interfering in her freedom of love. But then, looking at it from another angle, the daughter may say that her mother uttered those words about forbidding her to go out and interfering or intervening in her courtship because her mother actually cared about her. The daughter may also have another feeling that her mother enquired about her situation only out of concern. From this we can see that whether something is an act of interference or an enquiry is actually a matter of subjective judgment.

President, as a matter of fact, many different countries are very concerned about the political environment and major political events in Hong Kong. I believe Members of this Council often receive meeting invitations from different consulates. Such invitations were particularly frequent during our scrutiny of the constitutional reform package. I had had discussions with many consuls in Hong Kong myself, and they asked me many questions and expressed their views on the constitutional reform package.

The 2017 Chief Executive Election is also a major event. And I believe Members of this Council (including me) have often received meeting invitations from different consulates about this event. Just last week, I had a meeting with an Australian consul; during our discussion, we also talked about the upcoming Chief Executive Election. Subsequently, the Consulate General of the United States invited me for a meeting, and the British Consulate-General also insisted on a discussion with me. I believe the Chief Executive Election will inevitably be mentioned during my discussions with them. Can their concern be regarded as interference?

President, we can accept foreign consulates' concern and enquiries about the political situation and Chief Executive Election in Hong Kong, thinking that these are normal; but when it comes to the Central Government, which exercises overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong and has the substantive power to appoint the Chief Executive, why is it infinitely demonized for expressing concern, making enquiries and caring about Hong Kong's Chief Executive Election?

Just as Hong Kong people have expectations and demands for the Chief Executive, the Central Authorities also have expectations and demands for the Chief Executive. This is exactly what the dual responsibility system enshrined 5496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 in the Basic Law is about. Dr YIU Chung-yim has earlier referred to Article 22 of the Basic Law, but he should note that we are now talking about the Chief Executive Election in Hong Kong, which is a special administrative region under the Central Authorities. In other words, the Chief Executive Election is an affair that involves not only Hong Kong but also the Central Authorities. The Central Authorities have both the power and the responsibility to fully understand the situation. In my view, it is sensible and reasonable for the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG"), in its capacity as a Central Government office in Hong Kong, to liaise with members of different sectors in Hong Kong for observation, analysis and expression of views, so as to assess whether different candidates have the ability to govern and are supported by Hong Kong people.

In my opinion, it is really improper to say that if members of the Election Committee ("EC") have talked to LOCPG or received phone calls from LOCPG, it means LOCPG has interfered in the election and pressurized or even forced EC members to make voting decisions against their will. First, this is an insult to EC members. EC members have been constantly lobbied by different parties and kept receiving meeting requests from different stakeholders. If it is said that EC members will make voting decisions against their will after talking to such persons, this is an insult to all EC members. I do not believe that EC members will make voting decisions against their will.

Second, people who say so have no confidence in Hong Kong's electoral system at all. As we all know, under Hong Kong's electoral system, votes are cast anonymously by secret ballot, and all previous elections in Hong Kong were clean and conducted in an impartial manner. Those people had confidence in previous elections; why do they say that EC members will make voting decisions against their will in this election? Just now, Dr YIU Chung-yim even mentioned rumours about fingerprint examination and photo-taking of ballot papers. I find them totally absurd. If we, as EC members, believe these absurd rumours, we are really deficient in judgment.

President, this motion today not only shows the hypocrisy of the opposition camp, but also truly reflects the current predicament of Hong Kong and highlights one of the core problems facing Hong Kong after its return to China, and that is: mutual trust has yet to be established between the Central Authorities and Hong Kong society, particularly the opposition camp.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5497

Under "one country, two systems", Hong Kong exercises "a high degree of autonomy", but "a high degree of autonomy" is not full autonomy. How high is "a high degree of autonomy"? How wide is its scope? It all depends on the relationship and the degree of trust between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Leaders of the Central Authorities have emphasized time and again that the policy of implementing "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" will not change. As long as the Central Authorities see that the country's security and development interests are safeguarded, they absolutely do not have any motive to turn Hong Kong into a Mainland city, for doing so would make Hong Kong lose its value.

Since its return to China, Hong Kong has become a component of China's political system. Unfortunately, some people (particularly the opposition camp) refuse to accept this political reality. Over the past almost 20 years since the reunification, they have kept using "two systems" to resist "one country"; only talked about "a high degree of autonomy" under "two systems" without making reference to sovereignty and jurisdiction under "one country"; and even resisted, denied and resented the Central Authorities' sovereignty and jurisdiction on the grounds of "a high degree of autonomy", attaching no importance to national security and interests and showing no respect for the country while supporting or covertly backing "Hong Kong independence". These have certainly disquieted the Central Authorities and reduced their political trust in Hong Kong people. Legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law is long overdue; national education has all along been criticized for "brainwashing"; even the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to exercise its constitutional power to interpret the Basic Law to prevent certain "Hong Kong independence" activists from becoming Legislative Council Members has been condemned as heinous. Having seen all these, the Central Authorities are naturally ill at ease and worried that their sovereignty and jurisdiction over Hong Kong, as well as the country's security and core interests, are not safeguarded. It is perhaps because of this that the Central Authorities have gradually become more concerned about the political situation and state of affairs in Hong Kong.

So, in order to strive for the maximization of "a high degree of autonomy", we must, first of all, properly address the relationship between Hong Kong and the Central Authorities, and we should put an end to the demonization of the Central Authorities' power, sovereignty and jurisdiction. President, regarding the amendments, as (The buzzer sounded) …

5498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

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

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr YIU Chung-yim for moving this motion which actually should not be discussed. President, why is this subject raised? Why do we need to conduct this motion debate? I believe that the general public of Hong Kong cannot help lamenting over what they observe these days. This motion debate is held today because we have misgivings about the fairness and impartiality of the election, and we are doubtful about the ongoing election campaigns and the upcoming Chief Executive Election.

Ms Starry LEE made a passionate speech just now, putting forward a list of justifications. President, she said that the opposition camp defied public opinion and voted down the constitutional reform package. President, it is true that the package was voted down by the pro-democracy camp, but who left the Chamber? Which Members left the Chamber, leading to the humiliating defeat of the package with 8 votes in support and 28 votes in opposition? I urge them to reflect on why they failed so awfully to accomplish the important mission assigned to them by the country. I believe they could hardly evade the blame even to date.

President, Mr Paul TSE is right in saying that people with greater power should exercise more self-restraint. In my opinion, at present, individuals or organizations in Hong Kong that maintain close relations with the Central Authorities should be more restrained with their power, for their words and deeds represent the Central Authorities or at least people have such an impression. As indicated by President XI Jinping, "one country, two systems" should not be distorted or twisted. Why did XI emphasize these two points? Perhaps some people in Hong Kong are doing something causing the practice of "one country, two systems" to be distorted and twisted. As regards which individuals and organizations are undertaking such actions, I believe they have a clear answer.

President, anyone with some knowledge of the Basic Law should know that the motion we discuss today and particularly the amendment proposed by me actually aim at incorporating the spirit of Article 22 of the Basic Law. The Article stipulates that: "No department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law." LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5499

Even those who are not very proficient in language should understand the meaning of the provision. This is the spirit of "one country, two systems", the gist of which is that autonomy is autonomy, and the Central Government or any of its departments, including its agencies in Hong Kong, should not engage in any form of interference in Hong Kong.

We have just started to discuss the definition of "interference" in the dictionary. President, I cast no doubts on my colleagues' painstaking and fastidious discussion concerning the definition of "interference" in the dictionary. However, the fact that we have to discuss in the Chamber the definition of "interference" is already very ridiculous. What is "interference", President? Instead of seeking the definition in other dictionaries for discussion, let me cite some specific examples for illustration. In the early years following the reunification, the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") seemed invisible in Hong Kong. I believe that even for those Hong Kong people with a rather good memory, they may not remember the name of the then Director of LOCPG. Let me remind Members that the then Director was JIANG Enzhu, who was succeeded by GAO Siren. The figures of the two persons might be slightly different, but neither of them made a conspicuous appearance in public in the early years following the reunification. In those years―let me specifically remind pro-establishment Members―Hong Kong people had deep affection for and high confidence in the Central Authorities under "one country, two systems".

President, how come the situation has been deteriorating today, I hope Members should be honest with themselves. Let me give an example. In a certain year, the owners' corporation of a certain residential estate invited a democrat to attend its annual dinner. When the democrat arrived at the meeting place, he noted that other Members from the pro-establishment camp were present, which was perfectly fine. An official from LOCPG was also present, which was likewise not a problem. As the saying goes, "it is perfectly justified for people eating at the same table but minding different business". They talked about everything under the sun during the meal, but afterwards, the chairman of the owners' corporation said to the democrat: "Western District" was very displeased with your presence; sorry that you would not be invited in the future.

President, is this an incident of interference? We need not make reference to the definition in the dictionary; does "interference" only mean pointing a gun to your head to prohibit you from doing certain things? In many cases, the 5500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 comment that "'Western District' is displeased" can already engender great fears, and anyone in Hong Kong who are slightly sensitive to these words are probably already under immense pressure. A case in point is that a member of the Election Committee ("EC") indicated that he has received phone calls from the Mainland, encouraging and implicitly telling him how to vote. In my opinion, an implicit message is actually unnecessary. As soon as the person at the other end of the phone reminds you of your business, children and properties, such kind of care has already transcended its original meaning, President. Do these people know what to do in the end? How will they respond to such care? I believe many pro-establishment Members present must have their untold bitterness.

President, all Members present are ex-officio EC members who have the right to vote in the coming election on Sunday. I have no interest to ascertain how many Members present have received such phone calls expressing care and concern; and I cannot share the feelings of those who have received such phone calls. Likewise, I do not have the chance to understand their state of mind upon receiving such phone calls. All I know is that Members now present in the Chamber, including Members returned by functional constituencies, joined this Council by way of election. Legislative Council Members, being ex-officio EC members, shoulder the heavy responsibility of meeting the expectations of Hong Kong people. I hope that when Members vote on Sunday, they will give due consideration to the future of Hong Kong and vote with a clear conscience.

People hold different views about the competency of candidates. They also hold different views on whether a candidate should have high popularity rating. I fully respect the differing views of other Members present at the meeting on popularity rating. As regards whether a candidate is credible, different people may have different views. That said, President, I believe all of us agree that after going through fearful storms over the past five years, can hardly go through the same or even worse storms in the coming five years. I believe that Members sitting on that side or this side of the Chamber all hold the same view that fearful storm is the least thing we want.

President, election should invariably be conducted in a fair and impartial manner, and the will of electors should be respected and should never be interfered. This Sunday, whether we can demonstrate the due wisdom even in a small-circle election does not merely count on the 70 Members present, but also LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5501 the other 1 000-odd electors. I hope that Members will, on that day, on the basis of their conscience and wisdom, cast a vote which they will not regret, so that when they look back five years later, they have not failed themselves.

I hope that Members present will also consider supporting my amendment. I so submit.

UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, Article 43 of the Basic Law provides that: "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be the head of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and shall represent the Region. The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be accountable to the Central People's Government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in accordance with the provisions of this Law."

Moreover, Article 15 of the Basic Law clearly provides that: "The Central People's Government shall appoint the Chief Executive and the principal officials of the executive authorities of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of this Law." Article 45 of the Basic Law provides that "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government."

Before the Chief Executive is elected by universal suffrage, the Chief Executive shall be elected by a broadly representative Election Committee ("EC") in accordance with the Basic Law and appointed by the Central People's Government.

In accordance with Annex I to the Basic Law, candidates for the office of Chief Executive shall be nominated by EC. Each EC member may nominate only one candidate and EC shall elect the Chief Executive designate by secret ballot on the basis of "one person, one vote".

After the Chief Executive has been elected, he shall be appointed by the Central People's Government. The Central People's Government has the substantive right to appoint the Chief Executive. In other words, the Central People's Government has the right to appoint or not to appoint the person who has been elected the Chief Executive.

5502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

The above provisions of the Basic Law have the same origin and they clearly show that the method for the selection of the Chief Executive is not a matter which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with the Basic Law. In respect of the appointment of the Chief Executive, the Central People's Government has its constitutional roles, rights and responsibilities.

Meanwhile, just like other public elections in Hong Kong, the Chief Executive election is regulated by the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). Under the Ordinance, a person engages in corrupt conduct at an election if he uses force or duress, or threatens to use force or duress, against an elector. Regarding the rumours that individual EC members are being pressurized, the SAR Government will not comment on unsubstantiated rumours, but if any person thinks that someone has violated the election-related laws in an election, he should lodge a complaint with the relevant law enforcement agencies.

I must emphasize that the Central Government, the Central Government's offices in Hong Kong and the SAR Government have been acting in strict accordance with the fundamental principles and policies of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy", as well as the provisions of the Basic Law to administering Hong Kong in accordance with law.

As in the past, the SAR Government will work closely with the Electoral Affairs Commission ("EAC") to ensure that the 2017 Chief Executive Election will be held in a fair, open and honest manner strictly in accordance with the relevant legislation.

I would like to specially highlight that the SAR Government and EAC attach great importance to the confidentiality in voting. EAC will take appropriate measures in areas such as the arrangement of the main polling station, security, voting process, ballot box design and voting compartment design. These measures include:

(a) the closed circuit television system inside the main polling station will all be removed before the polling day;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5503

(b) only EC members and designated persons (including staff, candidates and their election and polling agents) with entry permits issued by the Registration and Electoral Office ("REO") may enter the main polling station;

(c) EC members will be requested by REO to switch off their mobile phones (and other mobile devices with video, audio or communication functions) and put them away properly before entering the main polling station, so as to ensure that nobody is allowed to use mobile phones or other communication devices in the main polling station for communication, filming, photo-taking or making audio or video recording; in addition, EC members will be requested to store backpacks, handbags, etc. in the cloakroom outside the polling station before entering the polling station;

(d) ballot papers will not be printed with numbers, and polling staff are prohibited from recording which particular ballot paper is issued to an elector;

(e) after having his identity verified at the issuing desk and being issued a ballot paper, an EC member should proceed to an independent voting compartment to mark the ballot paper. Each voting compartment is 2.5 m high and with a cover, so that nobody can watch the voting of EC member;

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

(f) before leaving a voting compartment, an EC member should fold the ballot paper with the marked side inside to cover the choice made on the ballot;

(g) there are two ballot boxes in the main polling station and EC members may randomly put the ballot papers into one of these ballot boxes;

5504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

(h) after the close of poll, the Presiding Officer ("PRO") will seal the ballot boxes in the presence of the candidates and their agents. The sealed ballot boxes and the relevant election documents will be delivered to the central counting station under police escort. Candidates and their respective agents can accompany the PRO in the delivery of the ballot boxes from the polling station to the counting station. REO will arrange the live broadcast of the whole delivery process in the central counting station to ensure that the process is conducted under the supervision of various parties; and

(i) the Returning Officer ("RO") will ensure that after the ballot papers have been removed from the ballot boxes, staff will randomly mix all ballot papers before the counting of votes, so that nobody can identify the ballots cast by certain EC members based on the position of the ballot papers.

Deputy President, I would like to take this opportunity to solemnly remind all relevant persons, including EC members, of the legal provisions on confidentiality in voting. Under the Electoral Procedure (Chief Executive Election) Regulation ("the Regulation"), no person (including EC members) shall film, take photograph or make any audio or video recording in a polling station. The Regulation also stipulates that no person shall communicate to another person any information obtained at the main polling station as to which candidate an elector is about to vote for or has voted for; no person shall directly or indirectly induce an elector to display a ballot paper marked by the elector so as to make known to any person any information as to which candidate the elector has voted for. Any person who commits the above offences is liable to imprisonment for six months and a fine of $5,000.

In addition, the Regulation sets out the acts prohibited in the main polling station and the central counting station. For example, it is unlawful for a person to display any propaganda material relating to any candidate or the election, disrupt the poll or counting, disturb or cause inconvenience to any person; or otherwise misconduct himself, in the main polling station and the central counting station.

There will be sufficient staff and security personnel in the main polling station and the central counting station to maintain order. In the event of a breach of the regulations, RO or PRO will immediately stop these acts and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5505 depending on the situation, order the person(s) in question to leave immediately. The police officers present will take decisive enforcement actions. In addition, REO will refer the case to the law enforcement agencies for stringent follow-up.

Deputy President, I so submit.

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

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, on 22 June 1984 when Mr DENG Xiaoping met with a delegation of the Hong Kong business community to visit Beijing, he made the following speech: "We have stated on many occasions that after China resumes the exercise of its sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997, Hong Kong's current social and economic systems will remain unchanged, its legal system will remain basically unchanged, it's way of life and its status as a free port and an international trade and financial centre will remain unchanged and it can continue to maintain or establish economic relations with other countries and regions. We have also stated repeatedly that apart from stationing troops there, Beijing will not assign officials to the government of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region. This policy too will remain unchanged. We shall station troops there to safeguard our national security, not to interfere in Hong Kong's internal affairs. We mean what we said." The above speech by Mr DENG Xiaoping has been mentioned in a lot of literature.

This is the promise made by the leader of the Central Authorities at that time that after the handover of sovereignty, "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" would be implemented. Hong Kong people generally expected that such promises could be guaranteed after Hong Kong's return to the Motherland. Such provisions are later manifested in the Basic Law. For example, Article 22 of the Basic Law stipulates that no department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with the Basic Law.

Article 22 clearly specifies the division of labour and authority in respect of the functions and roles of various government bodies in Hong Kong and on the Mainland. Recently, the community and some candidates have expressed the 5506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 views of whether Article 22 should be incorporated into the local legislation. This reflects the increasing lack of confidence of the local community in the commitment made by the Central Authorities that the implementation of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" in Hong Kong will not be distorted or twisted.

After some 20 years, there are too many reasons attributing to the lack of confidence, one of which is the role of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG"). As Mr Alvin YEUNG has just said, in the early days of the reunification, all officials of LOCPG did not always appear in public, they remained low profile and played an appropriate role. According to the official website of LOCPG, its main function is to handle issues relating to the Mainland and Hong Kong, which include liaising with the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China in the HKSAR ("OCMFA") and the Hong Kong Garrison of the People's Liberation Army; liaising and assisting in managing Chinese-funded enterprises in Hong Kong; promoting economic and educational exchanges and cooperation between Hong Kong and the Mainland; reflecting the views of Hong Kong residents on the Mainland; handling Taiwan-related affairs, as well as handling other tasks assigned by the Central Government. If some departments and agencies of the Central Authorities want to visit Hong Kong, LOCPG will play a major role. In turn, if some organizations, associations and community groups in Hong Kong want to visit the Mainland, LOCPG will also play a coordinating role. That is the role of LOCPG; perhaps it is also responsible for collecting information on public sentiments in Hong Kong.

However, there are indications that LOCPG has intervened in Hong Kong affairs. It does not merely perform the functions stated in its website or exercise the powers conferred by the Basic Law. In recent years, LOCPG has involved in a high profile manner in the election-related activities at all levels, including the election of the District Council, the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive. Regarding specific examples or evidence, I do not think any Election Committee members would provide evidence to prove the actions taken by officials of LOCPG nor would they report to the Registration and Electoral Office. In fact, nobody will do so.

However, the rumours may not necessarily be groundless. Whenever elections are held, be it the election of the District Council, the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive, how come LOCPG officials frequently appear LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5507 in public? LOCPG is not the only Central Government's office in Hong Kong. I have just mentioned another Central Government's office in Hong Kong and it is OCMFA. Its role is to deal with Hong Kong's diplomatic affairs, that is, foreign affairs, and it has appropriately played its role for about 20 years. According to the diplomatic envoy whom I am acquitted with, Mr SONG Zhe, the former Commissioner, had outstanding performance, and I believe that owing to this reason, he is recently appointed Deputy Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council. We have never found OCMFA interfering in Hong Kong's affairs because it has acted appropriately to deal with Hong Kong's diplomatic affairs. Hong Kong is not a country but a part of China, so we need OCMFA's help to deal with foreign affairs. If LOCPG appropriately exercises its authority and carries out its responsibilities under the Basic Law, we need not worry about its intervention in elections.

This Chief Executive Election offers an opportunity to resolve dissension in Hong Kong and unite people from all strata of society, so that various sectors can have a new start. I also hope that this Chief Executive Election will be held in a fair, open and impartial manner without any intervention.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, let me first talk about history. I recall that during the Sino-British talks about the future of Hong Kong in the early 1980s of the last century, DENG Xiaoping, the then Chinese leader, pledged that after Hong Kong's return to China, its economic and political systems would be independent, that is, the so-called "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy". He also said, "China as a great nation has its dignity and its principles for compliance." In an agreement, he said, "Hong Kong will remain unchanged for 50 years and we mean this. It will not change in this generation of ours; neither will it change in the next generation."

Deputy President, since the reunification in 1997, the pledges of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong", "a high degree of autonomy" and "one country, two systems" have indeed been implanted in the heart of Hong Kong people. It is not only the foundation of the reunification, but also the foundation of the mutual trust between Hong Kong people and the Central Government.

However, after the reunification, it is well evident that the Central Government has time and again disappointed Hong Kong people. The promise of election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage has been stalling. Two years ago, amid objection of the entire community, the 31 August screening 5508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 framework was forcibly enforced. In the 20 years after the reunification, three Chief Executives have been elected, which one was not hand-picked by the Central Authorities? Did Hong Kong people have any say in the election of any one of them? More outrageously, the media has time and again revealed the interference of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") in the elections of the District Council, the Legislative Council and even the Chief Executive. More than 20 years have passed and such incidents have never stopped. Hong Kong people gradually realize that the principles of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" are only empty talks. Don't tell us about Hong Kong remaining unchanged for 50 years, in just 20 years, Hong Kong has changed beyond recognition.

Since the commencement of the Chief Executive election campaign, it has been reported by various media about officials from the Central Government and LOCPG canvassing for a certain candidate. At a recent Election Committee ("EC") forum, Carrie LAM, one of the candidates, said justly and forcefully that Hong Kong's affairs have been handled by the SAR Government and she did not agree that LOCPG has been canvassing for her. However, according to information, when she was asked early last month whether she would say no to LOCPG, her response was just the contrary, asking why she had to say no to LOCPG. Early this month, when she was once again asked what role LOCPG played in the election, she said that it was nothing wrong for LOCPG to assist candidates. Even Mrs Rita FAN admitted that LOCPG had the bad habit of canvassing support for the Government's policy implementation, and the situation was particularly serious during LEUNG Chun-ying's rule. Deputy President, the remarks of all these people have given us the impression that canvassing by LOCPG has become a normal and routine work.

Such annoying news is reported almost every day and we can do nothing about the situation. The bigwigs have taken no heed of political ethics and turn the Chief Executive election into a stage for power politics and double-talk. Hong Kong people have seen clearly what has happened in the past several months, how then can we still believe in "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy"?

In the 20 years after the reunification, there are growing social discontents. The young generation cannot see their future. They think that people of their generation have to bear many unjust and unfair political and economic systems as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5509 they grow up. They find many systems ridiculous. Those in power are out of touch with public views and their focus is on power politics. Why do young people have such thoughts? They are very worried about their future and are eager to discuss what is to become of Hong Kong after 2047. That is because they are worried and anxious. If the situation keeps deteriorating, they wonder what Hong Kong will be like after 2047.

Deputy President, like most members of the public, our deep love for Hong Kong drives us to raise strong criticisms. We do not wish to see Hong Kong becoming a place where people run amok. With the Chief Executive Election only a few days away, there is widespread rumour about a certain candidate has been preordained by Beijing and some even say that the decision of who should be elected was made long ago. As such, where are the principles and dignity of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy"?

Therefore, I strongly urge the SAR Government to defend Hong Kong's future. It must strictly monitor the elections and combat any actions that deliberately interfere in the conduct of a fair election. I also strongly ask the Central Government and LOCPG to refrain from affecting the voting intention of EC members, so as to ensure the election be conducted under equitable and fair conditions. This can restore some confidence of the public in this Government and this system.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the subject of the motion today actually should not be discussed but we still have to hold a discussion. As we have witnessed, many unjust incidents have happened in this Chief Executive Election. In today's motion debate, I believe that Mr Michael TIEN is one of the Members who should express his views. Mr TIEN mentioned earlier that a number of heavyweight middlemen called different Election Committee ("EC") members, trying hard to canvass votes for a pro-establishment candidate. Mr Michael TIEN also mentioned that if the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") gave him a call, he could not possibly refuse to answer.

5510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

We have heard a lot of arguments made by pro-establishment Members. For example, Dr Priscilla LEUNG and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan once said that it was not a problem for LOCPG to make comments in private, or it was not a problem for LOCPG to make contacts as friends, or as Ms Starry LEE has just said, it is just like a mother caring for her daughter, so why make the fuss? However, as Mr Paul TSE has said, a person with greater power should exercise more self-restraint. As a matter of fact, a person with greater power can exert greater white terror and hence more self-restraint should be exercised.

Today, no matter what explanations have been given by pro-establishment Members, they have admitted an objective fact, that is, LOCPG has indeed spoken to some EC members, expressing their care or concern, or in our eyes, exerting pressure. Consequently, some abnormalities have emerged in the Chief Executive Election. It is a well-known fact that LOCPG has been actively involved and exerted influence at all levels of elections. Such influence and power cover a very wide scope, and if LOCPG does not exercise restraint and directly intervenes in the internal affairs of Hong Kong, the relationship between Hong Kong people and the Central Government will become more and more distant.

As we may recall, before 2003, all opinion polls showed that Hong Kong people had great trust in the Central Government. They even trusted the Central Authorities more than the SAR Government because at that time, as pointed out by Mr Alvin YEUNG, we were not aware of the presence of LOCPG. Yet, the situation has been reversed more than 10 years after 2003 and the relationship between Hong Kong people and the Central Government has become more and more distant today.

The problem is very serious, so serious that the President of the People's Republic of China stated that the principle of "one country, two systems" must not be distorted or twisted. This is the request made by President XI Jinping. Mr WANG Guangya, Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, also pointed out that the new Chief Executive should meet four crucial criteria: trust from the Central Government, loving the country and Hong Kong, an ability to govern and support from Hong Kong people. Are these changes? This precisely reflects that the Central Government has summed up the problems arising in the course of implementing "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong. The problem encountered when the proposed implementation of "one country, two systems" and the enactment of the Basic Law were raised has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5511 even arisen again. Mr DENG Xiaoping said at that time that Hong Kong should guard against the rightist but it was more important to guard against the leftist because he clearly knew that the extreme leftist would have far-reaching impacts on Hong Kong's society. This also sums up the ups and downs of Chinese society over the past few decades after the liberation.

Will the practice of LOCPG distort or twist the principle of "one country, two systems"? The Central Government should be worried. But Hong Kong people are even more worried because they are clearly aware that the practice of LOCPG is unacceptable.

In this motion, we request the Government to ensure that the Chief Executive Election be conducted under fair conditions. However, we all understand that a small-circle election will certainly attract LOCPG's intervention because it has such strong influence and it only has to influence 1 100 or 1 200 EC members. This goal is relatively easy to reach. Therefore, in any case, we must strive for genuine democratic universal suffrage so that even if LOCPG wants to intervene and affect our election, it will be monitored by all the people of Hong Kong. As such, though LOCPG's intervention runs contrary to Article 22 of the Basic Law, the damage to the whole system can still be minimized. Of course, I totally do not endorse LOCPG's intervention.

Members may notice that the pan-democrats have made a very important decision in this election. Some said that the pan-democrats just want to challenge the Central Authorities, but they should not forget that the candidate supported by the pan-democrats is the former Financial Secretary, the second-in-command of the SAR Government in the past nine and a half years; in any case, it cannot be said that he is not trusted by the Central Authorities. However, even if the democrats or Hong Kong people support a pro-establishment candidate, the Central Government ultimately will not let Hong Kong people enjoy the right to choose freely as it still thinks that screening is necessary. So different arguments have arisen, such as non-appointment or supporting John TSANG means opposing the Central Authorities. This illustrates that the claim made by the pro-establishment camp that the proposal under the 31 August Decision enabled Hong Kong people to elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote" is just a wishful thinking. Today, the Democrats 300+ has enough votes to nominate two Chief Executive candidates, but under the framework of the August 31 Decision, there will be 601 EC members who will screen the candidates; what will be the result? The result is 5512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 that the election outcome will be manipulated. Eventually, the screened-in candidates whom Hong Kong people can select may be "CY 2.0", "Carrie LAM 2.0" and "Carrie LAM 3.0" and we have to choose one out of the three. How can we resolve dissension within society and how can we have a truly fair election system?

Hence, I support the original motion today and I hope the community will ponder over why we still have unfair and unjust elections today. Thank you, Deputy President.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all I would like to thank Dr YIU Chung-yim for moving this motion. This motion is moved at the right time and many Members should speak on it. However, just look around, how many Members are in the Chamber now? And how many have spoken?

For me, the Chief Executive election is not worth mentioning. Up till today, it is still a coterie election. The principles of "a high degree of autonomy", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "ruling Hong Kong in accordance with law" as stated in the Basic Law are the laughing stock. It is clearly written in Articles 45 and 68 of the Basic Law that Hong Kong will have elections by universal and equal suffrage. However, in the 20 years since the reunification, not even the shadow of universal suffrage has been seen. The 31 August Decision made by the National People's Congress ("NPC") three years ago has further torn Hong Kong society apart, followed by the Umbrella Movement and the ideology of "Hong Kong independence". Despite that, Beijing is still dreaming. It disregards the situation of Hong Kong and continues to manipulate our elections.

There is an amusing comment that the Communist Party of China ("CPC") only accepts one kind of election, that is the election with a predictable result, and this mentality has remained unchanged over the years. What kind of election is our upcoming Chief Executive Election? Wake up, everyone. If no more than 600 members of the 1 200-strong Election Committee ("EC") have the same mind, a Chief Executive cannot possibly be elected. How many votes do the pan-democratic EC members hold? Does the Democrats 300+ have enough votes to select a Chief Executive? Of course not. The democrats should have taken the opportunity made available by this election to clearly demand the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5513 candidates to abolish the NPC's 31 August Decision which imposed various restrictions and promise that the legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law will not be enacted before the implementation of universal suffrage.

I am very disappointed and my heart aches over the lack of such an opportunity. Perhaps Hong Kong people have changed from the original mentality of watching from the sidelines into … If you ask members of the public, you will find that a false impression has been formed in society: people of Hong Kong watch the live television broadcast of candidates' debate or read the candidates' remarks on Facebook every day, as if they could take part in the election. Wake up and stop dreaming! What kind of an election is this? From the outset, among the fewer than 1 200 EC members, over half of them can be manipulated by the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") and CPC. Everyone knows the result of this election. No matter who among ABC, the auspicious trio or the present three Chief Executive candidates gets elected, it is insignificant as all of them belong to the pro-establishment camp and are acceptable to Beijing as well as CPC. Their difference may be superficial: one is more humorous, one keeps a straight face all the time and the other grants the wishes of all people. However, Beijing and CPC need not worry at all, because whoever among the three is elected, do you think that person can stay away from the control? Certainly not. People of Hong Kong must wake up. The election we want is the election by "one person, one vote" without any screening. Only in this way can "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" that have been taken away from Hong Kong for 20 years, be implemented again.

Today, we see the manipulation of "Western District" LOCPG in many affairs. Then someone separates LOCPG from Beijing, saying that the culprit is LOCPG, Beijing is relatively good and XI Jinping is a good emperor. They cannot shake off the slave mentality after all and all they want is a good emperor. They think that "Emperor XI" is not that bad, but they are not yet satisfied, they wish to be "king makers" in Hong Kong, and they draw the democrats over to be "king makers". Even if the attempt succeeds, we have to take a look in the mirror to see clearly who they are. After all they receive orders from the Central Authorities and are under the Central Authorities' control. The controlling tactics may be cleverer as the dissension may not surface, but the basic nature remains almost the same.

5514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

Some people are very worried that they are under the surveillance in the polling station by LOCPG. That is possible as CPC can employ whatever means it likes. They may fear that someone will not follow their orders. However, they need not be over anxious. As over half of the EC members will obey the order after communications, many EC members just do not have the guts to resist. What worries these EC members most is that no order is given by tomorrow night, then they have no idea whom to vote for. It is really hard to decide whom to vote for. If they vote for the wrong person, the Central Authorities will be displeased and they will thus get into trouble.

Today we may earnestly wish to ensure the fair conduct of the Chief Executive Election, but as long as the election remains a coterie election with 1 200 electors, it is just a waste of energy. What we want is dual universal suffrage provided by the Basic Law which has been taken away from us for 20 years and there is no sign of it yet. Shouldn't it be implemented in 2007 or 2008 originally? It is 2017 now and next year will be 2018 but we have not seen any sign of it yet. Do we have to wait 10 more years? We may not have it even 20 years later.

Today, it is disclosed that "Emperor XI" had not hand-picked anyone. They might take a U-turn. As a matter of fact, this had happened before. In the last Chief Executive election, at first it seemed certain that Henry TANG would be elected but LEUNG Chun-ying got elected in the end. There is no difference whatsoever. History may repeat itself this time. But whether history will repeat or not, for me and many others who are not among the 1 200 EC members, there is no difference whatsoever. As long as Hong Kong is ruled under this system, no one has any luck. If Hong Kong becomes a city controlled by Beijing, it is no different from any other provinces or cities. It can only wait for the lights to go off one by one and become another city in China (The buzzer sounded) …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, your speaking time is up.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Without election by universal suffrage, Hong Kong will have no future. I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5515

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Before the transfer of sovereignty in 1997, the Chinese Government had vowed adamantly that Hong Kong would implement the principles of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy". Twenty years have passed, today the situation is "Beijing officials stirring up trouble in Hong Kong" and "a high degree of intervention"; or worse still, "lackeys stirring up trouble in Hong Kong" and "a high degree of intervention". While Hong Kong people are fighting for the election of the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote", some people have sarcastically pointed out that we have indeed achieved "one person, one vote" in the sense that XI Jinping is the only person holding that one single vote. In that case, whoever he appoints will naturally secure the support of members of the Election Committee ("EC") and be elected.

Hong Kong's Chief Executive election has become a good opportunity for the Central Government and different levels of ministries to curry favour with the leaders. Whoever forces the largest number of EC members to vote for the candidate favoured by the leaders will get the greatest credit. Each small-circle Chief Executive election held in Hong Kong has negative impact on Hong Kong's "one country, two systems", and the impact is getting more and more serious.

As a matter of fact, there is intervention in every election. It is all too natural for the Chinese Government to exercise a high degree of intervention in Hong Kong's elections and it is not surprising at all. Yet, the implementation of universal suffrage by "one person, one vote" will certainly make intervention more difficult. For small-circle elections with only 1 000-odd electors, the chance of manipulation and intervention is much higher.

Since the march on 1 July 2003 leading to the abortion of the proposal to enact legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law, the Communist Party of China ("CPC") has interfered in Hong Kong's politics on all fronts in an attempt to exert influence over the elections of councils at different levels. This is indeed nothing new. In the 2012 Chief Executive Election, the influence of the Chinese Government was particularly obvious. According to media reports, "Western District" coerced some EC members of the commercial subsectors to vote for LEUNG Chun-ying. As some of them refused to comply, they were given a dressing down by "Western District" and their business in the Mainland business was also adversely affected. Moreover, it was reported that information about Henry TANG's unauthorized building works scandal was given by a related person to LEUNG Chun-ying's team, which then passed it to certain media for publication.

5516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

After the successful intervention in the 2012 Chief Executive Election by various departments of the Chinese Government, especially officials responsible for Hong Kong and Macao affairs, they then sought to reap huge benefits through LEUNG Chun-ying's guiding principle of struggle. In this Chief Executive Election, they definitely want to employ the same trick again by bringing up a Chief Executive who is hated by the majority of Hong Kong people but liked by only a handful of Chinese officials, so as to demonstrate China's determination to exercise comprehensive manipulation over Hong Kong.

This should work well. Once an order has been given, local ministries and various officials responsible for Hong Kong and Macao affairs would work together to make sure that any candidate who may challenge the candidate preordained by Beijing leaders will not be able to get nominations and run in the race. As a result, Jasper TSANG, who has devoted most years of his life to CPC, decided not to run in the election after learning from someone who knows Beijing's intention that the Chinese Government would not support him. Mrs Regina IP, who had forcefully introduced the proposal to legislate for Article 23 of the Basic Law for the Chinese Government, also had to end her election campaign feeling dejected.

In order to ensure that the preordained candidate with low popularity can secure a landslide victory in the small-circle election, or at least obtain more than 689 votes, so as to show the Chinese Government's absolute power of control over the Chief Executive Election, the Chinese Government and different levels of ministries have exhausted every means and put in the greatest efforts to intimidate and induce EC members. One of the state leaders TUNG Chee-hwa, Vice Chairperson of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, said explicitly that the Chinese Government would not appoint another candidate. Moreover, as many Members have mentioned today, ruffians of "Western District" have disseminated information on ways to ascertain whom EC members have voted, such as fingerprint examination and photo-taking of ballots, just to make sure that they honour their pledge. This is white terror.

Today, the President reminded us to speak with care and I am very obedient. Nonetheless, I hope Members will understand that by giving a speech of just a few minutes, it is absolutely impossible for a preordained candidate not to be elected. The Election will be held in less than three days and EC members may receive phone calls, asking them to "vote properly otherwise 'Western District' will be displeased". Nonetheless, the caller may not be a member of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5517

"Western District". The lackeys of lackeys are even more terrible. Ensuring the winning of the three "lows" candidate and appointing a Chief Executive of Hong Kong in defiance of public opinion has become the ultimate goal of the Chinese Government. In the next five years, Hong Kong will enter a new era of 2.0 when the extreme leftist rises to power to rule a torn-apart community.

What is even more worrying is that through intervention, the Chinese Government has screened away some people who strive to uphold the principle of "one country, two systems". According to Jasper TSANG, one of the reasons why he was not able to run for the election was his interpretation of the "one country, two systems" principle deviated greatly from that of Central Government officials overseeing Hong Kong and Macao affairs. We can thus assert that if someone like Jasper TSANG, who has all along defended "one country, two systems" and probably tilted towards "one country", is not accepted by the Chinese Government, then the only candidate whom officials overseeing Hong Kong and Macao affairs would recommend is definitely someone who supports the overriding of "one country" over "two systems", or even advocates the abolition of "one country, two systems".

Yesterday, Mr LI Ka-shing used an ancient mythology of goddess Nuwa patching up the sky to express his wish that the next Chief Executive would overcome difficulties and resolve dissension. People thus start guessing if Nuwa implies his support for a female candidate. I have no intent to join this guessing game, but just want to tell Members that Nuwa patched up the sky by melting down some stones, the five-coloured stones. What are five-coloured stones? It is a genuine universal suffrage system that is free from manipulation and screening. In order not to repeat the tragedy of a person having high popularity not being elected as the Chief Executives, we must abolish the small-circle election. Only the candidate returned by civic nomination can fight against the manipulation of elections by "Western District" and Hong Kong communists, such that Hong Kong people will have genuine choices. It is essential to abolish small-circle elections and implement civic nomination.

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have been listening to the speeches of a number of colleagues as well as the impassioned speech just made by Mr Alvin YEUNG. In the middle part of his speech, he said that some people in Hong Kong have distorted and twisted the principle of "one country, two systems". I then thought it was the opposition camp which has distorted and 5518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 twisted "one country, two systems". Let me give an example. Is the 79-day illegal occupation a correct interpretation of "one country, two systems"? As we may recall, it was the opposition camp's vetoing of the constitutional reform package that rendered us unable to elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote".

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

President, worst comes to worst, today's motion centres on the fear of intervention. If we really worry that the election might be influenced by a certain people or organization, I think it would be best for the general public to elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote". However, just as I have said, Members should remember clearly that it was the opposition camp which had vetoed the reform package by bundling their votes together, resulting in our loss of the opportunity to elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote" on 26 March.

Also, I heard many colleagues saying that the independent will of members of the Election Committee ("EC") must be respected. I would like to point out, since the Democrats 300+ claimed to respect the independent will of EC members, they should not have actively encouraged EC members to bundle their votes and vote for a specific candidate in an "all in" manner. Just now, Mr Alvin YEUNG explained that in order to manifest the spirit of Article 22 of the Basic Law, no Mainland authorities should interfere in Hong Kong affairs. Members should note that among the three Chief Executive candidates, Mr WOO Kwok-hing is the only one who has solemnly indicated his intention to enact legislation to implement Article 22 of the Basic Law. Although I disagree with Justice WOO's ideas and proposals, I cannot help but wonder, since Justice WOO has such strong determination and clear views and stance which the pan-democrats consider as vital, how come the pan-democrats have turned a cold shoulder to him and insisted to advocate the "all-in" voting strategy to support John TSANG? Frankly, President, I have been paying close attention to the remarks made by the three candidates …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5519

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW, I have already reminded Members that during the debate, they should not name any candidate nor give remarks that might facilitate or hinder the successful election of a candidate. Members will please respect the reminder that I have given earlier on.

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): I get it. President, I absolutely respect your reminder.

President, since you have just reminded me not to, as far as possible, mention any names or help bring about any kind of election result, I will be more cautious when I speak from now on. I wish to highlight one point, in respect of this election, colleagues of the opposition camp have kept warning against intervention, saying that no intervention should be made. But as I have just said, if they really do not like or think that no intervention should be made, then why do they ask all EC members to bundle their votes and vote for a specific candidate?

President, earlier on, another colleague of the opposition camp indicated his intention to stand for the election. At that time, many people advised him not to spoil the party and he should act accordingly as planned. Certainly, that colleague of the opposition camp eventually did not stand for the election but he still remains true to his principles. President, what I am trying to say is that, if we look and think carefully, we will know that it is the opposition camp which is most keen to "move the goalposts". They will put forth arguments just to obtain the result that is most favourable to them, and they are basically wavering.

I hope that Members will pay attention to one point during the debate of this motion, and that is, Hong Kong is governed by the rule of law. Today, I heard many colleagues saying something like taking photos and examining fingerprints. I beg Members not to make such allegation as it is completely illogical and inconceivable. Being a society where great importance is attached to the rule of law, our elections are pretty mature. I really do not consider it appropriate to make such illogical allegation, just to lead us to believe that after the election, boxes of ballots would be sent to the Mainland for fingerprint examination. President, I have never heard of anything more ridiculous than this, and I wonder why many colleagues of the opposition camp are repeating the same allegation these days. I am confident that Hong Kong people are wise, and I really do not want to hear such ridiculous allegation anymore.

President, I so submit.

5520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, after listening to Mr Holden CHOW's speech, I think he has probably just returned from Mars. What was the voting result of the last constitutional reform package? The result was 8 to 28; only 8 supporting votes from the pro-establishment camp and 28 opposing votes from the democratic Members. As you people had collectively disappeared, the constitutional reform package could not be passed. You can check the voting results. You people only got 8 votes, how dare you make such irresponsible remarks? Sorry, only 8 votes from the pro-establishment camp. I wonder if anyone had interfered and told the pro-establishment Members not to vote. Before the matter was put to vote, the pro-establishment Members swore to vote in favour of the constitutional reform package, but they failed to do so. All the pro-establishment Members now present were involved, including Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan―not Dr Junius HO―and Mr Martin LIAO. Someone interfered and asked you to line up and cast a vote; yet failed to cast a vote. Shouldn't you apologize for being so undisciplined? President, I have not mentioned your name, and I do not remember whether you were involved.

That is the point I must clarify first. Second, what does interference in the election mean? It means that someone is preordained, and if another person is elected, he will not be allowed to take up the position. This message has been repeatedly conveyed to you. Even the former President of the Legislative Council Jasper TSANG said that the power of appointment was substantial.

Is a substantial power of appointment provided under the Basic Law? Possibly. However, have Members heard that after a candidate was elected the Governor of California of the United States, the President of the United States came forward and said, "Sorry, although this candidate is elected, I cannot let him be the Governor of California"? Who do you think has to step down: the President or the Governor of California? The United States is a federation and under such a system, the President can only congratulate the Governor of California elected. He will not say that the Governor is not his preferred choice; or the people of California are stupid and he will not let them elect the wrong candidate. Please stop saying such words, it is a waste of time to make such comments.

However, as this situation does exist, there is a preordained candidate and a source of votes. Someone from the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5521 conveys a wrong imperial message, saying "I can hear but you can't". This is like Samuel in the biblical story saying, "I hear God speaking to me. He appears to me". According to that person, if A, B or C is elected, the superior will not make the appointment. In this way, he can assume the authority of his superiors and threaten others, saying either your efforts will be futile or you will have retribution. People are certainly frightened. That is interference in the election and the interference is systematic. Without this kind of loophole, how can people cheat others like the tonic gang? Someone said, "Yesterday XI Jinping told me that if A was elected, he would not make the appointment and it would be a waste of time." Do we have similar situations? I learn that these situations have arisen in Hong Kong.

Mr Holden CHOW, have you attended such meetings? You certainly have not. Work for two more years. As you are neither a member of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") nor a representative of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference ("CPPCC"), you should not waste time. Why are you still making such remarks? Why should the eunuchs be more anxious than the emperor? Are you responsible for speaking in defence? Here, members of NPCSC and representatives of CPPCC are responsible for speaking in defence. How important are you? You are just a Member of the Legislative Council, you not even substantially appointed by the Central Authorities, and you have no power. You should consider yourself lucky to be elected. If Members of the Legislative Council have to be substantially appointed, no one will stand for election in the future. After "Long Hair" is elected, the superiors may think that he cannot be a Legislative Council Member for his hair is too long. Do you feel embarrassed by such words? Listen, don't speak in defence anymore; it only makes things worse.

I think there has been interference from the Central Authorities. Simply put, there is the Central Coordination Group for Hong Kong and Macau Affairs led by ZHANG Dejiang and operated by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, will you be scared? Second, there is the Hong Kong and Macao Work Committee with ZHANG Xiaoming as the Secretary, will you be scared? It is not that there is no interference, but that people can do nothing about it. Someone says with overwhelming and tremendous force: "This election will produce no results without the preordained candidate and final appointment by the Communist Party of China". Members do not have to deny 5522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 it. Nevertheless, this man has not contacted me. Honourable Members, answer me honestly, have you received any phone calls telling you such things? You know the answer yourselves.

I think Dr Junius HO should perform the ritual of "chopping off the cock's head" outside the Chamber later to affirm that he has told the truth. I think the Legislative Council should adopt the most barbarous way of expression. Every Member should perform the ritual of "chopping off the cock's head and burning the yellow paper", swearing that if they refuse to admit being interfered, they will be hit by a car and die. Members can swear in this way and a lie detector which beeps when a Member tells a lie can also be set up outside the Chamber. Mr Holden CHOW, do you have the guts to take these actions? Dr Junius HO and Mr Martin LIAO, do you have the guts to "chop off the cock's head and burn the yellow paper" to affirm that you have not told lies and no one has interfered with your voting decisions? I think there has been interference, but I cannot prove it.

Some people said, "'Long Hair', you are really barbarous. Do you think Hong Kong people are blind? It has already been said that the second power core should rule Hong Kong in accordance with the law and the constitution. In other words, we should continue to hold fake elections under the "incantation of the golden hoop" provided by the Basic Law, buddy. What then is the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong waiting for? It is only waiting for the final orders to be given by the Hong Kong and Macao Work Committee and the Central Coordination Group for Hong Kong and Macau Affairs, is that right? Thus, many people are saying that those two candidates are fine. Even Jasper TSANG, former President of the Legislative Council, has said that both are fine. The comment that "those two candidates are fine" actually means "both of them are lousy"; that they are hurling faeces at one another and they should not stand for the election. Has there been interference? (The buzzer sounded) "Chop off the cock's head" …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please stop speaking.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, in discussing interference in elections or the internal affairs of Hong Kong, I believe we have to start by referring to the Basic Law. Specifically, Article 22(1) of the Basic Law provides that no department of the Central People's Government may interfere in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5523 the internal affairs of Hong Kong. I believe the majority of Members in this Chamber will not challenge this point. In other words, no department of the Central People's Government, including the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG"), should interfere in the elections of Hong Kong.

Mr Holden CHOW will certainly defend for LOCPG, but as a lawyer, he should clearly understand the provision of Article 22(1) of the Basic Law, the interpretation of those words and their underlying meaning. I believe Members know very clearly that this provision is the firewall of "one country, two systems". If Members say that the Central Authorities have a role to play in the Chief Executive election, I agree. When it comes to the appointment of the Chief Executive, the Central Authorities' power of appointment is substantial, but in the process of the election, why has LOCPG interfered extensively and even unprecedentedly asked members of the Election Committee ("EC") to nominate a certain candidate and prohibited them to nominate other candidates? Certainly, Members will ask me for evidence. I can tell Members that many pro-establishment people have told me that they have been miserably pressurized by LOCPG. For this election in particular, a very high ranking state leader once went to Shenzhen to solicit nominations and votes for a certain candidate. This practice is unprecedented and very embarrassing indeed. Why so anxious? In fact, the system has already been designed by the Central Authorities in such a way that candidates who are not from the pro-establishment camp will not stand a chance to win at all. We know very well that this is not an election by universal suffrage.

Mr Holden CHOW asked earlier why we have to bundle our votes together instead of allowing each person to make his own voting decision. We are not bundled up in voting; we are just being united. Since we are the minority in the coterie election, we must be united to give full effect to our right of nomination and our right to vote. That is the objective of members of the Democrats 300+ when they stood for the EC election back then. We hope that by uniting together, and through the votes we have as the professional subsector, we can do something for Hong Kong people in this coterie election. I believe the Democrats 300+ have achieved this objective so far.

After the Legislation Council election, I and some Members of the Professionals Guild are actually aware that Members representing the professional subsectors have the responsibility to coordinate and deal with this 5524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 issue. Our members had stood for election in almost all professional subsectors of EC and we strived hard for getting the seats. At the same time, we must be united and join forces in this Chief Executive Election so that the Democrats 300+ can make some achievements.

In fact, apart from effectively exercising our right of nomination this time around, we must also effectively exercise our right to vote so as to counteract the manipulation of "Western District". Why do we have to counteract the manipulation of "Western District"? Come to think of it, the whole incident is really outrageous. Despite the very high safety factor of the Chief Executive Election, "Western District" still wanted to control the results during the nomination stage and tried to create the scenario that a certain candidate was the chosen one; victory was certain and voting was unnecessary. Why did it take such actions? In the past, the practices might not be so despicable, and why should such practices be adopted this time when two former secretaries of departments stand for election? In fact, the two candidates are from the pro-establishment camp; both of them are trusted by Beijing and both of them should get the support of the pro-establishment camp. Why not allow them to compete on their own in an open and equitable election? Why did "Western District" put in so much effort to interfere in this election even during the nomination stage? I hope that Mr Holden CHOW and other pro-establishment Members can respond to my questions and tell me whether they consider such an approach equitable. Do they really believe that Director ZHANG Xiaoming has not interfered or intervene in this election? Do they believe his words? If they do, please explain to me as if I were a three-year-old kid.

LOCPG dares interfere in the election but dares not admit it. It has resorted to various means to intimidate or induce EC members, prohibiting them from nominating this candidate and forcing them to nominate and vote for that candidate. LOCPG dares not admit such outrageous actions. Let me tell Director ZHANG Xiaoming, pressing EC members to nominate and support a certain particular candidate may have undesirable results. Even if that candidate is elected, he/she cannot get support of the people. All opinion polls have now indicated clearly which candidate has the support of the majority of the public. What is the reason for that? In fact, Director ZHANG has caused harm to the candidate he favours. If two or three candidates are allowed to win public support through equitable and fair debates, through their election platforms, and through contacts with EC members and members of the public, the governance of Hong Kong and the implementation of "one country, two systems" will run LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5525 smoothly in the next five years. If a candidate only manages to win the Chief Executive Election with the support of LOCPG, the victory is not honourable and the support of Hong Kong people cannot be gained, and this will not facilitate the smooth implementation of "one country, two systems".

President, I so submit.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, during our discussion on the constitutional reform package back in 2010, I took out this rope and tied a square knot―something we learnt from childhood days as boy scouts or girl guides. If we try to untie this knot by pulling and tugging hard, it will only get tighter. But the knot can be untied easily if we know the way. Nowadays, Hong Kong is being tied down by a difficult knot. Under "one country, two systems", Hong Kong and China are different in terms of our systems, culture and development process. It would require great wisdom on the part of Hong Kong people and our country to ensure the success of "one country, two systems". This knot could have been untied easily, but we were just pulling and tugging hard.

As we discuss "one country, two systems" and the Chief Executive election today, we cannot help but touch on the Basic Law. The Basic Law is actually the hardware of "one country, two systems". The systems outlined in the Basic Law are the hardware of "one country, two systems", while trust is the software which anchors its success. No matter how well the systems are prescribed or how perfectly the Basic Law is written, the key simply cannot open the door without trust on both sides.

In 2010, the constitutional reform package was passed as a result of the democrats' willingness to compromise. But when it came to the constitutional reform package in 2015, all parties concerned refused to budge an inch. Ask ourselves candidly: Had the 2015 constitutional reform package been implemented, at least two to three candidates could have participated in this Chief Executive Election even under the 31 August framework, while members of the public could have the opportunity to elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote". Should that happen, I believe candidates favoured by the pan-democrats could have the opportunity to "play" the game, and Hong Kong people could have witnessed a well-orchestrated election.

5526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

The systems are the shell, and culture is the core. Nonetheless, the people are already quite wary about the current political culture of Hong Kong. As I just heard, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen was still chanting slogans about civil nomination being a must, and nothing else would do. Frankly, I am extremely worried about this. All parties concerned should bear responsibility for the non-passage of the constitutional reform package in 2015. With the pan-democrats adopting an unyielding stance and launching Occupy Central from the outset, the results were just counterproductive as if more knots had been tied onto the original knot. As the most important element of trust was disregarded and ignored, the Central Authorities would only become more distrustful about Hong Kong.

History cannot be changed, and there are indeed people in Hong Kong who reject anything relating to the Central Authorities. As both sides are stuck in a deadlock, good intentions are always misunderstood. For example, a person accepted by the Central Authorities must be bad and will bring Hong Kong to destruction. Why do they have such an idea? The reason is simply due to the lack of trust. Even if they are served with ginseng soup, they would regard it as poison. This is the same attitude adopted by both sides. If a candidate is supported by the pan-democrats, the Central Authorities would carefully assess why he is supported by the pan-democrats. There must be something fishy going on, and so on, and so forth. This is the reality in politics. If both sides lack mutual trust, they would want to get their hands on everything.

From my previous observations, after the unification, if the Chief Executive could gain greater trust of the Central Authorities, Hong Kong would enjoy a higher degree of autonomy. This is the political reality we must accept. We must have a candidate trusted by the Central Authorities. The highly influential Mr LI Ka-shing also spoke about this point yesterday. Of course, when it comes to the Central Authorities' trust, there is also a spectrum. They have more trust in someone and less in some others. But has consideration been given as to why the opposition camp fails to get the Central Authorities' trust? Have they ever reflected on themselves? Are there problems with their actions or directions?

When I communicated with the pro-democracy camp, I have also told them that this might do harm to the candidate they favour. Why? Because the Central Authorities will consider that candidate questionable politically. Likewise, the pro-democracy camp will consider a candidate favoured by the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5527

Central Authorities questionable politically. History cannot be changed. It is a fact that the 2015 constitutional reform package was voted down. Can we all just let go? Since the hardware of the Basic Law has already provided that there should be no civil nomination of candidates, can they consider other alternatives? Many new Members have joined the current term of the Legislative Council for the first time. They are young, and they can help shape our future history.

There is a saying about examination of fingerprint on ballots. What I want to say is that in the last Chief Executive election, I had not nominated any person. Two camps had canvassed for my vote. Yet I insisted that I would not nominate any one. For this Chief Executive Election, I made a decision at an early stage to nominate the candidate whom I prefer. Nobody can force me to make such a decision. Of course, there are bound to be people who make all sorts of appeal. All major political parties in Hong Kong would definitely make some sort of appeals. Surely, the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region would have something to say about the election. Other departments would also have something to say because they want to get their hands on everything.

But at the end of the day, the Chief Executive election is conducted by secret ballot. For a vote by secret ballot, there is really no way to force electors how to vote. I definitely do not believe in the saying of fingerprint examination, even taking photos of the ballot will breach the law. Each of the 1 200 members of the Election Committee ("EC"), other than those of the Democrats 300+, belongs to a specific industry. They must be highly respected members of their own professions for being elected as EC member. They will not be easily compelled to vote for a particular candidate against their own will. To interfere in the election means compelling electors to vote as told. But if it is a vote by secret ballot, every EC member will cast their own vote. In the past five years, Hong Kong suffered a great deal under the controversy of "ABC" (that is, anyone but CY) because the pro-democracy camp does not accept CY. Today, I hope the Chief Executive Election will not turn into a race for "anyone but China", that is, anyone but the one trusted by China. I hope Hong Kong can really move forward.

President, I so submit.

5528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, our discussion today should focus on how this Chief Executive Election has been interfered. A moment ago, Mr Holden CHOW cited some examples, claiming that when people from the pan-democracy camp take part in the election, it is meant to interfere with the election outcome, or if members of the Democrats 300+ vote "all in" for a particular candidate, it is also a kind of interference.

Though I am aware of Mr CHOW's propensity to lash out at Honourable colleagues from the pro-democracy camp, he should do so with more logical arguments. Members of the Election Committee ("EC") from the pan-democracy camp have the legitimate right to stand for election as well as the right to vote as stipulated in the Basic Law. They have the right to decide what strategies they want to use, or whether they want to affect the election outcome by standing for election. But who are the persons we consider to be truly interfering in the election? They are the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG"), including its personnel and its Director, the officials of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council ("HKMAO"), as well as the members of the Politburo. They call EC members to canvass votes, hold dinner parties or send messages through middlemen, and so on, in order to exert pressures on EC members who are the bona fide electors, and instruct them how to vote. This is what we mean by real interference. These personnel of LOCPG and HKMAO, as well as the members of the Politburo fall exactly within the scope of Article 22 of the Basic Law, which stipulates that "[n]o department … no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs" of Hong Kong. That is why I think Mr CHOW should say something more logical if he wants to debate with us.

Have those personnel actually interfered in the election? I think all Hong Kong people as well as those Members in the Chamber now know the answer only too well. Let me give some examples. When an EC member said earlier that LOCPG had canvassed votes for a particular candidate of the Chief Executive Election, Elsie LEUNG commented that there was nothing wrong about it as everyone had the freedom of speech. Her response confirmed that such a situation did exist.

Take for example the comments made by Mrs FAN, a member of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. Responding to earlier reports that an EC member nominated a particular candidate owing to pressures LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5529 from LOCPG, Mrs FAN said that it was probably the case because from what she gathered from the newspapers and radio programmes, she felt that some persons, though only a handful, might take similar actions. This is genuine interference. This is genuine preordination, and such interference has made the election unfair.

As we pointed out repeatedly, this Chief Executive Election is ridiculous. As the election is coterie in nature, the Chief Executive so elected does not have the people's mandate. But even though it is a coterie election, it could at least be held in an equitable, fair and impartial manner. But this is not the case. These personnel have interfered in the election through preordination by the Central Authorities, such that the election cannot even be held under the most basic requirements of being fair and equitable.

What then is the Government's attitude? As the Government is responsible for holding the Chief Executive election, it is duty-bound to ensure the fairness and equity of the election. But what is the Government's attitude? When responding to our questions about comments made by some people that the Central Authorities have already preordained a particular candidate or that a particular candidate would not be appointed if elected, the Government stated that the Chief Executive election should be conducted in accordance with the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, and that it would be an offence to use force or duress against electors to promote or prejudice the election of a particular candidate, blah, blah, blah. Who doesn't know the Pope is Catholic!

The Government further said that WANG Guangya was the only Central official who had commented on the election so far, and he was just pointing out the requirements of the Chief Executive designate. Such comments should not be regarded as interference―that is what the Government said. Then we raised questions about making phone calls to canvass votes or exerting pressures, and the Government responded that all those were rumours or hearsay unsubstantiated by evidence. The Government added that many people in Hong Kong had also expressed their opinions about the election, and it would be inappropriate to comment on them individually. All those are actually replies given by the Government, and I am only quoting them. Last but not least, the Government called on any EC member who felt being threatened or under duress to report their cases to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

5530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

What is the Government's real attitude behind all these statements? To put it simply, the Government is saying that no matter what we complain about, it will only respond as such. Let me make myself clear. I do not intend to discuss specific cases with the Secretary in this debate, and neither will I ask him to comment on individual cases.

But Secretary, I dare you to tell us the principles concerned when responding to the above questions later. Do you dare say in no uncertain terms that neither the Director and any personnel of LOCPG, the officials of HKMAO nor the members of the Politburo should interfere in this election in any way, including coercing, inducing or pressurizing EC members by calling them or inviting them to meetings in LOCPG? Do you dare say so? If you dare say so, I dare say that this election is conducted under equitable conditions.

Secretary, I dare you to tell us so when you speak later. I am not asking you to respond to the statements made by individuals. I am just asking you to tell us the overall principles. Since Article 22 of the Basic Law has already stipulated that no department, province, autonomous region or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs of Hong Kong within the scope of its autonomy, I invite you to confirm when you speak in response later whether they should act in the ways I mentioned previously. As a result of their actions, Hong Kong's elections cannot be held in a fair and equitable manner.

But of course, I know that the Secretary will not dare say so. In fact, as far as Hong Kong's election culture is concerned, LOCPG and the Central Authorities will extend their long hand to meddle with all elections, big and small, ranging from the Chief Executive election to Legislative Council election. In fact, apart from elections, they have also meddled in matters put to vote in the Legislative Council. The Government, the Central Government as a whole, as well as the pro-establishment camp have adopted the approach of boiling frogs in lukewarm water to make Hong Kong people slowly accustomed to such interference. Under the People's Republic of China, we must of course follow the instructions of "Grandpa" and accept the fact of "being controlled". The effect of boiling frogs in lukewarm water is that interference will become normalized, which further fuels the normalization of interference. Under such a culture, stipulations in the Basic Law against interference on Hong Kong affairs by state departments or the solemn undertakings made to Hong Kong people about "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" are all but empty words and nonsense.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5531

Nonetheless, I still hope the Secretary will dare say what he should when he speaks in response later. I hope Hong Kong people can see how ridiculous this election is because it is conducted under preordination and interference. I call on Hong Kong people to come forward with courage. Let us resist such interference and strive for genuine universal suffrage as well as a democratic political system through sustained citizens' movements and democratic movements. Let us not forget our original goal!

Mr LEUNG, I so submit.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, the subject we are debating today is essentially related to "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy". Ms Starry LEE said just now in her speech that "a high degree of autonomy" is not absolute, and how "high" the degree of autonomy would depend on the level of confidence the Central Authorities have in Hong Kong. While this is indeed a fact, this fact is very embarrassing for the reference to flexibility essentially means that the principles will be distorted and twisted.

Looking around various places in the world, we will realize that an autonomous system is normally defined by a specific legislation, which clearly defines the powers and relations of the two sides, as well as clearly states what should and should not be done. In most cases, an effective mediation mechanism is also put in place to resolve conflicts between the two sides. That said, under the autonomous arrangement for Hong Kong, though we have the Basic Law, an effective mediation mechanism is not in place and I believe the Basic Law Committee can hardly perform such a role.

Due to the lack of legal regulation, we can only rely on certain software. Dr Priscilla LEUNG just now mentioned a very important software which I agree, namely mutual trust. I would like to add another software, namely self-restraint. If "one country, two systems", a form of autonomy, is to succeed, it must be underpinned by profound mutual trust and sound self-restraint. Each of the two serves as the basis for the other. Mutual trust forms the basis for self-restraint, and self-restraint forms the basis for mutual trust. According to Ms Starry LEE, due to the lack of mutual trust, the Central Authorities have to show greater concern, or to put it in another way, interference. However, greater interference will inevitably undermine mutual trust, giving rise to a vicious cycle. This situation is well evident over the past 10 years or so.

5532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

"Self-restraint" means that both sides clearly know what should and should not be done, as well as what should and should not be said. Everything must be clearly defined. In the case of university governance, it turns out that the Chief Executive has certain statutory powers to take certain actions, but under normal circumstances, he will exercise self-restraint and will not take such actions. Such kind of self-restraint is actually very important.

As regards this Chief Executive Election, the Central Authorities have emphasized time and again four criteria, namely, being trusted by the Central Authorities, loving the country and Hong Kong, having the ability to govern and being supported by Hong Kong people. I think the four criteria are very reasonable, but in practice, can the trust of the Central Authorities and the support of Hong Kong people co-exist? In reality, is the support of Hong Kong people really that important? Will it turns out that preordination by the Central Authorities is all that matters, while the support of Hong Kong people carries no weight? What can we do to ensure the co-existence of the two criteria?

In the course of this election campaign, we have witnessed many disturbing developments. As many Members have indicated just now, Mainland officials or officials from "Western District" have blatantly exerted excessive influence on the voting decisions of Election Committee members. The entire system is already a small-circle election system which we believe needs to be greatly improved under the Basic Law, but in terms of nomination, voting and the ultimate substantive appointment, how can the support of Hong Kong people be manifested? Is the involvement of the Central Authorities or interference of "Western District" way too excessive?

The Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, a Hong Kong law, stipulates that a person will be guilty of an offence if he makes a false declaration or a false or misleading statement that affects election results. Regarding the saying of non-appointment by the Central Authorities made by Mainland officials or members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, we cannot help querying whether such a statement should have been made. According to Article 22 of the Basic Law, "[a]ll offices set up in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by departments of the Central Government, or by provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the personnel of these offices shall abide by the laws of the Region." This indicates that the law I referred to just now is also applicable to them. We must abide by this principle.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5533

In the early years following the reunification, the personnel of Central Government's offices in Hong Kong all kept a low profile, and we had full confidence in "one country, two systems" at that time. However, the present situation has changed drastically, as interference has become so serious that we must address squarely and conduct reviews. Mr DENG Xiaoping said in 1984 that "we must believe that Chinese people in Hong Kong can govern Hong Kong well. Those who do not believe that the Chinese are able to govern Hong Kong well maintain a mindset left over by old colonialism." I hope that Members can thoroughly consider these words of Mr DENG Xiaoping.

In fact, due to excessive interference, this election turns out to be a blunder instead of something desirable. Originally, the several pro-establishment candidates should be able to conduct election campaigns transcending their own camps, but due to excessive intervention by "Western District", the election has become a battle between two camps with intensified antagonism. Such inopportune interference has further undermined mutual trust. I would like the Central Authorities to answer two questions. First, how can the support of Hong Kong people be manifested? Second, how to exercise self-restraint (The buzzer sounded) … and what should and should not be done?

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

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): … I so submit.

DR PIERRE CHAN (in Cantonese): Good morning, President. On the motion moved by Dr YIU Chung-yim, I would like to talk about my views on the concerns of the medical sector and the public about the Chief Executive election.

Like the majority of the public, doctors very much hope that when universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election is implemented in the future, a low-threshold nomination mechanism can be put in place to allow as many candidates as possible to enter the race so as to give the public more choices. Universal suffrage is precious in that it allows the public to elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote" in an equitable, fair and open manner. Although it remains uncertain when this goal can be attained, the medical sector 5534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 and members of the general public strongly wish that all elections will be conducted in an equitable and fair manner. In the Election Committee Subsector ordinary elections, we doctors elected our representatives by "one person, one vote" according to our free will without any external interference.

President, the Chief Executive election affects everyone in Hong Kong. Even though at present the Chief Executive will be elected by 1 194 members of the Election Committee ("EC") and pro-democracy Members criticize the election as a coterie election, I believe members of the public still hope that the election can be conducted equitably and EC members can nominate and vote without being interfered in any way. If such wishes cannot be fulfilled now, how will the public have confidence that the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage will be implemented in the future?

In my case, during this time, no one purporting to represent the Central Authorities has lobbied me; I do not feel being pressurized in any way and I have not been invited to participate in any meetings of the Democrats 300+. Hence, like other members of the public, I have a feeling that I am watching on the sidelines; the only difference is that I have a vote. I and other doctors are concerned about the following aspects: first, the credentials and past experience of the candidates; and second, their performances in election debates and forums which we regard as interviews. As I said before, the election manifestos of the candidates only relate what will happen in the future. According to past experience, most of the promises made in election manifestos could not be fulfilled and only fewer than half were realized in the end. Thus, I will attach more importance to the past performance and experience of the candidates as well as the promises they have made. I will vote according to these criteria.

After the two former Secretaries of Departments announced their decisions to stand for election, all kinds of information spread widely. Just like members of the general public, all the information I obtained come from the press. There are reports describing how the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") has influenced the nominations and voting decisions of EC members. There are even rumours strongly suggest that the Central Authorities prefer a certain candidate. As the information has come from a source not willing to be identified, it cannot be ascertained.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5535

Although the Central Authorities have substantive power to appoint the Chief Executive according to the Basic Law, election of the Chief Executive is within the limits of the autonomy of Hong Kong. The Basic Law provides that "[t]he ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures" and before this aim is achieved, EC members are responsible to choose, according to their conscience and preferences, a suitable candidate as the Chief Executive. No authorities should interfere in any way so as to undermine "a high degree of autonomy" in Hong Kong.

However, the hearsay that a certain candidate is preordained has not stopped and I believe some EC members and the public will to a certain extent be perplexed, and it is not surprising that some EC members have felt the pressure. At the annual sessions of the National People's Congress ("NPC") and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, Mr ZHANG Dejiang, Chairman of the Standing Committee of NPC, participated in a meeting of the Deputies of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to NPC and reiterated that the Central Authorities considered that the Chief Executive should have four criteria, namely loving the country and Hong Kong, being trusted by the Central Authorities, having the ability to govern and being supported by Hong Kong people. It has been widely rumoured that Mr ZHANG went to Shenzhen earlier to meet pro-establishment EC members and told them that a certain candidate was the only candidate supported by the Central Authorities. When the Director of LOCPG was asked whether the Central Authorities had canvassed votes for a certain candidate, he said that it was a rumour.

Furthermore, in this Chief Executive Election, democratic EC members no longer nominate candidates from the democratic camp to stand for the election. Instead, the majority of these members have nominated John TSANG who had been the Financial Secretary for about 10 years and retired judge Mr WOO Kwok-hing. They wish they can seriously participate in this election with the pro-establishment EC members and nominate their preferred candidates, instead of protesting and expressing their stances. In fact, the Central Authorities should welcome the approach of the democrats which will help promote harmony in the society of Hong Kong. However, if there are incessant rumours about preordination, interference and the election being inequitable, people will think that the Central Authorities do not even trust the 1 194 EC members, the majority of whom are from the pro-establishment camp. This will further weaken 5536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 people's trust in the Central Authorities. If there is a lack of trust between Hong Kong and the Central Authorities, it will really be difficult to pursue constitutional reform to resolve problems of governance. That will not be beneficial to upholding the principle of "one country, two systems".

I so submit.

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, I would like to state at the outset that I support the conduct of the Chief Executive Election of Hong Kong in an equitable and fair manner. I also appreciate Dr YIU Chung-yim for moving this motion for debate today. If possible, this Council may also urge the various departments of the Central People's Government not to interfere in the Chief Executive Election, for this is, in my view, undoubtedly a very good idea.

However, we must realize that "a high degree of autonomy" of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is not without restraints. Article 1 of the Basic Law stipulates that "[t]he Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China"; while Article 2 of the Basic Law also provides that the executive, legislative, judiciary and final adjudication power enjoyed by us now under "a high degree of autonomy" is authorized by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPC"). Under the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong is authorized to exercise "a high degree of autonomy".

It is also mentioned in the Preamble of the Basic Law that the reunification of Hong Kong, that is, the Government of the People's Republic of China resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with effect from 1 July 1997, fulfilled the long-cherished common aspiration of the Chinese people for the recovery of Hong Kong. Therefore, upholding national unity and territorial integrity and maintaining the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong are our two keynotes. On this premise, Hong Kong has been maintaining its prosperity since 1997; yet our Motherland has gone even farther than us. Its per capita Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") in 1979 was US$290, yet it is now in the stage of moderate prosperity, which means a per capita GDP of over US$6,000.

With the steady progress of the reform and opening up of our Motherland, Hong Kong has benefited greatly from the Mainland's huge economic support. Two decades ago, a change of regime took place in Hong Kong. On 1 July LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5537

1997, people of Hong Kong became their own master overnight without any death or bloodshed. The efforts made by all organizations and members of the community for Hong Kong are commendable. It is also a miracle of the world.

At present, our public expenditures reach $396 billion. As Hong Kong is such a tiny place with an area of 1 050 sq km for a population of 7.3 million, we should indeed take pride in having 59% of our public expenditures spent in areas of education, medical, health and social welfare. Does Hong Kong have "a high degree of autonomy" under such circumstances? Let us look at other places in the world, is there a sovereign state like China that allows a region of its jurisdiction to have its own currency and its own administrative system and to assume a leading role in various aspects including enactment of legislation and final adjudication? This system did not come by easily. Our predecessors started drafting the Basic Law before 1990 and had made careful considerations to enable Hong Kong to have the present state.

The Basic Law was finally adopted by the Seventh NPC on 4 April 1990 to manifest Hong Kong's reunification with China. However, regrettably, some people are resistant to this idea and thought. Is it time to wake up after a lapse of 20 years?

According to Article 22 of the Basic Law, no department of the Central People's Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with the Basic Law. Yet, we should not forget the premise that in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Basic Law, the power comes from the Central Authorities, the People's Republic of China, NPC; and such power may be revoked as well. Therefore, we should never do anything that is self-destructive. As at this moment, we can still enjoy "a high degree of autonomy" and debate freely in this Council. This does not come by easily.

In this Chief Executive Election, the Central People's Government must have a say regarding the conduct of all candidates, it matters greatly whether the candidates love the country and Hong Kong, or whether Hong Kong's stability and prosperity will be affected after a candidate has entered the ruling regime. The Central Authorities absolutely have the power in this regard. Thus, in the Legislative Council election, we also have to ascertain that the candidates will not cause dissensions and promote "Hong Kong independence". As Members have heard just now, the power of the Central Authorities to make appointments 5538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 regarding our elections―be it District Council election, Legislative Council election or even the Chief Executive election―is not ordinary but absolute constitutionally. The Central Authorities only show concern; direct interference will be unconstitutional or against the Basic Law.

There are things we should do and things we should not do. In the Council, we should do useful and constructive things to set a good example, but we should not engage in the so-called oath-taking controversy. We should call a spade a spade, and should not filibuster; we should perform well in our work and do a good job to serve Hong Kong and we should not instigate confrontations (The buzzer sounded) … and we should not support "Hong Kong independence". Thank you.

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

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong has a fair, clean and honest electoral system. The level of democracy is higher than that before the reunification, with more members of the public entitled to take part in elections. For example, all of the 431 District Council members are elected by Hong Kong people on a "one person, one vote" basis; of the 70 Legislative Council Members, 40 Members are also elected by Hong Kong people by "one person, one vote", while the remaining 30 Members are elected by representatives of functional constituencies ("FC"). Among the FC Members, there are also some pan-democratic representatives, including Mr Dennis KWOK from the legal sector, Mr Charles Peter MOK from the information technology sector, Mr Kenneth LEUNG from the accounting sector, Dr YIU Chung-yim from the surveying sector and Mr SHIU Ka-chun from the social welfare sector.

Under the Chief Executive election system, despite the current electorate base of over 300 000 voters, Hong Kong people generally hope that they can elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote". Mr LI Ka-shing made an excellent remark at a press conference yesterday. He said that Hong Kong could have had the chance to elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote", only to be rejected by a few people. He claimed that it was necessary to find the culprits, questioning why they were seldom blamed. I am going to respond to Mr LI Ka-shing here today: the culprits are those Members from the opposition camp in this Chamber. All Hong Kong people should also blame the 28 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5539 opposition Members who voted against the constitutional reform package back then. Opposition Members have often accused the Central Authorities of interfering in Hong Kong's elections, but those Hong Kong people with discerning eyes can see and hear that it is actually the opposition camp which has really interfered in Hong Kong's elections in recent years.

The ThunderGo campaign for the Legislative Council election last year was literally a large-scale campaign for allocating votes. Benny TAI, the initiator of the ThunderGo campaign, claimed that it was not illegal to send voting strategy to voters via private messages only. However, in the early hours of the polling day on 4 September, in coordination with the plan of the ThunderGo campaign, the online version of Apple Daily published graphical and textual instructions for voters, with a view to enabling candidates lagging behind in polls to get elected by a wide margin. Can these still be called private messages?

In addition, on the eve of the polling day, some pan-democratic candidates suddenly indicated that they would withdraw from the election under pressure, with a few claiming that they had sold their flats to cash in millions of dollars for taking part in the election. Spending millions of dollars―not tens or hundreds of thousands―for election expenses? Many Hong Kong people and I would also find it unbelievable. We have reason to doubt that someone might have promised to pay up their expenses in exchange for their withdrawal. Is any electoral corruption involved therein?

Back to the question on this Chief Executive Election. During the nomination period, someone offered one Chief Executive candidate nomination votes of members of the Election Committee ("EC") in exchange for his consent to withdraw the judicial review against four Legislative Council Members if he was elected. This is in fact a flagrant deal of vote buying and vote selling, which can be referred to as a black box operation. With respect to this, members of the legal profession have generally pointed out that intervention into the judicial process by political request has genuinely damaged the core values of Hong Kong's rule of law. This has not only perverted the course of justice, but has even involved contempt of court and electoral corruption.

In an election, it is right and proper for voters to support a candidate with whom they share similar visions. However, in this Chief Executive Election, the opposition camp has used all the unscrupulous means to manipulate the election, 5540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 leaving people gasp with astonishment. First, from the political perspective, many pan-democratic EC members also agree that the political platform of one candidate is most in line with the pan-democratic visions. However, after this candidate has delightedly submitted 180 nomination votes which qualify him as a candidate in this Chief Executive Election, some opposition EC members have surprisingly said in public that they would give all their votes to another candidate whose political ideals have all along been opposite to those of the pan-democratic camp. By doing so, they have not only run counter to the insistence of politicians on their ideals, but also cruelly aborted the campaign of the candidate they had originally supported.

From the perspective of people's livelihood, there have been rising demands for increasing education expenses and welfare for improving people's livelihood and the well-being of the elderly in the past few years. Instead of supporting a candidate who has proposed policies to increase public spending, the opposition camp has claimed to vote for a candidate who knows nothing about education and who has all along been a miser refusing to increase expenditure on people's livelihood and welfare. This irrational voting behaviour is only intended to manipulate the election.

The Chief Executive should be accountable not only to Hong Kong, but the Central Authorities as well. It is the unshirkable responsibility of the Central Authorities to pay attention to the Chief Executive election. The opposition camp has been claiming that the Central Authorities' concern about the election is a form of interference in the election in Hong Kong. With the help of foreign forces, the opposition camp has not only interfered in the election but intended to manipulate the election results. This is a typical example of the problem maker being the first one to file a complaint. For this reason, I support the amendments of Mr Paul TSE and Ms Starry LEE, and oppose the original motion. I so submit.

MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): President, I speak against the original motion.

President, strange things happen every year and strange things are plentiful this year. The reason is that the election of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be held this year. A group of self-proclaimed pan-democrats have, together with more than 300 Election LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5541

Committee ("EC") members formed an alliance called the Democrats 300+, in an attempt to become the "king maker" in this election. They tend to play tricks and make changes. Their acts are dazzling, ridiculous and befuddling.

First of all, they have distorted the purpose of the election. The purpose of the Chief Executive election is to identify people with strong ability, commitment and governance concepts conducive to the stable development of Hong Kong. This person is going to be the helmsman in Hong Kong in the next five years, leading Hong Kong forward. However, the pan-democrats want to elect a person who is not preordained by the Central Authorities and who dares resist the Central Authorities, disregarding his/her ability and work performance in the past. They have accused, in a high profile manner, the Central Authorities of intervening in the election, coercing and inducing some EC members to nominate or vote for a candidate favoured by the Central Authorities. Nevertheless, there is no reliable evidence to substantiate this accusation and no victim can be found to make allegations; they are just making groundless accusations, constantly murmuring about rumours and hearsays, etc. This is just like someone pointing to an empty room and saying that there are ghosts inside. If one cannot see the ghosts, it is just because the ghosts do not want to appear; when they say there are ghosts, there will certainly be ghosts. Are there really ghosts? Only ghosts know.

On the contrary, we have seen how the pan-democrats have blatantly and starkly manipulated EC members belonging to the Democrats 300+. They sometimes said that they would give votes to a certain candidates to get nominated for the election, and sometimes they said that they would give votes to another candidate. While one candidate said that he/she had to return the excessive nominations, another candidate said that he/she could not get enough nominations and asked to be fairly treated. There is a clamour of voices. I do not know if the actions taken by the pan-democrats are considered as intervening in the election. They oppose the Central Authorities preordaining a candidate, thus they have to preordain another candidate to resist the Central Authorities. Can this be said that "one may steal a horse while another may not look over the hedge"?

Second, for the purpose of "king making", the pan-democrats disregarded righteousness and justice and acted in breach of good faith. They nominated Justice WOO, but after he had been nominated, they told him that his mission was completed and they would not vote for him in the election. They treated Justice 5542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

WOO as a disposable object to be dumped after use, giving Justice WOO a really hard time. Alas! As a retired judge, how can he endure such kind of treatment? When Justice WOO insisted on not withdrawing from the election, black posters have appeared to insinuate and attack him. These black posters have a black background and their contents include "fat WOO snatching votes", "harbouring evil intentions", etc. Buddy, the pan-democrats have adopted such a lowly means; it can be said that they have used all sorts of intrigues and wiles.

On the other hand, the coordinator of the Democrats 300+ has publicly pledged earlier that they have decided to vote for the candidate getting the highest votes in the "PopVote" organized by Mr Benny TAI. However, before the announcement of the result of "PopVote", the Civic Party hastily held a meeting on 15 March and announced its decision to support the candidate surnamed TSANG, at the expense of violating its promise and compromising its integrity. Why has it acted so anxiously?

Third, the pan-democrats have continuously criticized people for tearing Hong Kong apart, but it is precisely the pan-democrats who have created opposing camps in the election, causing social division and dissension in Hong Kong. The pan-democrats and their supporters immediately labelled Carrie LAM "CY 2.0" when she announced her intention to run in the election, and they made personal attacks and demonized her. These attacks are made throughout the election and she has even been called "dissension 2.0" these days …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-kin, to ensure that the Chief Executive Election can be conducted fairly, I remind Members again that they should avoid mentioning the names of candidates and they should not imply whether they will vote for a particular candidate. Please note this point.

MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): Yes.

… spreading the word that she cannot govern smoothly even if she is elected. Who has torn Hong Kong apart?

President, this is the most distinguished example of "a thief crying 'stop thief'".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5543

The pan-democrats have emphasized that Hong Kong people should decide who should be the Chief Executive-elect; this saying is extremely hypocritical. It is precisely because they vetoed the constitutional reform package that Hong Kong people are deprived of the opportunity to vote directly to elect the Chief Executive; they have let Hong Kong people down. Today, the pan-democrats are opposing loudly small-circle election and intervention by the Central Authorities. This precisely reflects that they are hypocritical. For the sake of the well-being of Hong Kong, I advise the pan-democrats to stop and do not go too far.

President, I so submit.

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, it will be the Chief Executive Election day very soon and all 68 Members present have the right to vote because we are all Election Committee ("EC") members and we have the opportunity to elect the Chief Executive for the next five years, but over 7 million ordinary citizens outside this Council cannot vote. They originally could vote if the constitutional reform package was passed last time, and the Chief Executive of Hong Kong could be elected by "one person, one vote" for the first time this Sunday. But precisely because non-establishment Members insisted on voting against the constitutional reform package, the constitutional reform suffered a standstill and universal suffrage brushed past Hong Kong.

If the constitutional reform package was passed at that time, the sun would shine again after the rain. It is no long necessary to propose this motion, make groundless accusations or talk about intervention. Today, there is no need for us to debate this motion because nobody is strong enough to intervene in 7 million people's voting decision. Therefore, I am very perplexed why non-establishment Members opposed the constitutional reform package at that time, but they present themselves as the representatives of public opinion today, cashing in on the system. This is really strange. In particular, they opposed the constitutional reform package at that time because of the 31 August Decision and they insisted on several principles. But today, their position on nomination or their comments seemed to indicate that the 31 August Decision and Article 23 of the Basic Law are not their principles or factors for consideration. This proves that they only want to resist the Central Authorities; in short, their position determines right or wrong. Perhaps they opposed the 31 August Decision as it was made by the Central Authorities; would they agree if the Decision was made by other people?

5544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

During the election campaign, I have not received any intervention, instruction or pressure, and I do not know why non-establishment Members have kept associating the election with the Central Authorities and making groundless accusations; they are really too imaginative. It is known to all that secret ballots will be cast at the Chief Executive Election, and this system precisely ensures that the election will be equitable and fair. Even if EC members have verbally promised to vote for a certain candidate, no one knows whom he will vote for at the polling station. This system guarantees that no intervention is imposed at the time of voting. Nevertheless, some may say, do not think that secret ballots are secret, for ballot papers can be sent to Beijing for fingerprint examination. Apart from the word "outrageous", I really cannot think of another word to describe these claims. In fact, they do not have any substantive evidence. After the remarks made by Raymond, non-establishment Members or the media have immediately stopped talking about this theory, and they no longer dwell on this issue. Yet, the damage has been done and white terror really cast a shadow on the whole election.

This is political smearing and the Central Authorities have been smeared. One of the candidates, Justice WOO, only wants people to pay attention to his platform and concepts and give more support, but he has been smeared by others, saying that he is a "ghost" or a spy. However, are these allegations established? For this electoral system, the candidate getting the most votes will be elected; a candidate will only be elected if he/she gets more than half of the votes, i.e. 601 votes. Therefore, if a candidate gets more than 601 votes, regardless of whether candidate B or C gets 200 votes or 300 votes, it cannot be said that they have snatched votes because the total votes they got basically cannot affect whether another candidate can get 601 votes. If the opposition party is not unfamiliar with the electoral system or having a zero score in politics, this is political manipulation for getting the result it wants and giving it a halo. The opposition party is the real dictator who simply cannot tolerate other voices, and it will even reject those having similar ideas.

According to some political parties, we should elect a person who is farthest away from "Western District". Honestly, when "Long Hair" announced that he would run in the election, everyone thought that he was farthest away from "Western District". However, the opposition camp did not nominate "Long Hair" and even ridiculed him. I am really perplexed. Apart from political manipulation and intervention by the Democrats 300+, I cannot think of other reasons.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5545

Frankly speaking, the opposition camp often implicates the Central Authorities; on the one hand, it says that the Central Authorities has exerted pressure, but on the other hand, it cannot deny the role played by the Central Authorities. Therefore, many people including Anson CHAN said that a certain candidate had been approved by the Central Authorities because the State leaders had shaken hands with him. They intended to make Hong Kong people think that the Central Authorities support and trust the candidate, and they hope that everyone will follow the ideas of the Central Authorities. This is undoubtedly self-contradictory.

Finally, I would like to say that the concept of democracy does not only entail an equitable and fair election process, but also a respect of the election outcome, which is very important. Therefore, I would like to use the remaining speaking time to state that whatever the outcome on Sunday is, I am willing to fully cooperate with the candidate who finally wins and work hard together for the interests of Hong Kong. I also hope that non-establishment Members will respect the outcome and cooperate with the next Chief Executive. After all, while an election is momentary, the interests of Hong Kong last forever. Hong Kong, sure win!

President, I so submit.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I hereby state that my colleagues of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong ("BPA") and I oppose the original motion moved by Dr YIU Chung-yim as well as the amendments proposed by several pan-democratic Members.

BPA fully supports that the Chief Executive Election must be conducted under fair conditions. As a matter of fact, integrity has all along been a core value of Hong Kong, and a clean and fair election is the foundation of contemporary democracy. At present, the Chief Executive Election is mainly regulated by three ordinances, namely the Chief Executive Election Ordinance, the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance and the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance. We ought to abide by the relevant ordinances, so as to ensure that the election will be conducted in an open and fair manner. Regrettably, the wordings of the amendments proposed by the several 5546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 pan-democratic Members are overly against the Central Government, which cannot be endorsed; the amendments of Mr Charles Peter MOK and Ms Claudia MO even state that it has been reported that some departments of the Central People's Government have "meddled in" and "vigorously influenced" the Chief Executive Election. Such remarks are really strange and perplexing.

Since the start of the election campaigns of the current Chief Executive Election, conspiracy theories of all kinds have circulated widely in the media and on the Internet. For instance, there are the hearsays that "members of the Election Committee ("EC") are asked to prove their voting decisions by taking photos" and "ballots will be sent to the Mainland for fingerprint examination after the Chief Executive Election"; and it is also widely rumoured that Mainland officials have made all kinds of interference. Such hearsays may well be described as "strangeness knows no bounds". There is no substantial evidence but only groundless accusation. In fact, Hong Kong has a comprehensive electoral legislation. Both the Electoral Affairs Commission and the Registration and Electoral Office have appropriate administrative measures to ensure that various elections will be conducted under fair and equitable conditions. For the election of the District Council, the Legislative Council and even the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, the whole polling process or the counting and handling of ballots after the close of poll is highly transparent, and under the monitoring of relevant candidates, election agents and Returning Officers at the scene. The so-called "photo-taking" and "ballot-checking" theories should not hold water. Anyone who has some knowledge of our electoral system and procedure will not hastily believe in such pure fictitious saying.

There are opinions in society that any Mainland officials speaking on the Chief Executive Election is a kind of interference. As I remember, no official of the Central Authorities has ever openly preordained a certain candidate. Other than rumours of all kinds and the so-called media reports, only WANG Guangya, Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, had stated publicly the four criteria of the Central Authorities for the next Chief Executive, which include loving the country and Hong Kong, having the ability to govern, being trusted by the Central Authorities, and being supported by Hong Kong people. There is not an element of interference in this statement. In fact, anyone, be he an official or a common person, has his freedom of speech. So LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5547 long as the speech involves no defamation or personal attack, their views on the Chief Executive Election should be respected.

President, as is known to all, the Central Government has a designated constitutional role on this issue. Article 45 of the Basic Law provides that "[t]he Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government." Constitutionally, this has secured the substantive power of the Central Government to appoint the Chief Executive.

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

The original motion states that this Council also "urges the various departments of the Central People's Government not to interfere in the Chief Executive Election", nor to pressurize members of the Election Committee into making voting decisions against their own wills. This allegation is not only unsubstantiated, but even a case of "a thief crying 'stop thief'". As we all know, once the nomination period started, the Democrats 300+―a coalition formed by the EC members belonging to the pan-democratic camp―has already proposed to coordinate the allocation of nominations, so that both candidates of their choice could enter the race to stand for election. Recently, they even further stated that 98% of them will vote for a certain candidate. Is such allocation of votes or bundled voting a kind of interference? Will such a practice run counter to the independence and autonomy of EC members of the coalition, rendering them to "make voting decisions against their own wills"? I am afraid only the persons concerned will have an answer. Worse still, there are candidates suffering from attacks and smears. A candidate is being rumoured as the preordained one; and another candidate is even being depicted as a stool pigeon sent by the Central Authorities for diluting the pan-democratic source of votes (that is, snatching votes). These totally groundless conspiracy theories are the prime culprits affecting the fairness of the Chief Executive Election.

Deputy President, regardless of which political camp an EC member belongs to, he should make a prudent political decision based on objective factors, such as the experience, past performance records, governance principles 5548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 and election manifesto of each candidate. No matter which candidate an EC member decides to support ultimately, he is exercising his political right and such a right is sufficiently secured under the current system and legislation. The new Chief Executive will be returned by election on 26 March. I hope all parties will immediately stop spreading smearing remarks and false hearsays, so as to ensure the smooth conduct of the election under equitable and fair conditions.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak to oppose the original motion.

Elections in Hong Kong are clean and highly credible. This is attributable to the appropriate regulation under the electoral legislation of Hong Kong and the professionalism and effective monitoring of the Electoral Affairs Commission ("EAC") staff. The public is thus at ease. The Government has stressed time and again that it will, as always, work closely with EAC to ensure that the upcoming 2017 Chief Executive Election on Sunday will be conducted in a fair, equitable and honest manner strictly in accordance with the legislation. However, the Government not only has to take adequate actions to ensure that the Chief Executive Election is conducted in an open, fair and equitable manner, I think it also has to let the public see and feel that the election is so conducted.

However, recently, some vile electoral culture has arisen, in which false news has been spreading incessantly in an attempt to smear certain candidates and influence the public's views on the Chief Executive Election. The SAR Government must squarely and swiftly address this problem, so that the public will see and feel that the election is conducted in a fair, equitable and open manner. In recent days, there have been all kinds of rumours about the Chief Executive Election, such as ballot papers will be sent to the Mainland for fingerprint examination, or members of the Election Committee ("EC") have been requested to take photos of their ballot papers for record, so on and so forth. Such rumours sound very convincing and highly credible; EC members and the public may thus be deceived. Hence, the authorities cannot turn a blind eye and regard such rumours as tidbits or election propaganda. When dealing with all kinds of false and misleading arguments, the authorities must act seriously and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5549 clarify expeditiously so as to prevent false information from being hyped continuously, misleading both EC members and the public. If the SAR Government does not take the initiative to combat this vile electoral culture, it will continue to erode and pollute our elections. As a result, it will not only arouse people's doubts about the fairness and equity of the Chief Executive Election, but also dampen the authorities' efforts in the promotion of high-quality democracy.

Deputy President, the opposition camp's amendments and day-to-day comments all point the finger at the Central Authorities, accusing them of interfering in the election. The election of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong consists of two parts: first, the election of the Chief Executive by voting, and second the appointment by the Central Government. The Basic Law provides that the Chief Executive shall be accountable to both the SAR Government and the Central Government. As I see it, the reason why the Central Government is concerned about the Chief Executive Election is that it hopes the Chief Executive returned by election will be capable of shouldering the mandate of implementing "a high degree of autonomy" and can be appointed smoothly. The Central Authorities' concern during the election campaign and their participation in accordance with law has not impeded the fair and equitable conduct of the Chief Executive Election as provided by the law. We are also aware that there is no evidence of the Central Authorities interfering in the election.

However, the opposition camp's remarks about the Central Authorities' interference in the Chief Executive election, its wilful hype of the "non-appointment theory", as well as its disrespect for the design of "one country, two systems" and the Central Government's constitutional status and power aim at eliminating the Central Government's role in the Hong Kong Chief Executive election under the Basic Law. The opposition camp even attempts to make the election develop in its desired direction and selects its spokesperson.

Recently, the opposition camp has wilfully nominated candidates who hold different political beliefs to theirs in an attempt to "make a king", increase the risk of the election being aborted and create a constitutional crisis. Such attempts are actual interference and manipulation of the election through and through, an indication of their disrespect for the electoral system.

5550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

The authorities must ensure the fair and equitable conduct of the Chief Executive Election so that all EC members and members of the public will have the courage to tell the truth, and protect them against the threat of verbal violence. During the election process, EC members or the public who openly express their support for certain candidates have been subjected to criticisms and bullying by people having different political positions or views in the form of personal attack, discrimination, insults or threats in the real or cyber world. As a result of the chilling effect, EC members or the public have to keep their mouth shut, a fair and equitable conduct of election is thus vanished. Hence, if acts of threatening or bullying are against the law, the SAR Government should take actions without hesitation, so as to ensure that the Chief Executive Election will be conducted smoothly under the aforesaid principles of fairness, equity and openness.

Deputy President, it is not merely the SAR Government which has the responsibility to protect people's right to express their personal views freely without fear, all other people, including the Chief Executive candidates, have the duty to do so. We cannot stop people with different political beliefs from voicing their views. I believe people of Hong Kong will not endorse cursing others of "losing his integrity in his closing year" or ridiculing people with hearing impairment of "being blind and deaf". Hence, I expect that the Chief Executive candidates will not turn a blind eye to such discriminatory or hostile remarks and condone anyone making such remarks. We should also urge their supporters not to engage in cyber-bullying activities.

Deputy President, the 2017 Chief Executive Election will take place in a few days' time but the work to ensure an open, fair and equitable conduct of a Chief Executive Election will not end after the successful conduct of the 2017 Chief Executive Election. We expect the SAR Government to assume this important responsibility through thick and thin, sum up the experience and continue to improve the legislation relating to elections and the monitoring system, so as to ensure the elections of the Chief Executive and various councils will continue to be conducted openly, fairly and equitably.

I support the amendments of Ms Starry LEE and Mr Paul TSE. I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5551

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Democratic Party wrote to State President XI Jinping five days ago to express our hope that he would ensure the fair conduct of the election of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR"). I think we should let all people in Hong Kong know our stance. Now let me read out the letter:

"President XI, the election of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR will be conducted on 26 March. People of Hong Kong are highly concerned about it. With its base in Hong Kong, the Democratic Party firmly believes that Hong Kong people's trust in both the Central Government and the Hong Kong SAR Government is the foundation of the successful implementation of 'one country, two systems'. For this reason, we write to you to express our concern.

"The Democratic Party welcomes the decision of the incumbent Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying, not to seek re-election. The most important reason is that during his tenure as the Chief Executive, he handles Hong Kong's affairs in a combative manner, which has directly caused the serious division and laceration in our society and the bitter confrontation between government officials and the public in recent years. He is the one who started people's discussion on 'Hong Kong Independence'. Mr LEUNG's decision not to seek re-election accords a good opportunity to Hong Kong society to rebuild the mutual trust and cooperation among various communities.

"In recent days, there have been endless reports about the active interference of the Central Government or its representatives in Hong Kong in the SAR Chief Executive Election. Even important figures of the pro-establishment camp have openly revealed that they received canvassing phone calls, coercing them, members of the Election Committee ('EC'), to support the favoured candidate. This has angered the people of Hong Kong. More importantly, while this approach serves to further damage the credibility of the Chief Executive Election and the future Chief Executive, it is also unacceptable to the people. 'If the people have no faith in their rulers, there is no standing for the state.' We hope that you will immediately stop the interference and meddling, lest the people will have further misgivings about the implementation of 'one country, two systems'.

"Together with the people, the Democratic Party has been striving for universal suffrage for years. This is because a genuine election system without screening is not only an entitlement of the people but it is also conducive to the 5552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

Government's governance and long-term political stability and peace. Besides, it is also a promise made by the Basic Law to the people of Hong Kong. After the turmoil in the past few years, society is in desperate need of a breathing space to allow it to get back onto the right track. Hence, even though this election is not conducted by means of universal suffrage and all candidates have been part of the establishment for years with none of them belonging to the pan-democratic camp, the Democratic Party still nominated pro-establishment candidates to give all candidates a chance to earn the support of the people of Hong Kong. To allow Hong Kong society to start afresh, we are willing to make a big compromise at this important moment.

"The Chief Executive Election will take place in just a little over a week's time, and Hong Kong people are desperately hoping that the Chief Executive elected will be someone who can truly bring the majority of the Hong Kong people together. From your promise to 'ensure' that the implementation of 'one country, two systems' would not be distorted and twisted, to ZHANG Dejiang, the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPC"), coming to Hong Kong to meet with the democrats, to the Central Government's willingness to re-issue Home Visit Permits to democrats whose Permits have been forfeited, to LEUNG Chun-ying's decision not to seek re-election, and then to Director WANG Guangya's laying out of the four basic criteria for the candidate for the next Chief Executive in an interview, and the repeated reiteration of such criteria during the sessions of NPC and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference recently, these are the directions that people of Hong Kong generally agree.

"Hong Kong Society has been unusually calm and peaceful in recent days. The people are generally watching who will be elected the next Chief Executive, which they take as an important indicator of the Central Government's attitude toward Hong Kong. Will the division in society be gradually narrowed and patched up in future and the people's confidence in the Central Government and the implementation of 'one country, two systems' increase? Or will things spiral down and the division in society keeps on widening and laceration deepening, and the people be more disappointed with the Central Government and the implementation of 'one country, two systems'? The Democratic Party believes that the result of the Chief Executive Election will be an important watershed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5553

"The Democratic Party loves Hong Kong dearly. It believes that the smooth development of Hong Kong society will greatly benefit both Hong Kong and the country. We do not wish to see Hong Kong society being torn apart further, nor do we wish to see Hong Kong people lose confidence in the Central Government and 'one country, two systems' any further. We want society to return to harmony and the people, in addition to being able to live in peace and contentment, to have a deeper sense of belonging to Hong Kong and the country. We look forward to the genuine reunification of people's hearts.

"We truly hope that you and the Central Government will respect the people of Hong Kong and allow EC members to vote for the candidate according to the people's wish in the upcoming Chief Executive Election, so as to maintain the hard-earned social harmony and let Hong Kong return to the right track. The Democratic Party, 18 March 2017."

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, this coming Sunday is the big day for electing our next Chief Executive, it thus seems fair and reasonable for Dr YIU Chung-yim to propose this motion on "Ensuring the fair conduct of the Chief Executive Election" today because there is no reason for us not to support the fair conduct of the Chief Executive Election.

However, after listening to his speech, we can see that this is not the case as he was merely hurling criticisms arbitrarily and talking nonsense. In addition to viewing through tinted glasses the role played by the Central Authorities in this election, he has also spread fallacies and "urged the various departments of the Central People's Government not to interfere in the Chief Executive Election, including but not limited to causing a certain candidate to be or not to be elected, or pressurizing members of the Election Committee ("EC") into making voting decisions against their own wills." In other words, he was saying that EC members were being influenced by various ministries of the Central Authorities and the Central Authorities were exerting their influence in this election. In my view, however, all this is but an unfounded charge and allegation not substantiated with any fact or evidence. Worse still, he has portrayed our 1 194 EC members as people lacking independent thinking and the ability to distinguish right from wrong. He has also criticized that some EC members only receive orders from the Central Authorities. This is absolutely an attempt to sling mud at the pro-establishment camp and is totally unacceptable. He has even cast 5554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 doubt on the Central Authorities' substantive power of appointment, and this is totally reflective of the opposition role he plays. I wish to point out that it is the due responsibility of the Central Authorities and various Central Government offices in Hong Kong to show concern and inquire about the Chief Executive Election, why would this be regarded as an intervention?

Now, I would like to revisit with Members the remarks made openly by the Central Authorities in the course of this Chief Executive Election, as well as the reports delivered at the two sessions of the National People's Congress ("NPC") and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference ("CPPCC") in March this year, so as to give Members a clearer picture of what is happening.

To begin with, when the Director of Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office WANG Guangya was interviewed by the Bauhinia Magazine at the end of December last year, he explicitly stated for the first time the four major prerequisites of the next Chief Executive, namely "love for the country and Hong Kong, the Central Authorities' trust, governance ability and Hong Kong people's support". Even the opposition camp agrees with and has no objection to these four prerequisites. Some opposition newspapers have even made use of this remark to support their favourite Chief Executive candidates.

However, after the Central Authorities approved the resignation of two Bureau Directors for running in the Chief Executive Election, some people began to spread the rumour that the Central Authorities support A but not B. Some newspapers even sought to arouse public attention by saying that there was factional struggle within the Central Authorities over who should be put on the pedestal and who should not be trusted, and there were also allegations that the "Western District" was mobilizing a huge number of people to canvass votes and filling up the nomination forms for EC members. Besides, there was a rumour that the "Northern Overlords" had come to the south to deliver a message. Such illusionary allegations are not only vivid but also very entertaining, and yet people in the know would simply laugh them off as they are mere hearsay without any substantive support.

As a CPPCC member, I have personally attended the meeting between ZHANG Dejiang, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the NPC ("NPCSC") and CPPCC members, and I can tell everyone that he has not said a word about who he supports or does not support. Instead, he merely reiterated the four LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5555 major prerequisites set out by Director WANG Guangya, and highlighted the need to elect a Chief Executive who would "take on responsibilities, have the ability to master complicated situations and unite different sectors". He also stressed that the Central Authorities had higher expectation of the Chief Executive than other directors and secretaries. Instead of hearing any candidates complaining about the Central Authorities having a biased stance, I have noticed a certain candidate openly echoing the views of the NPCSC Chairman.

While I was in Beijing attending the NPC and CPPCC sessions, I met with many different people but never heard anything about the Central Authorities having a handpicked candidate for the post of Chief Executive. We can express our views about the candidates whom we support, and some EC members have even said that nomination and voting are two separate issues and they may not necessarily vote for the candidate they have nominated, as they need to carefully consider the candidates' political platform and performances at the consultation meetings. I am really a little astounded by such a remark. Is it because the EC members have not seriously considered the candidates' viewpoints during the stage of nomination that they need to change their minds afterwards? In my opinion, we should hold fast to our principles and refrain from being flip floppers.

Therefore, I hope that Dr YIM or other pan-democratic Members will stop causing trouble in a bid to disrupt the relations between the people of Hong Kong and the Central Government. I certainly understand that this is an attempt to concoct a plot about the intervention of the Central Authorities to lure more people to take part in their procession and mass gathering to be held on Saturday, which seeks to upset the orderly and smooth conduct of the election. Should this not be regarded as an act to interfere in the election?

And yet, just as Chairman ZHANG has reminded us during the two sessions, widespread politicization in Hong Kong will not bring us any good. He hopes that the pan-democratic Members will change their mindset and not to oppose China indiscriminately. Rather, they should keep China or the Central Authorities in their heart.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the fair and just conduct of the election to be held on Sunday.

5556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): At a glance, I can see two Members now present at the meeting have voted for the constitutional reform package. Regrettably, however, the reform package was negatived. The fact that the package was not passed has rendered more than 3 million Hong Kong electors unable to vote in the Chief Executive Election to be held on this Sunday.

At that time, one of the reasons why pan-democratic Members opposed the constitutional reform package was that we might have to choose from three "rotten oranges". However, let us take a look at the three candidates today, or the four persons seeking nomination, including Mrs Regina IP, I believe most members of the public would think they do have a choice. Hence, the "three 'rotten oranges'" theory does not hold water any more.

Of course, they may then put blame on the 31 August Decision. But what is the issue with the 31 August Decision? According to the threshold for candidacy as stated in the 31 August Decision, the persons seeking nomination should be endorsed by more than half of all members of the Nomination Committee ("NC") in order to become candidates. However, according to the 31 August Decision, each NC member may nominate more than one person. That being the case, so long as the person seeking nomination is someone found highly acceptable or considered as deserving nomination in the eyes of the public, I believe there should not be any problem for him to become a candidate. After the stage of Committee nomination, there will be a number of candidates, say three candidates as in the present case, for electors to choose from. I think the majority of the general public will have their favorite candidates whom they consider totally acceptable and definitely not "three rotten oranges".

In conducting elections, many democratic societies attach great importance to public opinion and usually it is the candidate who enjoys high popularity rating that wins in an election. However, as the constitutional reform package has been negatived, members of the public are deprived of their right to take part in the election, the importance of public support may most probably be neglected. It is a real pity that the relevant proposal was not passed in the previous term of the Legislative Council, thus depriving people of their chance to vote in the election. As far as the coming few years of Hong Kong is concerned, this is indeed a golden opportunity missed.

Many people have asked if there is any influence on the election. In my view, there is no doubt that influence prevails in all elections. Mr Tommy CHEUNG, who is sitting next to me, may also influence my voting preference. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5557

How can there be no influence? As a matter of fact, I have recently been approached by many foreign consuls, including those of the United States and United Kingdom, as well as friends from the Mainland. It is not surprising for them to give me some advice, and I have also related to them my viewpoints. But is this tantamount to influencing the final decision of members of the Election Committee ("EC")? Of course not. EC members will make their final decisions on their own, and all EC members would surely vow to cast their votes according to their conscience.

Regarding the issue of related incoming calls, I am the first person to declare having received such calls. But what is the issue with that? One of the candidates once said in a television program that we could decide not to answer such calls. When I met this candidate in another election-related occasion, I told him it was inappropriate for us not to answer phone calls. He then replied that it was no big deal even to hang up the phone. I nonetheless consider this too rude and impolite. After all, it is an incoming call, it would be too rude of me to refuse answering it and hung up right away. Opinion of such kind will only be taken as reference, and I do not believe such incoming calls would affect EC members' views on a candidate's political platform, background, capability and credibility.

At present, what are the things that members of the public would like the next Chief Executive to do in the next few years? The most basic request would be to promote harmony. There have been too many disputes in Hong Kong over the past years. If we arbitrarily pick someone on the street and ask what his wish is for the next few years, he would certainly express the wish for Hong Kong to be more harmonious and have fewer disputes. What do the Central Authorities want then? President XI once said that he hoped the Chief Executive could "promote harmony, maintain stability and pursue development". In other words, the Central Authorities, President XI and Hong Kong people do have a common expectation, which is to promote harmony, and this is a wish to see a harmonious Hong Kong in the future. What is meant by harmonious? It means that people from different spectrum of the community can sit down and discuss together. I hope that the Chief Executive to be elected on 26 March will be able to do so and open up a new era for Hong Kong.

Last but not least, I would like to express my wish for the next term of Government or the next Chief Executive to reactivate the constitutional reform in the next five years. This is because we do not want to see that by 2022, still 5558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 only 1 200 people have the privilege to vote in the Chief Executive Election. I hope that in 2022, more than 3 million electors in Hong Kong will have the right to vote for their favourite Chief Executive. Only in so doing can we boost Hong Kong's democratic development process one step forward, which will undoubtedly be beneficial to the future development of Hong Kong.

Thank you, Deputy President, I so submit.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of the original motion moved by Dr YIU Chung-yim and the amendments proposed by the three pro-democracy Members.

Our concern is whether the Chief Executive Election will be conducted fairly, but it seems to us that Secretary Raymond TAM has not monitored the process of the Election on behalf of the Government to ensure its fair conduct. According to Article 22 of the Basic Law, no department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law. Perhaps Secretary Raymond TAM should tell us whether the Chief Executive Election is an affair which Hong Kong administers on its own according to Article 22 of the Basic Law. As far as the Chief Executive Election is concerned, the nomination and voting stages all take place in Hong Kong, and it is clearly stipulated that the Election Committee composing of 1 200 members (minus six) shall be responsible for nominating candidates and electing the Chief Executive. We certainly understand that the Chief Executive Election is an affair which Hong Kong administers on its own.

Dr CHIANG Lai-wan has mentioned earlier that the Central People's Government is very concerned about the Chief Executive Election because according to Article 45, the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government. The role of the Central People's Government is to appoint the Chief Executive designate after the Election. So, is it right for the Central People's Government to be concerned about the Election because it has to make the appointment in the end? It is alright to be concerned, but the problem is that the Central People's Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5559 is not simply expressing its concern. The Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") and many people representing the Central People's Government have been repeatedly making irresponsible comments. If the expression of concern has unrestrictedly developed into attempts to exert influence during the nomination stage and even the Election, and officials of LOCPG and the Central Authorities have interfered in the Chief Executive Election in a high-profile manner, what should we do? Many Members said earlier that there was no evidence to support these allegations which were merely newspaper reports and the matter could be discussed again only when there was evidence. In fact, Members are very clear about what happened because some Members present here are members of the Election Committee ("EC"). We also have some friends who are EC members, and they have indicated that the suggestion that the Central Authorities are interfering in the Election have been spreading.

Is Secretary Raymond TAM so passive that he considers that there is no need to inquire into the matter? In fact, during the nomination period, some prospective candidates have spread some alleged views while some people representing the Central People's Government have come forward and said that if a certain candidate was elected, the Central People's Government would not make the appointment in the end. Then, something happened during the vote canvassing activities, and I do not mean the canvassing activities among EC members. If EC members discuss about the strategies to be adopted in enabling their favoured candidate to be elected, that will be a normal kind of election-related activity. Regrettably, however, Members of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong or the pro-establishment Members cannot distinguish between the two matters. Normal election-related activities are totally unrelated to the concern of our motion today, which is about whether or not there will be a fair Chief Executive Election. What we are talking about is that during the nomination period, an office set up by the Central People's Government in Hong Kong, some officials of the Central People's Government or officials from Beijing have been pressurizing EC members and telling them that they could only nominate a certain candidate and that some other candidates were not the preferred choices of the Central People's Government. Have these people violated the Basic Law and the electoral legislation? I hope the Government can give us an explanation.

5560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

Nevertheless, it seems that the Government has been indulgent and turned a blind eye to these things. The Government simply said that if we thought there was a problem, we could report the matter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. What should this Government do to ensure the fair conduct of the Election? I believe that the 7 million-odd people of Hong Kong are already aggrieved because they cannot elect the Chief Executive. Worse still, they have noticed that no one from the pro-democracy camp has stood for the Election. The ones who have secured candidacy are all from the pro-establishment camp. Nonetheless, some people still have chosen to vigorously pressurize EC members into collectively nominating a certain candidate. I believe they will also be told whom they should vote for in the end. In fact, we do not know who the representatives of the Central People's Government are and who have falsely told others that they are conveying messages from the Central People's Government. What we know is that officials of the Central People's Government have not said that if a certain candidate was elected, the Central People's Government would not make the appointment in the end. Actually, it has only been said that the Chief Executive has to meet the following four criteria: love the country and love Hong Kong; having the ability to govern Hong Kong; trusted by the Central People's Government and supported by Hong Kong people. In that case, why do they not allow EC members to make their own decisions? I hope that the Government will inquire into the allegation that an office set up by the Central People's Government in Hong Kong has interfered in the Chief Executive Election during the nomination process, thereby making it impossible for the Election to be conducted in a fair and equitable manner.

Earlier, some Members questioned whether it was because we had not supported the constitutional reform package in 2015 that universal suffrage could not be implemented. However, Members would probably remember that since the pro-establishment Members were "waiting for Uncle Fat" in the Legislative Council Complex and did not enter the Chamber to cast their votes (Ms Starry LEE also did not cast her vote), there were 8 votes in favour of the constitutional reform package and 28 votes against it and the package was overwhelmingly vetoed. That is one reason why universal suffrage cannot be implemented. Another reason is that the 31 August Decision does not have the support of the people. The Decision set a high threshold for a candidate to stand in the Election and put forward a proposal with real screening. It intended to use national security as a reason to prohibit any member of the opposition camp to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5561 stand in the Election. No member of the opposition has stood in the Election this time around, but some candidates are still prohibited from being elected. Thus, national security is actually a pseudo-proposition. In fact, this is an anointment rather than an election by universal suffrage, and Hong Kong people are very angry.

The Democratic Party supports the original motion.

MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, many Hong Kong people know that this Sunday is the day for electing the next Chief Executive. What is the job description of the post of the Chief Executive? We can find the answer from the provisions of the Basic Law. According to the Basic Law, first, the Chief Executive shall be accountable to not only the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") but also the Central People's Government. Second, the Chief Executive shall be selected by election in Hong Kong and appointed by the Central People's Government. Third, the Chief Executive shall exercise the powers and functions of leading the HKSAR Government, implementing the directives issued by the Central People's Government in respect of the relevant matters provided for in the Basic Law and conducting external affairs as authorized by the Central Authorities.

From the Basic Law provisions referred to just now, we can see clearly that the Chief Executive Election is not only an important issue in Hong Kong but also a responsibility of China. Thus, it is just natural for the Central People's Government to be concerned about the Chief Executive Election. In fact, over the past few months, not the past few months but the past year, many officials of various foreign consuls in Hong Kong have taken the initiative to meet with members from different sectors of society to discuss and enquire about matters concerning the Chief Executive Election. However, if some people consider that there is no problem for foreign countries to be concerned about the Chief Executive Election but are alarmed by the concern expressed by the Central People's Government, does the problem lie in the Central People's Government or these people?

Dr Helena WONG pointed out earlier that while she agreed that there was no problem for the Central People's Government to be concerned, she considered that it should not make irresponsible comments. Suppose I said something to you. Would you take it as an expression of concern or an irresponsible 5562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 comment? I think it will depend on your stance, as different people interpret things differently. If you interpret a remark solely by how you feel about it, I think it will be difficult for you to differentiate an expression of concern from an irresponsible comment.

Furthermore, Deputy President, so far no official of the Central People's Government has publicly shown support for any candidate. Indeed, the matter referred to by Members up till now is simply that Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council WANG Guangya has named four criteria of the Chief Executive of the next term in an interview. We all know that these four criteria are put in very generalized terms without any indication of support for any particular candidate. These criteria are not disputed by the three candidates and they are widely accepted by Hong Kong people.

The motion moved by Dr YIU Chung-yim today specifically asks this Council to urge the Central People's Government not to interfere in the Chief Executive Election in Hong Kong, whereas the amendments proposed by Mr Charles Peter MOK and Ms Claudia MO even allege that the Central People's Government has meddled in the Chief Executive Election or "vigorously influenced" the voting decisions of members of the Election Committee ("EC"). However, if we read carefully the contents of those amendments, we will notice that these Members have not given any specific evidence or example. They have only sought to "issue a disclaimer" by using the phrase "it has been reported" in their amendments. This practice of making groundless accusations or even making things up will bring nothing but harm to Hong Kong.

Mr Alvin YEUNG said this morning that Hong Kong people felt disheartened and worried about the Chief Executive Election this time. He is right because the logic and behaviour of the opposition Members, some of the EC members and the media have really confused and baffled the people. The opposition camp has all along opposed the 31 August framework put forward by the National People's Congress, yet they fully support and agree with a candidate nominated under this framework. They said that public opinion should be used as the basis of their voting, but before the final results of the opinion poll were released, they quickly came forward and said that all of them would vote for a certain candidate. There is one thing I find most laughable. While the Civic Party has declared its support for a certain candidate, the candidate said that he did not know why the Civic Party supported him and out of courtesy, he said that although he had not met with these people, he believed that the Civic Party LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5563 supported him because it agreed with the contents of his election platform. I believe that means the contents of his election platform which include enacting legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law and the 31 August framework.

Moreover, I have noticed that there is a candidate whose election platform is considered most acceptable by the opposition camp and all of his nomination votes came from EC members of the opposition camp. A few days before the election day, this candidate was smeared by a media agency boss who belongs to the opposition camp. The candidate was accused of acting as an undercover for the Communist Party of China and trying to draw votes from another candidate. The first accusation against him was that his son had acted as a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference at the city level, and the second one was that his current assistant had been the assistant of a pro-establishment Member. I wish to remind the opposition Members that such malicious smearing is a real attempt to interfere in the Chief Executive Election this time, even though they choose to turn a blind eye to it.

We know that the Chief Executive Election shall be conducted in secret ballots. When Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond TAM answered a Member's question in this Chamber earlier, he pointed out that EC members would elect the Chief Executive by secret ballot, and double efforts would be made to ensure that the Chief Executive Election by secret ballot would be conducted in a completely and absolutely secret manner, so that no one would know which candidate each EC member had voted in support of. The Secretary even promised to remove the CCTVs installed at the polling stations to guarantee that all EC members would enjoy the substantive power of election by secret ballot. Thus, I believe that the voting process of the Chief Executive Election this time will be conducted in a confidential manner so as to ensure that people can rest assured.

To get to the root of the matter, it is because of the refusal of the pan-democrats to accept the Government's proposal back then that not all Hong Kong people can vote in the Chief Executive Election this time. I have noticed that the pan-democrats have been repeatedly saying that the pro-establishment Members are cheating the people because the original package required a candidate to obtain 601 votes to enter the stage of "committee nomination". Nevertheless, the pan-democrats are really trying to take advantage of a confusing situation because they have forgotten that it was they who insisted on implementing civil nomination, completely refused to discuss on the 5564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 constitutional reform package and did not express any view on the number of votes required for a candidate to enter the stage of "committee nomination". Therefore, I have to, regrettably, say that the pan-democrats cannot be pardoned for defeating the constitutional reform package because they have neither put forward any counter-proposal nor have they done any work at all. They are really the culprits for defeating the constitutional reform package of Hong Kong.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Deputy President, some people have the crazy idea that a lie, if repeated a thousand times, will become the truth. But regrettably, Hong Kong people are too clever to fall for such nonsense, not to mention that just now, some fellow Members have also helped to crack open this often-repeated lie. Let me say this once again. On that day, some Members failed to cast their votes on the constitutional reform package because they had to "wait for 'Uncle Fat'". As the then constitutional reform package was a proposal with screening, it was not a genuine democratic system in line with Hong Kong people's aspirations. No matter how nicely it was packaged, the then constitutional reform package was not genuine universal suffrage. It was not and never is.

Regarding the motion under debate today, one crucial point is whether any person has actually interfered in the election. In their speeches earlier, some Members tried to play the whole thing down by saying that it was a gesture of concern. I am not saying that people should not be concerned about the matter. I would not raise an eyebrow if "Grandpa" is just concerned about us. But what we are talking about is that "Grandpa" is actually meddling with our affairs. "How?", some would ask because they say that such things cannot be proved. It is just like a ghost is standing right in front of you, yet you cannot show that the ghost is actually there. Where is the ghost? In our minds.

Speaking of what is in our minds, how many members of the Election Committee ("EC") have come under pressure during the Chief Executive election as a result of interference by the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or other agencies, as well as the irresponsible statements they made? According to a member of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC"), there are hearsays that although some EC members did not intend to nominate Mrs Carrie LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5565

LAM in the first place, they eventually did so under constant lobbying from the "Western District". The said NPCSC member is Mrs Rita FAN. Suffice to say that for the present election, many things are going on behind our back. And we can clearly sense that the entire election is being conducted under great pressures, causing extreme anxiety on the part of some EC members because while the Chief Executive Election will take place a few days later, there are still a lot of uncertainties as if people are still waiting for certain instructions.

Our demand is that nobody should try to interfere in the election. It is clear from those incidents why the membership of EC must be confined to 1 000-odd because such a membership size would be more manageable. Even if they want to interfere in the election by calling EC members, they only need to call 1 000-odd people at most to harass them or pressurize those who are likely to be swayed, so that they will cast their votes carefully. Some EC members with moral integrity have said that should they receive such phone calls, they would just hang up. But then, not all EC members will do the same. Most probably, EC members would get worried sick upon receiving such messages as they do not know what to do.

After all, it is pathetic that we end up in a situation like this. How we long for an end to the situation which has torn the society of Hong Kong apart over the past five years. Hong Kong people will come to a parting of the ways with Sunday's election. Where will Hong Kong go from there? Where will the road lead us to?

A candidate said that she had decided to run for the post of Chief Executive in response to God's calling. Since then, she has been running a strong campaign with talk about the Central Government having the power not to appoint the Chief Executive-elect. She is the one who first floated the idea. During informal meetings with the media, she said that she had decided to run the race to avoid the situation where the election would return a candidate not likely to be appointed by the Central Government. Buddy, isn't that statement most irresponsible? Mind you, those are indeed the words spoken by the candidate herself!

Personally, I think Hong Kong people have made themselves very clear in this election. By that, I do not mean the voting preference for any particular candidate, but the wish to end the dissention within society that has been prevailing over the years. The election is being held under a framework with so 5566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 many restrictions that Hong Kong people have scarcely any freedom or democracy left. So, please let EC members cast their votes according to their own wills. It is our hope that EC members can make a decision on the basis of people's aspiration and free from any interference or pressure. If the concern of "Grandpa" has to involve so many major manoeuvres, such as calling EC members endlessly or engaging them in lengthy secret conversations, just for the sake of changing their minds so that they would nominate a particular candidate after incessant lobbying, can we say that this is perfectly acceptable?

Our stance in today's motion is clear. This election must be held without any interference, whatsoever! We strongly hope that after this Sunday, Hong Kong people can go towards the right direction after this parting of the ways, bringing an end to all the weariness we felt for almost five years in the past. The current style of governance through creating divisions and divergence in society through in-fighting must stop. We hope that all EC members can cast their votes with conscience.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR NATHAN LAW (in Cantonese): As the saying goes, what can you expect from a hog but a grunt? Today, pro-establishment Members expressed the view that pan-democrats' strategic voting or the expression of certain views on the Internet is tantamount to manipulating the election and creating unfairness. For me, it must be the greatest joke of the day. As we all know, the entire Chief Executive Election is designed to let the Central Authorities control the election outcome. More than 800 members of the Election Committee are from the pro-establishment camp. Would they not cast their votes on Sunday? Or would they not vote according to their own strategy?

As I heard pro-establishment Members talking about unfairness in the election, the old Chinese saying, "An insect of the summer cannot be talked with about ice", sprang to my mind. Recently, a number of Beijing officials (including WANG Guangya) kept imposing conditions for the Chief Executive Election. There are also reports about ZHANG Dejiang saying that Carrie LAM is the only candidate supported by the Central Government, and that this is the unanimous decision of the Central Politburo. Basically, Mainland China has torn away with its own hands the facade masking the election, blatantly exposing its true nature of preordination. In English, the term used is "selection" rather LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5567 than "election". It is just a game of hand-picking the Chief Executive played by Communist Party of China. The so-called "one country, two systems" or "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" exists in name only.

According to royalist Members who have just spoken, it is vital to uphold "one country, two systems" and hence, Beijing should call the shots. But actually, is it the principle behind "one country, two systems"? In 1996, LU Ping, the then Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council ("HKMAO"), indicated that HKMAO would play a watchdog role to prevent interference by other Mainland organs in the affairs of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR"). He also met with provincial governments and reminded them that they should not think of "stretching out their hands too far into Hong Kong". When meeting with the then British Deputy Prime Minister, Michael HESELTINE, around that time, JIANG Zemin also talked about the Chief Executive Election, indicating that "the Chinese side would not arbitrarily make a decision on the post" and the Chief Executive would have to be acceptable to Hong Kong people. The origin of "one country, two systems" is Beijing's strict adherence to "non-interference" through the exercise of utmost self-restraint.

But in 2003, Mainland China set up the Central Coordination Group for Hong Kong and Macao Affairs to meddle with Hong Kong affairs. Later, CAO Erbao, the head of the research department of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG"), wrote an article entitled "Ruling Force in Hong Kong under 'one country, two systems'", which advances the theory of having a second governing team in Hong Kong. In 2013, the State Council issued the White Paper on The Practice of the "One Country, Two Systems" Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, which emphasizes that the Central Government exercises overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong, including the powers directly exercised by the Central Government, and the powers delegated to HKSAR by the Central Government to enable it to exercise "a high degree of autonomy" in accordance with the law. If "one country" is given to override "two systems", "one country, two systems" has effectively become rotten and backtracked and hence, thereby leading to the current chaos in Hong Kong.

The pro-democracy camp has always rejected the Chief Executive Elections in the past. Let us look at how Ms Emily LAU, a former Chairperson of the Democratic Party, has chastised the coterie elections. She said, "Where 5568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 has the people's previous strong will to strive for universal suffrage gone? Do they bow to reality and concede because they sense that the opposition's voice is getting less and less heard? The authorities and the media are constantly hyping about the present election being an election with competition, while reports about the coterie nature of the election are few and far between. For some so-called Chief Executive forums on television, only people who played along with the game are invited to attend, effectively gagging the voices of opposition. Through the concerted efforts of the media and the Government, a compromise culture is created as they try to lower the people's aspiration for universal suffrage through subtle influence. I earnestly hope that the people will stand firm and continue their fight for universal suffrage with perseverance. Otherwise, the day of implementing universal suffrage will become even more distant."

Surely, after five years' of governance by CY the wolf, it is understandable why people in the pro-democracy camp would opt for the so-called lesser evil. But make no mistake, there is a price to be paid. If we support a candidate who refuses to commit himself on issues like opposing the enactment of legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law, promoting the implementation of universal suffrage or vindicating the 4 June Incident, we are making a huge bet. Let me borrow the words of wisdom from my predecessors. Such a move is tantamount to "lower[ing] the people's aspiration for universal suffrage through subtle influence" and "rendering the pro-democracy camp into a negligible force, so that the people will become more accustomed to the Central Government making the choice for us". All these are the stake we are placing on our bet.

Recently another theory crops up, namely, casting votes on the basis of public opinion surveys. In this regard, Prof MA Ngok has summed up the situation perfectly when he said, "We should never wrongly apply the logic behind election by universal suffrage to the Chief Executive Election." That is exactly what "Grandpa" is hoping for as far as the implementation of universal suffrage is concerned, that is, universal suffrage elections with pre-selection. With pre-selection, people's choice is only limited to a few candidates, and that is not true public opinion.

In retrospect, John TSANG's soaring popularity is a result of our willy-nilly or even embarrassing support. Come to think of it, had it been an open democratic election this time, people would surely have voted for Alan, Martin or Audrey. The democrats are now giving their support to John TSANG because the system itself is defective as only the candidate preordained by the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5569 pro-establishment camp can win the election. Under such practical constraints, the democrats can only support a seemingly more mellow and open-minded candidate.

If John TSANG loses the election, will he go to the forefront of the pro-democracy movement? Will he become a leader of the pro-democracy camp? As we all know very well, the answer is "No". But the people's support and trust will not simply evaporate overnight. As a member of the Legislative Council, I must be accountable to my voters. If I choose to support a pro-establishment candidate, it means that I am trying to convince my voters that they should change their stance and support him. Given my election pledge of not supporting the ABC agenda, and considering the matter from the perspectives of principles as well as the current situation (including the actual odds of John TSANG getting elected and the future development of the pro-democracy movement), I am still unconvinced that I should change my stance and support him.

Mr Albert HO once said, "We should seize each and every platform, inch by inch, to take forward the pro-democracy movement and promote democracy." Mr Alan LEONG also said, "People are not trustworthy. Only a sound system can give the people long-lasting and rock solid protection." How come five years later, people who intend to cast blank votes to boycott the upcoming election would be regarded as sinners against the pro-democracy movement?

The outcome of the Chief Executive Election will be made known in a few days' time. While we can adopt different strategies for the election, I think all of us, especially the democrats, should put our prejudices aside after the election so that we can brace ourselves for the doldrums of the pro-democracy movement by seeking common ground while accommodating differences, as well as using our own ways and means. The most important battlefields in the pro-democracy movement must be the future constitutional reform, the enactment of legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law, as well as the future of Hong Kong. If we become divided just because of our differences in one coterie election, we would be falling right into the trap of the Communist Party of China. And it would not be something that people supporting the pro-democracy movement wish to see. The quest for democracy leads us onto a long and difficult road. Take heart, my friends!

With these remarks, I support the motion moved by Dr YIU Chung-yim.

5570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Dr YIU Chung-yim has proposed the motion entitled "Ensuring the fair conduct of the Chief Executive Election". I have an opinion about this title. Under the current undemocratic system, it is simply impossible for the Chief Executive election to be conducted fairly. My apologies, Dr YIU, but I really consider it impossible for a fair election to be conducted. Anyway, I understand that Dr YIU is well-intentioned. In my opinion, what he means is that even the election is to be conducted under an undemocratic system, it is still necessary to make it less embarrassing and ugly as far as practicable.

Many Members from the pro-establishment camp indicated in their speeches that the numerous institutional problems raised by the pro-democracy camp should have been resolved had we previously accepted the 31 August Decision on political reforms. In that case, members of the public can elect the Chief Executive on a "one person, one vote" basis by choosing whatever candidate they like―be it "Mr Pringles" or "Ms Wet Nurse". However, the world is not always that ideal. In the speech he delivered just now, Mr LAU Kwok-fan concluded by saying that "Hong Kong must win". I have listened to his speech, Mr CHAN Hak-kan. However, Mrs Regina IP, the pro-establishment Member who had served Hong Kong as a senior official and spared no efforts in serving the country and the regime for many years, could not even have enough nominations to get the candidacy in the end. She precisely is trying to win Hong Kong back, but to no avail.

While Mr LAU Kwok-fan said it is necessary to win, I really do not know how he can do so. Even Mrs Regina IP, a pro-establishment Member who is so loyal to the country and trusted by the Central Government, has failed to get 150 nominations to qualify as a candidate. Under the 31 August framework, it is necessary to get nominations from half of the Election Committee ("EC") members to qualify as a candidate. Under such a high threshold, it would be difficult for real contenders to get nominated. Some pro-establishment Members argued that Mrs IP would have been successfully nominated had the 31 August framework been approved, and she could then be able to compete with other candidates. I certainly do not believe this. At present, all the pro-establishment EC members are waiting for the direction from the Central Authorities before they cast a vote for the candidate favoured and trusted by the Central Government.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5571

Let us look back. What is the difference between the current so-called election and the previous one? During the last election, the popularity rating of Mr LEUNG Chun-ying was higher than that of the scandal-ridden Mr Henry TANG. The pro-establishment camp then claimed that it was necessary to respect public opinions by electing a popular candidate as the Chief Executive. However, it is another story for this election, as the pro-establishment camp has mentioned nothing about public opinions. The pro-establishment camp has not cited any opinion polls conducted by all universities and media organizations except the Hong Kong Research Association, with which it is familiar. The obvious reason is that the popularity of the candidate allegedly trusted and supported by the Central Authorities is lagging far behind another candidate. To avoid embarrassment, the pro-establishment camp has refrained from citing opinion polls. Do they really think that they can always use the Hong Kong Research Association as a fig leaf to cover up their embarrassment? Such a fig leaf is even smaller than a five-dollar coin. While it may cover the eye, the nose is not covered; if it is used to cover the nose, the mouth will be exposed.

A candidate has taken the opportunity of defending her low popularity to blow her own trumpet. According to this candidate, it is actually very difficult to use polling results as the yardstick, as the ratings of other candidates may be higher at sometimes and hers at other times. Will she please stop deceiving herself and others in this way? She should concede her defeat in the polls. She may still justify herself by suggesting that she is more capable in other aspects and she has got the trust of the Central Authorities. However, given that she is lagging far behind in the polls, it will not help to boost her popularity by finding excuses to defend herself.

According to the arrangement under the current system, after a candidate has been preordained by the Central Authorities, pro-establishment EC members who are subservient to the will of Beijing will then vote accordingly. In this election, they do not mention about public opinions any more. All they have to do is to vote for the candidate favoured by the Mainland. In the election for the Hong Kong Chief Executive, in addition to the trust of Beijing, it is reasonable for the aspiration of the Hong Kong people to be taken into account as well.

The remarks by some pro-establishment Members are even more absurd. For example, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, and so on, have accused the pan-democratic camp of preordaining one candidate and "king-making"; they also accused the pan-democratic camp of lacking morality 5572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 and integrity and talking solely about capability; their remarks are extremely absurd. All told, the pan-democratic members only have 300 votes in EC, which is simply not sufficient for preordaining any candidate in the 1 200-member EC. They could not even do the maths. That is the reason why they would make such absurd remarks. While the pan-democratic camp is the minority in EC, we have won the majority of Legislative Council seats returned through direct elections. Under such an unfair situation, we can do nothing but unite our only remaining forces to express our views and speak on behalf of the public, which completely conforms to political ethics. It is utterly impossible for us to preordain any candidate as they have claimed. We are neither President XI Jinping nor members of the Politburo Standing Committee. Will they please stop saying something to deceive themselves and others!

Some pan-democratic Members and pro-establishment Members have jointly criticized a suggestion to have ballot papers examined for fingerprints to ensure the voting choice of EC members. I would like to make it clear to the pro-establishment Members that this idea has been put forward in Hong Kong Commercial Daily by Mr Eugene CHAN, a supporter of Mr LEUNG Chun-ying. This election is already undemocratic. I just hope it would not end up being too ugly.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

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

(Dr CHIANG Lai-wan raised her hand in indication)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, you have already spoken.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): I know, Deputy President. I wish to clarify. Just now Mr LAM Cheuk-ting quoted me as saying the two terms "preordaining" and "king-making", which is absolutely not true. His remark was simply unsubstantiated.

(Mr LAM Cheuk-ting stood up)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5573

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG has made her clarification. Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, what is your point?

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, what I just gave was only a consolidated response to the comments by Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr WONG Kwok-kin.

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

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, oftentimes when I listen to the speeches given by pro-establishment colleagues, I can learn many four-character Chinese idioms as if their meanings had vividly appeared before my eyes. For instance, earlier on Dr CHIANG Lai-wan said (as she often did), "Because you people in the pro-democracy camp vetoed the constitutional reform package, now the public is unable to elect the Chief Executive by 'one person, one vote'." This is what the Chinese idiom "賊喊捉賊" ("a thief crying 'stop thief'") means. Why do we have to oppose the Chief Executive Election? It is because the nomination mechanism is, in fact, a system of anointment. Under the constitutional reform package, only those who have obtained the endorsement of more than half of all the members of the Nominating Committee can become Chief Executive candidates; so who can be the candidates? Only those anointed by Beijing can be the candidates. This is called "a thief crying 'stop thief'".

The speeches of Mr Holden CHOW and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok exemplified the meaning of the Chinese idiom "言不由衷" ("speaking insincerely"). They mentioned the rumour that ballot papers would be transported to Beijing for fingerprint examination. They used this extreme scenario to evade a very simple question: Has the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region given them phone calls to talk about the Chief Executive Election? If it has, it has interfered in the election; if it has, it has relayed the message of anointment from Beijing.

Dr Junius HO was funny in that he interpreted interference and anointment as a gesture of concern. I hope everyone will note that such gesture of concern is typical of the Communist Party of China ("CPC"). What form does such gesture take? According to a saying circulated on the Internet, CPC is actually 5574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 the most powerful and the biggest criminal gang in the world. This gang is capable of abducting anyone anywhere in the world anytime and taking them back to China. In Hong Kong, someone has phoned members of the Election Committee ("EC") telling them that if they do not vote for a specified candidate, they will be out of luck and lose business. Even I have heard such words. What can those EC members do? Can they report the incidents to the Police? Does reporting the incidents to the Hong Kong Police serve any useful purpose? No, because if they report to the Police and escalate the matter, they will only be subjected to more horrible treatment; not only may they lose business but they may even disappear. This is why we are worried about Beijing's anointment and CPC's political control over Hong Kong. We do not want China's black-box politics and violent politics to extend to Hong Kong.

Mr WONG Kwok-kin was, surprisingly, being most honest earlier when he uttered the phrase "only allowing the pan-democrats to set fire but not letting the Central Authorities light the lantern". The most important words in this phrase are "light the lantern". Just now Mr Nathan LAW cited a comment by Prof MA Ngok, and now I would like to quote from another article by Prof MA, which is about "lighting the lantern": "Every night the Master would decide whose room he would stay overnight in, and he would, before going to the room, tell a servant to light a big, red lantern and hang it up at the entrance to the room. To win his favour, his wife and concubines kept plotting and scheming against each other … in an attempt to influence the Master." This is what the Chief Executive Election is like. As far as this election is concerned, everyone is waiting for "the lantern to be lit" before they "place bets", but the most crucial factor is the standard used by the "Master". Is it the political loyalty of a candidate? The candidate's political line? Recommendations from the Hong Kong and Macao systems? The support of the industrial and commercial sectors? The power struggle among top officials? Or public opinion? We do not know. Mr WONG Kwok-kin has told us very honestly that from the perspective of many pro-establishment colleagues, there is nothing wrong with "lighting the lantern" because they themselves are the ones picked by Beijing to safeguard this practice of "lighting the lantern".

Let me come back to the wording of Dr YIU Chung-yim's motion. To be frank, it is somewhat naive to urge the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to request Beijing not to interfere in the Chief Executive Election. Why did the Central Authorities put so much effort into designing this coterie election? As Mr LAM Cheuk-ting said, the Central Authorities created LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5575 this coterie just to enable interference and anointment. The Central Authorities can, first, decide on whom to include in this coterie, and since the ones within this coteries are relatively easy to persuade, not many rounds of phone calls have to be made even if it is necessary to phone them. In my view, we are making too great a concession if we merely request the Central Authorities not to interfere or not to do so in a blatant manner. How can we only make this request? Hong Kong people should not only make this request. According to pro-democracy colleagues, we ought to select in this election a Chief Executive who is "farthest away from the Western District and closest to Hong Kong people". However, I believe everyone has seen the facts clearly by now, as we are only a few days away from the election. Is there any difference between Beijing and the "Western District"? I do not see any difference between the two.

In fact, as what I have quoted from Prof MA Ngok, this has to do with the logic of "lighting the lantern"; in other words, we need to conjecture what President XI in Beijing thinks, because at the end of the day, it is up to him alone to make the decision. In view of this, a friend has asked me whether I can put aside my principles for the time being, and strategize. Here is my response to his question: first of all, if he believes that the strategy he has in mind will really be successful, then he has to tell me whether we are sure that in addition to our 300-odd voters within the pro-democracy camp, there are 300-odd other voters who are prepared to join us in voting strategically. If he cannot say so, or if he tells me that we are not sure about that, then I would rather stay true to my political stance and principles, and stick to my previous judgment; that is, I will not support any pro-establishment candidate, but will compile a minority report for the pro-democracy camp.

If being "farthest away from the Western District and closest to Hong Kong people" is a proposition supported by many Hong Kong people these days, then I wish to suggest that (The buzzer sounded) … we need a Chief Executive who is "farthest away from CPC and farthest away from plutocrats", and who is on Hong Kong people's side …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, your speaking time is up. Please stop speaking.

5576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, after a few rounds of discussion, many Honourable colleagues have clearly expressed their views. I speak in support of Dr YIU Chung-yim's motion.

Have Beijing and "Western District" gone beyond their duties in Hong Kong and done what they should not do? I believe the eyes of Hong Kong people are sharp. In fact, this statement is nothing new; I believe Members still remember that Beijing officials have repeatedly stressed the need to form a second governance team in Hong Kong. Unfortunately, under LEUNG Chun-ying's governance over the past five years, the second team has become the first team, and the Government may have to find out more about the views of "Western District" on a number of policies. Concerning this Chief Executive Election, Members have mentioned this morning that we have seen a lot of obvious traces. In fact, these are not traces but blatant acts of canvassing, intimidation and inducement, etc. However, have the traces of "Western District" also been very obvious in other elections including the elections of the District Councils and the Legislative Council? What we mention today is a fact that Hong Kong people are aware of, how come the pro-establishment colleagues would considered that a fairy tale? In what way has "Western District" played a coordinating role in the elections of the District Councils? In what way has "Western District" participated in the elections of the Legislative Council? What was the role of the Liaison Office? All steps including coordination, soliciting votes and even expressing thanks for votes after being elected have been clearly shown on camera to Hong Kong people. Why do they still consider that they can find some excuses as explanations today and accuse us of slander when we are telling the truth?

"Western District" is seen to be extensively involved in the election; let me give an actual example about my personal experience. In the two elections held in the past two years, including the elections of the District Councils and the Legislative Council, I saw with my own eyes the Deputy Director of "Western District" visited the district to cheer up pro-establishment election opponents; he was involved and he gave directions. I did not know what exactly he had said at the time but I clearly saw from their body language that he was the "Big Brother" in the elections. When he arrived at the district, he was followed by all pro-establishment electioneering teams; the Deputy Director made gestures and they all expressed thanks and shook hands with him. Should that happen in Hong Kong? Have we forgotten about the provision set out in Article 22 of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5577

Basic Law? Today, while some Honourable colleagues have told the truth, some Honourable colleagues from the pro-establishment camp have played the tricks of disguised replacement of concept and confused the public.

We are unfortunately forced to participate in this Chief Executive election. Some say it is the evil that Members of the pro-democracy camp has brought on us. The richest man in Hong Kong also said the same yesterday. He said that if the constitutional reform package was passed then, Hong Kong people would be able to elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote". This disguised replacement of concept is ridiculous; I would like to remind Honourable colleagues that, if the 31 August constitutional reform package was passed, the person to be elected by "one person, one vote" now would be completely different. The candidate supported by the public may not appear on the candidate list at all. This is clear enough. We are forced to be involved in the coterie election and we are forced to make difficult decisions.

Just now, Mr CHU Hoi-dick asked if we wanted strategies or principles. In fact, I very much respect people who are still concerned about the future constitutional development of Hong Kong and those who are still trying their best to resist. I support whatever decisions they have reached. So long as we have our discussions on the basis of facts and principles, it does not matter if we may eventually come up with different views. In my opinion, strategic voting is a way out in the face of this dilemma of a coterie election. As Legislative Council Members, we have to ask ourselves a question: we have votes but do we prefer casting blank votes or not voting so as not to let Hong Kong people down? Some people may think that this is what we should do, but I think we have to try our best to fight for an opportunity for Hong Kong people. Are we even not able to fight for an opportunity for Hong Kong people? I hope all Election Committee members will think thoroughly about that.

I see another ugly face in this election: there are evident coercion and intimidation. I have learned from pro-establishment friends in the business community that some have asked them to be smart because the ballot papers will be inspected. Someone who heard that has told me so. Do they dare deny that? Do we need to point out those involved? Do we need to name all those people? Once names have been given, all pro-establishment Members would have to bow and apologize, and they would say that they would break off with Beijing. This is indeed outrageous; they have contravened Article 22 of the Basic Law and intervened in the internal affairs of Hong Kong. Do they need to do so? Honestly, the essence of a coterie election is hand-picking somebody; 5578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 needless to say, that is something we all know. Hong Kong people have tears flowing in their hearts. Will they please refrain from going too far? Some have said if they know what happened to the factory of the person who played a trick two years ago. Some others have asked if they know where the votes will go after voting. If they do not know the answers, how dare they skip voting? These are not ghost stories but things that have really happened. Please tell the truth with wide-open eyes.

Deputy President, at this time, we earnestly have to agree that we really hope that "one country, two systems" will be implemented without any distortion. This is what President XI Jinping has said and I hope he can give a reminder based on the present situation in Hong Kong. We should now adopt the stance of opposing and resisting "Western District ruling Hong Kong", opposing interference in political affairs by "Western District" and defending "one country, two systems". A colleague has just said that "Western District" is Beijing and Beijing is "Western District". In fact, as long as there is hegemony, injustice and unreasonable oppression in the system, we must resist that. We have to elect a Chief Executive who is closest to the public but farthest from hegemony. We do not want a chief executive who is closest to hegemony, and that is why we have to elect a Chief Executive who is closest to Hong Kong people.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): This morning, we went to the district with a candidate to listen to the voices of local residents. I then rushed back. Hence, I was unable to listen to the entire debate of the motion, but only managed to listen to the speeches given by the two Members who spoke before me. The first one is Mr CHU Hoi-dick and the second one is Mr Andrew WAN who has just finished speaking. I hope that members of the public will pay attention to one point, which is a fact that all Hong Kong people should agree with, and that is, Hong Kong is an inseparable part of China. This is a very important point. The second point is, under the existing system of the Chief Executive election, regardless of whether there is any change in the system in the future, the head of the HKSAR is both elected and appointed. Therefore, the Central Authorities do have a role to play in Hong Kong's Chief Executive election. On the question of how important the role is, it is subject to further discussion as people may have different lines and views. Notwithstanding that, I believe what remains unchanged in all previous elections and even in future elections, is our stance. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5579

The opposition camp is now divided into two factions, and such a change took place before and after the nomination. Before the nomination, the so-called Democrats 300+ vowed to stay united in giving nominations and support certain candidates to be nominated and elected as the Chief Executive on behalf of Hong Kong people. But after the person became a candidate, Democrats 300+ split into two factions. I have no idea if it is still Democrats 300+, or has already become Democrats 300- with less than 300 members at present.

Before the nomination, members of the opposition camp said whoever supported the enactment of legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law and the 31 August Decision would not receive their support. However, after the candidates got nominated, they arbitrarily moved the goalposts and changed their stance. Just now I heard Mr Andrew WAN talking about an ugly point, and that ugly point is precisely the moving of goalposts. Although they vowed not to accept this and that before the nomination, they now humbled themselves on the pretext that a certain candidate can best unite Hong Kong people. Is this the candidate whom they disliked before? Why has their stance changed so drastically today? Therefore, Hong Kong people must bear in mind such a change in stance.

The faction that has been split is, however, adamant in its stance and its members have all along opposed the present election and system. Mr CHU Hoi-dick is relatively more honest, and yet he has his own strategy, and that is, putting labels on other people. The election has yet to begin, but whenever there is any sign of trouble, he would say the Central Authorities are like gangsters and thus not trustworthy. Today, even the United States dares not badmouth China, how come some Hong Kong people keep hurling criticisms at the Central Authorities? In fact, we notice that this has something to do with sharing of interests in some ways. If he endorses this election, even if he keeps his endorsement in his heart, his political power will be weakened in the future, which is an inevitable fact. That is why he has to keep fighting and resisting, as well as finding new issues and slogans to put labels on other people.

What is the meaning of "farthest away from 'Western District' and closest to Hong Kong people"? This is actually an attempt to cause dissension, "dissension 2.0". Are the candidates, Carrie LAM, No. 1 John TSANG and No. 3 WOO Kwok-hing, not Hong Kong people? I have forgotten their candidate numbers as I only remember their faces. Are they not Hong Kong people? The candidate whom numerous pro-establishment Members and local 5580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 residents support is alleged by him as preordained by the Central Authorities. What kind of logic is this? If any candidate whom I faithfully support is alleged by him as preordained by the Central Authorities, then who else can I choose? Likewise, can I put a label on the candidate whom he supports but not trusted by the Central Authorities, alleging that this is manipulation by the United States? Interference in the election starts right in Hong Kong. There are too many examples and evidence has proved that many Hong Kong people have not followed the rules. Earlier on, it was rumoured that they originally supported a certain candidate, but if we promised not to sue four Members, they would give us the nominations. What is this? Where has the spirit of the rule of law which they mentioned from time to time gone? This is simply bribery. Can I say I would nominate a certain candidate if the Government dares release YIP Kai-fuen? Is this not the same case? Is there any difference from robbery?

On the other hand, they kept finding someone to spread rumours. I have no idea why some people would believe such rumours. According to one of the hatchet men, after the election, all the ballots would be sent to the Mainland for fingerprint examination, so that the Central Authorities could find out whom the Election Committee members have voted for. How can anyone make such an irresponsible remark, which is totally nonsense? After this rumour was spread, the opposition camp had hyped up the issue for a couple of days. But as soon as they sensed trouble when the lie was exposed and no one believe the rumour anymore, they then kept their mouth shut today, and instead queried if the pro-establishment camp believed the rumour. We have never believed the rumour because there are systems in Hong Kong, and I have confidence in Hong Kong's rule of law. A person who has grievances or wrongdoings will be sent to the court, and the system is clear to all.

Next, I would like to discuss the logic that a person "farthest away from 'Western District'" will not be preordained by the Central Authorities. Before Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying announced his decision not to seek re-election, everyone said that he was preordained by the Central Authorities. But when he declared not to stand for re-election due to family reasons, people said that he was advised by the Central Authorities not to seek re-election. Following their logic, the Central Authorities should not be interfering in Hong Kong's elections, but should it make more sense for the Central Authorities to support the re-election of LEUNG Chun-ying? What are people of the opposition camp doing now? When the Central Authorities stopped LEUNG Chun-ying from standing for re-election, they thought this was no big deal. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5581

When it is now Carrie LAM, they again allege that she is "LEUNG Chun-ying 2.0", which represents an intervention of the Central Authorities. As they do not like her, they then turn to support John TSANG … Sorry, with a slip of tongue, I mention the name of another candidate … the candidate other than Carrie LAM, that is, someone who is far away from "Western District". Where does this logic lie?

Speaking of intervention in the election, was the last Legislative Council Election not an act of bid-rigging? The best thing about launching the ThunderGo campaign for electioneering is that the expenditures were not counted as election expenses. Two seats of the Democratic Party, let me remind them again that two seats, were obtained thanks to the ThunderGo campaign, calling on members of the public not to vote.

Thank you, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Let me remind Members that they should avoid undermining the fairness and equity of the Chief Executive Election.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the original motion requests that the Chief Executive Election be conducted in an equitable and fair manner, which should not be a problem. However, the wording of the motion has specially focused on whether the Central Government has interfered in the election. In my opinion, it is very normal for an equitable and fair election to be independent of any involuntary voting, yet why does the motion only target possible interference by the Central Authorities?

While I have not listened to all of the speeches delivered by Members, some Members, such as Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Mr Andrew WAN, have sounded as if the alleged interference were substantiated when they spoke just now. Of course, by their logic, whatever they say is the evidence. Let me advise Members who have just spoken: if they think the Central Authorities have interfered, or if there is brutal intervention involving threats or triad-style practices as described by Mr CHU Hoi-dick, they should seek justice for the persons involved by reporting their cases to the Police or the Independent Commission Against Corruption. In my view, if the interference is real, this is the only way to offer the best protection for the victims of oppression. 5582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

Alternatively, since Hong Kong is a society which upholds the rule of law, they may as well apply for a writ of habeas corpus to offer the victims the maximum protection. I call on Members who have learned of any news about interference really have to speak out on behalf of the victims. Although Members are protected under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance for what they say in the Chamber, they should substantiate their claims instead of making irresponsible remarks. My remark is not specially targeted at any Members.

Second, Deputy President, I have to seek justice for "Long Hair", who has been staging protests in this Chamber on behalf of the pro-democracy camp, the opposition camp at the forefront for years. He is experienced and capable. While he might not have any achievement, he has undeniably made much effort. A Member said just now that former Legislative Council President Mr Jasper TSANG and Mrs Regina IP were allegedly not allowed to run in the election by some people. On the other hand, who would have disallowed "Long Hair" from running? Since "Long Hair" has made significant contributions to the democratic campaign of the opposition camp, the pan-democrats should support him in any case, not to mention the fact that they are all political allies. Of course, "Long Hair" can make it less embarrassing by saying that he has not secured sufficient public nominations. However, if the pan-democrats are really determined to support "Long Hair", they can collect nominations for him on the streets. Surely they can do so. Frankly speaking, if they have the heart to get things done, how could they fail to get sufficient nominations?

If I adopt the alarmist or conspiracy theory to interpret this situation, I would wonder if there is a "big boss" manipulating or influencing "Long Hair" behind the scene, rendering him unable to get nominated or seek nomination. However, Deputy President, frankly speaking, I do not have any evidence, and as such I will retract this conspiracy theory. As I am not a conspiracy theorist, I hope that we work in a practical and pragmatic manner in the Chamber.

As mentioned by the opposition camp, voting for "Mr Pringles" is a way to defy the Central Authorities and express their confrontational attitude toward the Central Government. For this reason, they would allocate their votes strategically for "Mr Pringles"―Deputy President, I have not named any candidate. In fact, this is simply "blind opposition". Let me cite the education sector as an example. One candidate has stressed the plan to drastically increase education resources to $5 billion a year. Deputy President, in addition to being LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5583 the Member representing the labour sector, I am also a father of an eight-year-old child. When I heard about this pledge, I couldn't help getting excited. However, members of the education subsector of the Election Committee have claimed that they would cast all of their votes for the candidate without an education platform. I really find it unfathomable.

They are actually very candid in admitting that their move was intended to confront the Central Authorities after all. The Central Authorities have been earnestly reminding Hong Kong for years that unity, communication and harmony are essential for Hong Kong's further development. However, the opposition camp has been adding fuel to the flames by instigating division and political confrontations for years, with a view to countering the Central Authorities. Sometimes I would imagine: if the Central Government deals with the opposition camp as if they were rebellious children by making such ironic remarks as "it is necessary to uphold the principle of political struggle", will the opposition camp then readily focus on practical livelihood and economic issues? Of course, the Central Government will definitely never make such impractical remark.

When it comes to public opinions, the opposition camp said that they would go "all in" for "Mr Pringles" based on the public opinions shown in a so-called "referendum" conducted. However, the popularity rating of Mr LEUNG Chun-ying was off the charts in the previous election, whereas the popularity ratings of the two other candidates combined were no match for his. All people who have taken part in elections would understand that for a candidate to win over two other candidates combined in an election is extremely remarkable. Why didn't they support CY back then? How can we catch up with them if they keep moving the goalposts?

The opposition camp has added that their voting strategy is to go for the "lesser evil", a term which I have often heard about recently. I also consider it really necessary to choose the lesser evil sometimes. However, when it comes to the lesser evil, why didn't they support the universal suffrage proposal under the 31 August Decision? Back then, various major opinion polls showed that the proposal had been supported by the public. Even for the lowest support rate indicated in the poll results, more than half of the people supported the proposal. So why didn't they support that proposal? Under that proposal, Hong Kong people can at least vote on a "one person, one vote" basis, which is apparently the lesser evil anyway. Even if they think that the election mechanism is not perfect 5584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 with the nomination committee acting as the threshold, they can at least vote on a "one person, one vote" basis, which can be regarded as the lesser evil anyway. As a Member representing the labour sector, if there is an election by universal suffrage, Mrs Carrie LAM … pardon me, other candidates would solicit our support with their platform on labour issues. However, the opposition camp has voted down the constitutional reform package. I am really heart-broken.

It is necessary for Hong Kong people to take a careful look at the current political situation in order not to be deceived by some beautiful slogans and lies. As members of the Election Committee, we will cast a responsible vote on behalf of Hong Kong people according to our conscience.

Thank you, Deputy President.

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

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, our debate on the motion moved by Dr YIU Chung-yim today is indeed an eye-opener to me. I have once again broadened my horizons on how pan-democratic Members can make unsubstantiated and irresponsible remarks.

Mr Alvin YEUNG and Mr WU Chi-wai have both stated just now that it is indeed not necessary for Dr YIU Chung-yim's original motion to be discussed. I strongly agree with them. It would be illegal if any manipulation of the election as they have claimed has really happened. This should have been reported to the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Registration and Electoral Office and the Hong Kong Police Force accordingly. Mr CHU Hoi-dick said just now that it will not do much help to report the case to the Police. However, I have to remind Mr CHU Hoi-dick that he has asked journalists to report to the Police when something had happened to him, and he has even requested round-the-clock protection by the Police. If the Police really cannot do much help, why has he taken the above actions? Were they just political hype?

The ongoing political hype in this Chamber has been wasting our time. If Members from the pan-democratic camp really consider that they are telling the truth about the manipulation, there are actually many ways to address it. They LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5585 should not simply say that the Election Committee ("EC") has been interfered when their favoured candidate is not supported or favoured by some EC members. It is up to those EC members to vote for whichever candidate. Why should those members have to support the candidate whom they favour?

As the beginning of the debate, Dr YIU Chung-yim cited a large number of media reports concerning non-appointment, photo-taking of ballot papers, and examination of fingerprints. A Member has made an even outrageous claim that some EC members have received threatening calls and their children. Can a barrister make such unsubstantiated claims in the Chamber in such an irresponsible manner? Although we are protected under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, we are speaking in the Legislative Council after all, not a restaurant where a few people can sit together and talk nonsense. We have to be held accountable. The groundless claims made by pan-democratic Members just now are not supported by evidence at all. Will these claims scare Hong Kong people? Not really. Hong Kong people will not be frightened. The ones who have been most frightened are Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Andrew WAN who spoke in this Chamber just now. Deputy President, they have mistaken these claims as real under their imaginary fear.

As to whether it is necessary to set the record straight, I think the Secretary should do so. I have noticed that he has already moved to clarify. In response to my question in the Chamber at a previous meeting, he said he would ensure the effectiveness of the secret ballot mechanism. His response is fairly convincing. At least even Ms Claudia MO, the most vocal opponent of the Government, has also indicated that she believes in what the Secretary has said. Given that even Ms Claudia MO, the most vocal opponent of the Government who opposes everything the Government does, also believes that this mechanism is effective, then why should those pan-democratic Members have to be so frightened under their imaginary fear and make such unwise claims, which indeed do not make any sense?

A Member has also told us here just now what interference means and to what extent an act constitutes interference. In fact, it is not us Members who should work out the definition on our own. Should a question of law really arise, it should be brought before a court for the judge to make the ruling. The rule of law will only be upheld this way. Mr Dennis KWOK said just now that the Democrats 300+ was formed to counterbalance what they consider as an 5586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 unfair system, which has called for their unity to resist against it, adding that unity is different from bundling up. Mr KWOK is really a capable lawyer who can always justify himself with empty remarks. By publicly canvassing votes for one candidate, has the Democrats 300+ interfered in the election? Will EC members who are their allies feel under pressure if they intend to vote for another candidate? Deputy President, Mr KWONG Chun-yu even has the audacity to say that it is necessary to vote according to one's conscience. I hope that Mr KWONG Chun-yu will also tell us later according to his conscience whether the above practice constitutes interference.

Mr Charles Peter MOK, who has proposed an amendment, has even made a Freudian slip in his speech. The only reason for him to talk about "CY 2.0", "CY 3.0" and the "perfect showcase of the 31 August Decision" is that he does not favour one particular candidate. He then went on to boast about the solidarity of the Democrats 300+, claiming that they have won a small battle in resisting the Central Government. Deputy President, on hearing that, did you have the feeling that Mr Charles Peter MOK was logically confused in his speech? If he could really have won a small battle by winning many EC seats, this proves that there was no interference. Had there been interference, how could they have won the small battle? What he said was just self-contradictory.

Deputy President, you have rightly pointed out just now that a majority of Hong Kong people support the constitutional reform package. Pan-democratic Members have, on the contrary, opposed to it. Mr LAM Cheuk-ting has criticized only others but not himself. He accused pro-establishment Members of not voting in line with public opinions. I would like to remind the Democratic Party. In the previous Chief Executive election, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying was the most popular candidate, but the Democratic Party did not vote for him based on public opinions. While they normally have not voted in line with public opinions, they have suddenly claimed to do so in this election, which simply shows that the Democracy Party has made use of public opinions to their advantage.

Deputy President, we have been debating on this topic for a long time, which should have been spent on discussing some more significant livelihood issues or economic development issues of social concern, instead of those imaginary, unsubstantiated accusations.

Deputy President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5587

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr YIU Chung-yim, you may now speak on the amendments. The speaking time limit is five minutes.

DR YIU CHUNG-YIM (in Cantonese): First of all, I welcome the amendments proposed by Mr Charles Peter MOK and Ms Claudia MO to my motion. In their amendments, both of them add the proposal to defend the principles of "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and firmly uphold Hong Kong people's core value of "a high degree of autonomy". They both reiterate the rights and interests that the Hong Kong people have cherished all along, something that are protected under the Basic Law. Hence, I support their amendments.

However, in their amendments, Mr Paul TSE and Ms Starry LEE only urge the Hong Kong SAR Government to ensure the fair conduct of the election of the Chief Executive but they do not urge the Central Government to do the same. By urging the Hong Kong Government alone but not the Central Government to do the same, I am afraid they have overestimated the capability of the Hong Kong Government of ensuring a fair election and have also overlooked the Central Government's constitutional duty. And hence I cannot support their amendments.

As regards Mr Alvin YEUNG's amendment, I must thank him for quoting Article 22 of the Basic Law, which clearly stipulates that officials of various departments of the Central Government may not interfere in Hong Kong's election, and at the same time, officials of various provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities may not do so either. In his amendment, Mr Alvin YEUNG also requests the Government to take effective measures for that purpose. In so doing, he spells out the aim of the motion more clearly and hence I support his amendment.

I have heard the speeches of various Members, either to propose amendments or voice their views. I find that all amendments agree on the principle that the Government must take measures to ensure the fair conduct of 5588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 the election of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, which is not much different to the original motion. The only difference is whether one should only request the Hong Kong Government or at the same time also request the Central Government to take measures to ensure the fair conduct of the election of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. That is the only difference.

It is rather odd that many Members who have spoken, including those who have proposed amendments, opine that the Central Government has the right to show concern. Whether they use the term "concern" or "interference", they indicate that the Central Government has a role to play in the election. If they think the Central Government has a role to play, then why is it that the Central Government has the right to show concern but not the duty to ensure the fair conduct of the election?

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

May I earnestly ask all Members to think very carefully. If they support the amendments of Mr TSE or Ms LEE, they will fall into the logical trap of supporting a government which has the power but not the duty and which "does all harm but nothing constructive". This reflects that they agree that the Central Government may show concern or interfere in the Chief Executive Election but it has no duty to ensure the fair conduct of the election. If they support such an amendment, they will have to explain to all electors their decision made today lest they will become the laughing stock of the whole world.

Thank you.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, first I would like to express some views on the wording of Dr YIU Chung-yim's motion. The motion is titled "Ensuring the fair conduct of the Chief Executive Election" but apart from being fair, our elections have all along been conducted in an open, equitable, fair and honest manner. I do not quite understand why he only requests for the "fair" conduct of election, I guess it may be a typo.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5589

This morning, my Under Secretary already gave a detailed account of the principles and specific arrangements concerning the Chief Executive Election which will take place a few days later on 26 March. Let me briefly add a few points here.

First, I have to reiterate that elections are conducted by the Electoral Affairs Commission ("EAC") in accordance with law. EAC is an independent statutory organization established under the electoral laws. It consists of the Chairman, who is a High Court judge as required by law, and two other members from the public. This arrangement is to ensure that elections held by EAC under the law are conducted in accordance with the principles of openness, equity, fairness and honesty.

Apart from EAC, there is a Returning Officer ("RO") in every election, including the upcoming Chief Executive Election. The statutory power and duty of RO are already provided in the electoral laws, which include: in the case of the Chief Executive Election, to receive nominations and decide if the nominations are valid in accordance with law; on the election day, to ensure the election is carried out in accordance with law, to oversee the entire polling and counting process, and also to determine whether the election has been conducted in accordance with law and the relevant person elected has been properly elected in accordance with law. Since the power and duty of RO are so important, it is required by law that the post of RO of the Chief Executive Election shall be filled by a High Court judge. In the upcoming Election, a judge of the Court of Appeal of the High Court will assume the post of RO.

Furthermore, a few hundred staff from the Registration and Electoral Office ("REO") will assist in the conduct of the upcoming Election by EAC. They are all civil servants, politically neutral, professional and highly seasoned. I am very confident that the entire Election can, must and will be conducted strictly in accordance with law and relevant rules, and the four aforementioned major principles will certainly be fulfilled.

President, the preparation work is already in full swing. To ensure that the Chief Executive Election will be smoothly conducted in accordance with law, we have especially requested the REO staff to step up measures in two respects, namely, confidentiality and security. My Under Secretary already told Members about the confidentiality measures this morning and I also told Members about 5590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 the specific details in this Council three weeks ago. The aim of the confidentiality measures is mainly to ensure that members of the Election Committee ("EC"), including Members present here, will be able to exercise their own free will to choose and vote for the candidates of their choice in complete confidence when they stamp for the candidate whom they choose in the voting compartment of the polling station. At that very moment, EC members are purely accountable to history and to themselves. In other words, the confidentiality arrangement is provided to ensure that all elections will be conducted in accordance with the principles of openness, equity, fairness and honesty. EC members can lodge a complaint if anyone attempts to coerce or induce them and if the complaint is substantiated, law enforcement agencies and the Judiciary will definitely take appropriate actions in accordance with law.

President, in respect of security, to ensure the smooth conduct of elections, we will take a series of security measures inside and outside the polling station. Our world is not particularly peaceful today. If Members have watched the news, they may have learned about the terrorist attack in London of the United Kingdom last night. Hence, as regards security measures, the Police's aim is to ensure the safety of all EC members as they enter and exit the polling station and maintain order in the polling station, so that the Election will be conducted in accordance with law. If anyone, including EC members, deliberately attempt to interfere in the voting of other EC members, or tamper with the ballot papers or ballot boxes in the polling station, the Police will take resolute enforcement actions. Such behaviour will not be condoned. There will be traffic control outside the polling stations. We will do our best to assist protesters and participants of processions to exercise their rights while preventing them from obstructing or disrupting the Election. I have read press reports about certain organizations urging their supporters to obstruct EC members from going to the polling station. I must point out that this is a serious breach of the law and if anyone attempts to do so, the Police will strictly enforce the law and arrest them.

President, Dr Helena WONG has asked me to reiterate whether the Chief Executive Election is an affair which the Hong Kong SAR "administers on its own" as stipulated in Article 22 of the Basic Law. Actually, in my answer to the question asked by Mr KWONG Chun-yu, a fellow member of her political party, at the Legislative Council meeting on 1 March, I pointed out clearly that as provided by the relevant provisions of the Basic Law, the Chief Executive Election was not purely an affair which the SAR administered on its own. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5591 provisions of the Basic Law have stipulated that the Central Government has its constitutional role, power and duty in this respect. My Under Secretary stressed this point again in his opening remarks made this morning. Nevertheless, the Central Government and the departments under it will, as always, strictly adhere to the principles of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy". In so doing, they fulfil the requirements of the Basic Law.

Lastly, President, some Members have mentioned the term "coterie election" in the past few hours. Of course, just like everyone, I am very disappointed as I should have been able to cast my vote in this election. Among the candidates, even though I cannot name names, there are some whom I favour. I have lived for a few decades but I still cannot cast a vote. I had handled matters relating to three constitutional reforms and have been involved in the electoral work for over a decade, but I still cannot participate in this Election to cast a vote. There is a saying that goes, "The chicken kept by Tanka boat dwellers." What does it mean? It is a well-known fact that I have high EQ, but I could not help but feel a little angry hearing the debate this morning. Nevertheless, in order to finish today's debate so that I can go back to my office to meet with my colleagues to ensure the smooth conduct of the election, I will not say anymore.

I notice that Dr KWOK Ka-ki will move a motion debate for next week on urging the next Chief Executive to reactivate the constitutional reform. Anyone can debate on that issue. I have no special opinions; either I or my Under Secretary will come to listen to Members' views. But when I see that the wording of the motion includes the phrase "including civil nomination", may I suggest Members not wasting their time? If they request again in the Government of the next term for civil nomination, it will certainly be of no avail.

President, I speak on behalf of the SAR Government to oppose the original motion moved by Dr YIU Chung-yim and the amendments proposed by Mr Charles Peter MOK, Ms Claudia MO and Mr Alvin YEUNG, but I support the amendments proposed by Mr Paul TSE and Ms Starry LEE. I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Mr Charles Peter MOK to move an amendment to the motion.

5592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I move that Dr YIU Chung-yim's motion be amended.

Mr Charles Peter MOK moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add "it has been reported that the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has repeatedly meddled in the elections in Hong Kong, including the 2017 Chief Executive Election, blatantly disregarding the principle of 'Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong'; in this connection," after "That"; and to add "; the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region should continue to defend the principles of 'one country, two systems' and 'Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong', and firmly uphold the autonomy of Hong Kong people as a core value" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Charles Peter MOK to Dr YIU Chung-yim's motion, be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Charles Peter MOK rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5593

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, will you cast your vote?

(Mr Paul TSE cast his vote)

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted for the amendment.

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

Dr Pierre CHAN abstained.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr Paul TSE, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Nathan LAW and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted for the amendment.

5594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan voted against the amendment.

Mr Michael TIEN and Ms YUNG Hoi-yan abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 20 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 25 were present, 15 were in favour of the amendment, 8 against it and 2 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

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

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

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

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

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5595

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

(No hands raised)

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

I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on " Ensuring the fair conduct of the Chief Executive Election " or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, you may move your amendment.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I move that Dr YIU Chung-yim's motion be amended.

Ms Claudia MO moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To delete "this Council requests" after "That" and substitute with "as it has been reported that some departments of the Central People's Government have 'vigorously influenced' the voting decisions of members of the Election Committee,"; to delete "to" after "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" and substitute with "must"; to add "equitable and" after "conducted under"; to add ", so as to defend 'one country, two systems' and the spirit of autonomy of Hong Kong, and to prevent elections from moving towards 'Mainlandization'" after "conditions"; and to add ", with a view to safeguarding the principles of 'Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong' and 'a high degree of autonomy'" immediately before the full stop."

5596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Ms Claudia MO to Dr YIU Chung-yim's motion, be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Ms Claudia MO rose to claim a division.

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

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5597

Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr LAU Kwok-fan voted against the amendment.

Dr Pierre CHAN abstained.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Nathan LAW and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan voted against the amendment.

Mr Michael TIEN and Ms YUNG Hoi-yan abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 9 were in favour of the amendment, 20 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 25 were present, 14 were in favour of the amendment, 9 against it and 2 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, you may move your amendment.

5598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, I move that Dr YIU Chung-yim's motion be amended.

Mr Paul TSE moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To delete "this Council requests" after "That" and substitute with "with the Chief Executive Election approaching, this Council urges"; and to delete "be conducted under fair conditions; this Council also urges the various departments of the Central People's Government not to interfere in the Chief Executive Election, including but not limited to causing a certain candidate to be or not to be elected, or pressurizing members of the Election Committee into making voting decisions against their own wills" immediately before the full stop and substitute with "complies with the principles of equity and fairness and all relevant electoral legislation and guidelines on electoral activities, and calls on various sectors of the community to strictly comply with the aforesaid legislation, guidelines and principles"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Paul TSE to Dr YIU Chung-yim's motion, be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Dr LAU Siu-lai rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LAU Siu-lai has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5599

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

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

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted against the amendment.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan voted for the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Nathan LAW and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted against the amendment.

5600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31were present, 21 were in favour of the amendment and 9 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, you may move your amendment.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, I move that Dr YIU Chung-yim's motion be amended.

Ms Starry LEE moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add ", in accordance with the Basic Law and relevant legislation," after "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to"; to add "smoothly" after "conducted"; to add "open, equitable and" after "under"; and to delete "; this Council also urges the various departments of the Central People's Government not to interfere in the Chief Executive Election, including but not limited to causing a certain candidate to be or not to be elected, or pressurizing members of the Election Committee into making voting decisions against their own wills" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Ms Starry LEE to Dr YIU Chung-yim's motion, be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5601

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

(Members raised their hands)

Ms Starry LEE rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Regina IP, will you cast your vote?

(Mrs Regina IP cast her vote)

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

Functional Constituencies:

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

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted against the amendment.

5602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan voted for the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Nathan LAW and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 21 were in favour of the amendment and 9 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

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

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Dr YIU Chung-yim's motion be amended.

Mr Alvin YEUNG moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add "to adopt all possible means" after "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region"; to delete "urges the" after "this Council also" and substitute with "requests the officials and related individuals of"; to add "and various provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities to respect LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5603

'one country, two systems', 'Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong' and 'a high degree of autonomy', and" after "Central People's Government"; to delete "a certain" after "causing" and substitute with "any"; to delete "or not to be" after "candidate to be"; to add "or prejudicing the election of any candidate" after "elected"; and to add "; this Council also urges the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to closely monitor the process of this election and report to this Council after the election in case any interference in the election from the aforesaid officials and related individuals are detected, so that this Council can take follow-up actions" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Alvin YEUNG to Dr YIU Chung-yim's motion, be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Jeremy TAM rose to claim a division.

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

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

5604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted for the amendment.

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Mrs Regina IP, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Nathan LAW and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 10 were in favour of the amendment and 20 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5605 through direct elections, 27 were present, 18 were in favour of the amendment and 9 against. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr YIU Chung-yim, you still have 4 minutes 39 seconds to reply. The debate will come to a close after Dr YIU Chung-yim has replied.

DR YIU CHUNG-YIM (in Cantonese): First of all, I thank Members for proposing amendments to my motion and expressing their views. Some colleagues even confirmed some of the hearsay. I am very grateful to everyone.

As pointed out by Mr Charles Peter MOK, Hong Kong people are highly united this time in their request for a fair election and an end to social dissension. People of Hong Kong object to the interference of the Hong Kong Government and Central Government and hope that members of the Election Committee ("EC") of Hong Kong can make their own decision.

Some colleagues opine that the Government only shows its care and that is not interference. Actually, one can easily distinguish between care and interference. To avoid interference, those who have public power can openly lay down the conditions for exercising self-restraint.

Civil servants should be very clear about this logic. When civil servants are conferred by law with certain discretionary power, those who are competent will certainly make public the conditions under which this power is to be exercised, so as to avoid being criticized for abuse of power. By the same token, if the Central Government can openly declare enact legislation to stipulate the special circumstances under which it will refuse to appoint the Chief Executive elected by Hong Kong people or EC members, the doubts and worries of EC members can be dispelled. If officials can lay down the conditions for self-restraint, they will not be regarded as interfering instead of showing concern.

On the contrary, if officials do not exercise self-restraint but lust for power, they certainly cannot defend interference in the name of care. Good parents who truly care about their children only need to know who their children are dating. 5606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

They will not set conditions to restrain their choice of spouse; neither will they force their children into prearranged marriage. Instead, they will assure their children that they will not interfere in their choice of boyfriend or girlfriend. Then this is genuine care, not interference.

If the Central Government and its departments only care but not interfere, how come they only care about the pro-establishment EC members? How come they do not care about the 300-odd democratic EC members? Why did they only phone the pro-establishment EC members in secret but not phone the other 300-odd EC members? With such selective care, their aim is laid bare in front of our eyes.

Many colleagues have unanimously pointed out that the more power one has, the more self-restraint he must exercise. Those having public power should even lay down the criteria for self-restraint, so as to avoid giving others the impression that they are interfering. What they should do is to show concern in an open and transparent manner. Hence, if they are anxious to know the voting intentions of EC members, they should not call individual EC members but should meet all EC members in an open meeting with great transparency, and also notify the media. Thus, they can avoid the accusation of interfering in Hong Kong's affairs.

As a matter of fact, since the Chief Executive election is neither a foreign affair nor a national defence, I hope that the Secretary will reconsider his saying that the election is not Hong Kong's internal affair. It is indeed Hong Kong's internal affair. If the departments under the Central Government interfere in it, they breach Article 22 of the Basic Law.

Finally, I wish to reiterate that Members have no disagreement on this issue. All colleagues who have spoken agree that the Government, either the Hong Kong Government or the Central Government, is duty-bound to take measures to ensure the fair conduct of the election. Some Members have somewhat mistaken the subject of my motion, thinking that we are discussing whether there is evidence of interference. I have repeatedly stressed that the focus of the discussion is not to collect evidence on interference; rather it is about the need for the Government to lay down the criteria for self-restraint, so as to achieve impartiality and convince the public of its impartiality (The buzzer sounded) … I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017 5607

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted for the motion.

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

5608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 March 2017

Dr Pierre CHAN abstained.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Nathan LAW and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted for the motion.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan voted against the motion.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 9 were in favour of the motion, 20 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 19 were in favour of the motion and 8 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.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the meeting until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 29 March 2017.

Adjourned accordingly at 2:18 pm.