LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 1
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 9 October 2013
The Council met at Eleven o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
2 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 3
THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. 4 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 5
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE MRS CARRIE LAM CHENG YUET-NGOR, G.B.S., J.P. THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
PROF THE HONOURABLE ANTHONY CHEUNG BING-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING
MS FLORENCE HUI HIU-FAI, S.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
PROF THE HONOURABLE K C CHAN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY
THE HONOURABLE GREGORY SO KAM-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
THE HONOURABLE LAI TUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
DR THE HONOURABLE KO WING-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH
THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, M.H., J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MRS PERCY MA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL 6 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
TABLING OF PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:
Subsidiary Legislation/Instruments L.N. No.
Fugitive Offenders (Finland) Order (Commencement) Notice ...... 140/2013
Pilotage (Amendment) Regulation 2013 ...... 142/2013
Pilotage (Amendment) Ordinance 2013 (Commencement) Notice ...... 143/2013
Post Office (Amendment) Regulation 2013 ...... 147/2013
Inland Revenue (Double Taxation Relief and Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income) (Guernsey) Order ...... 148/2013
Inland Revenue (Double Taxation Relief and Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income) (Italian Republic) Order ...... 149/2013
Inland Revenue (Double Taxation Relief and Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income) (State of Qatar) Order ...... 150/2013
Other Papers
No. 1 ─ Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund Board Annual Report 2012-13
No. 2 ─ Urban Renewal Authority Annual Report 2012-2013
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 7
No. 3 ─ Fish Marketing Organization Financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2013
No. 4 ─ Vegetable Marketing Organization Financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2013
No. 5 ─ Marine Fish Scholarship Fund Report for the period from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013
No. 6 ─ Agricultural Products Scholarship Fund Report for the period from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am glad to see Members back. Starting from this Session, the provision of simultaneous Putonghua interpretation service will be extended to all Legislative Council meetings. In addition, since January this year, regular simultaneous sign language interpretation service has also been provided to all Legislative Council meetings and this arrangement will continue.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. In accordance with rule 9A of the House Rules, the time taken by each oral question should not exceed 22 minutes in total. After a Member has asked a main question and the relevant public officer has replied, the Member who asks the question has priority to ask the first supplementary question. Other Members who wish to ask supplementary questions may indicate their wish by pressing the "Request to speak" button and wait for their turn.
Members may raise only one question in asking supplementary questions. These questions should be as concise as possible so that more Members can ask supplementary questions. Members should not make arguments when asking supplementary questions.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First question
8 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Review of Use of Military Sites
1. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): It has been reported that military sites in Hong Kong have a total area of 2 700 hectares and some of them are not actually put to any military uses, and have even been left idle for a long time. It has been learnt that the Shek Kong airfield as a military site has a low utilization rate but lands in its periphery are subject to building height restrictions to avoid obstruction to the landing or taking off of military aircraft, resulting in the lands not being put to optimal use. There are also comments that certain military sites situated in the urban areas are suitable for public use such as public housing construction, and so on. Meanwhile, Article 13 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Garrisoning of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region provides that "any land used by the Hong Kong Garrison for military purposes, when approved by the Central People's Government to be no longer needed for defence purposes, shall be turned over without compensation to the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for disposal", and "if the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region needs for public use any part of the land used for military purposes by the Hong Kong Garrison, it shall seek approval of the Central People's Government; where approval is obtained, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall make reprovision of land and military facilities for the Hong Kong Garrison at such sites as agreed to by the Central People's Government, and shall bear all the expenses and costs entailed". In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the distribution of military sites and their respective areas; whether it knows the utilization rates of the military sites, and the use of those situated in urban areas and reportedly left idle for a long time (for example, the Kowloon East Barracks and the Gun Club Hill Barracks);
(b) whether the authorities will consider discussing with the Hong Kong Garrison the optimization of the flight paths of the airspace in the vicinity of the Shek Kong airfield so that the building height restrictions on the lands nearby can be relaxed to enable more effective use of such lands; if not, of the reasons for that; and
(c) whether the authorities will raise with the Central People's Government the turning over to the SAR Government without LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 9
compensation those military sites left idle for a long time, with low utilization rates and suitable for public use, or the reprovisioning of those military sites at alternative sites; if not, of the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I have consulted the Development Bureau and my reply is as follows:
(a) Article 14 of the Basic Law provides that the Central People's Government (CPG) shall be responsible for the defence of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). Article 5 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Garrisoning of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the Garrison Law) provides that one of the defence functions and responsibilities of the Hong Kong Garrison is to control military facilities. The use of military sites is a matter of national defence for which the CPG and the Hong Kong Garrison have sole responsibility. Article 10 of the Garrison Law provides that the Government of the HKSAR shall support the Hong Kong Garrison in its performance of defence functions and responsibilities and guarantee the lawful rights and interests of the Hong Kong Garrison and its members.
The Hong Kong Garrison has a total of 19 military sites, of which six are located on Hong Kong Island (namely the Central Barracks and Military Dock, Chek Chue Barracks, Headquarters House, Ching Yi To Barracks and Western Barracks), four in Kowloon (namely the Gun Club Hill Barracks, Kowloon East Barracks, Cornwall Street and Ngong Shuen Chau Barracks) and nine in the New Territories (namely Shek Kong Barracks, Shek Kong Village, San Tin Barracks, Tam Mei Barracks, San Wai Barracks, San Wai/Tai Ling Firing Range, Tsing Shan Firing Range, Tai O Barracks and the Military Transportation Centre at Chek Lap Kok), with a total area of about 2 700 hectares. These sites were established in accordance with the Exchange of Notes between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the United Kingdom in 1994 on the arrangements for the future use of the military sites in Hong Kong (Exchange of Notes), to be used by the Hong Kong Garrison for defence purposes after the Reunification.
10 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
In fact, the size and number of military sites held by the Hong Kong Garrison are far smaller and fewer than those held by the former British Forces stationed in Hong Kong before the Reunification. According to the 1994 Exchange of Notes, the CPG agreed that 25 military sites of the then British Forces, involving a total size of about 139 hectares, should be surrendered without compensation to the then Hong Kong Government for public purposes. These sites include the Royden Court Military Quarters at Repulse Bay, Mount Austin Mansions at the Peak, So Kon Po Sports Ground at So Kon Po, British Military Hospital at King's Park, St George's School at Kowloon Tong, Blackdown Barracks at San Po Kong and Burma Lines at Fanling. Some of these sites have already been turned into residential, government, educational and recreational uses, and so on.
As we understand it, all existing military sites are currently used for defence purposes and none is left idle.
(b) Before the Reunification, the Shek Kong Airfield (the Airfield) was a military site of the former British Forces stationed in Hong Kong. It was handed over to the Hong Kong Garrison for defence purposes after the Reunification. The navigation clearance requirements of the Airfield were established with reference to the national standards and those of the International Civil Aviation Organization. Its geographical coverage is smaller than the pre-Reunification one by about 42%. The height restrictions imposed for the developments near the Airfield seek to ensure the navigation clearance of the Airfield for the safety of aviation and residents in the vicinity, and is also a measure of the HKSAR Government to support the Hong Kong Garrison in its performance of defence duties and responsibilities as required by the Garrison Law. The HKSAR Government has no plan to seek any change to the height restrictions.
(c) Article 13 of the Garrison Law provides that any land used by the Hong Kong Garrison for military purposes, when approved by the CPG to be no longer needed for defence purposes, shall be turned over without compensation to the HKSAR Government for disposal. If the HKSAR Government requires for public use any part of the land used for military purposes by the Hong Kong Garrison, it shall LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 11 seek approval of the CPG. The HKSAR Government shall in return provide land and military facilities for the Hong Kong Garrison at such sites as agreed to by the CPG, and shall bear all the expenses and costs entailed. However, as I mentioned in part (a) of the reply, all existing military sites are currently used for defence purposes and none is left idle. The HKSAR Government has no plan to seek any change to the use of these sites.
The HKSAR Government will continue to press ahead with the various short-, medium- and long-term initiatives to increase land supply as set out in the 2013 Policy Address, with a view to identifying more land suitable for development to meet the needs of the social-economic development and public's demand for housing in Hong Kong.
The 2013 Policy Address puts forward a number of initiatives to increase the supply of housing land in the short-to-medium term, covering a range of areas, including:
― to review various land use zonings and to covert suitable sites into residential use, including converting suitable Government, Institution or Community and other Government sites, Green Belt sites, as well as industrial sites into residential or other appropriate uses; to convert the land where the originally intended use is no longer required into housing or other uses that meet the more pressing needs in the community as soon as possible.
― to increase the development density of residential sites as far as allowable in planning terms, including the increase in development density of individual residential sites, so as to increase the number of housing units that could be built.
― to continue to promote the model of integrated development of mass transportation and residential property, to take forward housing development through redevelopment projects of the Urban Renewal Authority.
― to review land administration procedures to expedite land supply, and to expedite the administrative approval procedures 12 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
and take other corresponding measures as long as they are in line with public interests, so that approved planning applications for residential development can be implemented as soon as possible.
Besides, the HKSAR Government is determined to extensively develop new land and build up a land reserve. Therefore, the HKSAR Government is taking forward a number of long-term land supply projects including the North East New Territories New Development Areas (NDAs), Hung Shui Kiu NDA, development of Lantau Island, review of deserted agricultural land in North District and Yuen Long, developing the New Territories North, exploring the options of reclamation on an appropriate scale outside the Victoria Harbour, and rock cavern and underground space developments, and so on. These long-term land supply initiatives will be our focus to address future population growth, provide land resources for economic development, and improve people's living space and environment.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): President, in the last sentence of part (a) of his main reply, the Secretary said, "all existing military sites are currently used for defence purposes and none is left idle." In my opinion, this is not an appropriate description.
According to the information I have gathered, the utilization rate of at least five barracks, namely the Gun Club Hill Barracks, Kowloon East Barracks, Shek Kong Barracks, Shek Kong Village and Tai O Barracks, is low. My supplementary question is as follows. Firstly, given the sound transportation network in Hong Kong, the Garrison will not be hindered from entering the urban areas for defence purpose even if the barracks are located at the border; secondly, given the sound establishment and anti-riot capabilities of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) and the fact that the People's Liberation Army will be required to only provide assistance, the HKPF can basically handle internal problems. For some barracks of low utilization rates, especially those located in urban areas, why does the Government not discuss the matter with the CPG? According to the relevant legislation, we can discuss it with the CPG. Why does the SAR Government not try to do so?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 13
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, the SAR Government has all along maintained communication with the Garrison. According to the information we would receive from the Garrison from time to time, the military sites of the Garrison have been used for defence purposes since the Reunification all along.
As for the specific uses of these sites, it is not convenient for the Garrison to disclose them as such is military information. However, as I made it very clear in the main reply, none is left idle. The utilization rate of a military site is a subjective opinion. On seeing not many people getting in and out of a barrack when passing by, we may get such an impression. But specifically, I believe there is no direct relationship between the purpose of a military site and whether it is left idle or its utilization being high or low. Mr FUNG has put it right. Under the Basic Law, the internal security of Hong Kong is solely responsible by the SAR Government and our disciplined forces are professional and fully capable to deal with any problem. According to the Basic Law, however, the Garrison is responsible for defence. So, we cannot draw an equal sign directly between the two.
If we wish to invoke Article 13 of the Garrison Law in order to turn a certain site used by the Garrison into public use, we have to seek the approval of the CPG in addition to identifying another site for reprovision of the relevant facilities as required. So far, the SAR Government does not have any plans to do so.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, the military sites in Hong Kong have a unique historical background. In fact, the number of military sites held by the former British Forces stationed in Hong Kong was more than those held by the Garrison after the Reunification.
In the third paragraph of part (a) of the main reply, the Secretary mentioned that as many as 25 military sites had been surrendered to the SAR Government for public purposes after the Reunification. Could the Secretary inform this Council of the purposes of these 25 former British military sites at present? How many of them have been used for housing development? Are these sites located in urban areas or the New Territories?
14 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): I thank Mr IP for his supplementary question. As Mr IP said just now, compared with those held by the former British Forces stationed in Hong Kong, the size and number of military sites held by the Garrison are far smaller and fewer.
According to the Exchange of Notes signed between China and the United Kingdom in 1994, consideration was given by the CPG to the amount of land required for defence purposes after the Reunification. After careful consideration, the CPG agreed that 25 military sites, involving a total size of about 139 hectares, should be surrendered without compensation to the then Hong Kong Government for public purposes. Regarding Mr IP's question about the location of these sites, 16 sites are located in Hong Kong Island and Kowloon while the remaining nine sites are located in the New Territories. Let me cite some examples. Amongst these sites, So Kon Po Sports Ground, British Military Hospital at King's Park and Blackdown Barracks are located in urban areas. The sites released have been converted into various uses to meet specific needs such as non-industrial land, private residential purpose, schools, and even for the construction of power transformer stations, sports or recreational venues, as well as other government purposes. Regarding the Honourable Member's specific question about whether such sites are used for residential development, the answer is in the positive. Examples such as Royden Court Military Quarters at Repulse Bay, Harcourt Place at Happy Valley, Vista Panorama at Beacon Hill, Kowloon Tsai Married Quarters, and so on, have all been converted into residential use.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): Just now, a Member mentioned the Gun Club Hill Barracks. I believe he was targeting at the United Services Recreation Club. As far as I understand it, the families of many British military officers patronized the Club during the British Hong Kong era. But nowadays, according to the information I have, the families of the Garrison do not do so. Currently, outsiders can patronize the Club by purchasing its membership as it is operated on a self-financing principle.
Under such circumstances, my personal view is: firstly, I do not see any defence purpose performed by the Club or any relevance to defence purpose; and secondly, are the Club's members not enjoying a great advantage? Other clubs are subject to a term of lease and the land will be resumed by the Government upon expiry of the lease. However, the land of this Club will never be resumed LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 15 and enjoyed mainly by outsiders. May I hear the Secretary's response to my views?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I am sure that Mr TIEN is talking about the United Services Recreation Club, which has a unique historical background. According to the information we have, the Club was registered as early as 1911 and has since implemented a membership system.
The Club is located at a military site, that is, the Gun Club Hill Barracks in Kowloon. Before the Reunification, its members included the British armed forces, their families and various sectors of the community. In the negotiation over military sites in Hong Kong, consensus was reached between China and the United Kingdom in the 1994 Exchange of Notes. In particular, the site of the United Services Recreation Club was mentioned and it was agreed that after the Reunification, the United Services Recreation Club would continue to operate under the same conditions as before and members would be allowed to enjoy the facilities as before. I understand that after the Reunification, the Garrison and their families have not made use of such facilities. However, as consensus and agreement on the mode of operation of the Club were reached between China and the United Kingdom in the Exchange of Notes concerning the future use of military sites, our understanding hitherto is that the Club is still operated according to the then agreement.
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has consulted the Development Bureau before answering this question by the Legislative Council. But I hope the Secretary can clarify one point here.
In the second paragraph of part (a) of the main reply, the Secretary mentioned that the Garrison has a total of 19 military sites, of which six are located on Hong Kong Island (namely the Central Barracks and Military Dock). President, yesterday some fishermen staged a protest against the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department for bullying them. May I ask whether they strayed into a restricted zone and whether they strayed into a military site or military dock?
President, I hope that in handling a complex issue, government officials will not simplify it, thereby misleading the Legislative Council because the site is 16 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 currently an open space under Hong Kong laws and this 0.3 hectare of land is not a military site. Will the Secretary for Security please clarify this point?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, there is clear stipulation in the 1994 Exchange of Notes signed between China and the United Kingdom. Owing to the Central and Wan Chai reclamation project, it was necessary to temporarily relocate the Military Dock. The Government has made it clear that the Dock would be reprovisioned upon completion of the reclamation project. Regarding yesterday's incident mentioned by Dr Kenneth CHAN just now, the site, according to current planning, is an open space, as mentioned by Dr Kenneth CHAN. But the Government has to fulfil the requirement under the Exchange of Notes. For this reason, the Town Planning Board is carrying out work to change the use of this 0.3 hectare of land in order to fulfil the Government's commitment in this regard. Concerning yesterday's incident of a group of fishermen landing there, I do not see any so-called intrusion or entry into a military site.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): As my point is confirmed as a fact, I would like to ask the Secretary for Security to clarify that only five, not six, military sites are located on Hong Kong Island, namely the Central Barracks, Chek Chue Barracks, Headquarters House, Ching Yi To Barracks and so on …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHAN, please do not present an argument. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I have clearly pointed out in my reply just now that the site is included. I have also explained why we have to reprovision the Military Dock. I do not think there is any misleading in my reply.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 17
MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Secretary LAI, I would like to follow up the land use of the United Services Recreation Club on Gascoigne Road. The existing purpose of the Club may have deviated from the then understanding in the 1994 Exchange of Notes. I have also taken breakfast in the Club. As far as I understand it, members of the Club are now Hong Kong people and advertisements have been placed by the Club to attract commercial activities. In other words, many Hong Kong people can throw banquets or wedding feasts there even though they are not members of the Club. Is the existing land use of the Club consistent with the understanding of the then Exchange of Notes? Under such circumstances, why is the Secretary unable to trigger the procedures in order to review whether there is any discrepancy between the Exchange of Notes and the existing land use?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): As I have made it clear in my reply to the supplementary question asked by Mr Michael TIEN, the current mode of operation of the Club is no different from that before the Reunification. So, in our opinion, it is consistent with the relevant provisions under the Exchange of Notes without any deviation.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent more than 22 minutes on this question. Second question.
Incorporation of Enclaves into Country Parks
2. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, currently, the Government refers to private lands or government lands adjacent to country parks or surrounded by country parks but not included in country parks as "enclaves". According to a paper submitted by the Government to this Council earlier, there were 77 enclaves in the territory in early 2010, with a total area of some 2 076 hectares. Among such enclaves, 23 have been included in Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs). It has been reported that the Town Planning Board (TPB) is considering proposals to amend the OZPs concerned to zone parts of the two enclaves in Hoi Ha and Pak Lap of Sai Kung East Country Park as "Village Type Development". Some members of the public have relayed to me that Hoi Ha Wan is a designated marine park, and dumping of wastes has been spotted earlier in Pak Lap. They are worried that once those enclaves are zoned "Village Type 18 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Development" by the TPB, the ecology of the country park will be seriously ruined. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it will consider incorporating all enclaves into country parks; if it will, of the timetable for incorporation of the respective enclaves; if not, the reasons for that; and
(b) given the Government has decided to introduce relevant subsidiary legislation to the Legislative Council to incorporate Sai Wan and several enclaves into the country parks concerned at the end of this year in response to the grave public concern arising from the unauthorized excavation works carried out in the enclave of Sai Wan in 2010, whether the Government will follow the same principle to impose control on developments of privately-owned enclaves when incorporating other enclaves into country parks in future?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, my reply to the Mr WU Chi-wai's questions is as follows:
(a) In June 2010, unauthorized excavation works were detected on both private land and Government land of the country park enclave of Sai Wan, which triggered significant public concerns on the protection of country park enclaves in Hong Kong. At that time, there were 77 country park enclaves, of which 23 had already been covered by OZPs under the Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131) (TPO). In the 2010-2011 Policy Address, the Government undertook to either include the remaining 54 enclaves into country parks, or determine their proper uses through statutory planning to meet conservation and social development needs.
To implement this policy, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) and the Planning Department carry out assessments on the enclaves having regard to their situations. Relevant factors such as conservation values, landscape and aesthetic values, geographical locations, existing scale of human settlement and development pressures are taken into consideration. For enclaves which are assessed to be suitable for incorporation into country parks, the AFCD will submit the designation proposals to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 19
the Country and Marine Parks Board (CMPB) for consideration and will consult the relevant stakeholders before initiating the statutory process.
The AFCD has confirmed to incorporate three enclaves, namely Sai Wan, Kam Shan and Yuen Tun into respective country parks, and has invoked the statutory procedures under the Country Parks Ordinance (Cap. 208) (CPO). At present, the approved maps of the concerned country parks have been deposited in the Land Registry. In accordance with the CPO, we have prepared a designation order. We issued a Legislative Council brief and press release on 17 July informing Members and the public that the designation order will be gazetted on 11 October and will be tabled at the Legislative Council on 16 October for negative vetting procedures. For the remaining country park enclaves, we will consider the priority in assessing their suitability for inclusion in the country parks based on the experience gained from implementing the designation process for Sai Wan, Kam Shan and Yuen Tun.
Besides, to date, the Planning Department has prepared 17 Development Permission Area (DPA) Plans for 24 enclaves, among which three of them has already been covered by draft OZPs. In 2013-2014, the Planning Department will prepare DPA Plans for the remaining enclaves which are identified suitable for protection by statutory plans. According to the TPO, the Planning Authority (the Director of Planning) may take enforcement and regulatory actions against unauthorized developments in areas covered by DPA Plans or the subsequent OZPs to replace them.
(b) On the second part of the question, incorporating private land in enclaves into country parks is by no means depriving the ownership of the private land, nor would the incorporation revert the land back to the Government. The private lands within country parks are governed by lease conditions and the CPO.
For any development proposal on private land, the concerned party is required to check whether the proposed works comply with the lease conditions and do not contravene the CPO or other legislation. If necessary, based on the land lease, he should submit an application 20 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
to the relevant District Lands Office (DLO), which will then review the applications following the established procedures. If the application is not in contravention of the CPO as well as other relevant legislation, and is not objected by relevant departments, the DLO may approve such application with conditions. The proposed works could only be commenced after obtaining the approval from the DLO. In considering any application for use within a country park, the DLO will consult the Country and Marine Parks Authority (the Authority) before making a decision to approve or not approve it. The Authority will assess any proposed development of land in a country park on the merits of the individual case. The Authority will consider whether the proposed development would substantially reduce the enjoyment and amenities of the country park concerned. In this connection, the Authority will take into account all relevant factors including land status, location, nature conservation, landscape and visual impacts, and country park users or facilities points of views. If necessary, the Authority will seek advice from the CMPB before deciding whether the proposed use or development is acceptable or not.
Upon designation of the enclaves as country park areas, if the Authority is of the opinion that any use or proposed use of, or any new development on, any leased land within the sites would "substantially reduce the enjoyment and amenities of the country park as such", under section 16 of the CPO, he may request the Land Authority to exercise the powers conferred by the CPO, who may then, by notice in writing, require such use or proposed use be discontinued or modified within a designated period. Any aggrieved occupiers could object, appeal or seek compensation according to procedures prescribed in the CPO.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, in both parts (a) and (b) of the main reply, the Secretary stressed that when carrying out development in country parks, the Government's major considerations were conservation values, landscape and aesthetic values, geographical locations and existing scale of human settlement. Regarding the Secretary's reply, we certainly consider it desirable if these considerations could really be put into practice but in relation to two areas, that is, Hoi Ha and Pak Lap, unless the Secretary considers that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 21 they have no conservation or landscape values, he should incorporate them into the country parks concerned as soon as possible, rather than carrying out town planning to turn them into "village type development" areas, thus resulting in tens of village houses being built in these two places because evidently, this would run counter to the criteria stated in parts (a) and (b) of the main reply.
May I ask the Secretary if he thinks that the development pressure on Hoi Ha and Pak Lap is attributable to their lack of conservation, landscape and aesthetic values? If the answer is in the affirmative, this would be inconsistent with the Secretary's reply; if the answer is in the negative, will the Secretary consider incorporating such enclaves as Hoi Ha and Pak Lap into the Sai Kung
East Country Park?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, with regard to cases like Hoi Ha and Pak Lap mentioned by Mr WU, my reply is as follows: The general planning intention for the two planning areas of Hoi Ha and Pak Lap is to protect sites with high landscape values as well as the natural rural environment within these protected areas, so that their splendour can complement the overall natural environment of the nearby Sai Kung East Country Park. Of course, we must appreciate the fact that there are recognized villages in both Hoi Ha and Pak Lap. We must strike a balance in planning having regard to the overriding principle of not causing impacts on the relevant ecology and natural environment, so that these places can be used for the planned land use of "village type development" to meet the demand of indigenous residents to build small houses.
Therefore, the aim of establishing these areas is to strike a balance, so that on the one hand, the overriding principle of conservation can be fulfilled and on the other, through planning, the demand for small house development can be concentrated in certain areas, so as to ensure that the pattern of development can be more systematic and orderly and that land can be used optimally to strike a balance between land use as opposed to infrastructure development and services. Therefore, in sum, we absolutely understand the importance of conservation but at the same time, it is also necessary to make the development of small houses more concentrated, orderly and systematic. It is possible to strike a balance between these two aspects.
22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please repeat your supplementary question.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Take Pak Lap as an example. There is not even any road link, so how can a balance between development and conservation be struck, as claimed by the Secretary?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr WU for his follow-up question. Basically, each case is unique, so generally speaking, we have to look at the needs in various aspects. Take Hoi Ha as an example. I said just now that we aim to confine the sites for the development of small houses to certain areas and we will also plan for the relevant infrastructure. This concept can also be applied to other places of this kind. As regards the details of individual cases, I am afraid I may not be able to answer Members' questions in this regard today but general speaking, we will try to strike a balance between conservation and the need for rural development by all means.
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, in the main reply given by the Secretary just now, he placed emphasis on the experience of incorporating enclaves into country parks and in his reply just now, he also talked about striking a balance a number of times. However, I think that in his reply, there is no indication of any actual experience in making good use of sites with limited ecological value by carrying out proper planning on them, so as to meet the pressing need for land in Hong Kong. His reply just now is mainly about incorporating the relevant sites into country parks but in respect of land use, he does not have any actual experience that he can share with us. May I ask how LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 23 the Environment Bureau and the Development Bureau communicate and co-ordinate with each other in this regard?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ir Dr LO for his supplementary question. Basically, close communication is maintained within the Government in such areas as urban development and conservation. Today, I wish to stress in particular that in terms of ecological and even landscape values, more remote places like Sai Wan are important. In terms of the city as a whole, resources should be committed to these places, so that they can be made more suitable for public enjoyment. Therefore, apart from proposing that they be incorporated into country parks, we also have a proposal, that is, through Management Agreement schemes, the Government can commit more resources of society, so that through collaboration between non-government organizations and villagers, the mode of management of country parks can be applied to private land or enclaves, so that more people can enjoy these places in a greater measure.
Basically, there is no conflict with the demand for land for housing under discussion now because those places are quite remote, so there is no pressure exerted by such land use. As regards other rural areas, mainly small-scale village-type development is involved and we will have division of work with the Planning Department by letting it take charge of drawing up the OZPs for the relevant areas and carry out planning for orderly small-scale development.
Therefore, there is no conflict between the areas concerned with the high-density development being discussed by us now because the locations of those areas are more remote. Moreover, they have important landscape and conservation values, so they probably would not be subjected to the pressure of high-density development.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ir Dr LO, has your supplementary question not been answered?
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I believe the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. My supplementary question is very 24 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 specific, that is, how does the Environment Bureau and the Development Bureau communicate and co-ordinate with each other on this important issue of public living, which can also be described as a controversial issue? For example, is there any specific notification mechanism or specific working committee or working group in charge of discussing and resolving this important issue of public living?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, the Member is asking about how the Environment Bureau and the Development Bureau communicate and co-ordinate with each other.
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, Ir Dr LO, basically, there is now a mechanism for the Financial Secretary and the relevant Policy Bureaux, including the Development Bureau and the Environment Bureau, to discuss matters of land use territory-wide, in particular, how to meet the needs of society.
DR LAU WONG-FAT (in Cantonese): President, my supplementary question is more or less the same as that of Ir Dr LO, very similar. At present, there are strong calls in society for a reduction of the boundaries of country parks, so as to develop public and private housing to meet the housing needs of Hong Kong people. Can the Government tell this Council if the incorporation of enclaves into country parks, thus increasing the land areas of country parks, runs counter to the government policy of finding ways to increase land supply to meet the housing needs of the general public?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr LAU for his supplementary question. In my reply to Ir Dr LO's supplementary question earlier on, I said that places like Sai Wan were basically quite remote but have fairly high landscape values, so everyone hopes that these places can be preserved and even enhanced, so that they can become part of our country parks and used for recreational purposes. Basically, there is no need to mix these two issues together, or discuss the land use of these places together with our present attempt to meet housing needs through high-density LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 25 development, or with other matters of urban development for that matter. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to discuss these two issues separately.
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, in his reply to a supplementary question just now, the Secretary raised one point, that is, if private land is incorporated into country parks, its future development will depend on whether or not there is any impact on the amenities of the places in question. However, such a criterion is very subjective. In other words, once private land is incorporated into country parks, its development is virtually out of the question. Despite the opposition of land owners to this kind of proposals, the Government still wants to force through such incorporation. Is doing so not tantamount to forcibly seizing the properties of members of the public? In addition, will the Government put in place a compensation mechanism for private land incorporated into country parks?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank the Honourable Member for his supplementary question. The incorporation of private land in enclaves into country parks would not affect the ownership of the private land, nor would the incorporation revert the land back to the Government.
The ownership and development of private land in country parks, including the development of small houses, are regulated by lease conditions or the CPO. If the site involved in an application for development of small houses falls within a country park, we also have a mechanism whereby the relevant DLO can consult the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation before granting the approval to build houses. Therefore, mechanisms are in place in various aspects to ensure that villagers' rights and interests are not affected. To facilitate local residents in considering the relevant issues, the Authority has prepared a document entitled "Note on the use or development of land within a country park enclave after inclusion into a country park". This document explains clearly the important points requiring attention when making applications for development, so that local residents will know that their rights and interests are protected and how they can make applications for development projects.
The Member also asked about the arrangements for compensation and basically, a mechanism is also in place. According to the relevant legislation, if residents suffer any losses due to the assessment conducted in accordance with 26 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 section 5 of the CPO, they can claim compensation for such losses in accordance with existing legislation.
DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has kept saying in his reply that a balance has to be struck between conservation and development, but the present discussion on how to deal with the incorporation of enclaves into country parks has actually brought to light many issues and some long-standing issues have also aroused great concern among local residents. Mr CHAN Han-pan asked about compensation for the development of land just now but in fact, the Secretary did not give a clear reply. Of course, there is a so-called compensation mechanism but local residents have pointed out that at present, it is extremely difficult for them to apply for building of houses and it may take a decade. According to the reply given by the Secretary today, such factors as enjoyment, amenities and landscape values have to be considered before it can be decided if a development project is acceptable, so residents are worried that they may not be able to build another house even in two decades' time.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr QUAT, please ask your supplementary question.
DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, what I wish to ask is: Is there any mechanism that can definitely help residents meet their future needs for housing and development, and whether or not there is a clear compensation mechanism as well as a timetable for residents to follow?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr QUAT for her supplementary question. I said just now that under the existing mechanism, even in the case of areas within country parks, the residents concerned could still apply for building of small houses. According to our information, at present, there are over 400 hectares of land located within 22 country parks and in the past decade, there were two cases of small house applications in relation to the farmland in recognized villages in country parks. In these two cases, the AFCD did not raise any objection to the applications concerned after consultation with the CMPB. Therefore, we must stress that the AFCD has a mechanism to handle this kind of applications and there are also LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 27 precedents for reference. Of course, each case is unique but basically, a mechanism is in place.
As regards compensation, at present, there is also a relevant mechanism in place. If necessary, we can also consider how to communicate with people in the local communities, so that after the communication between both parties has been improved, there can be better understanding of the concerns of the parties concerned.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent more than 23 minutes on this question. Third question.
Vetting of and Approval for Applications for New Listings
3. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): It has been reported that Alibaba Group, an Internet giant on the Mainland, has discussed with the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEx) earlier about listing in Hong Kong, and proposed that a partnership system be adopted by the company after listing, so that partners holding only minority interests will have the right to nominate a majority of directors. However, this system violates the current listing requirement of "same rights for same shares". It has also been reported that such discussion has rekindled concerns of some market participants about the issues of the HKEx having conflicts of interests in performing its function to vet and approve new listings, and of deficiency in the existing regime for vetting and approving listings. In fact, in as early as 2003, the Report by the Expert Group to Review the Operation of the Securities and Futures Market Regulatory Structure (the Report) had raised numerous issues concerning conflicts of interests and roles on the part of the HKEx as both a commercial entity and a regulator, and had put forward a number of recommendations. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) how it ensures that the HKEx, while seeking more listings of overseas and Mainland companies in Hong Kong, will not neglect its duties to ensure that listed companies are of good quality and investors' interests are safeguarded, and how it ensures that the HKEx will make appropriate choices between the two aspects;
28 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
(b) whether it has assessed if the existing regulatory mechanism is adequate to ensure that a balance is struck between the interests of HKEx as a commercial entity and as a public body, and whether it will adopt the recommendations put forth in the Report which had not been adopted, including removing the function of the HKEx to vet and approve applications for new listings; and
(c) whether it will consult the public on the various forms of shareholding structures available for new listings; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, my consolidated reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:
Under the three-tier regulatory structure for the securities and futures industry, the Administration, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and the HKEx assume different roles in the operation of the securities market. The Administration formulates overall policies for the development of the financial market. The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (SEHK), a wholly owned subsidiary of the HKEx and a recognized exchange company under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO), operates and maintains the securities market in Hong Kong. The SEHK is entrusted with the statutory function of ensuring an orderly, informed and fair securities market and must act in the interest of the public, having particular regard to the interest of the investing public. Under the SFO, the SFC, as the statutory regulator of the securities and futures markets, has a statutory duty to supervise, monitor and regulate the SEHK and the performance of its listing-related functions and responsibilities.
To address the concern over potential conflict of interests arising from the roles of the SEHK as a commercial entity and a public body, the SFC and the SEHK signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 2003. A number of arrangements were formulated on the basis of the MoU, including:
(a) the SEHK is required to separate its listing function empowered by the SFC from those of the HKEx group. The listing-related functions of the SEHK, which include the establishment and promulgation of the Listing Rules prescribing listing requirements LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 29
for listing applicants and listed issuers, and the fair and impartial administration of the Listing Rules, are discharged by its Listing Division and Listing Committee. The Listing Division vets materials submitted by listing applicants for compliance with the Listing Rules and prospectus requirements under the Companies Ordinance, and administers the listing approval process together with the Listing Committee;
(b) the SEHK must seek approval from the SFC for all changes to the Listing Rules and policy decisions that have mandatory effect or general application. In developing its proposals for changes to the Listing Rules, the SEHK will consult with the market and the SFC;
(c) the dual filing arrangement, a requirement stipulated in the Securities and Futures (Stock Market Listing) Rules under the SFO, has been in effect since 1 April 2003. Under this arrangement, listing applicants and listed companies are required to file applications with and disclosure materials to the SFC via the SEHK. This enables both the SFC and the SEHK to assume regulatory roles in decisions on listing applications. The SFC may object to decisions on listing approval made by the SEHK and exercise enforcement powers over persons issuing false or misleading corporate information;
(d) the SFC conducts periodic audits of the SHEK's performance in its regulation of listing-related matters and annual on-site inspections of its listing functions and responsibilities. Executives of the two organizations also meet regularly to discuss listing-related matters; and
(e) the SFC conducts annual review of the performance of the SEHK in its regulation of listing matters. It assesses the procedures and processes of the Listing Division and examines sample cases, with a view to understanding how the Division's policies work in practice and verifying whether the Division's practices follow its policies. The SFC will submit the review reports to the Financial Secretary and make them available for public inspection.
It is mentioned in the question that a number of recommendations on the regulation of listing matters were put forward in the Report issued in 2003. In 30 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 response, the Administration worked out a series of improvement measures for public consultation in end 2003. The results showed that the majority of the respondents supported the proposal for giving statutory backing to certain fundamental listing requirements, such as the obligation to disclose price sensitive information. The statutory disclosure regime requiring listed corporations to disclose price sensitive information came into effect on 1 January 2013. Under the regime, listed corporations are obliged to disclose relevant information to the public in a timely manner.
To maintain and consolidate Hong Kong's status as an international financial centre and the premier capital formation centre for the Mainland, we have to keep the regulatory regime governing listing under constant review in tandem with changing market needs and international trends. The Administration, the SFC and the HKEx all strive to keep on improving our regulatory regime. For example, to enhance the quality of listed corporations, the SFC launched a new sponsor regime in early 2013, aiming to ensure that sponsors have a thorough understanding of the companies seeking to enter Hong Kong's public capital markets before making listing applications for them. The new requirements in the revised Listing Rules and relevant SFC codes apply to listing applications submitted from 1 October 2013. The SFC has also put forward a proposal to the Administration that legislative amendments should be made to clarify sponsors' legal liability under the Companies Ordinance. We are now working on the legislative proposal.
The Administration and the SFC are of the view that the existing regulatory mechanism works well, and have no intention to change the functions and responsibilities of the SEHK in vetting and approving listing applications. The SEHK currently has no plan to consult the public on different forms of shareholding structures proposed for new listings.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in recent years, there has been frequent occurrence of false accounting and false reporting of performance by private enterprises, with their share prices plummeting and performance showing an entirely different shape shortly after listing. This has caused enormous losses to investors. The problems involved, such as corporate governance and the vetting and approval regime, have aroused concern in the market, too. May I ask the Government, apart from enhancing the regulation of the sponsor regime, in what areas improvements can still be made to further LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 31 improve the regulation of the market in order to enhance the quality of the financial market in Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): I thank the Honourable Member for his supplementary question. In my opinion, ongoing efforts must be made to improve the quality of the market and the listing regulatory regime. Such efforts are made on a continued basis in every review of its effectiveness. In this connection, the SFC will, during its annual review of the performance of the Listing Division, give advice on different cases and issues of public concern, including requiring the Listing Committee to provide more information on its elaboration of information.
Concerning the point raised by the Member about enhancing the quality of sponsors, it has actually been emphasized by me time and again in the past. Enhancing the quality of sponsors is a crucial step. The SFC has already launched a new sponsor regime in enhancing the quality of the securities market. We intend to submit relevant legislative proposals to the Legislative Council during the current Legislative Session on upgrading the sponsor regime. We hope to obtain Members' support.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): I would like to look from another perspective at this incident in which Alibaba nearly succeeded in getting listed in Hong Kong. Some people in the financial industry (even those on the Mainland) have relayed to me that one of the main reasons for the poor development of the investment environment for the technology enterprises in Hong Kong is that investors have no knowledge of the technology sector and stocks. Moreover, many sell-side analysts cannot find an environment in which they can acquire a better knowledge. This is like an egg-and-chicken situation. From this perspective, it is a good thing if Alibaba is allowed to be listed in Hong Kong. Now, its listing bid has fallen through due to problems related to partnership, and so on. Will the HKEx and the Government take the initiative in terms of relevant policies to lure more technology companies to come to Hong Kong for listing? This is crucial to the financing ecology required for the diversified economic development of Hong Kong.
32 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, the question asked by Mr MOK is very good. Moreover, his views merit our consideration in promoting the development of the market. Promoting the listing of technology companies in Hong Kong has all along been the development direction of the market, as agreed between the HKEx and the Government. Among the existing companies listed in Hong Kong, there are some excellent technology companies. Of course, Members are mindful of some publicly discussed problems encountered during the listing of individual companies in Hong Kong. What messages have been delivered? I believe relevant discussions will continue. We would like to point out that the question raised by Mr CHEUNG pinpoints, in particular, a rumoured partnership system. Is there any way for Hong Kong to be more open to enable companies adopting certain systems to be listed in Hong Kong? Insofar as this point is concerned, I believe we must adhere to the Listing Rules if all of them are meant to protect investors and consistent with the view long been agreed in the market. Certainly, the system to be adopted by this company in seeking a listing has aroused discussions not only in Hong Kong but also in different markets around the world. We will be very pleased to take note of the outcome of these discussions and debates.
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, just now the Secretary mentioned in the main reply a three-tier regulatory structure, under which the Administration formulates overall policies for the development of the financial markets. In fact, the Financial Services Development Council (FSDC) was set up last year. I once asked many friends of mine in the financial sector if they were aware of its functions and responsibilities, but not many of them knew. May I ask the Government whether the FSDC will offer assistance in formulating policies for the development of the financial market?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, this question bears no direct relevance to the main question, but I think I can give the Honourable Member this reply. In the area of financial development policies, the Government looks at matters on all fronts from a holistic angle, including the direction of market development, raising Hong Kong's competitive status and ensuring the quality of the market. This is also one of the Government's functions and policies. On the development of the financial market, we constantly keep in view global developments and listen to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 33 the views of the market. The FSDC is precisely a new high-level advisory platform. We hope to use it to consolidate the views of the industry and to enable the industry to advise the Government on financial development. It has always been my belief and understanding that members of the FSDC will investigate and study different topics. They are expected to share some of their views with the Government and the public.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): No, President. Excuse me, President, as the Government's main reply clearly states that "the Administration formulates overall policies for the development of the financial market", but the name of the FSDC suggests that "financial" and "development" are covered, I believe …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Do you think that the Secretary has not answered your supplementary question?
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): Yes.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Actually, I have answered this question before. The Government is certainly responsible for formulating financial policies. This is pretty obvious. In particular, the interaction between the Government and a number of sectors and regulators is aimed at ensuring that appropriate checks and balances are achieved between development and regulation. The FSDC is an advisory framework through which industry views can be presented to the Government for reference.
34 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary mentioned in the main reply that particular regard must be given to the interest of the investing public. In this incident, Alibaba has not come to Hong Kong for listing because of the failure to reach an agreement and, hence, we have won a lot of applause from other parts of the world. To attract technology stocks, as suggested by Mr Charles Peter MOK, the prime consideration is to give regard to the interest of the public as well as the governance framework of listed companies. Can the Secretary tell me how the Government can strike a balance in this aspect to enable Hong Kong to become not only the largest market but also a quality and world-class market?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): I thank the Honourable Member for his supplementary question. I am afraid it is not easy to answer such an important question in such a short time. Perhaps I can talk about the public discussions triggered by this company called Alibaba. For instance, is the partnership system or the B share framework applicable to the Listing Rules? First of all, I have to highlight Hong Kong's present situation. Rule 8.11 of the Listing Rules of the SEHK provides that the share capital of a listing applicant must not include B shares except in exceptional circumstances agreed with the Exchange, that is, the equity interest of all the shares are commensurate with their economic value. Is Hong Kong the only place where issues of B shares are not permitted? Actually, if we look at overseas markets, we will find that, except for two exchanges, namely the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ, which have dual-class share structures, such structures are absent in other markets. Although the British authorities do not prohibit such structures, the local markets generally disapprove of them. Nor are they present in other places. For instance, Singapore has once indicated that it might examine dual-class share structures, but they are not yet put in place. Hence, the dual-class share structures, which are now the focus of discussion, appear to be isolated cases.
Thanks to the Alibaba incident, I have recently looked up some literature to examine why this situation would have occurred. It turned out that in the 1980s, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission had made an attempt to ban dual-class share structures because many firms in the United States exploited dual-class share structures to enable the management to block share takeover proposals. Hence, the SEC intended to ban dual-class share structures. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 35
Interestingly, it was ruled by the Court in the United States back then that such decisions related to corporate management should be determined by state law rather than the SEC. Hence, the United States walks a different path from that of other places. There have been renewed disputes in the international community over corporate management due to the adoption of dual-class share structures in different technology companies and the latest Alibaba incident in Hong Kong. We are pleased to hear the arguments, but insofar as the situation in Hong Kong is concerned, we must understand the uniqueness of the market here and our legal environment. Hence, we must exercise great caution in making any changes.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I have to declare that I am a Non-Executive Director of the SFC. In fact, the current listing operation has been quite smooth, and the SEHK has to seek the approval of the SFC in the enforcement of the Listing Rules. In spite of this, there are still a lot of voices in the market complaining of the not at all high transparency of the Listing Committee and calling for improvements. May I ask the Secretary whether he will consider some of the views expressed in the market? For instance, there are only six members in the Listing Nominating Committee, with three from the HKEx and the other three from the SFC. Will the authorities consider including additional independent members to make the entire vetting and approval process more transparent and independent?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): What the Honourable Member mentioned was the nomination procedure and the people responsible for nomination. In fact, both the nomination and application acceptance procedures are open. The Listing Committee will publicly accept applications from time to time, and many intermediaries, professionals and people concerned about listings will apply to join the Listing Committee. In our opinion, the current selection arrangement made by the Listing Committee is appropriate. Another point mentioned by the Member concerns whether the work of the Listing Committee is open. As an annual review of the listings is conducted by the SFC, and the report is open to public inspection, we are of the opinion that the requirement of achieving transparency has, to a certain extent, been met. Certainly, on the issue of listing, there is definitely a potential conflict between the development of the market and protection of the interests of minority shareholders. Anyhow, we must find a 36 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 mechanism for the effective management of this potential conflict, though this conflict will exist regardless. For the time being, we consider that an appropriate balance has been struck under the existing mechanism. We think that the existing three-tier framework comprising the HKEx, the SFC and the Government is appropriate. However, we will definitely continue to enhance regulation of the quality of actual listing.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent more than 23 minutes on this question. Fourth question.
Transparency of Work of Government
4. MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, it was reported in the press that in September this year, the Government appointed members to the Country and Marine Parks Board (the Parks Board) for a new term, and on 1 August, it uploaded the Guidelines for the Chief Executive in Handling Potential Cases of Conflict of Interest and Acceptance of Advantages and Entertainment Concerning Politically Appointed Officials (the Guidelines) onto the official website of the Office of the Chief Executive. However, on both occasions, the Government had not, pursuant to the established practice, issued any press release. The media had twice enquired with the Chief Executive why the Government had not issued any press release on the appointment of members to the Parks Board, but the Chief Executive had not given a reply. The press report also pointed out that the Secretary for Development mentioned in his blog on 8 September that he attended on invitation a forum on land supply organized by a think tank in July this year, but the Development Bureau refused to give details of the forum when the media enquired about them. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) why the Government had not, pursuant to the established practice, issued any press release on the appointment of members to the Parks Board and on the implementation of the Guidelines;
(b) whether it has assessed if the refusal of the Development Bureau to give details of the aforesaid forum is a violation of the Code on Access to Information; whether The Ombudsman has commenced an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 37
investigation into this matter; if it has not so assessed, whether it will immediately conduct such an assessment; and
(c) whether it has assessed if the aforesaid practices of the Government have undermined the transparency of policy implementation by the Government and the operation of the Political Appointment System, and whether these practices have infringed the public's right to information about the Government's operation?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, in its pursuit of "people-based" governance, the Government formulates various policy initiatives in response to the needs of the community. It is therefore of paramount importance that the public are in a good position to understand such initiatives and monitor the work of the Government. To this end, the Government, in adhering to the principle of openness and transparency, disseminates its messages to the general public through various channels.
As regards the way of disseminating information by individual bureaux and departments, the Government has different channels in place for its release of information, including government gazettes, press releases, webpages, press conferences, speeches at public events or meetings, and publications. In adhering to the above principle, individual bureaux and departments may determine a channel/channels which are deemed most appropriate for disseminating its information, while taking into account the nature of information and the actual situation. The Information Services Department, including Secretariat Press Offices and Departmental Information Units, renders professional support to departments on dissemination of information and publicity matters, such as providing an information release platform on the Internet, as well as rendering assistance in the drafting and issue of press releases, organization of press conferences or the media arrangements for other public events.
For instance, for the past terms the Environmental Bureau gazetted appointments of members to the Country and Marine Parks Board (CMPB) and uploaded the membership list onto the website of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department for public inspection. This year's appointment was conducted in the same manner as in previous years. The Environmental Bureau 38 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 shall revisit the arrangement and consider issuing a press release for future appointments of members.
As regards the Guidelines, they are part of the Government's work in its implementation of the recommendations in the Report of the Independent Review Committee (the Committee) for the Prevention and Handling of Potential Conflicts of Interests (the Report). When the Report was issued in May 2012, the Government expressed on the same day that it agreed with the recommendations in the Report in principle and would consider how to follow up and implement individual recommendations. In addition to the gradual implementation of the Committee's recommendations in the past year, the Government made a transparent move by uploading the Guidelines onto the website of the Chief Executive's Office in August 2013 for public inspection.
According to our understanding from the Development Bureau, when the think tank invited the Secretary for Development to the forum on land supply, it has indicated its intention to keep the event closed door to facilitate a candid exchange whereby the participants could express their views freely in their personal capacity. The Secretary for Development respected and agreed to the think tank's proposed arrangement. On account of its prior agreement with the organizer, the Development Bureau did not release any specific details of the think tank or those of the forum, and according to the organizer, there had been no change in its intention.
Besides, as we understand from the Development Bureau, it will handle any request for the abovementioned information under the Code on Access to Information in accordance with the requirements of the Code, having regard to the involvement of third party information. The Development Bureau so far has not received any enquiry from the Office of The Ombudsman about the matter. If approached, the Development Bureau would explain to The Ombudsman the agreement it had made with the think tank about the forum.
To enhance communication with the public, the Government has, in the past decade, launched various new information services, including regular updating of departmental websites and wider use of information technology, such as Facebook and smart phone applications, to facilitate public understanding of the departments' work and access to useful information.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 39
We will continue to take heed of the views of Members and the community with the aim of enhancing the work of the Government in its dissemination of information and communication with the public.
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, during the past couple of days Hong Kong reporters have been subjected to all kinds of humiliating treatment in Bali, Indonesia. And one of the causes for that is officials of the Hong Kong Government do not respect our media at all. President, for many years we can tolerate the slow progress in constitutional reform mainly because we have a high degree of transparency and the Government would disseminate various kinds of information according to established practice for public information and engagement. However, the remark made by the Secretary in paragraph 3 of the main reply that "This year's appointment was conducted in the same manner as in previous years" is clearly not consistent with the facts. This is because the fact is no press release was issued. Is the situation not like the karaoke in Japan where things which no longer exist are considered as existing and so this situation is like a kind of karaoke in politics?
President, I believe the problem does not only lie in this incident, but is it related to the question of whether the Government has this tendency of becoming increasingly reluctant to issue press releases because it is struck by a guilty conscience and tries to prevent the media from gaining access to information promptly and thus monitor the Government? Will the Secretary pledge that for all matters in which press releases were issued in the past, they would follow the same practice as before, and that information will not be selectively disseminated on government websites or the public knows the appointment only after 10 days? This is especially the case when there is public query over the representativeness and capabilities of some chairmen and members appointed. The result of this is more people would think that the incident this time is not an isolated case.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): I thank Mr TSE for the supplementary question.
The Environmental Bureau will examine the relevant arrangement and consider issuing press releases when new members to the CMPB are to be appointed in future. The media are certainly an important working partner for us 40 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 and this partnership will enable us to share our work with the community in a better way and facilitate greater public understanding and monitoring of our policies. We will certainly do our best to make it convenient for the media to engage in reporting and obtaining government information.
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): This question is not only asking about what the Development Bureau will do, but whether on the whole, the authorities will pledge to act according to established practices, that is, in matters where there should be greater transparency, greater transparency should be aimed; and in matters in which dissemination of information should be made, such dissemination should be readily made. In sum, there must not be any attempt to make only a minor supplement or remedy after the matter has been exposed.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): With respect to the dissemination of information as a whole, we adhere to the principles of openness and transparency. We will take into account the importance of the information in question and the problems encountered in operation, such as the conditions of the venue concerned. This is to ensure that the information can be disseminated in time for the public to be informed through the media of government policies or any other matters of importance.
MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, Mr Paul TSE has just said that remedies are made by the authorities only after the matter was exposed. May I know what these remedies are?
President, in his reply, the Secretary said that the Government formulates various policy initiatives in response to the needs of the community. It is therefore of paramount importance that the public are in a good position to understand such initiatives and monitor the work of the Government. President, the Guidelines were formulated only belatedly in response to public expectation and it was only after the occurrence of the case concerning Paul CHAN that these Guidelines were uploaded onto the relevant website all of a sudden. The Guidelines are very complicated too. President, I do not know if your good self has read those Guidelines. I have asked some other politically appointed officials whether or not they are aware of these Guidelines and they said that that was how the matter was handled. Many people wanted to ask questions about LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 41 the Guidelines, but no one was willing to give any answer. Then many reporters asked questions too. Why does the Government not hold a press conference to explain such complicated matters? I have suggested to the relevant panel to discuss the Guidelines.
As for the appointment of a former Commissioner of Police as the Chairman of the CMPB, maybe some people in the community would applaud this, including your supporters. But President, some people say, "How come?" President, why do the authorities pay no attention to such controversial matters? The main reply even said that the Information Services Department (ISD) …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms LAU, please raise your supplementary question.
MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): … would render professional support. What kinds of professional support are they? It is to arrange venues for press conferences and draft press releases. May I ask whether the ISD has given any professional advice to the authorities, namely arranging for a press conference on such important and controversial issues, such that questions from the media can be taken?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): I thank Ms LAU for the supplementary question.
The Guidelines are uploaded onto the website of the Chief Executive's Office and as the main reply said, they are part of the Government's work in its implementation of the recommendations made in the "Report of the Independent Review Committee for the Prevention and Handling of Potential Conflicts of Interests". We are now following up and implementing these recommendations seriatim, including the uploading of the Guidelines onto the website for public inspection.
As for work in the appointment of members, appointments to each advisory organization and statutory body are based on the personal abilities, expertise and experience …
42 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Do not waste any time.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, please hold on for a moment.
MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): For such controversial matters, why did the authorities not hold a press conference to answer questions? The ISD plays a professional role, so did it suggest that a press conference be held?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have reminded Members many times that they should not make any lengthy comments when raising supplementary questions. If Members wish to make comments on certain practices of the Government, it would be hard for me to stop officials from responding to Members' comments. I hope Members can raise their supplementary questions clearly.
Secretary, Ms LAU asked why a press conference was not held to take questions from reporters, and in this connection, did the ISD give any advice? Secretary, please reply.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): The ISD will determine the most appropriate arrangements by considering the nature of information to be disseminated by the bureaux/departments, as well as the actual situation. The ISD will render assistance in those matters I mentioned earlier, such as about whether providing an information release platform on the Internet or to organize a press conference. On the question of whether or not a press conference should be organized or whether publicity and communication with the public are to take the form of news releases, individual bureaux and departments will determine a channel/channels deemed most appropriate for disseminating its information, while taking into account the nature of information, the actual situation and the policy concerned.
MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): My supplementary question also asked, regarding these two matters of such a controversial nature, why the authorities made a decision of their own not to hold a press conference?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 43
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Ms LAU asked about appointments just now. Actually, we make each appointment in accordance with the principle of merits. We would consider the candidates' abilities, expertise, experience, integrity, enthusiasm for serving the community, and so on. We would also consider the functions of the organization concerned and its nature of work. If it is a committee with a strong professional bias, we will of course give more weight to consideration of professionalism. As for committees which emphasize community service and livelihood matters, when considering suitable candidates, we would give more weight to …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, Ms LAU was not asking about the reasons for appointment. Rather, did the authorities consider holding a press conference at that time?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I was trying to explain it because her supplementary question earlier was also on why Mr TANG King-shing was appointed as the Chairman of the CMPB. Actually, Mr TANG has a track record in public service and experience in public administration and management. When the Bureau made the appointment, it was believed that he had the ability to foster better discussion among members and promote the work of relevant committees under the Environmental Bureau. Such was the consideration made by the Environmental Bureau in making the appointment.
Besides, there are also considerations about the release of information. With respect to this, there are differences in practices adopted by statutory bodies and advisory committees. For certain committees, the information will be released by publication in the Gazette, while consideration can also be given to supplement by news release or holding a press conference. In this connection, individual bureaux will make the best decision according to the nature of information and the actual situation.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, after discussing for the whole morning, I still cannot figure out whether the Secretary really does not know or pretends that she does not know. The main reply which spans more than two pages does not actually give a reply to part (a) of Mr Paul TSE's main 44 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 question, that is, why the Government did not, pursuant to the established practice, issue any press release. When the media or the public expect the Government to release some important news, at least the Government should issue some press release. But it turned out that it was only our wishful thinking, a mistaken view.
Secretary, you might as well tell Members that there is actually no established practice regarding the announcement of important news by the Government and so there is no need to give a reply to the question asked by Mr Paul TSE in this regard.
My supplementary question is, are there any criteria? If there are none, will consideration be given to drawing up such criteria or guidelines? For if not, will the Government or the department concerned decide on its own and if it wants to adopt a high profile, it will hold a press conference; if it wants to take a medium profile, it will issue a press release; and if it wants to handle it in a low profile, it will conceal the document under one paragraph of the related link on the website? The authorities do not want members of the public to know so quickly and it does not wish to be scolded after the matter is discovered …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, your supplementary question is clear enough, please sit down and let the Secretary reply.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): I thank Mr CHAN for his question. I would first like to affirm the function of the Gazette. The Gazette contains public notices issued by the Government and it is an official publication. With respect to the CMPB mentioned earlier, the appointment of its members is published timely in the Gazette. As to whether there are other channels for the dissemination of information, the relevant bureaux will decide on different additional channels according to the nature of information and actual operation.
All along the Government releases information through various kinds of channels apart from the Gazette which is an official publication, and as Mr CHAN has mentioned, there are press releases, press conferences, webpages, speeches made at public events or meetings, and other publications. It is our LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 45 hope that information can be disseminated through various channels to the media and that there can be better interaction and communication with the media and the public.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, has your supplementary question not been answered?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, she has not answered my supplementary question. My supplementary question is very simple: Has consideration been given to drawing up criteria or guidelines? She has talked about the Gazette just now. Then, are the Guidelines published in the Gazette?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, the Members asked about whether or not there are criteria specifying the occasions on which the channels as mentioned by you should be used.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Every committee and advisory body will set out in its rules and regulations on whether there is any need to publish information in the Gazette. This is one of the criteria they will refer to when they want to release information. As for the overall principle behind all this, it is to adopt an open, fair and transparent approach to keep the public informed, as well as to solicit their understanding and support for the Government's work and to facilitate monitoring by the public.
MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President, I understand why Members would have such queries. For example, last night I saw on the TV that Dr KO Wing-man came out with Dr John LEONG and announced that the latter has been appointed the Chairman of the Hospital Authority. When TANG King-shing was appointed the Chairman of the CMPB, things were different from those of last night. May I ask the Secretary why TANG King-shing did not get the same treatment as Dr John LEONG? Can individual departments make their own decision in handling their own affairs? Or has the Home Affairs Bureau got any uniform practice in this respect? Of course, I hope the 46 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Government will say in reply that there is such a uniform practice, instead of people doing whatever they like.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): I am grateful to Mr TIEN for his supplementary question. The example cited by Mr TIEN precisely shows that different committees will adopt different channels to disseminate information according to the nature of information and the method of handling such information so desired by the bureau concerned. Some of them may supplement such with interviews or press releases as mentioned earlier. Actually, every Policy Bureau and department will act according to their needs and make different arrangements overall. The ISD will provide proper assistance to help these bureaux and departments achieve better interaction and communication with the media.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?
MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President, I would like to follow up. Would this be unfair to TANG King-shing? Take the example of yesterday, everyone knows that Dr John LEONG has been appointed. As for TANG King-shing in the example cited by me, there are many people who do not know that he has been appointed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, you are not repeating your supplementary question; you are raising another question. Please follow this up through other channels.
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): The main question asked by Mr Paul TSE is very clear, although I disagree with his saying that we have freedom although we have no democracy. I am sure both are what we want.
President, my supplementary question is very simple. The Secretary said in her reply that there are many channels to choose from, but do these include not making any announcement, or publishing information in some kinds of secret, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 47 semi-covert or covert methods? The Secretary said that she would continue to listen to public views. Should she not inform officials in the ISD, various bureaux and competent authorities of various committees of their rights and responsibilities, and urge them not to hide anything when disseminating this kind of information?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): I thank Mr CHAN for the supplementary question. We do provide guidelines on dissemination of information and we encourage departments to adhere to the principles of openness and transparency in disseminating information, as I have just mentioned. They should also aim at better communication and interaction with members of the public so that they can understand our initiatives and work. As for work in the issue of news information by the relevant bureaux, we will convey the views expressed and I believe these will be considered in a consolidated manner when needed.
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, I think Dr Kenneth CHAN has misunderstood my point, but I do not think I would refute his view now.
I will cite an example and I hope the Secretary will understand it. We saw the Chief Executive and two other persons squeezed in a couch and they were being lectured like children, unlike the case when other people have a dialogue with the President of the Philippines. The Chief Executive said he did not want to disclose the contents of the conversation because of the need for confidentiality. But it seems that the other party does not seem to be subject to that restriction. Irrespective of whether the Chief Executive or other officials in the bureaux, I am worried that when they are to make a judgment on whether or not to release some information as soon as possible, will they tend to make a wrong professional judgment? Is the Government becoming more transparent or is it becoming more covert?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): I thank Mr TSE for his supplementary question. On the whole and as we can see from the actual figures, the direction in which we are going is definitely towards greater transparency and we will give an account of our work in a more open manner. The aim of this is to enable the public to gain a better understanding of our 48 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 policies and measures. Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of freedom of the press, comparable to the most advanced places in the world. We have interaction with the mass media. From the perspective of the Government, we hope to feel the pulse of society in a most comprehensive and integrated manner and to see how information can be disseminated in a better way.
Precisely because of this, during the past 10 years, we have increased the channels through which we communicate with the media. In addition, speaking of press conferences alone, 1 000 press conferences were held every year during the past few years. And the number did not include the thousands or tens of thousand enquiries made by the media every year. So the figures speak for themselves on the question of how we promote work in the dissemination of information.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent exactly 22 minutes on this question. Fifth question.
Renewal of Existing Domestic Free Television Programme Service Licences
5. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, quite a number of members of the public have relayed to me that since the Communications Authority (CA) has ruled earlier that the two existing licensees (TV stations) of domestic free television programme service licence (free TV licence) had violated the Broadcasting Ordinance, the authorities should prudently consider their licence renewal applications and conduct studies on how competition may be introduced into the free TV market. The Government should also expeditiously announce the vetting and approval results of the three applications for free TV licences. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it will make public the procedure for processing free TV licence applications, and when it will announce the commencement of the vetting and approval work on the licence renewal applications of the two existing free TV stations, to enable the public to understand the decision-making process and considerations of the authorities (including whether competition can be effectively induced) in processing the applications, so as to address concern; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 49
(b) as the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, in response to a media question regarding a free TV station being ruled to have engaged in anti-competitive practices, stated that the CA would process the licence renewal applications in accordance with the law and then submit its recommendations to the Chief Executive in Council, whether it knows if the CA has planned to make recommendations, to the Chief Executive in Council, which are material to affect licence renewal in view of the two existing free TV stations having violated the Broadcasting Ordinance earlier; if the CA has planned to do so, of the legal basis for making the recommendations and details of such recommendations; if not, the reasons for that; and
(c) as the authorities have stated that upon expiry of the existing third generation (3G) mobile services licences or 3G mobile services spectrum assignments, the persons concerned should not have legitimate expectation on any right of first renewal of such licences or spectrum assignments, and the authorities have recommended recalling the spectrum for re-allocation through a market-driven approach to induce competition, whether the Government will adopt the same principle and issue free TV licences through open tender or some other means upon expiry of the existing free TV licences, so as to promote market competition; if it will not, of the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, our reply to Mr Charles Peter MOK's three-part question is as follows:
(a) and (b)
Hong Kong Television Network Limited, Fantastic Television Limited and HK Television Entertainment Company Limited each submitted an application for a free TV licence on 31 December 2009, 15 January 2010 and 31 March 2010 respectively (hereinafter referred to as the "three applications"). The former Broadcasting Authority (that is, the predecessor of the CA, after taking into account various relevant factors and in accordance with the Broadcasting Ordinance (Chapter 562) (BO) and established 50 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
procedures, has earlier completed the assessment of the three applications, and submitted recommendations thereon to the Chief Executive in Council. The Administration has been processing the three applications expeditiously and prudently in accordance with the BO and established procedures. We have repeatedly explained to the public and the Legislative Council on various occasions the procedures for processing the three applications. The processing of the three applications involves complicated issues, including those relating to statutory requirements and procedural fairness, which require time for careful handling. The outcome will be announced after the Chief Executive in Council has made a decision on the three applications. At this stage, we are not in a position to disclose any details regarding the processing of the three applications, which are still being considered by the Chief Executive in Council.
The free TV licences of the two incumbent licensees will expire on 30 November 2015. Under section 11 of the BO, the Chief Executive in Council may, during the period of validity of a free TV licence, extend or renew the licence, in accordance with the provisions of the BO, to take effect upon expiry of the validity of the licence. The three licensee concerned shall submit to the CA an application in the specified form for the extension or renewal of its licence; and the application shall be submitted not less than 24 months before the date on which the period of validity of the licence expires. In other words, the two existing licensees shall submit their applications to the CA by 30 November 2013 if they decide to apply for extension or renewal of their licences (the Applications). Under the BO, the CA shall, as soon as is practicable after the receipt of an application and, in any case, not later than 12 months before the expiry of the period of validity of the licence, submit recommendations to the Chief Executive in Council in relation to the extension or non-extension or renewal or non-renewal of the licence, and where appropriate, the conditions subject to which the licence may be extended or renewed. Where recommendations on the application are made by the CA, the Chief Executive in Council shall consider them and as soon as is practicable extend or renew the licence to which they relate subject to such conditions as he thinks fit specified in the licence, or decide not to extend or renew the licence. Where the Chief Executive in Council decides under section 11 of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 51
the BO not to extend or renew the licence, he shall cause notice in writing of the decision to be served on the licensee at least 12 months before the expiry of the validity of the licence.
As far as we know, the CA has not yet received the Applications from the licensees. The CA has already indicated that it will immediately process the Applications, upon receipt, in accordance with the law and established procedures. It is inappropriate for the Government to speculate on the recommendations that the CA may make to the Chief Executive in Council. We understand that if any of the Applications is received, the CA plans to hold a large-scale public consultation in the first quarter of 2014, including public hearing, to gauge public views on the performance of the licensees concerned in order to make recommendations to the Chief Executive in Council.
We believe that the CA will consider a basket of factors when processing the Applications, including the licensees' operational, financial, technical and programming arrangements, future commitments, public opinions, and will fully assess the past performance of the licensees concerned in relation to their compliance with the statutory requirements, licence conditions and codes of practice.
(c) As I have mentioned just now, the CA has not received the Applications from the two incumbent licensees. We believe that the CA and the relevant authorities will take into account matters in relation to the frequency spectrum when processing the Applications.
As regards the re-assignment arrangements for the frequency spectrum upon expiry of the existing frequency assignments for 3G Mobile Services, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that there has yet to be any decision regarding the arrangements. The putting forward of the hybrid option out of the three proposed options for further consultation in the second round consultation should not be interpreted as an indication that a final decision has been made on any of the options.
52 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Putonghua): President, pardon me for raising my supplementary question in Putonghua. I hope that the interpreters can catch my words. I use Putonghua because the CA has ruled that TVB violated the competition provisions of the BO in prohibiting its contract artistes from speaking Cantonese on other TV stations. I have also mentioned this point in part (b) of the main question.
Just like what I am doing now, those artistes speak Putonghua no matter how awful they sound. The audience have to keep on listening even though they do not understand it. However, TVB has gone so far as to deny the existence of such a requirement in the past, at present and even in the future, and the CA agreed with the content of TVB's statement, much to my surprise. No wonder everyone says that the CA has become a "toothless tiger".
My supplementary question is whether the CA will take further actions in this regard, or set on the punished party's blatant denial of such a fact even after the CA has meted out the punishment. Moreover, has TVB already paid the fine of $900,000 imposed on it?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr Charles Peter MOK for his question, although I cannot understand part of it. However, one point is very clear, that is, the CA has gathered plenty of evidence and conducted a very thorough investigation before making its directives and rulings.
According to the ruling made by the CA, TVB must take a series of actions in accordance with the directives set forth in the ruling, including making a clear statement that it will not formulate such anti-competitive clauses to impose restrictions on its artistes in future. Therefore, in the CA's investigation report, there is evidence clearly indicating that TVB has previously engaged in some anti-competitive practices. This point is very clear.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. Maybe he really does not understand my point. I had better raise the question in Cantonese. My question is why the CA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 53 agreed with TVB's statement and thus took no action, and whether TVB has paid the fine of $900,000?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, the statement was made by TVB in accordance with the requirement of the CA to declare that it would not engage in such anti-competitive practices in future. Therefore, in this regard, the CA agreed with the content of the statement which declared that TVB may not engage in anti-competitive practices in the future. As I have also mentioned earlier on, the CA stated in its investigation report after analysis that TVB had previously engaged in such anti-competitive practices. This point is very clear .
As regards the fine, to my understanding, the CA has not yet received it.
MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): President, in meting out punishment to the two free TV stations, the chairperson of the CA repeatedly stressed that its sanctioning power allowed it to impose a maximum fine of $1 million only. In other words, it can either impose a fine of $1 million on a TV station or revoked its licence, but the Secretary has already said in his reply that its licence may not be revoked.
Nevertheless, at least as far as anti-competitive practices are concerned, it is well known that the maximum pecuniary penalty prescribed in the Competition Ordinance (CO) is 10% of the turnover for one year or three consecutive years. Of course, TVB has committed the violation for far more than three years. Therefore, may I ask the Secretary, firstly, whether TV stations should be treated in a particularly lenient manner; secondly, whether the maximum pecuniary penalty prescribed in the BO should be brought at least on a par with that in the CO; and thirdly, if so, when the Secretary will take action then?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TONG, you can ask only one supplementary question.
54 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): Those questions are related.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): All of your three supplementary questions ask whether the penalty imposed on TV stations is fair. Secretary, please reply.
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, perhaps I should explain how the CO and the BO deal with competition clauses respectively. Currently, the competition provisions of the CO have not yet come into force, so the competition provisions of the BO will be repealed only after those of the CO come into force in the future. Therefore, any acts committed before the commencement of the CO shall continue to be regulated by the BO, particularly the anti-competition provisions set out in sections 13 and 14 of the BO. When the competition provisions of the CO comes into force in the future, the anti-competition provisions in sections 13 and 14 of the BO will subsequently be repealed.
Under the new CO, if the Competition Tribunal is satisfied that a person has contravened a competition rule, it may, as Mr Ronny TONG said just now, order a pecuniary penalty of an amount equivalent to 10% of the turnover of the undertaking concerned for each year in which the contravention occurred, or, if the contravention occurred in more than three years, 10% of the turnover of the undertaking concerned for the three years in which the contravention occurred that saw the highest, second highest and third highest turnover. Therefore, under the existing mechanism, the maximum pecuniary penalty prescribed in the BO is $1 million. However, after the competition provisions of the CO come into force in the future, the maximum pecuniary penalty that may be imposed will be more rigorous.
MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question, because the question is not about the differences in the amount of pecuniary penalty and the suspension of licences under the CO. The reply given by the Secretary just now is related to the CO, but the other TV station has contravened the BO instead of the CO, and yet the maximum LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 55 pecuniary penalty is still $1 million only. The authorities should either impose a fine of $1 million on it or suspend its licence …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): What is your follow-up question?
MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): President, why is it impossible to confer additional powers of sanction between the two? There is no reason why we can only choose either of the two: suspension of licence or imposition of a fine of merely $1 million. Will the Secretary try to narrow the gap between the two options?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TONG, although the supplementary question raised by you just now mentioned suspension of licences and pecuniary penalty, what you are asking now is a new question. Please wait for another turn.
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary said in the last paragraph of parts (a) and (b) in the main reply that the CA would consider a basket of factors, but he fell short of mentioning whether consideration will be given to the auctioning of spectrum. The Government issued 3G mobile phone licences by means of a spectrum auction, and the free TV licences also involve a spectrum, but it has never adopted the approach of auction. Therefore, may I ask the Secretary whether he will consider applying spectrum auctions to the operation of free TV stations?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank the Honourable Member for his question. I wish to point out that the CA is the authority that allocates the spectrum, and I have said earlier in the main reply that the two existing licensees have not yet submitted their applications for licence renewal. I believe that, upon receipt of the relevant applications for licence renewal, the CA will deal with them appropriately.
56 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): No, because consultation should not be initiated by those two companies, but by the Government.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please repeat your supplementary question.
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is whether the Secretary will invite public views during the consultation to explore whether the approach of spectrum auction should be introduced to the licensing exercise?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, will consideration be given to the introduction of spectrum auctions?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): In fact, since the Radio Spectrum Policy Framework was released in 2007, very clear guidelines have been established. As I said earlier, the CA is the authority responsible for allocation of spectrum. Therefore, at this stage, I cannot make any decision in this regard on behalf of the CA.
MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, we also understand that, from the perspective of the industry, the issuance of new free TV licences will attract more on-stage and backstage talents to the TV industry and provide more opportunities of development and employment, ultimately facilitating the development of the TV and film industries.
Currently, the operation of free TV stations is driven by advertisements. Many operators tend to focus on the production of drama programmes, giving less consideration to the production of information, sports, arts and cultural programmes. May I ask the Government whether it will take into account the following two points as factors for licensing consideration in the issuance of a new licence: first, whether the applicant can increase employment opportunities; LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 57 and second, whether the relevant organization will increase the number of cultural, sports, arts and information programmes?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank the Honourable Member for his question. I fully understand and appreciate that it is very important to train talents, particularly on-stage and backstage talents for the TV industry, as such trainings can facilitate the development of a number of creative industries, including the film industry. Therefore, the Chief Executive in Council will take into account various factors in considering the issuance of a licence, including the benefits brought to the local broadcasting industry, the overall economy and the public. What the Member mentioned just now are all relevant factors. I believe the Chief Executive in Council will make due consideration.
Perhaps I can provide some information in this regard. In fact, the terms of a licence will normally include certain requirements for programme broadcasting, including broadcasting programmes in different domains such as information and arts, as well as providing diversified and content-rich programmes such as documentaries and current affairs programmes for children, youth and the elderly, in order to meet the public expectation on free TV programming.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, it is really astonishing that the Secretary allowed the CA to condone TVB's word tricks in such a manner as to gloss them over with a fine of $900,000 for unfair competition. It also makes people feel that this Bureau and even the entire Government are amoral, incompetent and indifferent in dealing with the TV industry.
Since Mr Ronny TONG could not raise his supplementary question just now, then let me raise it. As far as the TV industry is concerned, the authorities can either adopt such a heavy-handed approach as suspension of licence, which affects millions of viewers, or impose a fine of up to $1 million, like the fine of $900,000 imposed now, but is it really impossible to include more gray penalties between the black and the white?
58 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I am glad that Ms Claudia MO referred to Mr Ronny TONG's previous supplementary question again, so that I have a chance to answer it. The so-called "suspension of licence" is in fact only a rather collective expression. Under the licensing system currently provided for in the BO, can we merely suspend a licence or impose a fine, with a deterrent effect that is far from adequate? In fact, this is not the case.
We have actually put in place a series of measures, namely to first request that the anti-competitive practices concerned be stopped and then possibly impose some penalties in accordance with sections 13 and 14 of the BO. This time the punishment was meted out in the form of imposition of a fine, the request for a statement and the prohibition from engaging in such anti-competitive practices again in future. This is a series of measures. As regards the suspension of licences as mentioned earlier, I wish to explain that there is only a procedure for suspending a licence under the current legislation, but if the situation is serious, revocation of licence is also possible. Therefore, there is a series of punitive measures in place at this stage to address different practices accordingly and appropriately.
As I have already pointed out in my replies to Members' supplementary questions, upon commencement of the new CO, we will address such anti-competitive practices by conferring greater powers on the Competition Tribunal to impose more sanctions, in order that more appropriate punishments are meted out in accordance with the seriousness of the relevant practices. Therefore, I consider that there is already a series of measures in place under the current system and, upon implementation of the provisions of the CO in the future, new powers can more readily be conferred on the Court to address the issue.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. Can the current amount of maximum fine exceed $1 million?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 59
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, the Secretary has already answered it.
This Council has spent more than 23 minutes on this question. If Members are not satisfied, please follow up through other channels. Last oral question.
Law-enforcement Actions Relating to Articles Causing Obstruction in Public Places
6. MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): According to section 104A of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, any person displaying or affixing a bill or poster (including displaying roadside publicity materials) on government land without the written permission of the Authority commits an offence. Recently, some members of the public have complained to me that very often a large number of banners have been illegally hung by various bodies on the roadside railings at busy road sections with heavy pedestrian flows (including those in major business districts, popular tourist spots and traffic hubs), which obstruct the view of motorists and distract their attention, thus posing hazards to road safety. In addition, some of the banners have been damaged or loosened with the passage of time, causing obstruction to pedestrians and vehicles, as well as affecting the streetscape. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of complaints received by the authorities in the past three years regarding illegal hanging of banners; details of the law-enforcement actions taken by the authorities (including the numbers of inspections conducted, illegal banners removed, and prosecutions instituted against the persons concerned, and the total amount of fines imposed on the persons concerned);
(b) whether the authorities have considered compiling a list of black spots at which banners have been illegally hung, so as to facilitate targeted inspections and law-enforcement actions; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(c) given that some members of the public have pointed out that in recent years, some people often hang anonymous or impersonated 60 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
banners containing defamatory contents in public places when the patrol staff of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) are off duty, of the number of such complaints received in the past three years and the follow-up actions taken by the authorities?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, the Lands Department (LandsD) started the "Management Scheme for the Display of Roadside Non-commercial Publicity Materials" (Management Scheme) in May 2003 to manage the display of non-commercial publicity materials on the roadside, and made revisions to the "Implementation Guidelines" of the Management Scheme in August 2011. The non-commercial publicity materials in question are usually displayed by Members of the Legislative Council and District Councils (DCs), DCs and their committees, as well as non-profit-making organizations for the purpose of promoting/publicizing activities that are non-commercial in nature or of interest to the public, and disseminating information that is of general interest or use to the public.
For the purpose of implementing the Management Scheme, some officers in the LandsD are authorized by the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene to give permission for the display of roadside non-commercial publicity materials under section 104A(1)(b) of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132). For the display of publicity materials that is verified by the LandsD as being unauthorized or non-compliant with the Implementation Guidelines, the FEHD will remove the publicity materials and recover the removal costs from the persons concerned under section 104C(1) of the above Ordinance.
The FEHD conducts joint operations with the LandsD regularly to remove publicity materials the display of which is unauthorized or non-compliant with the Implementation Guidelines, as well as those which are loosened and may impede pedestrian and vehicular movements. For cases involving unauthorized display of non-commercial publicity materials, the Government will, apart from recovering the removal costs from the persons concerned, decide whether to prosecute the owners of the publicity materials or the persons who may benefit from the display of them, having regard to the circumstances of each case and the relevant law.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 61
In cases where the FEHD staff come across any commercial publicity materials (including banners) that are displayed without permission, the Department will remove such materials immediately. The FEHD officers will consider instituting prosecution against anyone who is found putting up commercial publicity materials or banners at the scene and, subject to the availability of adequate evidence (from sources including the information shown on the publicity materials), anyone who may benefit from the display of such publicity materials. Moreover, a new measure has been adopted by the FEHD since March 2011 to issue, under the Fixed Penalty (Public Cleanliness Offences) Ordinance (Cap. 570), $1,500 fixed penalty notices to offenders who display publicity materials in public places without permission, including those displayed on easy-mount frames.
My reply to the question is as follows:
(a) The number of complaints received by the FEHD against unauthorized display of publicity materials and the incidence of enforcement actions taken in the past three years are set out below:
For 2011; 2012; and 2013 (up to August), the number of complaints about unauthorized display of publicity materials in public places was 3 399; 3 651; and 2 823 respectively.
The number of publicity materials removed by the FEHD in the corresponding years/period was 3 410 967; 3 340 171; and 2 140 014 respectively.
The number of cases involving enforcement actions taken against unauthorized display of publicity materials in public places was 3 315; 4 492; and 4 042 respectively for 2011; 2012; and 2013 (up to August).
The enforcement statistics comprise the following:
The number of prosecutions against unauthorized display of publicity materials in public places was 112; 84; and 95 respectively for 2011; 2012; and 2013 (up to August).
62 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
The number of prosecutions against obstruction of public places by the display of unauthorized publicity materials was 1 487; 2 845; and 2 948 respectively for the corresponding years/period.
The number of $1,500 fixed penalty notices issued by the FEHD was 1 716; 1 563; and 999 respectively.
The FEHD does not keep separate statistics on the number of inspections.
(b) The FEHD will take enforcement actions and determine the locations of joint operations with the LandsD, having regard to the circumstances of the respective districts, including complaints received about unauthorized display of publicity materials, findings during inspections, as well as the views of the DCs.
(c) Over the past three years, the FEHD has not received any complaints about unauthorized display of banners containing messages that are defamatory. The FEHD will continue to handle all cases involving unauthorized display of publicity materials in accordance with the Management Scheme and the relevant legislation.
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has given an evasive answer to my supplementary question. Of course, I know that the Secretary has answered this question from the perspective of the Food and Health Bureau. Indeed, the FEHD has not received any complaints about unauthorized display of banners containing messages that are defamatory. And in my opinion, should there be any issues of defamatory messages, the complainants may not approach Secretary Dr KO. So, my supplementary question is as follows. If defamation is involved, will the authorities contact other relevant departments such as the Security Bureau in respect of such content? Perhaps, the Government may not answer this question. If yes, what is the number of cases that have been followed up in the past three years? If not, why not? In what ways cases will be followed up in the future?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 63
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, if such complaints are received ― of course, Mr HO also notes that we have not received any such complaints ― if a complaint is received, action will be taken according to law. Regarding statistics, apart from the category for which no complaint has been received as I mentioned just now, if Mr HO needs other statistical data, he may make the request and I will submit a reply in writing after the meeting.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, has your supplementary question not been answered?
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered how he would communicate with other departments and follow up this issue.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will you be asking for data from other departments?
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Because the contents of banners are defamatory …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please repeat your follow-up question.
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): If unauthorized banners contain defamatory contents, how will the Government communicate with other departments after receiving complaints about such banners?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Let me try to understand this supplementary question. As I said just now, we have not received any complaints about banners containing defamatory words. Should we receive any such complaints, we will certainly co-ordinate with other departments depending on the contents of the complaint and needs.
64 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung is not present, I now call upon Mr TAM Yiu-chung to ask his supplementary question.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, I thought you had called the wrong name. I would like to follow up Mr Steven HO's supplementary question and clarify one point. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong is actually the victim because we often find some defamatory banners used for the purpose of political smearing at some illegal locations throughout the territory. Our colleagues in the local communities will lodge complaints immediately after finding such banners.
Surprisingly, it is pointed out in the Secretary's main reply that no relevant complaint has been received over the past three years. We are very much doubtful about such a peaceful and harmonious environment. Would the actual situation be like this: when we have lodged a complaint, the Secretary's colleagues will not classify the complaint according to the contents of banners? They simply make a record of banners being hung at illegal locations and will not consider whether the banners contain defamatory contents for the purpose of political smearing. Is it because of this that the Secretary said that no complaint has been received? Or is it because complaints are received by the LandsD and the Secretary is unaware of it and therefore said that no complaint has been received? Is this the case?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, let me try to understand this supplementary question again. I believe questions raised by Members are mostly not related to commercial banners. In the past, Legislative Council Members have also asked questions in this aspect. Complaints received generally involve some persons occupying certain locations for hanging banners or hanging banners in no banner zones. Other complaints are about banners causing obstruction to pedestrians and even about banners posing hazards to traffic. It is true that we have not classified these complaints according to their contents.
But anyway, Members may have noticed that in the press release on 2 April this year, we announced that in view of the large number of banners found put up in public places, with some banners even hung in no banner zones and putting other road users at risk, the Government will step up enforcement against LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 65 unauthorized display of those non-commercial publicity materials. The press release was made after the problem had been reflected by many organizations and Legislative Council Members.
After the announcement, the organizations concerned were issued warning letters. Furthermore, verbal warnings were given to the organizations concerned in respect of 26 display areas from 2 April to 6 April. After that, enforcement actions were launched by the FEHD and the LandsD on 12 April by removing some boards and publicity materials in the areas under complaint.
In a nutshell, in a joint operation from April to September, the FEHD removed more than 1 200 unauthorized non-commercial publicity materials in total. So, enforcement actions have been taken. But concerning defamatory contents as mentioned by Mr TAM, follow-up actions will certainly be taken depending on whether an offence is involved upon receipt of a complaint.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, as pointed out in the Secretary's written reply, for non-commercial publicity materials, the FEHD will, in accordance with the Ordinance, remove those non-commercial publicity materials or banners, the display of which has been verified by the LandsD as being unauthorized.
I hope the Secretary can clarify one point. I remember he pointed out in this Council last year that unauthorized publicity materials or banners displayed at roadside would not be removed if the persons concerned were at the scene. Is what he said still effective?
Meanwhile, it is pointed out in the written reply that verification by the LandsD is required. What is the relationship between the two departments? Because very often the FEHD, after receiving our complaint, would tell us that it could follow up the case pending verification by the LandsD the status of the publicity materials. But when we lodge the complaint with the LandsD, the LandsD will state that it will not carry out verification. Should these two departments be allowed to pass the buck to each other? Is it necessary for the authorities to carry out a review of this?
66 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, the LandsD and the FEHD have to launch joint operations due to one reason, that is, the display of all non-commercial publicity materials is approved by the LandsD. In this process, details such as confirmation of land ownership, contents and specifications of exhibits are involved.
In addition, complaints about non-commercial publicity materials often involve more complex issues. For instance, the contents of publicity materials and the contents of application do not comply with each other; unauthorized publicity materials have covered authorized publicity materials; organizations which have been granted approval allow others to display their exhibits at the designated display area; or within the same display zone, the approved display area for an organization has been mistakenly occupied by the authorized publicity materials of another organization. As a result, the former put up their authorized materials at a non-designated zone. So, it is necessary to be verified by the LandsD. So, as I said just now, enforcement action has to be carried out jointly by the two departments on a need basis.
As to the first point, I believe we have not laid down any principle that the materials will certainly not be removed if the persons concerned are at the scene. We have to distinguish whether the exhibits are used for expressing the views of the parties concerned, or whether any person has put up materials without application or in non-designated areas in violation of the Management Scheme. In principle, enforcement action will be taken.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my question. First, about reviewing the existing practice. If the two departments pass the buck to each other ... this is our personal experience. The complaint is not dealt with after dragging on for a couple of months. Will he review such a practice?
Second, to set the record straight, the Secretary has made it very clear that even though non-commercial publicity materials are displayed without prior LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 67 application, no prosecution will be initiated or the materials will not be removed if the persons concerned are at the scene. He made this point in this Council last year. Does he want to repudiate his own words?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members should ask only one question. Given that the point seeking clarification by Mr LEUNG is relatively simple, Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Yes. As the two departments need to co-operate with each other, they will carry out joint operations as far as practicable. Regarding the Honourable Member's question, separate actions by the two departments will be avoided by all means so that the situation where one department takes follow-up action after the other has made clarification will be pre-empted. Joint operations are carried out precisely because of this reason.
Secondly, as I said just now, there is no established principle that whenever the persons concerned are at the scene, the materials will not be removed. Sometimes, it is really difficult for us to distinguish clearly whether the materials in question are purely for display purpose or serve as a tool to express some people's opinions. Nevertheless, clear and specific guidelines have been laid down in the Management Scheme. As I have explained just now, enforcement has been stepped up since April this year.
MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, according to the written reply by the authorities, the number of complaints, the number of publicity materials removed by the FEHD, the number of enforcement actions or the number of prosecutions have all been on the rise over the past three years. This precisely shows that the current enforcement actions are not effective enough and the situation has been deteriorating. Friends of mine in the industry, particularly the taxi industry, have persistently voiced their wish that the Government may exert more efforts in this regard as road safety is at stake.
May I ask the Government whether it will continue to apply the existing legislation and approach, or whether it will consider increasing the penalties, 68 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 particularly on repeated offenders, by introducing some modest amendments to the legislation?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I have said very clearly earlier that our Management Scheme is formulated on the basis of the existing legislation and this Management Scheme has been optimized. Anyway, the Legislative Council had in fact raised a relevant question earlier this year. Subsequently, a press release was announced in April that enforcement would be stepped up. Meanwhile, communication with relevant parties has been enhanced by issuing warning letters and verbal warnings.
Enforcement actions have been stepped up since April. The figures I reported just now indicate that the enforcement against non-commercial publicity materials has been effective in the past few months. Members can observe that the situation has become relatively restrained. Of course, these people may commit the offence again when our enforcement action is concluded. Hence, enforcement may have to be resumed. So, on the whole, I cannot say that the problem has been eliminated for good. But I believe it has been ameliorated compared with that in the past.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?
MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, I think the Secretary has not answered it.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please repeat your supplementary question.
MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): I understand that action is taken by the Government according to the existing legislation. But what I said just now is that the measures seem not effective. Will the Government consider amending the legislation to impose heavier penalties?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 69
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, the Honourable Member asked whether heavier penalties will be imposed.
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I thank the Member for the question. But I have also touched upon this point just now. After enforcement actions under the Management Scheme have been stepped up since April, we have seen some results. Certainly, I agree that the problem cannot be completely eliminated. So, if Mr YICK seeks a direct answer, I can say that we have no intention to amend the relevant legislation for the time being.
MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): President, in part (c) of the main reply, the Secretary mentioned that over the past three years, the Government has not received any complaint about unauthorized display of banners containing messages that are defamatory. May I ask whether this is due to unclear complaint channels? Will improvement in this respect be made in the future?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): To put it simply, I may conduct a review of this again when I am back in the office.
MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, what Mr Frankie YICK asked just now is a fact. As far as I understand it, even in the joint operations by the FEHD and the LandsD, unauthorized banners are removed after the issue of warnings. This is their approach in dealing with unauthorized banners. If the banners are guarded by some persons, the offenders may move their banners to other locations at any time. Once the display location has been switched, the law-enforcement officers have to issue warnings to them again before taking enforcement action. May I ask the Secretary whether he will consider drawing up some guidelines specifying that after a warning has been issued, enforcement action can be taken immediately even though the banners have been moved to another location as long as the relocation is carried out by the same persons?
70 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): As I said before, immediate enforcement action is taken in some circumstances.
MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, according to policy of the Food and Health Bureau, the locations of non-commercial banners are designated. However, people tend to post them at some unauthorized locations. What we are targeting at are those political banners, and according to our observation, relevant departments such as the FEHD have not dealt with them in a formal manner.
May I ask whether there are guidelines within the FEHD specifying that political banners, such as Falun Gong banners, are not to be removed?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): A simple answer for this question: there is none.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent more than 23 minutes on this question. Oral questions end here.
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Work of Hospital Authority Review Steering Committee
7. MISS ALICE MAK (in Chinese): President, given comments that the management of the Hospital Authority (HA) is plagued with problems, including "fattening the top and thinning the bottom" in the management, the lack of co-ordination among hospital clusters, the uneven distribution of resources among the various clusters and the excessively long waiting time for patients, and so on, coupled with the challenges arising from the ageing population, the Food and Health Bureau has earlier established the Hospital Authority Review Steering Committee (Steering Committee). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 71
(a) of the approach of the review; who will be responsible for monitoring the review process; how the public may participate in the review;
(b) of the review timetable, including the estimated dates of completion and release of the report;
(c) as there are criticisms that the Steering Committee lacks representatives from front-line healthcare personnel and patients' rights groups, whether the authorities will adopt any measure to enhance the representation of the Steering Committee, such as making additional appointments of various stakeholders as its members; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(d) of the scope of the review, and whether it will include the issue of uneven distribution of resources among the hospital clusters; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; whether any priority area for review has been set; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(e) as some healthcare practitioners have relayed to me that the authorities have all along lacked an effective mechanism to regularly review the operation of the HA, resulting in the HA being plagued with problems, whether the authorities will consider establishing such a mechanism; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, my reply to various parts of Miss Alice MAK's question is set out below:
(a), (c) and (e)
The Government has all along attached importance to the work of the HA and has been monitoring and reviewing its operation with a view to ensuring that the HA provides quality public healthcare services for the community.
The HA is an independent statutory body established under Cap. 113 of the Laws of Hong Kong. The relevant legislation includes 72 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
provisions specifying that the HA should use the resources efficiently to provide hospital services of high quality.
To ensure accountability to the public for the management and control of the public medical services system, three government officials (namely the Permanent Secretary for Food and Health (Health), the Director of Health, and the Deputy Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury) are ex-officio members of the HA Board and participate in the governance of the HA. The Secretary for Food and Health holds monthly meeting with the HA management to monitor its work. Moreover, the Government sets out the HA's performance targets in the Controlling Officer's Report under a Head of the Estimates every year. These performance targets cover various aspects, including access to services (such as waiting time), delivery of services, quality of services, cost of services and manpower, and so on. The HA Board and the Government, through regular reports submitted by the HA, assess and examine the HA's performance in accordance with these targets.
Since its establishment over 20 years ago, the HA has been providing quality healthcare services with international acclaim. In view of the ageing population and the changing public needs for healthcare services, we set up the Steering Committee on Review of the HA (the Steering Committee) in August 2013 to conduct a comprehensive review of the operation of the HA.
Chaired by the Secretary for Food and Health, the Steering Committee comprises non-official members, official members and HA representatives. Non-official members of the Steering Committee comprise individuals from a wide range of backgrounds and interests, including doctors, nurses, academics, front-line staff of the HA, as well as representatives from the business and the welfare sectors and patient groups.
To enable more comprehensive consideration of the views of front-line staff and hospitals of different sizes, the Government announced on 19 September 2013 the appointment of a front-line doctor and a front-line nurse from the HA as additional members of the Steering Committee.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 73
In addition to having a diversified composition with different stakeholders, the Steering Committee will, during the course of the review, collect and listen to views in the community through different channels such as focus group discussions and consultation forums as well as meetings with concerned organizations in the field.
(b) and (d)
As regards the scope of review, the Steering Committee held its first meeting in late September and agreed that the HA's management and cluster arrangement, resources management, human resources management, service levels and overall cost effectiveness will be fully examined. The aim of the review is to improve the operation of the HA so that, as the cornerstone of the public healthcare system and the safety net for the public, it can continue to provide quality services and meet the challenges brought about by social development and ageing population more effectively.
Depending on the actual progress of work, we envisage that the review could be completed in about one year.
Impact of Abolition of Duties on Wine on Alcohol Abuse
8. DR LAU WONG-FAT (in Chinese): President, according to press reports, the results of a study conducted by The Chinese University of Hong Kong indicated that the percentage of people who ever drank in the population increased from 65% in 2006 to 85% in 2012. Among them, 10% consumed alcoholic beverages for the first time after the Government abolished in 2008 the duties on wine and on liquor with an alcoholic strength of not more than 30% (alcohol duties). The scholars who conducted the study suggested examination by the Government of the reinstatement/increase of the alcohol duties. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it has contacted the scholars who conducted the aforesaid study to examine the results of the study and the recommendations concerned;
74 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
(b) whether it has studied if there has been an obvious upward trend in the number of alcoholics in Hong Kong since the abolition of the alcohol duties; and
(c) whether it has considered providing additional resources to enhance the assistance and treatment for alcoholics, as well as to step up the publicity targeted at young people regarding the health hazards of alcohol abuse?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, the World Health Organization has pointed out that alcohol consumption is associated with major non-communicable diseases such as cancers, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. It has also reaffirmed that measures should be strengthened to reduce alcohol-related harm in the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases.
The Department of Health (DH) published a strategy document entitled "Promoting Health in Hong Kong: A Strategic Framework for Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases" in 2008 to set out the strategic directions for the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases. To implement the strategies, the Steering Committee on Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases (the Steering Committee) was set up in the same year. Chaired by the Secretary for Food and Health, the Steering Committee comprises members from various sectors and is responsible for steering the work on the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases and overseeing the work progress.
Reducing alcohol-related harm is an important priority action area in the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases. In this regard, the Steering Committee set up the Working Group on Alcohol and Health (the Working Group) in June 2009. Having considered scientific evidence and assessing local circumstances, the Working Group launched the "Action Plan to Reduce Alcohol-related Harm in Hong Kong" (the Action Plan) in October 2011. The Action Plan covers five priority areas, 10 recommendations and 17 specific action items, and gives an account of the collaborative efforts by different sectors in preventing and controlling alcohol-related harm. In drafting the Action Plan, the Working Group, in the light of the unique local circumstances, discussed and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 75 considered whether overseas intervention measures and experiences in reducing the harmful effects of alcohol could be introduced.
My reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:
(a) The Government has kept itself abreast of the latest research findings, both local and overseas, on alcohol and health. A scholar taking part in The Chinese University of Hong Kong's study in question is also a member of the Steering Committee and the Working Group.
The DH will continue to collaborate with the relevant sectors and organizations to implement the various recommendations in the Action Plan and launch comprehensive measures to reduce alcohol-related harm. The Working Group will also closely monitor and assess the impact of alcohol on public health, as well as relay views and give advice to the Steering Committee on effective control measures in a timely manner.
(b) Since 2005, the DH has been collecting information on various health risks and related behaviour of Hong Kong adults aged between 18 and 64 through the Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System. Data on alcohol consumption include "the percentage of respondents who had ever drunk at least one alcoholic drink prior to the survey" and "the percentage of respondents who had drunk at least one alcoholic drink during the 30 days prior to the survey". The latter can better reflect the recent alcohol consumption of the public and the data are set out in the following table:
Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total (%) 30.9 29.7 37.5 34.9 36.3 34.9 31.7 30.9
As shown in the table, the percentage of respondents who had drunk at least one alcoholic drink during the last 30 days prior to the survey stood between 29.7% and 37.5% for the several years before and after 2008, indicating no significant trend of increase or decline.
76 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
The DH will continue to conduct surveillance of alcohol consumption and monitor the profile of drinkers so as to make timely and accurate assessments.
(c) The Government has always been concerned about the subject of alcohol and health, including the problem of alcoholism among youths.
Psychiatric specialist out-patient clinics and substance abuse clinics in all clusters under the Hospital Authority provide alcohol abusers with appropriate multi-disciplinary assessment (including psychiatry, clinical psychology, nursing and occupational therapy) and treatment services (including in-patient, out-patient, community support, guidance and rehabilitation). The Hospital Authority will continue to provide quality services through the effective use of resources.
The DH also educates the public and publicizes alcohol-related harm through a range of media, including health education materials, 24-hour education hotlines, websites and electronic publications.
The Student Health Service of the DH has been providing health education for all participating Primary Three students through the "Junior Health Pioneer" Workshop since October 2007 to help them understand the adverse effects of drinking, smoking and drug abuse, develop a correct attitude at an early age and learn the relevant refusal skills.
Since the 2008-2009 academic year, the Adolescent Health Programme under the Student Health Service has reinforced secondary students' awareness about the harmful effects of drinking, smoking and drug abuse, as well as enhanced their refusal skills to resist temptation through the core programmes under Basic Life Skills Training for Secondary One students and Topical Programmes for Secondary One to Six students.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 77
Statistics on Salaries Tax
9. MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Chinese): President, regarding the statistics on salaries tax, will the Government inform this Council of:
(a) the amount of salaries tax paid by persons not paying at the standard rate, the average percentage of the amount of salaries tax in their income, as well as the highest and lowest amounts of salaries tax paid by them, in each of the past three years of assessment;
(b) the percentage of tax payers paying salaries tax at the standard rate, and the percentage of the amount of salaries tax paid at the standard rate, in each of the past three years of assessment; and
(c) the following data on salaries tax revenue for the year of assessment 2011-2012?
Number of persons Percentage of such Amount of salaries required to pay the number of persons in tax (HK$) salaries tax listed on the work force the left Not required 1 to 1,000 1,001 to 2,000 2,001 to 5,000 5,001 to 10,000 10,001 to 15,000 15,001 to 20,000 20,001 to 30,000 30,001 to 40,000 40,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 60,000 60,001 to 70,000 70,001 to 80,000 80,001 to 90,000 90,001 to 100,000 100,001 to 200,000 200,001 to 500,000 78 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Number of persons Percentage of such Amount of salaries required to pay the number of persons in tax (HK$) salaries tax listed on the work force the left 500,001 to 1,000,000 over 1,000,000
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President,
(a) Details of salaries taxpayers paying at progressive rates (non-standard rate) in each of the past three years of assessment are tabulated below:
Salaries tax payers taxed at progressive rates (non-standard rate) Year of Average % % of the total Highest tax Lowest tax assessment of salaries taxpaying amount amount tax to their population (HK$) (HK$) total income 2011-2012 98.3% 5.0% 796,000 1 2010-2011 98.2% 5.5% 729,000 1 2009-2010 98.4% 5.4% 672,000 1
(b) Details of salaries taxpayers paying at the standard rate in each of the past three years of assessment are tabulated below:
Salaries tax payers taxed at the standard rate Year of % to the total taxpaying % to the total final tax assessment population assessed 2011-2012 1.7% 38.8% 2010-2011 1.8% 39.0% 2009-2010 1.6% 36.0%
(c) Relevant statistics on salaries tax for the year of assessment 2011-2012 are at Annex.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 79
Annex
Salaries Tax for Year of Assessment 2011-2012
Number of persons Percentage of such Amount of salaries tax required to pay the number of persons in the (HK$) salaries tax listed work force on the left 0 1 971 100 54.68% 1 to 1,000 721 500 20.00% 1,001 to 2,000 170 600 4.73% 2,001 to 5,000 193 100 5.36% 5,001 to 10,000 72 300 2.00% 10,001 to 15,000 55 800 1.55% 15,001 to 20,000 46 700 1.30% 20,001 to 30,000 70 900 1.97% 30,001 to 40,000 51 100 1.42% 40,001 to 50,000 38 500 1.07% 50,001 to 60,000 30 000 0.83% 60,001 to 70,000 23 900 0.66% 70,001 to 80,000 18 700 0.52% 80,001 to 90,000 15 600 0.43% 90,001 to 100,000 12 700 0.35% 100,001 to 200,000 63 400 1.76% 200,001 to 500,000 36 700 1.02% 500,001 to 1,000,000 8 500 0.24% Over 1,000,000 4 000 0.11% Total 3 605 100 100.00%
Note:
In the year of assessment 2011-2012, out of the 3 605 100 working population, there are about 1 634 000 salaries tax payers. Of them, about 1 606 000 taxpayers (98.3%) are taxed at progressive rates (non-standard rate) while the remaining 28 000 taxpayers (1.7%) are taxed at standard rate.
Manpower Situation of Retail, Construction and Catering Industries
10. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Chinese): President, it has recently been reported in the press that some members of the business sector have pointed out 80 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 that certain industries (particularly the retail, construction and catering industries) have encountered a manpower shortage and they therefore have suggested the importation of foreign labour. Yet, some members of the trade unions are of the view that the manpower shortage in the industries concerned can be attributed to the unsatisfactory remuneration packages of the relevant positions, causing a brain drain to other industries, while the overall supply of local labour is sufficient. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the respective numbers of (i) people employed, (ii) job seekers, (iii) people who were dismissed or made redundant and (iv) people who resigned, in the retail, construction and catering industries in each of the past five years, as well as the respective percentages of the numbers of (ii), (iii) and (iv) in the number of people employed in the industries concerned (with a breakdown by year and age group as set out in the table below);
(Industry)/ (Year) (iii) Number (ii) Number of people (iv) Number of job dismissed or of people seekers made resigned (i) Number of (Percentage redundant (Percentage Age people of such (Percentage of such group employed number in of such number in the number number in the number of people the number of people employed) of people employed) employed) 19 or below 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or above Total
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 81
(b) of the average vacancy rates, average unemployment rates, average monthly wages and average weekly working hours in the retail, construction and catering industries in each of the past five years, with a breakdown in the table below;
(Industry) Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average vacancy rate Average unemployment rate Average monthly wage Average weekly number of working hours
(c) whether the Government's assessment of the occurrence or otherwise of manpower shortage or wastage in Hong Kong's retail, construction and catering industries is made on the basis of the information in parts (a) and (b) above; if not, how the Government assesses the situation; and
(d) of the new measures to attract Hong Kong people to join the retail, construction and catering industries and to reduce the manpower wastage in those industries?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, the Administration's reply to the questions raised by Mr KWOK Wai-keung is as follows:
(a) and (b)
Based on the information prepared by the Census and Statistics Department, the relevant statistics are listed at Annexes I and II respectively.
82 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
(c) and (d)
Labour supply and demand in Hong Kong hinge on various factors such as the prevailing macroeconomic environment, developments of individual sectors, local demographic structure, and the implementation of employment and immigration policies. In assessing the manpower situation of different sectors in Hong Kong, apart from taking into account labour statistics, the Administration also pays close attention to the developments of the aforesaid factors.
Regarding the construction sector, the volume of construction works has been rising in recent years. For government public works projects, capital works expenditure has substantially increased from $20.5 billion in 2007-2008 to about $70 billion in 2013-2014. The expenditure is expected to exceed $70 billion on an annual basis in the coming years. According to the Construction Industry Council (CIC), building construction used to dominate the construction market in the past, but the percentage of infrastructure projects has been increasing in recent years. Moreover, about 40% of registered construction workers are aged 50 or above. The construction sector is thus facing the problems of rising manpower demand, skills mismatch and acute ageing of workers.
To address the challenges arising from the forecast construction output and potential manpower problems in the coming years, the Administration has since 2008-2009 been proactively formulating a series of measures. Between 2010 and 2012, two sums of funding totalling $320 million were made available to support the CIC in strengthening training for local construction personnel and attract new entrants, particularly young people, to join the construction industry through promotion and publicity activities. The CIC has launched various initiatives in recent years to strengthen training, including the Enhanced Construction Manpower Training Scheme and the Contractor Cooperative Training Scheme. As the industry's co-ordinating body, the CIC has been maintaining close liaison with stakeholders to gauge the latest market situation and to suitably adjust training plans when necessary so as to better meet the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 83
manpower demand. Further, the Administration has enhanced caring and safety culture in the construction industry, including measures to improve site tidiness, provide additional welfare facilities on site, step up safety training for workers and enhance promotion and publicity of site safety.
On the retail front, the Financial Secretary has set up a Task Force on Manpower Development of the Retail Industry earlier this year. The Task Force pools the efforts of the Administration, industry and relevant organizations to study the economic outlook of the industry and its labour demand and supply. The Task Force plans to complete its work within this year and put forward appropriate and specific recommendations for supporting the growth of the industry in the long term. For the catering industry, the Labour Department has also set up a Recruitment Centre for the Catering Industry to provide employers concerned and job seekers with free recruitment and employment services.
Annex I
(1) Retail
Retail/2008: (iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed persons leaving persons being (ii) Job-seekers jobs on their own dismissed or laid looking for work accord ('000) off ('000) in retail ('000) [Ratio of Age (i) Employed [Ratio of [Ratio of unemployed group persons ('000) unemployed job-seekers to persons leaving persons being employed jobs on their own dismissed or laid persons (%)] accord to off to employed employed persons (%)] persons (%)] 15-19 10.7 1.4 [12.8] 0.4 [3.3] 1.1 [10.1] 20-29 79.9 3.1 [3.9] 1.5 [1.9] 3.5 [4.4] 84 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
(iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed persons leaving persons being (ii) Job-seekers jobs on their own dismissed or laid looking for work accord ('000) off ('000) in retail ('000) [Ratio of Age (i) Employed [Ratio of [Ratio of unemployed group persons ('000) unemployed job-seekers to persons leaving persons being employed jobs on their own dismissed or laid persons (%)] accord to off to employed employed persons (%)] persons (%)] 30-39 70.7 1.9 [2.7] 1.3 [1.8] 1.3 [1.8] 40-49 73.5 1.5 [2.1] 1.6 [2.2] 1.5 [2.1] 50-59 45.7 0.9 [2.0] 1.3 [2.8] 0.3 [0.7] ≥60 12.0 * [*] * [*] * [*] Overall 292.6 8.9 [3.1] 6.2 [2.1] 7.8 [2.7]
Retail/2009: (iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed persons leaving persons being (ii) Job-seekers jobs on their own dismissed or laid looking for work accord ('000) off ('000) in retail ('000) [Ratio of Age (i) Employed [Ratio of [Ratio of unemployed group persons ('000) unemployed job-seekers to persons leaving persons being employed jobs on their own dismissed or laid persons (%)] accord to off to employed employed persons (%)] persons (%)] 15-19 10.0 1.7 [6.8] 0.7 [7.0] 1.0 [9.7] 20-29 75.8 4.6 [6.1] 3.8 [5.0] 4.0 [5.3] 30-39 70.0 2.9 [4.1] 2.3 [3.3] 1.8 [2.5] 40-49 73.2 3.0 [4.1] 2.8 [3.8] 1.1 [1.5] 50-59 48.2 0.9 [1.9] 1.4 [2.8] 0.4 [0.9] ≥60 13.8 * [*] * [*] * [*] Overall 291.0 13.2 [4.5] 11.1 [3.8] 8.4 [2.9]
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 85
Retail/2010: (iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed persons leaving persons being (ii) Job-seekers jobs on their own dismissed or laid looking for work accord ('000) off ('000) in retail ('000) [Ratio of Age (i) Employed [Ratio of [Ratio of unemployed group persons ('000) unemployed job-seekers to persons leaving persons being employed jobs on their own dismissed or laid persons (%)] accord to off to employed employed persons (%)] persons (%)] 15-19 8.3 1.0 [11.5] 0.4 [5.0] 0.9 [10.7] 20-29 76.0 4.8 [6.3] 2.6 [3.4] 5.1 [6.7] 30-39 72.7 1.8 [2.5] 1.1 [1.6] 1.8 [2.4] 40-49 75.6 1.5 [2.0] 1.9 [2.5] 1.1 [1.5] 50-59 52.0 1.4 [2.7] 1.8 [3.4] 0.7 [1.3] ≥60 14.9 * [*] * [*] * [*] Overall 299.4 10.6 [3.5] 8.0 [2.7] 9.5 [3.2]
Retail/2011: (iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed persons leaving persons being (ii) Job-seekers jobs on their own dismissed or laid looking for work accord ('000) off ('000) in retail ('000) [Ratio of Age (i) Employed [Ratio of [Ratio of unemployed group persons ('000) unemployed job-seekers to persons leaving persons being employed jobs on their own dismissed or laid persons (%)] accord to off to employed employed persons (%)] persons (%)] 15-19 9.0 0.9 [9.8] * [*] 1.0 [11.3] 20-29 81.0 3.4 [4.2] 1.5 [1.9] 4.4 [5.4] 30-39 75.3 1.5 [2.0] 0.9 [1.2] 1.7 [2.2] 40-49 77.6 1.3 [1.7] 1.1 [1.4] 1.3 [1.7] 50-59 52.4 0.9 [1.7] 0.9 [1.7] 0.6 [1.1] ≥60 17.0 * [*] * [*] * [*] Overall 312.3 8.0 [2.6] 4.9 [1.6] 9.0 [2.9]
86 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Retail/2012: (iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed persons leaving persons being (ii) Job-seekers jobs on their own dismissed or laid looking for work accord ('000) off ('000) in retail ('000) [Ratio of Age (i) Employed [Ratio of [Ratio of unemployed group persons ('000) unemployed job-seekers to persons leaving persons being employed jobs on their own dismissed or laid persons (%)] accord to off to employed employed persons (%)] persons (%)] 15-19 9.1 0.6 [6.6] * [*] 0.7 [7.2] 20-29 86.8 3.1 [3.5] 1.7 [1.9] 3.7 [4.3] 30-39 75.6 2.3 [3.0] 1.3 [1.7] 1.9 [2.5] 40-49 74.4 1.5 [2.1] 1.3 [1.7] 1.3 [1.7] 50-59 58.4 0.9 [1.5] 1.1 [1.8] 0.5 [0.9] ≥60 18.1 * [*] * [*] * [*] Overall 322.4 8.5 [2.6] 5.7 [1.8] 8.1 [2.5]
(2) Construction
Construction/2008: (iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed persons leaving (ii) Job-seekers persons being jobs on their own looking for work dismissed or laid accord ('000) in construction off ('000) [Ratio of (i) Employed ('000) [Ratio of Age group unemployed persons ('000) [Ratio of unemployed persons leaving job-seekers to persons being jobs on their own employed dismissed or laid accord to persons (%)] off to employed employed persons (%)] persons (%)] 15-19 1.4 * [*] * [*] * [*] 20-29 36.7 1.2 [3.3] 1.7 [4.5] 0.6 [1.7] 30-39 61.1 2.0 [3.3] 2.3 [3.8] * [*] LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 87
(iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed persons leaving (ii) Job-seekers persons being jobs on their own looking for work dismissed or laid accord ('000) in construction off ('000) [Ratio of (i) Employed ('000) [Ratio of Age group unemployed persons ('000) [Ratio of unemployed persons leaving job-seekers to persons being jobs on their own employed dismissed or laid accord to persons (%)] off to employed employed persons (%)] persons (%)] 40-49 84.7 4.5 [5.3] 5.2 [6.1] 0.6 [0.7] 50-59 71.6 6.0 [8.4] 7.2 [10.1] 0.3 [0.4] ≥60 9.8 0.6 [6.3] 0.8 [8.2] * [*] Overall 265.3 14.5 [5.5] 17.3 [6.5] 1.7 [0.7]
Construction/2009: (iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed persons leaving (ii) Job-seekers persons being jobs on their own looking for work dismissed or laid accord ('000) in construction off ('000) [Ratio of (i) Employed ('000) [Ratio of Age group unemployed persons ('000) [Ratio of unemployed persons leaving job-seekers to persons being jobs on their own employed persons dismissed or laid accord to (%)] off to employed employed persons persons (%)] (%)] 15-19 1.2 * [*] 0.3 [21.1] * [*] 20-29 33.7 2.1 [6.2] 2.4 [7.2] 0.6 [1.7] 30-39 62.5 3.6 [5.8] 4.0 [6.5] 0.3 [0.5] 40-49 82.3 6.7 [8.2] 7.7 [9.4] 0.5 [0.6] 50-59 71.0 10.0 [14] 11.6 [16.4] * [*] ≥60 11.7 1.2 [10.4] 1.4 [12.3] * [*] Overall 262.4 23.8 [9.1] 27.5 [10.5] 1.7 [0.6]
88 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Construction/2010: (iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed persons leaving (ii) Job-seekers persons being jobs on their own looking for work dismissed or laid accord ('000) in construction off ('000) [Ratio of (i) Employed ('000) [Ratio of Age group unemployed persons ('000) [Ratio of unemployed persons leaving job-seekers to persons being jobs on their own employed persons dismissed or laid accord to (%)] off to employed employed persons persons (%)] (%)] 15-19 1.2 * [*] * [*] * [*] 20-29 32.8 1.6 [4.8] 1.5 [4.4] 0.9 [2.7] 30-39 58.4 2.3 [4.0] 2.7 [4.6] 0.7 [1.3] 40-49 78.4 3.7 [4.8] 3.9 [4.9] 0.8 [1.0] 50-59 80.0 6.2 [7.7] 7.0 [8.8] 0.6 [0.8] ≥60 14.0 1.0 [7.4] 1.4 [9.8] * [*] Overall 264.9 15.0 [5.6] 16.4 [6.2] 3.2 [1.2]
Construction/2011: (iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed persons leaving (ii) Job-seekers persons being jobs on their own looking for work dismissed or laid accord ('000) in construction off ('000) [Ratio of (i) Employed ('000) [Ratio of Age group unemployed persons ('000) [Ratio of unemployed persons leaving job-seekers to persons being jobs on their own employed persons dismissed or laid accord to (%)] off to employed employed persons persons (%)] (%)] 15-19 1.7 * [*] * [*] * [*] 20-29 35.2 1.1 [3.1] 1.1 [3.3] 0.5 [1.4] 30-39 59.5 2.0 [3.3] 2.2 [3.7] 0.5 [0.9] LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 89
(iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed persons leaving (ii) Job-seekers persons being jobs on their own looking for work dismissed or laid accord ('000) in construction off ('000) [Ratio of (i) Employed ('000) [Ratio of Age group unemployed persons ('000) [Ratio of unemployed persons leaving job-seekers to persons being jobs on their own employed persons dismissed or laid accord to (%)] off to employed employed persons persons (%)] (%)] 40-49 77.0 2.8 [3.7] 3.3 [4.3] 0.5 [0.6] 50-59 87.5 5.4 [6.2] 6.4 [7.3] 0.5 [0.6] ≥60 16.1 0.9 [5.3] 1.0 [6.3] * [*] Overall 277.0 12.3 [4.4] 14.2 [5.1] 2.1 [0.8]
Construction/2012: (iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed persons leaving (ii) Job-seekers persons being jobs on their own looking for work dismissed or laid accord ('000) in construction off ('000) [Ratio of (i) Employed ('000) [Ratio of Age group unemployed persons ('000) [Ratio of unemployed persons leaving job-seekers to persons being jobs on their own employed persons dismissed or laid accord to (%)] off to employed employed persons persons (%)] (%)] 15-19 1.5 * [*] * [*] * [*] 20-29 36.7 1.3 [3.6] 1.4 [3.9] 0.6 [1.6] 30-39 62.8 1.7 [2.7] 2.0 [3.3] 0.3 [0.5] 40-49 76.4 2.2 [2.9] 2.7 [3.5] 0.4 [0.6] 50-59 91.2 4.5 [4.9] 5.3 [5.8] * [*] ≥60 22.0 1.2 [5.4] 1.6 [7.2] * [*] Overall 290.7 11.0 [3.8] 13.1 [4.5] 1.7 [0.6]
90 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
(3) Food and beverage service activities
Food and beverage service activities/2008: (iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed (ii) Job-seekers persons leaving persons being looking for work jobs on their own dismissed or laid in food and accord ('000) off ('000) beverage service [Ratio of Age (i) Employed [Ratio of activities ('000) Unemployed group persons ('000) unemployed [Ratio of persons leaving persons being job-seekers to jobs on their own dismissed or laid employed accord to off to employed persons (%)] employed persons persons (%)] (%)] 15-19 10.9 1.1 [9.8] 0.4 [3.3] 0.8 [7.7] 20-29 40.9 1.6 [4.0] 1.3 [3.1] 2.2 [5.3] 30-39 47.7 1.4 [3.0] 1.1 [2.3] 1.0 [2.2] 40-49 64.6 2.5 [3.9] 2.0 [3.2] 1.2 [1.9] 50-59 47.0 2.7 [5.8] 2.5 [5.4] 0.9 [1.9] ≥60 8.1 * [*] * [*] * [*] Overall 219.2 9.5 [4.3] 7.5 [3.4] 6.2 [2.8]
Food and beverage service activities/2009: (iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed (ii) Job-seekers persons leaving persons being looking for work jobs on their own dismissed or laid in food and accord ('000) off ('000) beverage service [Ratio of Age (i) Employed [Ratio of activities ('000) unemployed group persons ('000) unemployed [Ratio of persons leaving persons being job-seekers to jobs on their own dismissed or laid employed accord to off to employed persons (%)] employed persons persons (%)] (%)] 15-19 9.5 1.5 [15.5] 0.7 [7.2] 1.3 [14.1] 20-29 40.9 3.3 [8.0] 2.1 [5.0] 3.5 [8.5] 30-39 45.7 2.3 [5.0] 1.7 [3.8] 1.1 [2.3] 40-49 60.6 4.0 [6.6] 3.6 [6.0] 1.7 [2.7] 50-59 47.6 2.9 [6.0] 2.7 [5.8] 1.3 [2.8] ≥60 9.6 0.4 [3.9] 0.3 [3.3] * [*] Overall 213.8 14.2 [6.7] 11.1 [5.2] 9 [4.2]
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 91
Food and beverage service activities/2010: (iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed (ii) Job-seekers persons leaving persons being looking for work jobs on their own dismissed or laid in food and accord ('000) off ('000) beverage service [Ratio of Age (i) Employed [Ratio of activities ('000) unemployed group persons ('000) unemployed [Ratio of persons leaving persons being job-seekers to jobs on their own dismissed or laid employed accord to off to employed persons (%)] employed persons persons (%)] (%)] 15-19 9.6 0.9 [9.4] 0.4 [3.8] 0.8 [8.6] 20-29 41.9 2.6 [6.1] 1.6 [3.8] 3.4 [8.1] 30-39 45.4 1.9 [4.2] 1.5 [3.2] 1.3 [2.8] 40-49 60.5 2.5 [4.1] 2.1 [3.5] 1.6 [2.6] 50-59 49.3 1.9 [3.9] 1.8 [3.7] 0.9 [1.8] ≥60 10.9 0.5 [4.9] 0.6 [5.3] * [*] Overall 217.6 10.3 [4.8] 7.9 [3.6] 7.9 [3.7]
Food and beverage service activities/2011: (iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed (ii) Job-seekers persons leaving persons being looking for work jobs on their own dismissed or laid in food and accord ('000) off ('000) beverage service [Ratio of Age (i) Employed [Ratio of activities ('000) unemployed group persons ('000) unemployed [Ratio of persons leaving persons being job-seekers to jobs on their own dismissed or laid employed accord to off to employed persons (%)] employed persons persons (%)] (%)] 15-19 9.3 0.5 [5.0] 0.3 [3.1] 1.1 [11.4] 20-29 42.5 2.1 [4.9] 1.2 [2.8] 2.6 [6.0] 30-39 47.0 1.7 [3.7] 1.1 [2.4] 1.3 [2.8] 40-49 60.1 1.7 [2.8] 1.2 [2.0] 1.0 [1.7] 50-59 51.2 2.0 [3.9] 1.8 [3.5] 1.1 [2.1] 92 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
(iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed (ii) Job-seekers persons leaving persons being looking for work jobs on their own dismissed or laid in food and accord ('000) off ('000) beverage service [Ratio of Age (i) Employed [Ratio of activities ('000) unemployed group persons ('000) unemployed [Ratio of persons leaving persons being job-seekers to jobs on their own dismissed or laid employed accord to off to employed persons (%)] employed persons persons (%)] (%)] ≥60 12.3 * [*] * [*] * [*] Overall 222.6 8.2 [3.7] 5.8 [2.6] 7.2 [3.2]
Food and beverage service activities/2012: (iv) Unemployed (iii) Unemployed (ii) Job-seekers persons leaving persons being looking for work jobs on their own dismissed or laid in food and accord ('000) off ('000) beverage service [Ratio of Age (i) Employed [Ratio of activities ('000) unemployed group persons ('000) unemployed [Ratio of persons leaving persons being job-seekers to jobs on their own dismissed or laid employed accord to off to employed persons (%)] employed persons persons (%)] (%)] 15-19 9.3 0.6 [6.6] 0.3 [2.8] 1.0 [10.8] 20-29 40.7 1.8 [4.3] 1.0 [2.4] 2.8 [6.8] 30-39 45.0 1.2 [2.7] 0.9 [1.9] 1.3 [2.8] 40-49 60.9 1.2 [2.0] 0.9 [1.5] 1.3 [2.1] 50-59 53.2 1.7 [3.1] 1.4 [2.6] 0.9 [1.7] ≥60 15.1 0.3 [1.7] * [*] * [*] Overall 224.1 6.7 [3] 4.6 [2.1] 7.2 [3.2]
Notes:
* Figures are not released due to relatively large sampling error.
Figures less than 3 000 were estimated based on a relatively small sample. Due to relatively large sampling error, the figures should be interpreted with caution.
Source: General Household Survey, Census and Statistics Department.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 93
Annex II
(1) Retail
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average vacancy 2.1 1.6 2.0 2.3 3.0 rate(1)(2) Unemployment 4.6 6.3 5.5 4.3 4.1 rate(4)(%) Median(7) monthly Not 8,600 8,900 9,900 10,300 wage(5) available(8) Median(7) weekly Not 48.0 48.0 48.0 48.0 working hours(6) available(8)
(2) Construction
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average vacancy 0.1 # 0.1 0.5 0.9 rate(1)(3) Unemployment 6.7 10.0 6.9 5.6 4.9 rate(4)(%) Median(7) monthly Not 13,000 13,700 15,200 16,100 wage(5) available(8) Median(7) weekly Not 48.0 48.0 48.8 50.3 working hours(6) available(8)
(3) Food and beverage service activities
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average vacancy 2.3 2.3 2.8 3.1 4.5 rate(1) Unemployment 5.9 8.6 6.8 5.5 5.0 rate(4)(%) Median(7) monthly Not 7,600 8,000 9,000 9,400 wage(5)(9) available(8) Median(7) weekly Not 54.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 working hours(6)(9) available(8)
Notes:
(1) Average vacancy rate is obtained from the Quarterly Report of Employment and Vacancies Statistics published by the Census and Statistics Department. Figures refer to 94 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
averages of the four quarters of the year. Vacancy rate is defined as the ratio (in the form of percentage) of the number of vacancies to the number of "job opportunities" (that is, the sum of the number of persons engaged and the number of vacancies).
(2) Industrial coverage of retail industry is slightly incomplete. Main omissions are hawkers and retail pitches (other than market stalls).
(3) The vacancy rates of the construction sector refer to manual workers only, and data from sub-contractors are furnished by main contractors.
(4) Unemployment rate is obtained from the General Household Survey of the Census and Statistics Department. As regards unemployment rates by industry, since in deriving both the numerator and the denominator, (i) unemployed persons are classified according to their previous industry which may not necessarily be the one which he/she will enter, and (ii) there is no information on previous industry in respect of first-time job-seekers and re-entrants into the labour force who were unemployed, such rates are not strictly comparable to the overall unemployment rate and should be interpreted with caution.
(5) Wage includes basic wage; commission and tips not of gratuitous nature; guaranteed bonuses and allowances, and overtime allowances. Monthly wages are rounded to the nearest hundred of Hong Kong dollar.
(6) Before 2011, the number of working hours was defined to cover contractual/agreed working hours and overtime hours worked at the direction of employers. Meal breaks were excluded if no work was done or to be done during the time period concerned. Starting from 2011, taking into account the definition of hours worked under the Minimum Wage Ordinance, meal breaks which are regarded as working hours according to the employment contract or agreement with the employer are also included in the working hours, irrespective of whether work is provided during the meal break period.
(7) The average is more vulnerable to the effect of extreme observations (that is, those with exceptionally high or low values). Hence, the median is adopted to measure the central tendency of data. In comparison, the median is considered more superior to average (or mean) as it is less affected by extreme values.
(8) Statistics of median monthly wage and median weekly working hours are compiled based on the data obtained from the Annual Earnings and Hours Survey (AEHS). The AEHS has been conducted yearly since 2009. Hence, statistics for 2008 or before are not available.
(9) The following industries are covered by the "food and beverage service activities" figures from AEHS: Hong Kong style tea cafes, Chinese restaurants, restaurants other than Chinese, and fast food cafes.
# Less than 0.05%.
Source: Census and Statistics Department
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 95
Training of Technical Personnel
11. MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Chinese): President, recently, a number of trade unions have relayed to me that as the Government has all along overlooked vocational training, Hong Kong will experience the ageing of and a succession gap among technical personnel in the next few years, and there is hearsay that the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (EMSD) also encounters difficulties in recruiting new blood to join the department, thus seriously affecting the economic development and urban infrastructure of Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the respective numbers of craftsmen, technicians, assistant engineers and engineers recruited by the EMSD each year from 2008 to 2012, with a breakdown by the age groups listed in Table 1, as well as their average ages respectively;
Table 1 Number of technical staff recruited by the EMSD Assistant Year: Craftsmen Technicians Engineers Engineers 29 years old or
below 30 to 39 years old 40 to 49 years old 50 to 59
years old of persons Number 60 years old or above Total number of persons Average age
(b) whether it knows the number of basic craft courses (BCCs) organized by the Vocational Training Council (VTC) and the number of places offered by such courses each year from 2008 to 2012; the number of graduates of such courses joining the Apprenticeship Scheme; and the employment rates of such trainees in the relevant 96 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
trades after completing the apprenticeship programmes (set out in Table 2);
Table 2 Information on BCCs organized each year from 2008 to 2012: Number of Employment Number graduates rates of such Course Number Year of joining the trainees in the title of places courses Apprenticeship relevant Scheme trades 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
(c) whether it knows the number of part-time craft programmes organized by the VTC and the number of places offered by such programmes each year from 2008 to 2012;
(d) whether it knows the work done by the VTC, the Employees Retraining Board (ERB) and the Education Bureau respectively in publicizing and promoting the Apprenticeship Scheme, retraining courses and the New Senior Secondary (NSS) academic structure as well as the expenditure from 2008 to 2012 (set out separately in Table 3);
Table 3 Information in each year from 2008 to 2012 Work done by Work done by Work done by the Education the VTC in the ERB in Bureau in Year: publicizing the publicizing publicizing the Apprenticeship retraining NSS academic Scheme courses structure Publicity expenditure Number of times publicity videos were broadcast on television LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 97
Work done by Work done by Work done by the Education the VTC in the ERB in Bureau in Year: publicizing the publicizing publicizing the Apprenticeship retraining NSS academic Scheme courses structure Number of times advertisements were placed in newspapers and magazines Number of promotional activities held in secondary schools Number of publicity activities held in shopping malls or streets
(e) whether it knows if the VTC or other training bodies had jointly organized in the past three years any apprenticeship or other vocational training programme with public utilities such as the MTR Corporation Limited, Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited, New World First Bus Services Limited, CLP Power Hong Kong Limited, Hongkong Electric Company Limited and the Hong Kong and China Gas Company Limited, and so on; if so, of a list of the titles and number of trainees of such programmes by year; and
(f) of the new measures in place to attract young people to join the apprenticeship programmes, so as to actively nurture technical personnel in Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, the Government is committed to providing flexible and multiple study pathways with multiple entry and exit points for young people. Apart from conventional academic programmes, vocational education plays a pivotal role in equipping young people with a solid foundation to join different industries best suited to their interests. 98 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
In terms of vocational training, the Government encourages the provision of comprehensive and diversified vocational training opportunities by different sectors of the community, with a view to meeting the development needs of both the society and the industries.
(a) According to the information provided by the Development Bureau, the numbers and age groups of artisans/senior artisans, technicians, assistant engineers and engineers newly recruited by the EMSD each year from 2008 to 2012 are at Annex 1.
(b) Statistics on electrical and mechanical (E&M) services-related full-time BCCs offered by the VTC and relevant graduates registered under the Apprenticeship Scheme from 2008 to 2012 are at Annex 2. The VTC also offers full-time BCCs related to other trades, but some of them are not designated trades under the Apprenticeship Scheme.
(c) Statistics on E&M services-related part-time craft programmes offered by the VTC from 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 academic years are at Annex 3.
(d) Expenses and statistics on publicity efforts for the Apprenticeship Scheme, retraining courses and the NSS academic structure from 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 financial years are at Annex 4.
(e) At present, the VTC does not offer any joint vocational training programmes in collaboration with public utilities. Nonetheless, many public utilities encourage their employees to join existing programmes offered by the VTC. Relevant statistics from 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 financial years are at Annex 5.
In addition, the Construction Industry Council (CIC) has launched the Contractors Cooperative Training Scheme (CCTS) in collaboration with contractors. Under the CCTS, contractors hire trainees and provide them with relevant training at construction sites. Training allowances and other training expenses are provided by the CIC to the trainees and contractors respectively. Various public utilities and public bodies including the MTR Corporation Limited, Airport Authority Hong Kong, Urban Renewal Authority, the Hong Kong and China Gas Company Limited, and so on, encourage their LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 99
works contractors to participate in the CCTS for training of local construction workers. From 2011 to September 2013, the CIC has approved over 400 relevant training places under the CCTS for contractors of the public utilities and public bodies.
(f) The VTC has been actively exploring new measures to promote the Apprenticeship Scheme and attract young people who are interested in developing a career in relevant trades. It will continue its publicity efforts through media, talks and other activities. Apart from the statutory Apprenticeship Scheme, the VTC has launched a pilot traineeship scheme for the service industries at the end of 2011, with beauty care and hairdressing industries as the starting point. Under the scheme, structured on-the-job training and relevant vocational training courses are provided to young people aged 15 years old or above. The VTC is in consultation with other service industries facing labour shortage on the feasibility and arrangement of extending the pilot traineeship scheme to these industries.
On the other hand, the EMSD and 17 organizations have set up a Working Group for the Promotion of E&M industry in Hong Kong in 2012. The organizations include MTR Corporation Limited, CLP Power Hong Kong Limited, Hongkong Electric Company Limited, Hong Kong and China Gas Company Limited, Water Supplies Department, VTC's Office of the Director of Apprenticeship, the CIC, The Institute of the Motor Industry Hong Kong, seven E&M contractors' associations, The Federation of Hong Kong E&M Industries Trade Unions, and EMSD Apprentice Association. A two-day exhibition on "Hong Kong's E&M Industry (Technical Personnel) ― Career and Development" was held in March 2013, attracting an attendance rate of more than 2 700. The Working Group has also launched its dedicated website, Facebook page and mobile application to enhance public knowledge about the E&M industry and to encourage more young people to join E&M services-related apprentice training. These channels provided a useful platform for the promotion of the industry in recruiting apprentices in 2013. The recruitment exercise achieved satisfactory results, with a significant increase in the number of applications received from around 600 in 2012 to over 2 400 100 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
applications in 2013. The Working Group will prepare a plan for upcoming publicity activities to attract more young people to join the industry.
In addition, the EMSD has renamed its "apprentice" as "technician trainee" in the 2012 recruitment exercise with a view to making its apprentice training more attractive to young people. In the 2013 recruitment exercise, the EMSD introduced a four-year training programme targeting graduates of the NSS academic structure as well as enhanced the remuneration package to attract more young people to join the industry. The EMSD recruited 122 and 184 technician trainees in 2012 and 2013 respectively.
Annex 1
Numbers and age groups of artisans/senior artisans, technicians, assistant engineers and engineers newly recruited by the EMSD each year from 2008 to 2012
Artisan/ Assistant Year: 2008 Technician Engineer Senior Artisan Engineer 29 years old or below 1 90 35 5 30 to 39 years old 27 13 1 19 40 to 49 years old 14 7 0 17
50 to 59 years old persons 9 0 0 1 Number of 60 years old or above 0 0 0 0 Total 51 110 36 42 Average age 40 27 26 38
Artisan/ Assistant Year: 2009 Technician Engineer Senior Artisan Engineer 29 years old or below 23 137 7 4 30 to 39 years old 27 48 3 22 40 to 49 years old 16 18 0 16
50 to 59 years old persons 3 6 0 2 Number of 60 years old or above 0 0 0 0 Total 69 209 10 44 Average age 35 30 27 38
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 101
Artisan/ Assistant Year: 2010 Technician Engineer Senior Artisan Engineer 29 years old or below 3 55 32 2 30 to 39 years old 9 15 2 33 40 to 49 years old 6 2 0 12
50 to 59 years old persons 3 1 0 0 Number of 60 years old or above 0 0 0 0 Total 21 73 34 47 Average age 39 28 27 37
Artisan/ Assistant Year: 2011 Technician Engineer Senior Artisan Engineer 29 years old or below 36 65 28 0 30 to 39 years old 30 21 3 26 40 to 49 years old 15 8 0 7
50 to 59 years old persons 4 1 0 0 Number of 60 years old or above 0 0 0 0 Total 85 95 31 33 Average age 34 29 27 36
Artisan/ Assistant Year: 2012 Technician Engineer Senior Artisan Engineer 29 years old or below 1 55 31 1 30 to 39 years old 1 9 0 13 40 to 49 years old 0 0 0 5
50 to 59 years old persons 0 0 0 0 Number of 60 years old or above 0 0 0 0 Total 2 64 31 19 Average age 32 25 26 37
Annex 2
Statistics on E&M services-related full-time BCCs offered by the VTC and relevant graduates registered under the Apprenticeship Scheme from 2008 to 2012
Number of E&M Academic year services-related full-time Number of planned places BCCs 2008-2009 8 1 930 2009-2010 6 1 810 102 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Number of E&M Academic year services-related full-time Number of planned places BCCs 2010-2011 6 2 170 2011-2012 6 1 380 2012-2013 6 2 080
Number of graduates Employment rates of Financial Year registered in the apprentices in relevant trades Apprenticeship Scheme 2008-2009 964 98% 2009-2010 881 99% 2010-2011 778 99% 2011-2012 831 98% 2012-2013 525 97%
Annex 3
Statistics on E&M services-related part-time craft programmes offered by VTC from 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 academic years
Number of E&M Academic year services-related part-time craft Number of planned places programmes 2008-2009 8 2 180 2009-2010 8 2 020 2010-2011 10 2 170 2011-2012 10 2 240 2012-2013 10 2 420
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 103
Annex 4
Expenses and statistics on publicity efforts for Apprenticeship Scheme, retraining courses and NSS academic structure from 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 financial years
Publicity for NSS Publicity for Publicity for academic Apprenticeship Financial year retraining courses structure by the Scheme by the by the ERB Education VTC(1) Bureau(5) 2008-2009 152,000 11,617,400 4,870,000 2009-2010 136,000 14,515,600 5,780,000 Publicity expenses 2010-2011 73,000 9,651,300 4,830,000 ($) 2011-2012 167,000 9,807,200 8,930,000 2012-2013 148,000 11,994,514 4,490,000 2008-2009 -- 2 17 Number of publicity 2009-2010 -- 2 12 videos broadcast on 2010-2011 -- 1 7 television 2011-2012 -- -- 7 channels(2) 2012-2013 -- -- 12 Number of times 2008-2009 4 45 12 advertisements were 2009-2010 4 129 1 placed in 2010-2011 -- (3) 96 6 newspapers and 2011-2012 4 128 7 magazines 2012-2013 -- 95 16 2008-2009 13 -- -- Number of 2009-2010 14 -- (4) More than 60 promotional 2010-2011 14 -- More than 70 activities held in 2011-2012 14 4 More than 70 secondary schools 2012-2013 19 44 More than 74 2008-2009 -- 34 8 Number of publicity 2009-2010 -- 42 4 activities held in 2010-2011 -- 36 -- shopping malls or 2011-2012 -- 115 -- streets 2012-2013 -- 117 --
Notes:
(1) In addition to publicity efforts listed in the table, the VTC organizes a variety of publicity activities, such as the "Skills Show" introducing specialized skills of various trades. Young people could have an interactive experience in practising the skills under the guidance of professional technicians at the event. Besides, the VTC organizes the "Outstanding Apprentices/Trainees Award" annually. Awardees are invited to share their experience at various occasions such as media interviews, sharing sessions and briefing sessions for promotion of the Apprenticeship Scheme.
104 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
(2) The ERB and the Education Bureau do not maintain a record of the number of times for which the promotional videos were broadcasted. Only the number of promotional videos can be provided.
(3) The VTC also arranged the media to attend publicity activities and conduct interviews for more effective promotion of the Apprenticeship Scheme.
(4) The ERB started organizing publicity activities in secondary schools in the 2011-2012 financial year.
(5) In addition to publicity efforts listed in the table, the Education Bureau disseminated key information on the new academic structure through different channels, such as professional development programmes for principals and teachers of secondary schools, new academic structure "334" web bulletin, pamphlets on useful tips for parents and frequently asked questions, DVDs, government promotional videos and audios, roving exhibitions, interactive regional parents' seminars, and so on.
Annex 5
Statistics on employees of public utilities joining vocational training programmes offered by the VTC from 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 financial years
Number of employees joining the Relevant programmes of Public utilities programmes the VTC 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 MTR - Mechanical Engineering Corporation - Building Services Limited Engineering - Civil Engineering 65 111 76 - Electronic and Communication Engineering - Electrical Engineering Kowloon - Automotive Technology Motor Bus - Mechanical Engineering 91 84 71 Company (1933) Limited Citybus - Automotive Technology 16 13 13 Limited New World - Automotive Technology First Bus 10 19 16 Services Limited LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 105
Number of employees joining the Relevant programmes of Public utilities programmes the VTC 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 CLP Power - Electrical Engineering Hong Kong 8 14 13 Limited Hongkong - Electrical Engineering Electric 3 3 4 Company Limited Hong Kong - Gas Services Engineering and China Gas - Electrical Engineering 29 31 33 Company Limited Total 222 275 226
Note:
The above figures only include the number of employees registered under the Apprenticeship Scheme.
Immigration Statistics
12. MR GARY FAN (in Chinese): President, regarding figures on the migrant population and the immigration policy of Hong Kong, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) in each year from 2003 to August 2013, of the number of people who had come to Hong Kong for settlement on One-way Permits (OWPs) (set out in Table 1), and the respective numbers of people who had applied and had been given approval for entry to/staying in Hong Kong under the (i) Quality Migrant Admission Scheme (QMAS), (ii) Capital Investment Entrant Scheme (CIES), (iii) Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals (ASMTP), and (iv) Immigration Arrangements for Non-local Graduates (IANG) (set out in Table 2);
106 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
(Table 1) Year Number of people coming to Hong Kong on OWPs 2003 … … 2013 (as at August)
(Table 2) Means Number of people of entry (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
Application Approval Application Approval Application Approval Application Approval submitted granted submitted granted submitted granted submitted granted
Year 2003 … … 2013 (as at August)
(b) of the distribution of the country or territory of origin of those people who had been granted approval to enter Hong Kong by means of the (i) QMAS, (ii) CIES, and (iii) IANG, from 2003 to August 2013 (set out in Table 3);
(Table 3) Means Number of people of entry
Country/ (i) (ii) (iii) territory of origin Mainland Taiwan Japan and South Korea Russia Middle East Europe Africa LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 107
Means Number of people of entry
Country/ (i) (ii) (iii) territory of origin Australasia Southeast Asia South America North America Others
(c) among the Mainland people who came to Hong Kong for settlement on OWPs from 2003 to August 2013, of the annual numbers of those who had been granted entry to Hong Kong for reasons other than family reunion, and the five most common reasons for granting these people entry to Hong Kong (for example, collection of estate, unsupported children coming to Hong Kong to join their relatives, and so on) and the respective numbers of the people concerned (set out in Table 4);
(Table 4) Reasons for granting entry Number of people concerned 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
(d) given that Article 22(4) of the Basic Law provides that: "[f]or entry into the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, people from other parts of China must apply for approval. Among them, the number of persons who enter the Region for the purpose of settlement shall be determined by the competent authorities of the Central People's Government after consulting the government of the Region", whether the SAR Government has held discussions with the Central People's Government since the reunification so as to adjust 108 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
the quota for Mainland people coming to Hong Kong for settlement on OWPs and the related policies; if not, of the reasons for that;
(e) of the respective numbers of live births born to Mainland women whose spouses were not Hong Kong permanent residents ("doubly non-permanent resident (DNR) babies") in public and private hospitals in Hong Kong in each year from 2003 to August 2013, and the relevant monthly figures from January 2012 to August 2013 (set out in Tables 5 and 6);
(Table 5) Number of DNR babies born in Hong Kong Year public hospitals private hospitals 2003 … 2013 (as at August)
(Table 6) Number of DNR babies born in Hong Kong Year Month public hospitals private hospitals 2012 1 . . . 2013 1 . . . 8
(f) among the non-local graduates who had been granted approval to stay and work in Hong Kong by the means of entry under (iv) mentioned in part (a), of the respective numbers of those attending publicly-funded and self-financing undergraduate programmes; and
(g) given that it has been reported that some Mainland people have been granted OWPs for settlement in Hong Kong despite having criminal records in Hong Kong, whether mechanisms are in place in respect LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 109
of the five existing means of applying for entry to Hong Kong mentioned in part (a) to reject the entry of those people with criminal records in Hong Kong or overseas; if not, of the reasons for that, and whether the SAR Government and the Mainland authorities have plans to set up such mechanisms?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, the reply is as follows:
(a) From 2003 to August 2013, the number of arrivals on the strength of OWP is as follows:
Year Number of arrivals on the strength of OWPs 2003 53 307 2004 38 072 2005 55 106 2006 54 170 2007 33 865 2008 41 610 2009 48 587 2010 42 624 2011 43 379 2012 54 646 2013 30 668 (Up to August)
From 2003 to August 2013, the number of applications received and quotas and applications approved under the (i) QMAS; (ii) CIES; (iii) ASMTP; and (iv) IANG are as follows:
Means Number of people of entry (i)(1) (ii)(2) (iii)(3) (iv)(4)
Application Quota Application Application Application Application Application Application submitted allotted submitted granted submitted granted submitted granted
Year 2003 - - 150 19 1 762 1 350 - - 2004 - - 465 272 4 470 3 745 - - 2005 - - 495 307 4 659 4 029 - - 2006 587 83 800 380 5 709 5 031 - - 2007 627 239 1 795 822 6 698 6 075 - - 2008 1 358 564 2 798 1 547 7 722 6 744 2 917 2 758 110 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Means Number of people of entry (i)(1) (ii)(2) (iii)(3) (iv)(4)
Application Quota Application Application Application Application Application Application submitted allotted submitted granted submitted granted submitted granted
Year 2009 1 296 593 3 391 2 606 8 055 6 514 3 315 3 367 2010 1 177 329 6 706 2 971 8 396 7 445 4 033 3 976 2011 1 674 286 3 384 4 187 9 591 8 088 5 313 5 258 2012 1 965 298 6 508 3 804 10 461 8 105 6 803 6 756 2013 (up to 1 248 161 4 560 2 357 6 779 5 157 6 213 6 156 August)
Notes:
(1) The QMAS was implemented on 28 June 2006.
(2) The CIES was implemented on 27 October 2003.
(3) The ASMTP was implemented on 15 July 2003.
(4) The IANG was implemented on 19 May 2008.
(b) From 2003 to August 2013, the distribution of the nationality/region of those people who had been allotted quota or approved to enter Hong Kong by means of the (i) QMAS; (ii) CIES; and (iii) IANG are as follows:
Means of entry Number of people
Nationality/ (i) (ii) (iii)(3) Region Mainland 1 997 16 807(2) 26 857 Asia-Pacific(1) 291 1 513 North America 163 552 Europe 94 294 1 414 South America 3 77 Africa 5 29
Notes:
(1) Excluding the Mainland.
(2) Chinese nationals who apply to settle in Hong Kong through the CIES must have obtained overseas permanent residency.
(3) The Immigration Department (ImmD) does not keep statistics on the nationality/region, apart from the Mainland, of people who enter Hong Kong through IANG.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 111
(c) The policy objective of the OWP scheme is family reunion. Under this policy objective, the Mainland authorities have since May 1997 implemented a point-based system, setting out open and transparent criteria to objectively assess the eligibility and priority of applicants. The Mainland authorities also announce on the Internet the points required for approval of OWP applications. According to the survey conducted on new arrivals on the strength of OWP by the ImmD at Lo Wu boundary control point, about half (49.4%) of them reunited with their spouses and half reunited with their parents (48.8%), while a small number reunited with their children or were unsupported children coming to Hong Kong to join their relatives (1.8%).
(d) The Administration has all along been exchanging views on the OWP policy with the Mainland authorities, and reflects to them the views of various sectors of society as appropriate. The Mainland authorities have from time to time adjusted and refined the OWP scheme. For example, in response to the request for Mainland "overage children" to reunite with their parents in Hong Kong, starting from 1 April 2011, the Mainland authorities have allowed eligible "overage children" to apply for OWP in an orderly manner, utilizing residual OWP quota.
(e) The ImmD does not keep the breakdown of statistical figures by public and private hospital in Hong Kong for live births born to Mainland women whose spouses are not Hong Kong permanent residents. The number of babies born in Hong Kong to Mainland women from 2003 to July 2013 is at Annex I and Annex II.
(f) The ImmD does not keep statistics on the types of degree programmes that people approved to enter Hong Kong through the IANG enrolled in previously.
(g) The Mainland and Hong Kong have set up a notification mechanism since the 1990s to regularly provide the Mainland public security authorities with the particulars of those persons who breach the law in Hong Kong for their follow-up action. These persons will not be issued travel documents to visit Hong Kong (including exit entry permit and OWP) for periods ranging from two to five years. The 112 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
ImmD will prudently process all entry applications, including assessing whether the applicant has an adverse record, and will prevent Mainlanders from engaging in illegal activities in Hong Kong through liaison between law-enforcement authorities of the Mainland and Hong Kong.
Annex I
Number of live births born in Hong Kong to Mainland women from 2003 to 2013
Number of live births born in Hong Kong to Mainland women(1) Whose spouses are Whose spouses are not Year Hong Kong Permanent Hong Kong Permanent Others(3) Sub-total Residents Residents(2) 2003 7 962 2 070 96 10 128 2004 8 896 4 102 211 13 209 2005 9 879 9 273 386 19 538 2006 9 438 16 044 650 26 132 2007 7 989 18 816 769 27 574 2008 7 228 25 269 1 068 33 565 2009 6 213 29 766 1 274 37 253 2010 6 169 32 653 1 826 40 648 2011 6 110 35 736 2 136 43 982 2012 4 698 26 715 1 786 33 199 2013 2 667 492 24 3 183 (up to July)
Notes:
(1) Based on the birth registration from the ImmD.
(2) Include Hong Kong non-permanent residents (persons from the Mainland having resided in Hong Kong for less than seven years being grouped in this category) and non-Hong Kong residents.
(3) Mainland mothers chose not to provide the father's residential status during birth registration.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 113
Annex II
Number of live births born in Hong Kong to Mainland women in 2012 and 2013 (by month)
Number of live births born in Hong Kong to Mainland women(1) Whose spouses are Whose spouses are not Year Month Hong Kong Hong Kong Others(3) Sub-total Permanent Residents Permanent Residents(2) 2012 1 357 2 266 131 2 754 2 368 2 440 159 2 967 3 410 2 451 170 3 031 4 345 2 210 175 2 730 5 380 2 473 180 3 033 6 340 2 308 157 2 805 7 325 2 410 158 2 893 8 399 2 408 142 2 949 9 402 1 894 139 2 435 10 427 2 141 149 2 717 11 499 2 173 135 2 807 12 446 1 541 91 2 078
2013 1 433 201 12 646 2 346 40 2 388 3 362 48 3 413 4 382 39 1 422 5 372 47 3 422 6 328 55 1 384 7 444 62 2 508
Notes:
(1) Based on the birth registration from the ImmD.
(2) Include Hong Kong non-permanent residents (persons from the Mainland having resided in Hong Kong for less than seven years being grouped in this category) and non-Hong Kong residents.
(3) Mainland mothers chose not to provide the father's residential status during birth registration.
114 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Promotion of Cycling Tourism
13. MR YIU SI-WING (in Chinese): President, I have learnt that as cycling tourism is recognized as an environment-friendly and healthy sport, quite a number of countries are actively planning and developing cycle track facilities. The Civil Engineering and Development Department is developing by phases the cycle track network in the New Territories according to the pledge in the policy agenda for 2007-2008. Works relating to the sections from Sheung Shui to Ma On Shan and from Tuen Mun to Sheung Shui are expected to be completed by the end of 2013 and 2016 respectively. By then, there will be a cycle track network with a total length of 82 km in the New Territories. On the other hand, the Government is gradually reducing the coverage of the Frontier Closed Area (FCA) in the New Territories. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it has any plan to extend the cycle track network to areas which are no longer within FCA; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(b) whether it has any plan to incorporate the development of cycle tracks into the relevant planning when developing the harbourfront areas; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(c) whether it has formulated new measures to manage cycle tracks to tie in with the continuous expansion and development of cycle tracks; whether it will, with reference to overseas experience, set up a public bicycle hiring system and promote cycling tourism; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(d) whether it has formulated publicity plans to promote cycling tourism; if it has; of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) is developing in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 115 phases a 104 km cycle track network in the New Territories for recreational purpose. The proposed network comprises a backbone section of approximately 82 km running from Ma On Shan to Tsuen Wan via Shatin, Tai Po, Fan Ling, Sheung Shui, Yuen Long and Tuen Mun, plus a few branch-off sections measuring about 22 km altogether. According to the CEDD, construction of the section between Ma On Shan and Sheung Shui is underway and is scheduled for completion by the end of 2013. As regards the section from Tuen Mun to Sheung Shui, the first phase of works will commence in end-2013 for completion in end-2016. The remaining sections are in preliminary or detailed design stage.
My reply to the various parts of Mr YIU Si-wing's question is as follows:
(a) and (b)
According to the Development Bureau, the "Study on Land Use Planning for the Closed Area" completed by the Planning Department in 2010 has preliminarily proposed that two cycle track sections be built, one in the east and another in the west of the Study Area (see attached Annex). The western section connects with the major cycle track network along Castle Peak Road in the New Territories, while the eastern section links up the cycle track network in the future Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling New Development Area via Lin Ma Hang Road. The feasibility of this proposal is yet to be examined, such as connection with existing/proposed cycle track networks and other road improvement plans. There is no concrete plan at the moment.
When planning the development of harbourfront areas, the Government will carefully consider the feasibility of constructing cycle track. Where circumstances allow, the Government will provide cycle track and related facilities for the public to use bicycles for recreational or short-distance travelling purposes. Factors to be taken into consideration include compatibility with overall development of the districts and adjacent land uses, ancillary 116 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
facilities, geographical environment, road safety, traffic management arrangements and public views.
(c) Currently, cycle tracks are managed by relevant departments according to their respective enforcement powers and functions. For example, traffic management for cycle tracks along public roads is taken care of by the Transport Department (TD), maintenance by the Highways Department and enforcement by the Police. Moreover, the Road Safety Council, the police and the TD promote public awareness of cycling safety through publicity and education with a view to minimizing bicycle-related accidents.
In 2010, the TD commissioned a consultancy study entitled "Traffic and Transport Consultancy Study on Cycling Networks and Parking Facilities in Existing New Towns in Hong Kong". Among other things, overseas experience was drawn to examine the feasibility of developing a public bicycle rental system in new towns. Conclusions of the study are as follows:
(i) A public bicycle rental system needs to provide rental service at numerous locations to facilitate rental, return and change of bicycles by locals and tourists. Only then would the system attract patronage.
(ii) A public bicycle rental system requires frequent transfer of bicycles to balance the number of bicycles available for rent at different public rental points. Bicycle maintenance and the provision of backup bicycles are also required to replace those to be repaired or stolen. The operational costs would be relatively higher.
(iii) The existing private rental services can already meet the current market demand, and so there is no need for a public rental system.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 117
The land in Hong Kong is so limited that the requirement to provide public rental points at numerous locations is difficult to fulfil. We are also mindful that there is an increasing public demand for bicycle parking spaces. Given the increasing popularity of cycling, the Transport and Housing Bureau will explore ways to improve and enhance the existing "cycling-friendly" policy and measures.
(d) The Tourism Commission partners with the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department and the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) in promoting nature-based green tourism activities via the HKTB's marketing platform "Great Outdoors Hong Kong!". The HKTB introduces through different channels, such as websites, guide books, smartphone apps and visitor centres, the various green sightseeing spots, as well as green tourism activities that are free of charge or organized by the industry. Such activities include "Hong Kong Biking Tour", a cycling tour for visitors to see migratory birds and characteristic walled villages in the Northwest New Territories and to enjoy dim sum meals in Yuen Long. The HKTB will also introduce guided cycling tours for visitors through "Great Outdoors Hong Kong!".
At present, cycling tourism is not popular among inbound visitors. It is more appealing to long-haul markets, including nature lovers from North America, Europe and Australia. However, the HKTB will continue to promote selected cycling tour routes via the "Great Outdoors Hong Kong!" platform. The HKTB believes that upon the full completion of the aforementioned works by the CEDD in connecting the cycle tracks in the Northwest and Northeast New Territories, the overall cycling experience enjoyed by members of the public will be enhanced, thereby bringing positive impact to the promotion of cycling tourism.
118 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Annex
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 119
Disbursement of Pay to Members of Auxiliary Medical Service Attending Training
14. MR POON SIU-PING (in Chinese): President, recently, I have received complaints from members of the Auxiliary Medical Service (AMS) who alleged that the management staff of the AMS had requested AMS members to attend, without compensation, training and briefing sessions (training) in relation to some large-scale events and asked them to sign the Non-claim Consent Form (commonly called "blue shift form") to state that they voluntarily give up the relevant pay, and that those members refusing to sign the Form would lose the opportunities for taking part in the related duties. However, according to section 9 of the Auxiliary Forces Pay and Allowances Ordinance (Cap. 254) (the Ordinance), members are eligible to be paid while undergoing training. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of AMS members who were on duty in various territory-wide large-scale events (such as the Standard Chartered Hong Kong Marathon, Oxfam Trailwalker, and so on.) in the past three years and, among them, the number of members who had signed the Non-claim Consent Form; and
(b) of the criteria adopted by the management staff of the AMS for deciding to request members to sign the Non-claim Consent Form, and whether they have assessed if such a practice has violated the aforesaid provision of the Ordinance?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, the AMS is an auxiliary service under the Security Bureau of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, which recruits voluntary members in accordance with the Auxiliary Medical Service Ordinance (Cap. 517). In general, members take part in AMS duties or training on a voluntary basis.
According to sections 7 and 9 of the Auxiliary Forces Pay and Allowances Ordinance (Cap. 254), an AMS member shall be eligible to claim the relevant pay and allowance while voluntarily on duty or undergoing training. However, members may voluntarily give up their pay and allowances for personal reasons. To this end, when arranging duties or training for members, the management staff of the AMS will inform participants in advance that they may, in view of their personal reasons, decide whether to sign the Non-claim Consent Form (Consent 120 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Form) or not. The purpose of completing the Consent Form is to allow individual members to record their voluntary service or training even if they choose not to claim for any pay and allowances. The rights of members are clearly stated in the Consent Form, including whether they will voluntarily give up their pay and allowances. Members' use of the Consent Form is completely voluntary and such a Form shall be signed by the member concerned and his/her unit head as confirmation. The management staff of the AMS will not take the initiative to request members to sign the Consent Form.
As members' participation in duties and training is voluntary, and since members may, in view of their personal reasons, decide whether to claim their pay and allowances or to give them up by signing the Consent Form, such an arrangement is by no token a violation against the relevant provisions of the Auxiliary Forces Pay and Allowances Ordinance.
Figures of AMS members who were on duty in large-scale events in the past three years and, among them, the number of members who had signed the Consent Form are as follows:
2010 2011 2012 Standard Chartered Number of members 474 576 664 Marathon on duty Number of members 32 19 32 having signed the Consent Form Oxfam Trailwalker Number of members 354 358 362 on duty Number of members 8 8 7 having signed the Consent Form Lunar New Year Number of members 220 191 214 Fireworks Display on duty Number of members 3 2 1 having signed the Consent Form National Day Number of members 218 263 217 Fireworks Display on duty Number of members 3 2 6 having signed the Consent Form
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 121
Issuance of Additional Free Television Programme Licences
15. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Chinese): President, this Council passed a motion last November urging the Government to undertake to issue additional domestic free television programme service licences (free TV licences) by the end of March this year, and the Chief Executive has also indicated earlier that the applications would be handled expeditiously. However, some members of the public have relayed to me that while opening up the domestic free television market has already been a general consensus, the Government has been procrastinating on the issuance of free TV licences as the vetting and approval results are still pending after the applications have been processed for more than two years, and no detailed account of the progress has been made public throughout the period. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the progress of the issuance of additional free TV licences by the Government since last November; why the vetting and approval of applications has taken such a long time;
(b) given the press report that the Chief Executive in Council discussed last month the procedure for the issuance of free TV licences, whether the Executive Council Secretariat has provided any information or support to assist the Chief Executive in Council in the deliberations on the issue; if so, of the details; and
(c) given that the Communications Authority has ruled earlier that the Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) violated the competition provisions of the Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap. 562) and has imposed a fine of $900,000, but some members of the public have queried if the aforesaid ruling can prevent TVB from abusing its dominance, whether the Government will issue additional free TV licence shortly to reverse the situation in which the market is dominated by one television broadcaster; if it will, of the specific timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, Hong Kong Television Network Limited, Fantastic Television Limited and HK Television Entertainment Company Limited have each submitted an application for a domestic free television programme service 122 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 licence (hereinafter referred to as the "three applications"). The former Broadcasting Authority (that is, the predecessor of the Communications Authority (CA)), after taking into account various relevant factors and in accordance with the Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap. 562) (BO) and established procedures, has earlier completed the assessment of the three applications, and submitted recommendations thereon to the Chief Executive in Council.
My reply to the three-part question is as follows:
(a) and (b)
The Administration has been processing the three applications expeditiously and prudently in accordance with the BO and established procedures. As the Administration has repeatedly explained on various occasions, the processing of the three applications involves complicated issues, including those relating to statutory requirements and procedural fairness, which require time for careful handling. Since the three applications are still being considered by the Chief Executive in Council, it is inappropriate at this stage for the Government to respond to the relevant media reports.
(c) It has been the Government's established broadcasting policy to promote the sustainable development of the local broadcasting industry and encourage fair competition, investment and adoption of innovative technologies in the industry, thereby bringing more choices of quality programmes to the public. Such a policy has remained unchanged. Besides, there are provisions in the BO to deal with anti-competitive conduct in the broadcasting industry. Section 13 of the BO stipulates that a licensee shall not engage in conduct which, in the opinion of the CA, has the purpose or effect of preventing, distorting or substantially restricting competition in a television programme service market. Under section 14 of the BO, a licensee in a dominant position in a television programme service market shall not abuse its position. The CA may investigate complaints about anti-competitive conduct, and may impose a fine or other penalties on a licensee found to have contravened the relevant provisions. As mentioned in the question, the CA, after its investigation in accordance with the BO, has earlier found that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 123
certain practices of the TVB have contravened the competition provisions of the BO (CA's Decision). One of the directions given in the CA's Decision is that TVB shall provide a report within four months describing and confirming the steps taken by TVB to comply with the directions of the CA. We believe that the CA will continue to keep track of the television market situation and strictly enforce the competition provisions of the BO so as to ensure that all licensees, especially those in a dominant position, are prohibited from engaging in anti-competitive practices in contravention of the legislation.
As far as the three applications are concerned, the Administration has been, as mentioned above, processing them expeditiously and prudently in strict accordance with the statutory requirements and established procedures. We will announce the outcome as soon as possible after a decision is made by the Chief Executive in Council.
Rising Property Prices and Rents
16. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Chinese): President, quite a number of members of the public have complained to me that despite the introduction of a series of measures to cool down the overheated property market in the last two years by the Government, the prices and rents of private residential flats have not dropped. Moreover, quite a number of recipients under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme have also complained to me in tears that the rent allowance they received from the Social Welfare Department was insufficient to cover the rent of a unit in sub-divided flats (commonly known as a "sub-divided unit"), forcing them to sleep underneath flyovers. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it knows the respective current numbers of street sleepers in the District Council districts in Hong Kong;
(b) given that some members of the public have pointed out that the prices and rents of private residential flats have not dropped after the introduction of a series of measures to cool down the overheated property market by the Government, whether it has assessed if the current prices and rents of private residential flats have already 124 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
reached a level beyond the affordability of members of the public, and if such a situation is due to the Directors of Bureaux or government officials concerned misjudging the circumstances and making a series of mistakes in housing policy; if the assessment result is in the affirmative, whether it will hold the Chief Executive and Directors of Bureaux concerned politically accountable and require them to step down; if the assessment result is in the negative, of the reasons for that; and whether the Government has evaluated by how much the current property prices and rents should further rise before they are considered unreasonable; if it has, of the results;
(c) whether it knows the average monthly rental per-square-foot for sub-divided units in buildings with lifts in Sham Shui Po, Kwun Tong and Kowloon City districts at present; and
(d) of the number and percentage of CSSA recipients receiving rent allowance at present; whether it has assessed if the current rent allowance provided to single or elderly CSSA recipients is sufficient to cover the rentals for private residential flats; if the assessment result is in the affirmative, of the size of flats that those recipients can afford to rent in the districts mentioned in part (c) with the current rent allowance; if the assessment result is in the negative, whether it will raise the amount of rent allowance?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Government's housing policy objectives are to assist grass-roots families to be rehoused to public rental housing (PRH) to meet their basic housing needs; assist the public to choose accommodation according to their affordability and personal circumstances; provide subsidized home ownership flats on top of PRH so as to build a progressive housing ladder; and maintain the healthy and steady development of the private property market, with priority to be given to meet Hong Kong permanent residents' needs in the midst of tight supply.
With inputs from the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the Rating and Valuation Department (RVD), my reply to the four-part question asked by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung is as follows:
(a) In accordance with the Street Sleepers Registry maintained by the Social Welfare Department (SWD), there are 674 street sleepers LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 125
locating at various districts across the territory as at 31 August 2013. Breakdown by districts is at Annex A.
(b) The exuberant housing market in recent years reached a level of irrational exuberance last year. For the private residential property prices, in the first 10 months of 2012, the overall rise in property prices increased for 24%, representing a substantial increase of 114% comparing to the low price of 2008. The announcement of the enhanced Special Stamp Duty and the introduction of the Buyer's Stamp Duty in end-October 2012 had an immediate and significant cooling effect on the property market and the rising trend slowed. There was an increase of 26% in 2012. However, in early 2013 the property market showed signs of a return to exuberance, and there was an average monthly increase of 2.7% in the first two months of 2013. Upon the roll-out of a new round of demand-side management measures in mid-February 2013 (that is, the ad-valorem stamp duty was doubled), the housing market started to cool down substantively. At present, the property market is static, with the overall property prices movement being a very moderate 0.4% rise per month on average for March to August 2013.
The two rounds of demand-side management measures are effective in general. If the Government had not introduced these measures, the private housing market would have risen irrationally and this would increase the risk of asset bubbles. Given the global environment of low interest rates and ample liquidity, some major cities are also facing similar impact from housing market exuberance. Therefore, we must not slacken, and scrap or refine the measures easily.
The Government has been closely monitoring the development of the rental market for private residential properties and the trend of rental levels. There was an increase of 11.3% in 2012. In 2013 (as at August 2013), there was a further increase of 2.7%. The rents for private residential properties are subject to various factors including the supply and demand of rental flats, the property market sentiment, and macro-economic environment, and so on. In order to tackle the tight supply and demand situation of the residential property market at source, we fully recognize the need to increase the supply of 126 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
housing and that means making available more land for housing development. The recently-published Long Term Housing Strategy consultation document proposed the future strategic direction, including increasing the PRH production significantly so as to alleviate the hardship of the grassroots on housing.
The community (including some Legislative Members) suggested reintroducing rent control to curb rental increase. However, the Government is concerned that introducing these measures may immediately discourage landlords from letting out their premises, thus reducing the supply. In addition, landlords may increase the rental level upfront when the tenancy is entered in order to minimize the impact of the rent control in future. Under the current circumstances of tight supply, these measures are not to the advantage of persons with housing needs.
(c) The RVD and the Census and Statistics Department do not analyse the rental information for sub-divided units in buildings with lifts in Sham Shui Po, Kwun Tong and Kowloon City districts. However, according to the RVD's provisional figures as at August 2013, for the Class A(1) small-sized private domestic units as a reference, the average monthly rents for the three districts (viz. Cheung Sha Wan (including Sham Shui Po), Kowloon City and Wong Tai Sin, and Ngau Tau Kok and Kwun Tong) were $287, $228 and $248 per sq m respectively.
(d) Rent allowance is provided to eligible households to meet accommodation expenses under the CSSA Scheme. The amount of the allowance is the actual rent paid or the prescribed maximum level of rent allowance (MRA) set in accordance with the number of members in the household who are eligible for CSSA (see Annex B), whichever is the less. The Director of Social Welfare may exercise discretion to grant a rent allowance higher than the appropriate MRA to those CSSA households who are living in private housing but awaiting for compassionate rehousing or subsidized residential elderly institutions to cover their actual rent paid. As at June 2013,
(1) Class A units refer to independent dwellings with saleable area less than 40 sq m, as well as separate cooking facilities and bathroom (and/or lavatory). LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 127
there were 251 158 CSSA cases. 232 586 CSSA cases (including those living in residential institutions) received rent allowance. Amongst them, 146 472 cases (63%) were living in PRH and 34 598 (15%) lived in private housing. At present the MRA could fully cover the actual rent paid by the majority of CSSA households living in PRH (98%) and 48% of those living in private housing. The SWD does not have any information regarding the rental area of relevant private housing.
The Government adjusts the MRA annually in accordance with the movement of the Consumer Price Index (A) rent index for private housing. The SWD has increased the MRA by 5.7% and 7.8% in 2012 and 2013 respectively.
Following its first launch in October 2011, the Community Care Fund decided in September 2013 to relaunch the assistance programme "Subsidy for CSSA Recipients Living in Rented Private Housing", which aims to provide a one-off payment to CSSA households living in private housing and paying a rent exceeding the MRA under the CSSA Scheme, so as to relieve their financial burden in face of periodic rent increase. Each eligible one-person and two-or-more-person CSSA household will be provided with a one-off subsidy of $2,000 and $4,000 respectively. About 17 000 CSSA households are expected to benefit from this assistance programme.
Annex A
As at 31 August 2013, the number of registered street sleepers is 674. The breakdown by districts is as follows:
District Number of street sleepers registered Sham Shui Po 355 Yau Tsim Mong 214 Tsuen Wan 18 Kwun Tong 18 Central and Western 15 128 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
District Number of street sleepers registered Kowloon City 15 Wan Chai 12 Wong Tai Sin 10 Eastern 4 Kwai Tsing 3 Southern 2 Islands 2 Tuen Mun 2 Yuen Long 2 Tai Po 1 Northern 1 Sha Tin 0 Sai Kung 0 Total 674
Annex B Social Welfare Department CSSA Scheme Rent Allowance
Under the CSSA Scheme, a rent allowance is payable to cover the cost of accommodation. The amount of rent allowance is the actual rent paid or the maximum fixed under the Scheme, whichever is the less. With effect from 1 February 2013, the maxima are as below:
Amount per month ($) For a single person 1,440 For a family of: two eligible members 2,905 three eligible members 3,795 four eligible members 4,035 five eligible members 4,045 six or more eligible members 5,055
Government Lands in Northwest New Territories
17. MR ALBERT HO (in Chinese): President, with respect to the Government lands in the approved Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs) for (i) Pat LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 129
Heung, (ii) Shek Kong, (iii) Kam Tin South, (iv) Kam Tin North, (v) Tai Tong and (vi) Tong Yan San Tsuen, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the following information on each lot of Government land zoned for agricultural or open storage use in the aforesaid OZPs;
Name of OZP:
Current use New (for example, Address Territories Land use Area idle, leased on registered lot number specified in OZP (square short-term with Land registered (agricultural/ metre) lease and Registry with Land open storage use) others) Registry (please specify)
1. 2.
(b) whether the Government has found any illegal occupation of Government lands in the aforesaid OZPs during the period from 2005 to 31 July 2013; if so, of the number of the relevant complaints received, the number of substantiated cases and the follow-up actions taken each year; and
(c) of the respective numbers of planning applications, received, approved and rejected by the Town Planning Board from 2007 to 31 July 2013, for changing the land use of Government lands in the aforesaid OZPs from agricultural/open storage use to other uses, and a breakdown of these numbers by year and OZP?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, I reply to the various parts of the question as follows:
(a) and (b)
The question asks Government to set out information about Government land under "Agriculture" and "Open Storage" use covered by six OZPs in the Yuen Long area, including the address of 130 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
the relevant land and the New Territories lot number as registered with the Land Registry. The Land Registry is responsible for registering and providing for public inspection information on leased land (commonly referred to as "private land"). Apart from the rare exceptions of re-entered private land in accordance with the Government Rights (Re-entry and Vesting Remedies) Ordinance (Cap. 126) and bona vacantia properties, Government does not possess land registered with the Land Registry, and Government land does not carry any lot number or address. The former owner of re-entered land may apply for relief against re-entry according to the law; and the relevant persons of bona vacantia properties may re-claim the related properties, and such land seems to have little relevance to the question.
As regards land commonly referred to as Government land, that is, unleased land, the information of such land would not be registered with the Land Registry unless there is specified use for such land (such as for public facilities). Otherwise, such land would generally not be treated as individual patches of land. Moreover, the Government does not keep registers of Government land of different zonings under the various OZPs. As such, the Government cannot provide the detailed and categorized information and usage of Government land under the six OZPs as requested under this part of the question. According to the Lands Department (LandsD)'s observation, Government land zoned "Agriculture" and "Open Storage" under the six OZPs in question is situated in sporadic locations and in between private land, and is mostly covered by temporary structures, bushes, sites under Government Land Licences and Short Term Tenancies, river courses, slopes, graves, and so on.
Generally speaking, District Lands Offices (DLOs) would verify and follow up cases of unlawful occupation of Government land in accordance with applicable procedures upon receipt of complaint cases, which includes posting of notices in the area concerned in accordance with the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28) to require the occupation of the land to cease before a specified date. If the requirement as specified in the notice has not been adhered to upon expiry of the said notice, the DLOs would demolish and remove the structures and objects in occupation of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 131
land and consider prosecution. In the past 10 years, the Government cleared an average of about 5 600 cases of unlawful occupation of Government land each year. The LandsD does not separately keep statistics of the complaint cases received in respect of unlawful occupation of Government land within the area zoned "Agriculture" and "Open Storage" covered by the six OZPs.
(c) Regarding the six OZPs in question, amongst the planning applications received by the Town Planning Board from 2007 to 31 July 2013 for changing the use of land within areas zoned "Agriculture" and "Open Storage", most of the applications only involve private land or involve both private and Government land. Only a few applications involve Government land only. There are a total of 70 applications which involve both private and Government land, and four applications which only involve Government land. The relevant statistics are set out at Annex.
Annex
Statistics of planning applications involving Government land handled by the Town Planning Board within areas zoned "Agriculture" (AGR) and "Open Storage" (OS) (2007 to 31 July 2013)
Outline 2013 (As at 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Zoning 31 July) Total Plan AGR OS AGR OS AGR OS AGR OS AGR OS AGR OS AGR OS Kam Tin 2*(1) - 2(0) - - - 3(0) - 2(1) - 3*(0) - 1(1) - 13(3) North Kam Tin 3(2) - 2(0) - 3(0) - 5(0) - 2(2) - 1*(1) - 2(1*) - 18(6) South Pat Heung 0(1) - 2(0) 1(0) 1(1) - - - 2(2) 1(0) 3(1) - 2(0) 1(0) 13(5) Shek Kong ------1(0) - - - - - 1(0) Tai Tong 0(1) 1(0) 2(2) - - 1(1) 0(1) - 1(3) - 0(1) - - - 5(9) Tong Yan ------San Tsuen
Notes:
(1) Figures contained in the table are planning applications received and considered by the Town Planning Board (TPB) in accordance with the Town Planning Ordinance. Figures under brackets ( ) are planning applications rejected by the TPB. Figures marked "*" include planning applications which only involve Government land. There are four such applications during the prescribed timeframe.
(2) The table does not include one planning application of which the TPB agreed to defer consideration. The application is located within the AGR zoning of the Kam Tin North area.
132 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Transport Services for Students
18. MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Chinese): President, recently, a number of District Council members have relayed to me that they received many cases in which parents sought assistance regarding school bus service. Those parents pointed out that school bus service for the current school year is acutely inadequate, but school bus fares had surged. Due to the reduced number of vehicles providing school bus service, school bus routes had to be lengthened in order to pick up students living in various areas and as a result the students had to leave home earlier. As some schools were unable to arrange for school bus service, the parents concerned had to escort their children to and from schools, and some students were even forced to change schools. However, currently about 3 500 non-franchised public buses (NFBs) were issued with the student service (A03) endorsement (SSE), and there was no significant reduction in the number of such vehicles in the past few years. Moreover, the number of school private light buses (hereinafter referred as "nanny vans") has increased from last year's about 1 500 to the current 1 700. Some members of the public have pointed out that the shortage of school buses is mainly attributable to the fact that many public NFBs with SSE have not been used to provide student service. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the respective numbers of NFBs and nanny vans providing student service in each of the past five years;
(b) of the number of NFBs with both SSE and other service endorsements in each of the past five years; what the other service endorsements are, together with a breakdown of the numbers of NFBs by such other service endorsements;
(c) of the number of NFBs providing student service on a regular basis in each of the past five years; if it is unable to provide the relevant figures, the reasons for that;
(d) whether it has compiled statistics on the current number of students who need school bus service in order to assess if a balance between the supply and demand of school bus service has been achieved; if not, of the reasons for that; what other means by which the authorities assess whether school bus service is adequate;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 133
(e) whether the Education Bureau has established a communication mechanism with the Transport Department (TD) to gauge the supply and demand situation of school bus service in various districts and assist those schools which are unable to arrange for school bus service in solving the problem;
(f) of the plans in place to prevent the inadequacy of school bus service from worsening; and
(g) whether it will consider providing incentives or taking other measures to encourage the operators of NFBs with SSE to accord priority to the provision of transport service for students?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Government appreciates that school bus service plays an important role in carrying students to and from schools. The TD has been closely monitoring the supply situation of school buses and has made arrangements to cater for free market operation. The Education Bureau has through maintaining close contact with the TD and the schools helped parents arrange school bus service.
There are three types of vehicles for carriage of school children: (i) non-franchised public buses (public NFBs) with SSE; (ii) school private buses operated by schools or school sponsoring bodies direct; and (iii) school private light buses (SPLBs). At present, about 5 200 non-franchised buses and SPLBs can provide school bus service. They include 3 437 public NFBs with SSE, 67 school private buses and 1 700 SPLBs. While the number of public NFBs with SSE reduced from 3 577 as at end 2011 to 3 437 as at end August 2013, the number of SPLBs increased from 1 259 to 1 700 during the same period. Meanwhile, the number of students in 2012 dropped by about 5% compared with that in 2011(1). As a whole, the provision of school bus service has remained largely stable.
The reply to various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) The figure reflects the situation in mid-September of both 2011 and 2012. Students enrolled in special schools and special classes of ordinary schools are excluded as they may use private bus service for the disabled. 134 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
(a) The number of public NFBs with SSE, school private buses and SPLBs in the past five years is set out at Annex 1.
(b) Under the current regulatory regime, an operator of public NFBs may, in response to service demand and operating conditions, apply to the TD for a single or multiple service endorsement(s). This allows flexibility for a public NFB to provide different types of services according to the market situation. Such services include tour service, hotel service, student service, employees' service, international passenger service, residents' service and contract hire service.
As at end August 2013, about half of the 7 060 public NFBs in the market (that is, 3 437 in number) have SSE and can provide school bus service. Of these 3 437 public NFBs, 62 hold SSE only and the remaining 3 375 are in possession of some of the other service endorsement(s) mentioned above in addition to SSE. A summary of public NFBs with SSE in the past five years is set out at Annex 2.
(c) As mentioned in part (b) above, an operator of public NFBs may, in response to market demand, apply to the TD for a single or multiple service endorsement(s) to provide different types of services. Under the current regime, an operator is not required to report to the TD each time he/she provides school bus service. The TD therefore does not have statistics on the number of public NFBs actually providing school bus service.
(d) to (f)
At present, schools make their own arrangements for school bus service according to the needs of students and parents. The supply of school bus service depends primarily on free market operation. The Government has endeavoured to respond to market demand through the issue of service endorsements. There are, however, no statistics on the number of students in need of school bus service.
The Education Bureau has been maintaining contact with the TD and would relay to the latter from time to time the situation faced by the schools with respect to school bus service. The Education Bureau LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 135
also releases information on school bus associations obtained from the TD to schools in need so that they can contact the appropriate operators direct.
Taking into account the Education Bureau's suggestions, some schools have, in the light of their own circumstances and needs, formed a school bus network. Besides, some schools have adopted other measures to help parents arrange school bus service. They include adjusting school hours and school bus routes to attract operators, arranging the same school bus to serve different schools under the same sponsoring body, and so on.
(g) The operation of public NFB service entails considerable one-off capital investment and recurrent expenditure. The number of students using school bus service would, however, vary from time to time (some parents may choose other public transport modes). As such, requiring public NFBs with SSE to accord priority in providing school bus service may lead to a substantial increase in school bus fee. Some operators may also become reluctant to apply for SSE given the reduced flexibility in their operation.
In spite of the above, the TD has been closely monitoring the number of various types of non-franchised buses and SPLBs and has made arrangements to cater for free market operation. To allow greater flexibility for operators to deploy their buses according to demand and to increase the number of vehicles providing school bus service, the TD has since July 2012 implemented a new measure to allow an operator in possession of SSE, upon application, to use all the public NFBs meeting the relevant requirements in his/her fleet to provide school bus service. Since the implementation of this new measure, an additional 328 vehicles have been granted SSE through it.
To sum up, the Education Bureau and the TD will continue to closely monitor the demand and supply situation of school bus service and put in place all practicable and useful measures to help parents arrange transportation for their children to and from schools.
136 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Annex 1
Number of Public NFBs, school private buses and SPLBs that can provide school bus service
Year Public NFBs School SPLBs Total (as at end December) with SSE private buses 2009 3 973 73 1 112 5 158 2010 3 818 74 1 148 5 040 2011 3 577 60 1 259 4 896 2012 3 489 64 1 480 5 033 2013 3 437 67 1 700 5 204 (as at end August)
Annex 2
A summary of Public NFBs with SSE
With SSE and With SSE and With SSE and With SSE and With SSE and With SSE and Year With one other two other three other four other five other six other (as at end SSE Total service service service service service service December) only endorsement endorsements endorsements endorsements endorsements endorsements 2009 83 2 061 469 311 601 435 13 3 973 2010 77 1 966 481 297 572 423 2 3 818 2011 75 1 874 454 266 504 403 1 3 577 2012 69 1 771 555 263 493 338 0 3 489 2013 (as at end 62 1 695 568 277 523 312 0 3 437 August)
Note:
Other service endorsements include those for tour service, hotel service, employees' service, international passenger service, residents' service and contract hire service.
Regulation of Services of Intermediaries for Foreign Domestic Helpers
19. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Chinese): President, some employers of foreign domestic helpers (FDHs) have complained to me that some intermediaries for FDHs (intermediaries) were alleged to have colluded with FDHs to entice, by using various tactics, the employers into termination of the employment contracts with the FDHs, so that the FDHs could obtain free LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 137 passages to return to their places of domicile, one month's wages in lieu of notice and relevant service charges. However, those FDHs did not comply with the requirement of returning to their places of domicile. Instead, they left Hong Kong for a short while and then returned to Hong Kong to look for new employers, so as to stay in Hong Kong to work. These employers have also pointed out that certain intermediaries had included unfair terms into service agreements, for example, allowing the intermediaries to breach the agreement unilaterally without payment of compensation, or prohibiting employers from seeking a refund in case of failure of the intermediaries in providing services in the end. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of complaints received by the authorities in the past five years about FDHs not returning to their places of domicile as required, upon early termination of employment contracts with their employers; of the authorities' measures to ensure that FDHs comply with such requirement;
(b) given that the Employment Ordinance (EO) (Cap. 57) provides that an employer may summarily dismiss an employee without notice or payment of wages in lieu of notice if the employee wilfully disobeys a lawful and reasonable order, misconducts himself, is guilty of fraud or dishonesty, or is habitually neglectful in his duties, whether the authorities have studied ways to step up publicity on EO to enable employers to understand their legitimate rights and interests and the redress channels in place;
(c) of the number of complaints received by the authorities involving intermediaries in the past five years, and the major contents of such complaints; the follow-up actions taken by the authorities, and whether they have studied ways to step up regulation of intermediaries' fees and charges as well as contract terms, for example, requiring intermediaries to submit details of their fees and charges; and
(d) given that the Trade Descriptions (Unfair Trade Practices) (Amendment) Ordinance 2012 (Amendment Ordinance) has come into operation since 19 July 2013 and the services provided by intermediaries to employers are subject to regulation under the Amendment Ordinance, whether the authorities have received any 138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
complaint so far about violation of the Amendment Ordinance by intermediaries, and of the follow-up actions taken?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, my response to Dr CHIANG's enquiry is set out below:
(a) The Immigration Department (ImmD) does not keep the relevant statistics.
Under the existing policy, FDHs must leave Hong Kong upon completion of their contract or within two weeks from the date of termination of their contract, whichever is earlier. Application by FDHs for change of employer within their two-year contract in Hong Kong will not normally be approved except under exceptional circumstances, for example, if the FDH's contract is terminated on grounds of the transfer, migration, death or financial reasons of the ex-employer, or if there is evidence suggesting that the FDH has been abused or exploited. If the FDH wishes to enter into an employment contract with a new employer, he/she must leave Hong Kong and submit a new employment visa application to the ImmD. In assessing applications for change of employer after premature contract termination, the ImmD will ensure that the FDH concerned has departed Hong Kong before an employment visa will be issued. In the light of the huge demand for FDHs in Hong Kong and the pressing need for their service in local families, the ImmD often receives employers' requests to expedite processing of their FDHs' employment visas. On the other hand, FDHs whose previous contracts have been terminated owing to various reasons also wish to resume employment as soon as possible to make ends meet. As a measure to facilitate both parties, the ImmD adopts a flexible approach in handling the requirement imposed on FDHs that they have to return to their places of domicile upon termination of their contracts.
The ImmD is concerned about possible abuse of premature contract termination arrangements by FDHs, and has adopted a corresponding measure to address the issue by enhancing the assessment of employment visa applications of FDHs who change employers LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 139
repeatedly. Under the new measure, the ImmD will, in assessing the employment visa applications of FDHs, closely scrutinize their case details such as the number of and reasons for premature contract termination within 12 months with a view to detecting any abuse of the arrangements for premature contract termination. If the ImmD suspects that there is abuse, the application will be refused. Also, if it is found that the premature contract termination is due to the employer's non-compliance with contractual terms or abuse/exploitation of FDHs, future applications for the employment of FDHs from these employers will be refused. In the past three months or so, the ImmD has refused 75 employment visa applications which were suspected to involve abuse of the arrangements for premature termination of contract. The ImmD believes that the new measure will help deter such abuse and will review its effectiveness from time to time.
(b) The Labour Department (LD) has been undertaking various promotional activities, which include producing a leaflet specifically for FDH employers, producing practical guides for employment of FDHs, staging roving exhibitions as well as organizing talks and seminars on matters relating to the employment of FDHs, and so on, to inform the public on issues relating to employment of FDH so as to promote FDH employers' awareness of their rights and obligations under the EO. Should FDH employers have any questions, they are welcome to call the LD's hotline at 2717 1771 or visit the offices of the LD's Labour Relations Division in person for enquiry and assistance.
(c) In the past five years (that is, from January 2009 to the end of September 2013), the Employment Agencies Administration (EAA) of the LD had received 432 complaints against employment agencies (EAs) providing FDH placement service. Most of the complaints concern overcharging of commission to the FDHs while some others concern unlicensed operation of EAs. The EAA would initiate investigation immediately upon receipt of complaints, and would take follow-up and prosecution actions as appropriate.
For complaints concerning the level of fees charged by an EA to employers or the EA's service quality, or when the EA is suspected 140 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
of contravening the Amendment Ordinance, the EAA may refer the case to the Consumer Council and the Customs and Excise Department (the Customs) for follow-up.
The EAA will also, through its regular communications with EAs and organizing seminars, remind EAs to operate in compliance with the laws (including the EO, the Employment Agency Regulations and the Amendment Ordinance), and to provide accurate information and clear fees table and contract terms to employers and FDHs.
On the other hand, we have stepped up our publicity efforts to raise the employers' awareness of how they could better protect their rights. Employers are reminded from time to time to carefully select EAs with good standing and to obtain a service agreement before payment, stipulating clearly the relevant terms such as the FDH's information, date of availability, fees, and so on, from the EA, for future reference in case there is any dispute. The service agreement would also facilitate their seeking of appropriate redress if the EA breaches the agreed terms.
(d) Since the implementation of the Amendment Ordinance on 19 July 2013, the Customs has received three complaints against EAs carrying on FDH business. The complaints concern the provision of a suspected false body examination report of a domestic helper, the provision of false information on the working experience and skills of a domestic helper, and the failure of a domestic helper to carry out the job duties as described by the EA respectively. The complaint involving the use of forged document is being investigated by the police. The matters in the remaining two complaints occurred before the commencement of the Amendment Ordinance and hence fall outside the regulation of the Amendment Ordinance.
Housing Needs of Retired Staff of Disciplined Services
20. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Chinese): President, some disciplined services staff have relayed to me recently that quite a number of disciplined services staff had applied for public rental housing (PRH) flats under the Civil Service Public Housing Quota Scheme (CSPHQ) before they retired but had yet LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 141 to be allocated a PRH flat when they formally retired, and were thus unable to move out from the married quarters for disciplined services staff (married quarters). The situation has seriously slowed down the turnover of married quarters, resulting in lengthening of the waiting time for serving disciplined services staff to move in such quarters. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of serving disciplined services staff who had applied for married quarters, and the number of retired/retiring disciplined services staff who had applied for a PRH flat under the CSPHQ as at 1 September this year; of the respective average waiting time for these two types of applications;
(b) of the number of retired disciplined services staff living in married quarters as at 1 September this year; why they have yet to move out from such quarters; of the anticipated number of retired disciplined services staff who will need to stay in married quarters in the coming three years because they have not been allocated a PRH flat; and
(c) given the keen demand for PRH flats by retired disciplined services staff, whether the authorities have studied how to solve the problem; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in the absence of Secretary for the Civil Service) (in Chinese): President, the CSPHQ, introduced in 1961, aims to provide better opportunities for allocation of PRH to junior civil servants with lower income and rank and file officers of the Disciplined Services Departments (DSDs). The scheme is not part of their terms of appointment, nor is it an in-service or retirement benefit prescribed under their conditions of service.
Separately, disciplined services quarters are provided by the relevant DSDs for their married officers, in accordance with established government policies and subject to the availability of resources. However, these quarters do not constitute a benefit under the conditions of service for the DSD officers concerned.
142 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Currently, departmental quarters of the DSDs are mainly provided for their serving married officers. The eligibility of these officers to departmental quarters lapses on the date of their leaving the service or commencement of pre-retirement leave. Officers residing in departmental quarters are required to return the quarters to their respective departments within two months. If an officer is unable to move out within the specified period, the head of department may consider exercising discretion to extend the period by a month, depending on whether the case is well justified. Besides, an officer who has applied for CSPHQ may be allowed to stay in the quarters while his application is being processed. However, he would be required to vacate his quarters within two months of the announcement of application results, regardless of whether his application had been successful.
My reply to the three parts of the question is as follows, seriatim:
(a) According to the information provided by the Security Bureau, as at 1 September 2013, the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), Fire Services Department (FSD), Correctional Services Department (CSD), Customs and Excise Department (C&ED), Government Flying Service (GFS) and Immigration Department (ImmD) had received a total of 12 127 applications for married quarters during this year.
In line with the established policy, the Government provides married personnel of DSDs with quarters, subject to the availability of resources. However, it is not a condition of service. DSD personnel can apply for quarters units according to their eligibility. To facilitate allocation, the heads of DSDs would formulate a quartering point system for determining the priority in allocating the quarters. The system in general takes into account the applicant's rank, seniority, number of children, the unit applied for and other factors. Each DSD conducts several quarters allocation exercises each year. On average, it takes around one to three months for an applicant to be allocated a unit after the submission of application in each exercise.
As for the CSPHQ, in the past two years (that is, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013) the Housing Department (HD) has received 77 and 207 applications, respectively, from DSD retirees. It has also received LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 143
186 and 271 applications, respectively, from retiring officers (that is, those are going to retire or commence pre-retirement leave within six months of the closing date for applications) in the DSDs. In line with the established rules, DSD retiring officers/retirees living in departmental quarters are given priority in processing. According to past experience, the processing of their applications can be completed within eight months at the earliest, but the actual time of their moving into the PRHs may vary with circumstances, such as whether the successful applicant accepts the unit offered by the HD and the number of units available in the housing estate of his preference.
(b) According to the information provided by the Security Bureau, as at 1 September 2013, 404 DSD retirees from the HKPF, FSD, CSD, C&ED, GFS and ImmD were residing in the married departmental quarters of the DSDs.
Since the family circumstances and individual preferences may vary from one person to another, different DSD officers may have different plans and preparations to cater for their retirement, including accommodation after retirement. Hence, it is not possible to predict the number of DSD retirees who will need to stay in disciplined services married quarters in the coming three years. The departments concerned will continue to observe and follow the regulations and guidelines regarding the return of departmental quarters upon retirement.
(c) The Government is committed to the overall well-being of civil servants. Over the years, in appreciation of the aspirations of colleagues for assistance in housing and accommodation, the Government has introduced various housing benefit schemes and improvement measures, apart from the implementation of the CSPHQ. These include the Home Purchase Scheme, Housing Loan Scheme and Non-accountable Cash Allowance.
On the question of provision of PRH for DSD retirees, as pointed out above, the CSPHQ is not part of the terms of appointment of the officers concerned, nor is it an in-service or retirement benefit under their conditions of service. Moreover, the existing retirement 144 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
benefits provided by the Government for civil servants are confined to medical services and pensions/provident fund. Nonetheless, we will continue to work with colleagues to improve the operation of the CSPHQ so as to enhance efficiency and to optimize the utilization of the limited resources.
Paper Consumption by Government
21. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, in connection with the paper consumption by the offices of the Chief Secretary for Administration, the Financial Secretary and the Secretary for Justice (offices of the Secretaries), Policy Bureaux and the departments (B/Ds) under their purview, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the respective total weight of publications, government forms, paper stationery and other printed matters printed by the Printing Division of the Government Logistics Department (GLD) for various government departments each year between 2007 and 2012, with a breakdown by the type of paper products;
(b) whether the printed matters of the GLD are all currently printed with environment-friendly paper (including paper containing recovered fibre contents and wood-pulp from renewable forests); if they are, of the time when the relevant practice started; of the respective percentages by weight of the two aforesaid types of recycled paper in the printing paper used by the GLD each year between 2008 and 2012;
(c) of the existing standards adopted by the Government for procuring environment-friendly paper for printing purpose; whether such standards had been updated between 2008 and 2012; of the percentage of paper containing recovered fibre and post-consumer fibre among the recycled paper procured for printing purpose each year in that period;
(d) of the respective quantities of the paper consumed, percentages of recycled paper used and quantities of paper recycled each year by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 145
the offices of the Secretaries, B/Ds under their purview between 2008 and 2012, with a breakdown by the type of paper products;
(e) whether the offices of the Secretaries, Policy B/Ds under their purview had procured any paper products with local recycled paper as the raw material between 2008 and 2012; if they had, of the type, usage and quantity of the paper products procured; if not, the reasons for that;
(f) whether it has considered ordering the offices of the Secretaries, B/Ds under their purview to use recycled paper with recovered fibre content across the board whenever practicable for the purposes of office printing, photocopying and printing publications; if it has, of the implementation schedule; if not, the reasons for that; and
(g) whether the offices of the Secretaries, B/Ds under their purview have formulated procedures and guidelines to reduce the quantity of paper consumed and enhance separate recycling of waste paper; of the procedure to ensure proper disposal of waste paper containing confidential information, and that waste paper collected is genuinely recycled and not dumped at landfills; of the amount of waste paper generated and sent to landfills for disposal by various B/Ds under their purview between 2008 and 2012?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, in general, B/Ds have their publications and forms printed by the GLD. They also procure paper for their offices through the GLD. Departments may make direct purchase of stores, except that if such stores and items are held in unallocated stock by the GLD or already covered by a bulk contract arranged by the GLD.
(a) Between 2007 and 2012, the total weight of printing paper used by the GLD for printing for various departments each year is as follows:
Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total weight of 6 222.5 5 615.1 5 933.3 5 796.5 5 753.5 5 757.6 paper (tonne)
146 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
The GLD keeps no breakdown of printed matters by the type of paper products printed for various departments.
(b) Since 1998, the GLD has procured paper made of wood-pulp from renewable forests for general use. The respective percentages by weight of recycled paper and paper made of wood-pulp from renewable forests in the printing paper used by the GLD each year between 2008 and 2012 are as follows:
Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Weight of 605.6 771.3 837.6 954.4 900.5 recycled paper (10.8%) (13%) (14.5%) (16.6%) (15.6%) (tonne) Weight of paper made of 5 008.6 5 102.6 4 927 4 775.4 4 807.6 wood-pulp from (89.2%) (86%) (85%) (83%) (83.5%) renewable forests (tonne) Total weight of 5 615.1 5 933.3 5 796.5 5 753.5 5 757.6 paper (tonne)
A small quantity of printed matters, including maps and stickers, should be printed on synthetic or plastic-lined paper with good durability. These types of paper generally do not contain recycled material or wood-pulp from renewable forests.
(c) The Government has been taking the lead in promoting green procurement, as well as setting an example for the business sector to follow. Green specifications were developed for items commonly used by departments (including papers for office use) for B/Ds' consideration when purchasing these items. We commissioned a new consultancy study in February 2013 to expand the Government's green procurement list and to update the current green specifications of existing products.
As for the recycled paper currently procured for printing purpose by the GLD, it contains at least 60% recovered fibre or 30% post-consumer fibre. The GLD updated such standards in 2007 from containing at least 50% recovered fibre or 20% post-consumer LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 147
fibre of to the existing standards. In addition, two requirements regarding a higher proportion of recycled material content have been included in the procurement assessment item since 2010 and 2011 respectively so as to encourage suppliers to supply papers with a high recycled paper content, that is, recycled paper containing at least 80% recovered fibre or 40% post-consumer fibre, as well as recycled paper containing 100% recovered fibre or post-consumer fibre.
(d) The Government has all along encouraged departments to use environment-friendly paper as far as possible and where economically rational for daily printing and publishing purposes. Between 2008 and 2012, the percentages of recycled paper and paper made of wood-pulp from renewable forests used by various departments in the total quantities of paper used are as follows:
Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Weight of 2 993.5 3 427.4 3 713.4 3 743.3 3 735.9 recycled paper (tonnes) 30.5% 32.8% 35.9% 36.8% 36.8%
Weight of paper 6 792.2 6 934.1 6 590.5 6 403.3 6 352.7 made of wood-pulp from 69.4% 66.5% 63.7% 62.9% 62.6% renewable forests (tonnes) 9 785.7 10 361.5 10 303.9 10 146.6 10 088.6
Total: 99.9% 99.4% 99.6% 99.7% 99.5%
Total quantities 9 786.5 10 421.0 10 335.8 10 170.3 10 138.0 of paper used (tonnes)
The total weight of paper used by various departments only include papers procured for the printed matters printed by the GLD for 148 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
various departments and the A3 and A4 papers procured by the GLD for the use of various departments. The GLD keeps no records of the total quantities of paper used by individual departments or other detailed breakdowns.
In the past five years, the weight of waste paper recovered from joint-user government office buildings managed by the Government Property Agency (GPA) is as follows:
Total weight of waste paper recovered from joint-user Year government office buildings (kg)* 2008 700 785 2009 660 710 2010 562 242 2011 515 475 2012 544 754
Note:
* The GPA is responsible for the property management of 47 joint-user office buildings in total. The GPA has no breakdown of the type of paper products. The above figures do not include the relevant data on government offices other than joint-user office buildings.
(e) We have no relevant data on the procurement of paper products made of locally recovered waste paper. It is noteworthy that Hong Kong is a Party to the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement (WTO GPA). The WTO GPA ensures that all companies, foreign or local, compete on a level playing field. It also prohibits Parties from including "local content" requirement in procurement. The HKSAR Government has to fulfil its obligations under the WTO GPA.
(f) and (g)
The Government implements a waste management strategy with waste reduction as the top priority. B/Ds have been committed to reducing waste. The Government has established internal guidelines requiring all B/Ds to enhance the implementation of green practices and waste avoidance measures. Regarding paper saving, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 149
waste reduction and recycling, B/Ds should aim to reduce paper consumption in the first place. For example, they can make good use of electronic means to receive documents, thus avoiding unnecessary paper consumption. B/Ds should also generate less paper waste by putting in measures to recycle paper products in their offices. Examples are printing on both sides of paper, reusing paper, file covers and envelopes. Regarding paper management, B/Ds should comply with the guidelines as far as possible and use recycled paper instead of virgin paper.
To ensure proper recovery of recyclable paper, government offices have facilities for collection of recyclable paper. Such paper will be collected by cleansing contractors and delivered to recyclers for recycling. The quantity of recyclables collected each time will be recorded by the contractors.
Assistance Provided for Transgender People
22. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Chinese): President, some overseas studies show that transgender people generally account for about 0.3% of the adult population, and on the basis of this, the transgender community in Hong Kong estimates that there are about 18 700 transgender people in the city. At present transgender medical diagnosis services are provided only by two sex clinics in Hong Kong, located respectively in the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sha Tin and Castle Peak Hospital in Tuen Mun (the clinics). Some transgender people have pointed out that these clinics do not provide comprehensive diagnosis services, and it takes time to wait for consultation appointments. Moreover, as qualified doctors with relevant diagnosis experience will retire one after another in the next few years, some transgender people are worried about the succession problem. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of attendances for medical service made by transgender people at the aforesaid clinics in the past five years, and the average waiting time for new cases at present;
(b) of the current number of healthcare personnel (including plastic surgeons, psychiatrists and clinical psychologists) working at the aforesaid clinics who possess the experience or qualifications in 150 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
transgender diagnosis and those who will retire in the coming five years;
(c) whether there is any plan to increase the resource input for training healthcare personnel with qualifications in transgender diagnosis; if so, of the number of healthcare personnel of various professions (including plastic surgeons, psychiatrists and clinical psychologists) who will receive training in the coming five years; if not, whether the Government will undertake to draw up contingency plans in the coming year to address the manpower shortage;
(d) whether no less than two clinics in public hospitals will be established to provide comprehensive transgender diagnosis services by healthcare personnel with relevant qualifications; and
(e) given the judgment handed down earlier by the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) on the civil appeal filed by a transsexual regarding marriage registration and the Court's recommendation that the legislature introduce legislation similar to the United Kingdom's Gender Recognition Act 2004 to set up a machinery for an expert panel to vet gender recognition claims and grant gender recognition certificates which recognize successful applicants in his/her new sex, whether the Government has worked out a roadmap and a timetable for setting up the machinery?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, at present, the Hospital Authority (HA) provides medical services for people with Gender Identity Disorders (GID) through its psychiatric specialist out-patient (SOP) clinics in various clusters. In general, counselling services and treatment will be arranged for GID patients according to their individual conditions, and a small number of them may need to receive sex reassignment surgery (commonly known as "transsexual operation").
My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(a) and (b)
The psychiatric SOP clinics in various HA clusters provided medical services for a total of 95 persons with GID in 2012-2013. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 151
psychiatric SOP clinics will arrange medical appointments for new patients based on the urgency of their clinical conditions, which is determined with regard to the patients' clinical history and presenting symptoms. The date of medical appointment for different new patients therefore varies depending on the patient's actual clinical conditions. The psychiatric departments of the HA do not have a breakdown of the average waiting time of new cases of specific diseases. In 2012-2013, the median waiting time for new cases of the psychiatric departments of the HA is seven weeks.
Since the number of cases of sex reassignment surgery is very small each year (around four to five cases per year in the past three years), at present, sex reassignment surgery is mainly performed at the Department of Surgery of Ruttonjee Hospital (RH). The only consultant surgeon responsible for sex reassignment surgery in the hospital will retire in 2015. Since the psychiatric SOP clinics in various HA clusters provide medical services not only to GID patients, but also patients suffering from other psychiatric diseases, the HA does not maintain statistics on the number of healthcare personnel who provide treatment specifically for GID patients.
(c) and (d)
To cater for the needs of GID patients for medical services, the HA has reviewed the existing service arrangements and is planning to rationalize its future services.
As the treatment of GID patients requires the involvement of a multi-disciplinary team which comprises professionals including psychiatrists, surgeons, endocrinologists, clinical psychologists and other allied health professionals, the HA plans to adopt the mode of a multi-disciplinary service centre in rationalizing the relevant services. A service centre (the Centre) will be set up in Prince of Wales Hospital (PWH) under the New Territories East (NTE) cluster to co-ordinate various specialized services for GID patients.
Under this approach, whilst all other services will be provided by the Centre, surgery services will be provided at both the Centre and RH. The PWH will provide surgery service for conversion between two sexes and the RH will continue to provide sex reassignment surgery 152 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
for male to female conversion. The arrangement is to build on the expertise and experience already developed at the RH over the years as well as to help share the volume of male to female reassignment surgery in the NTE cluster.
The HA has formed a Task Force with members from the management, concerned clinical and allied health disciplines in September 2013 to look into the service reorganization. The HA is identifying potential candidates of the multi-disciplinary team to provide the services and will bid for the necessary additional resources for service reorganization through the annual planning exercise in 2015-2016.
(e) The Hong Kong Government respects the judgment handed down by the CFA in the case of "W" and the Security Bureau plans to follow up with the CFA's orders in this legislative year. Given the complex policy and legal issues involved in the recommendations mentioned in the judgment, the Security Bureau is working with relevant Policy Bureaux, departments and the Department of Justice on how best to follow up the matters.
BILLS
First Reading of Bills
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: First Reading.
PEAK TRAMWAY (AMENDMENT) BILL 2013
CLERK (in Cantonese): Peak Tramway (Amendment) Bill 2013.
Bill read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Rule 53(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 153
Second Reading of Bills
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: Second Reading.
PEAK TRAMWAY (AMENDMENT) BILL 2013
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I move the Second Reading of the Peak Tramway (Amendment) Bill 2013.
The object of the Bill is to make amendments to the Peak Tramway Ordinance (Cap. 265) in order to empower the Chief Executive in Council to grant an operating right to the Peak Tramways Company Limited (PTC) for a two-year interim period commencing on 1 January 2014, so as to enable continuation of the peak tramway service beyond the expiry of the current operating right at the end of this year.
In operation since 1888, the peak tramway was built by a private company and initially intended to serve a hotel run by the same company on the Peak. Over the past few decades, with the development of roads and public transport networks, the peak tramway has gradually transformed from the main means of public transport to the Peak to a popular tourist and recreational facility for locals and tourists alike. The average daily patronage of the peak tramway was 16 000 in 2012, of which more than 95% were visitors.
The peak tramway has all along been run by the PTC on the strength of an operating right granted by the Government under the Ordinance. The current 10-year operating right will expire on 31 December 2013, that is, at the end of this year.
At the end of last year, the PTC approached the Government for an extension of the operating right and subsequently indicated that it had a plan to upgrade the facilities and services. However, during the discussion held on extension of the operating right beyond 2013 between the Government and the PTC, and upon further examination of the legislation and the legal advice received, it has come to the Government's attention that the operating right cannot be further extended under the existing provisions of the Ordinance. We have to 154 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 amend the Ordinance in order to empower the Chief Executive in Council to grant the operating right again.
Given that the amendment exercise carries some measure of complexity, we will proceed in two stages.
First of all, the Bill moved today seeks to amend the existing provisions in the Ordinance on the right to run and operate the peak tramway. This is the first stage of amendment with the effect of empowering the Chief Executive in Council to grant an operating right to the PTC for a two-year interim period commencing on 1 January 2014, in order to enable continuation of the peak tramway service until the end of 2015 and avoid disruption due to the expiry of the operating right at the end of this year. Before bringing forward this proposal, the Government has assessed carefully, and is satisfied with, the PTC's safety and service performance during the current operating right period. On 19 July this year, the Government consulted the Legislative Council Panel on Transport. Members of the Panel on Economic Development also joined the discussion. Members generally agreed with the Government's proposal, and acknowledged that the peak tramway service should not be disrupted because of the existing legal issues.
Then, during the two-year interim period proposed in the Bill, the Government will study and determine the long-term arrangements for the operating right of the peak tramway in order to work out the second-stage amendment proposals. As suggested earlier by members of both the Panel on Transport and the Panel on Economic Development in their discussion with the Government, the long-term arrangements to be considered should include mainly: (a) drawing up an "exit mechanism" in case the right to operate the peak tramway is subject to transfer; and (b) establishing a mechanism to determine the amount of premium payable by the operator in the event that it involves the use of Government land in providing the peak tramway service. In addition, the PTC has already submitted a long-term upgrading plan to the Government. The Government will consider whether the upgrading plan is meritorious and feasible in its consideration of the long-term arrangements for the operating right.
Our goal is to complete the aforesaid tasks within the two-year interim operating period, including completion of the formulation of the second-stage LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 155
Amendment Bill, and provision of sufficient time for scrutiny by the Legislative Council.
President, the Bill empowers the Chief Executive in Council to grant an interim operating right to the PTC, so as to enable continuous operation of the peak tramway in the next two years as a major tourist attraction of Hong Kong, as well as making proper planning and preparation for the long-term arrangements during the interim period. This two-stage approach has been well received by the community, particularly the tourism industry, and also won support earlier on from members of both the Panel on Transport and the Panel on Economic Development.
We sincerely hope that the Legislative Council will pass the Bill at this first stage as soon as possible. The Government will render full assistance in the scrutiny to ensure that the new operating right can come into play immediately following the expiry of the existing operating right, without affecting the peak tramway service.
President, I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Peak Tramway (Amendment) Bill 2013 be read the Second time.
In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee.
MEMBERS' MOTIONS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions. There are a total of five Members' motions in this meeting.
The first and the second items are proposed resolutions moved under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance in relation to the extension of the period for amending subsidiary legislation.
156 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First motion: To extend the period for amending the Solicitors (General) Costs (Amendment) Rules 2013, which was laid on the table of this Council on 26 June 2013.
I now call upon Mr Dennis KWOK to speak and move the motion.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER SECTION 34(4) OF THE INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
MR DENNIS KWOK: President, in my capacity as the Chairman of the Subcommittee to study the Solicitors (General) Costs (Amendment) Rules 2013 gazetted on 21 June 2013 as L.N. 110 of 2013, I move the motion standing in my name on the Agenda.
As L.N. 110 was not made by the Costs Committee as provided for under section 74 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, the Subcommittee is of the view that L.N. 110 is void ab initio and does not have any legal effect. According to the Administration, the Costs Committee will endeavour to make a set of new amendment rules with a corrigendum explaining the reasons behind the need for the making of the new rules and the mistake that was made by the Law Society Council. However, since L.N. 110 has already been gazetted, the Subcommittee would still have to find a way to deal with and resolve the current situation.
There were several legal options presented to members of the Subcommittee on how to deal with and resolve the current situation, and there are constitutional implications arising from the same. Members do not wish to set a wrong precedent if similar incidents are to take place in the future. Members of the Subcommittee have different views on how the matter should be resolved. Due to the differences in opinions on the matter, and to allow Members more time and opportunity to review and study the different views of the Subcommittee which will be fully contained and set out in its report to this Council, I now move a motion to extend the scrutiny period of L.N. 110 to the Council meeting on 6 November 2013.
The motion is now moved. Thank you, President.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 157
Mr Dennis KWOK moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that in relation to the Solicitors (General) Costs (Amendment) Rules 2013, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 110 of 2013, and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 26 June 2013, the period for amending subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) and deemed to be extended under section 34(3) of that Ordinance, be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 6 November 2013."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Dennis KWOK 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)
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.
158 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second motion: To extend the period for amending the Arbitration (Appointment of Arbitrators and Mediators and Decision on Number of Arbitrators) Rules, which was laid on the table of this Council on 3 July 2013.
I again call upon Mr Dennis KWOK to speak and move the motion.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER SECTION 34(4) OF THE INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
MR DENNIS KWOK: President, in my capacity as the Chairman of the Subcommittee to study the Arbitration (Appointment of Arbitrators and Mediators and Decision on Number of Arbitrators) Rules (the Arbitration Rules) gazetted on 28 June 2013, I move the motion standing in my name on the Agenda.
As the Subcommittee is still in the process of scrutinizing the Arbitration Rules, members agreed that I should move a motion to extend the scrutiny period of the Arbitration Rules to the Council meeting on 6 November 2013.
I urge Members to support the motion. Thank you, President.
Mr Dennis KWOK moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that in relation to the Arbitration (Appointment of Arbitrators and Mediators and Decision on Number of Arbitrators) Rules, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 115 of 2013, and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 3 July 2013, the period for amending subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) and deemed to be extended under section 34(3) of that Ordinance, be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 6 November 2013."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Dennis KWOK be passed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 159
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)
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.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third Member's motion: Motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.
Members who wish to speak in the debate on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button.
I now call upon Dr KWOK Ka-ki to speak and move the motion.
MOTION UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ORDINANCE
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, recently, Members may have watched an announcement of public interest by the Government's Independent Commission Against Corruption. The message delivered by this announcement is very clear. In it, many members of the public are wearing eye pads covering one of their eyes, meaning that they often turn a blind eye to corruption. The 160 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 announcement is designed to urge the public to remove their eye pads and stop turning a blind eye to corruption.
President, before I proposed that the powers under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) be invoked to establish a select committee to investigate the incident involving the Secretary for Development, Mr Paul CHAN, I had heard various comments, including those at the meeting of the House Committee last Friday. Many Members holding different views spoke and it sounded as though they were saying to me, "Just put on an eye pad, what does it matter? Hong Kong people like to make investments and many people would buy and hoard land and speculate on properties, so it is no big deal. Secondly, to establish a company registered overseas, for example, to establish a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, is most ordinary. They are just doing business and want to get some benefits through tax evasion, so this is not a problem.".
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
Deputy President, I do not know since when the Legislative Council has degenerated to such a state. In some cases, although we knew full well that there would be an impact on public perception, that the people concerned really had the chances to abuse their power for personal gains and that there were many unclear circumstances, we still turned a blind eye to them.
Some people say that the P&P Ordinance is an imperial sword of the Legislative Council that cannot be used arbitrarily, but I wish to cite two actual examples.
In March 2012, LEUNG Chun-ying, who had not become the Chief Executive and was the Convenor of the Executive Council at that time, was suspected of having a conflict of interest when he was a member of the Jury for the West Kowloon Reclamation Concept Plan Competition. Before the Legislative Council had established a select committee, the voices that we heard were also the same, that is, it was asked, "What does this matter? There is no evidence, so how can we assert that LEUNG Chun-ying abused his power for personal gains back then? There is no such evidence and secondly, the Legislative Council should not establish this kind of select committees too readily LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 161 and there must be sufficient grounds for doing so.". In the end, as we all know, the select committee established at that time conducted a fairly thorough investigation into the incident and highlighted many areas of unfairness therein, so that the public had the opportunity to examine who was in the right and who was in the wrong in the whole incident.
In addition, in December 2008, the Legislative Council also established a select committee to inquire into the employment of the former Permanent Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands, Mr LEUNG Chin-man, by the New World China Land. I remember clearly that at that time, those who voiced opposition also cited the same ground, that is, it did not matter because this official had retired and everyone had to work. And they asked if having worked as a civil servant, one would not be allowed to work again after retirement and that this would not do, saying that since he was just looking for a job, it did not matter and that in Hong Kong, people all worked for one employer or another and we could only blame this matter on the fact that in Hong Kong, real estate hegemonists were still the wealthiest people and since he had all along been in charge of work relating to real estate and land administration, it did not matter. In the end, the Legislative Council also established a select committee to conduct an inquiry, but I am not going to recap the subsequent developments here.
There is only one clear reason for establishing a select committee, that is, we do not wish to see any instance of "abusing power for personal gains".
It was also said that Secretary Paul CHAN had already given clear accounts of this matter since July this year, including at several meetings of the Panel on Development. The fact is that the more he talked, the more confusing this matter is. Initially, he said that he "could not remember" and he was "not sure". Then, when giving further responses, he said that the land "belonged to his wife and a family member of his wife". On further exposure of this matter by the mass media, he changed his claim to "the land belonged to his wife and his son", so it turned out that "his wife's family member" is his son. I believe that no honest person would choose to evade the questions in such a way. If this is just clearly a normal investment that does not involve any conflict of interest, why is it necessary to cover things up at every turn?
Some people also said that maybe this did not matter. The land in question was bought almost 19 years ago, but Members must not forget that from the delineation of the boundary of the North East New Territories New 162 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Development Areas (NENT NDAs) Project to nowadays, many matters were decided by the Development Bureau, in particular, it is within the ambit of the Secretary to make such decisions and the amounts of money at stake is not small, rather, tens of million dollars were at stake. The purpose of requiring Secretary Paul CHAN to attend meetings according to the P&P Ordinance is very simple and can be summed up in three words: "Tell the truth". I believe that if a select committee can be established, it is perhaps only necessary to hold just one or two afternoon sessions ― if Secretary CHAN does not lie after taking an oath ― for all doubts to be resolved.
The purpose of establishing a select committee this time around is not to ascertain the private affairs behind this incident. However, this incident involves a development project worth over $30 billion in public funds alone under the charge of a principal official, not to mention the interests amounting to hundreds of billion dollars involved in the implementation of property development projects in the future. If the Legislative Council pretends not to see today and still turns a blind eye to it, we as Members will fail public expectations.
Earlier on, the Civic Party conducted a survey and among members of the public who responded, 67% believed that Paul CHAN had an obvious conflict of interest, 63% believed that he had lied and 58% believed that it was no longer suitable for him to continue to handle the NENT NDAs Project, whereas 59% believed that he should step down. In the public opinion survey on all Principal Officials conducted by the University of Hong Kong in September, the approval rate of Secretary Paul CHAN was 14%, whereas the disapproval rate was at a high level, with a net popularity rating of negative 46%. He is the official with the worst net popularity rating since the introduction of the accountability system for senior officials, so it shows how the public look at this matter.
Deputy President, I will listen carefully to the comments of all Members and hope that when Members who hold different views or oppose the establishment of a select committee speak, they will answer to their voters and the public.
Deputy President, I move that the motion, as set out in agenda, be passed. Thank you, Deputy President.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 163
Dr KWOK Ka-ki moved the following motion:
"That this Council appoints a select committee to inquire into the incident of the Secretary for Development Mr Paul CHAN Mo-po owning farmland located in the areas of the North East New Territories New Development Areas Project and related issues; and that in the performance of its duties the committee be authorized under section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) to exercise the powers conferred by section 9(1) of that Ordinance."
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Dr KWOK Ka-ki be passed.
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Deputy President, today, Dr KWOK Ka-ki has moved that a select committee be appointed according to the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the incident of the Secretary for Development Mr Paul CHAN owning farmland located in the areas of the North East New Territories New Development Areas Project and related issues. On behalf of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, I implore Members to oppose this motion. In fact, I noticed that at the meeting of the House Committee last Friday, the same motion …
(Dr KWOK Ka-ki stood up)
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, a quorum is not present.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
164 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration, please continue.
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Deputy President, today, Dr KWOK Ka-ki has moved that a select committee be appointed according to the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the incident of the Secretary for Development, Mr Paul CHAN, owning farmland located in the areas of the North East New Territories New Development Areas Project and related issues. On behalf of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, I implore Members to oppose this motion. In fact, I noticed that at the meeting of the House Committee last Friday, the same motion was negatived.
Since the press reported on 22 July this year the possession of farmland within the Kwu Tung North New Development Area by the family members of Secretary Paul CHAN sometime in the past, Secretary Paul CHAN has given accounts of the incident in public to Legislative Council Members and the public on a number of occasions. In response to the queries from Legislative Council Members and the mass media, the Secretary has given detailed explanations and clarifications, while the wife of the Secretary and the company concerned owning the farmland have also issued statements and made clarifications a number of times. Later on, the Secretary will also take this opportunity to give explanations on the relevant issues, so as to address the misgivings among Members and the public, in particular, the allegations made by Dr KWOK Ka-ki.
After Secretary Paul CHAN had learnt about the relationship of the farmland in question with the new development area (NDA) on taking office, he made a declaration of interest to the Chief Executive according to the Code for Officials under the Political Appointment System. As a member of the Executive Council, Secretary Paul CHAN also declared the relevant interests according to the system of the Executive Council. As the Chief Executive said earlier on, in this incident, Secretary Paul CHAN had complied fully with the requirements of the existing system for declaration of interests. Moreover, we cannot see any evidence indicating that Secretary Paul CHAN is involved in any irregularity or impropriety when discharging his duties as a Secretary or dealing with the NDAs.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 165
When Dr KWOK Ka-ki spoke just now, he seemed to suggest that as the Secretary for Development, Mr Paul CHAN can influence land use in the NDAs through his personal decisions. On this point, I have to rebut it from the perspective of the system.
As the Secretary for Development of the last term, I was also involved in large-scale land use planning. I must point out that within the Government, all development projects involving planning and land development, including those for NDAs, are carried out in accordance with certain mechanisms, and they include the formulation of proposals by the relevant professional departments according to objective standards, the collection of views from various social sectors by means of extensive public engagement, consultation with the Legislative Council and District Councils and even other stakeholders, as well as the objective analysis of views collected by the departments concerned from a professional point of view, so it is not possible for the Secretary for Development to manipulate the planning in any way he likes all by himself.
Therefore, the allegation that Secretary Paul CHAN used his power to direct or influence the planning of the NDAs, so as to gain benefits from the farmland, is totally inconsistent with the mode of operation of the Government, including the mode of operation of the professional departments in dealing with the relevant development project. And this is absolutely unfair to Secretary Paul CHAN.
Deputy President, we understand Members' concern about this incident and we also fully understand the high expectations of the public for the conduct of officials under the political appointment system. Since Secretary Paul CHAN has given accounts of this incident in public a number of times, including the explanations given by him in response to Members' queries in the special meetings of the Panel on Development last year, and since he also said that he was prepared to continue to give explanations and made clarifications on this incident, we really cannot see any ground for invoking the powers of the P&P Ordinance to establish a select committee to inquire into this matter.
As pointed out by some Members at the meeting of the House Committee last week, this incident should come to an end and Members should not remain entangled in this issue, thus wasting their time. Both the Government and the Legislative Council have more important matters relating to the economy and 166 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 people's life to deal with, so expending their energy on this matter is not in line with the expectations of the public and the interests of Hong Kong.
Deputy President, I will listen to Members' views on this motion before giving further responses and my concluding speech later.
Thank you, Deputy President.
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President and Members, on the possession of farmland in Kwu Tung North by my wife and members of her parental family, I have given explanations on a number of occasions in response to enquiries of the mass media and questions of Legislative Council Members earlier on. My wife, as well as the Statement Industries Limited (SI), which owns the farmland, has also issued statements separately a number of times to make clarifications. However, since the messages may be rather fragmented, the public still have some doubts. I wish to take this opportunity to make clarifications on these doubts briefly again.
However, before speaking further, I wish to reiterate that all along, I have taken the initiative to make disclosures and declarations in accordance with the relevant mechanism. When responding to Members' questions, I also gave my replies according to the truth. My wife also took the initiative to sell the relevant interest to her younger brother as early as a year ago to avoid suspicions of conflict of interest that may arise because of the interest that my family members have in the farmland. For the clumsiness in my explanations and communication in relation to this matter, which aroused doubts among the public, I tender my apologies here.
Deputy President, the first point is related to the interest in the farmland in Kwu Tung. In 1994, SI bought the farmland in Kwu Tung, Sheung Shui, with an area of about 20 000 sq ft. Through the Orient Express (OE), my wife had a stake of 37.5% in SI, as a result, she had some interest in that piece of farmland. The rest of the shares in SI were held by members of my wife's parental family through two agents, namely, the Excellent Assets Limited (EA) and the Fidelity Management Limited (FM). Therefore, the interest in the farmland held by the two companies, EA and FM, belonged to my wife's parental family.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 167
Throughout, I, my wife and our children were not beneficiaries of the shares in SI held by the two companies, EA and FM. Since 2011, these companies no longer held any shares on behalf of the members of my wife's parental family and another agency, the New Horizon Assets Limited (NH), held the shares on their behalf instead. This change was only a change in agent for my wife's parental family, and similarly I, my wife and our children were not beneficiaries of the shares in SI held by NH. Since October last year, my wife's parental family no longer holds the shares through any agent and instead, the relevant shares are held by the relatives of my wife's parental family in person.
In fact, on 24 July this year, SI issued a statement to which the annual return submitted by SI to the Company Registry was attached. The aforementioned change in shareholding can be seen clearly therein and it shows that since 10 October last year, all shareholders in SI through an agent are individuals and all shares are held by the relatives of my wife's parental family in person without involving any company any longer.
Deputy President, here, I reiterate that over the past 19 years, I have never had any actual interest in SI. After selling the 37.5% stake in SI held through OE on 10 October last year, my wife and my children no longer have any interest in the farmland in Kwu Tung.
My wife's parental family began to hold shares in SI through an agent as early as 19 years ago, when the farmland was bought, so this is obviously unrelated to my assuming the post of the Secretary for Development in late July last year. Moreover, since 10 October last year, SI has been owned by the relatives of my wife's parental family in person. The shareholders and directors of the company are all individuals who play no part in the real estate business.
Deputy President, the second point is related to the declaration and handling of interests. I have complied with the requirements of the Code for Officials under the Political Appointment System and the code of conduct for Executive Council Members in making declarations. According to the requirements of the Executive Council for making declarations, the items included in the register of interests, which is open to the public, are only confined to those owned by me, whereas it is not necessary to declare items belonging to my wife in which I have no material interest.
168 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
From 2008 to 2012, when I was a Legislative Council Member, in the section "Miscellaneous" in the Register of Members' Interests, I declared the interests that my family members had in the land, offices and residential properties owned by them in Hong Kong, as well as shareholdings exceeding 1% held by my family members in a number of private companies, the business nature of which included real estate investments. Therefore, I have never covered up the investments made by my wife.
In the latter half of September 2012, when I learnt that the farmland in Kwu Tung was located within the NDA, I took the initiative to report this to the Chief Executive as quickly as possible. My wife also took the initiative to sell all her shares, with a view to dealing with the suspicions of potential conflict of interest as quickly as possible.
My wife sold all her stake (that is, 37.5%) in SI held through OE to her younger brother on 10 October 2012 at a price of $2.7 million and also resigned from the post of director. When the mass media interviewed surveyors, they considered the price reasonable. My wife received the sum through a bank and a sale and purchase agreement and the stamped assignment can serve as proof, so the nature is by no means holding on trust. The relevant documents have also been released to the mass media. This transaction is a genuine one between my wife and her younger brother. I did not provide any funds to her younger brother and the transaction had nothing to do with me.
I reiterate again that at present, my wife and children do not have any interest in any land in the NENT NDA and neither do I. Apart from the farmland in Kwu Tung held by SI, my wife's family does not own any other land in the NENT NDAs.
Deputy President, the third point is related to some unfounded allegations directed at me. For example, I was accused of tax evasion because during the two years after SI had applied to become a dormant company, it charged a half-yearly rent of $60. In this regard, on 2 September this year, SI issued a statement to make clarifications and the fact is: In July 1994, SI applied to become a dormant company and subsequently, in 1996, that is, about two years after the purchase of the farmland, since it was found that part of the farmland had been occupied, after attempts to urge the occupier to move out had failed, to protect SI's interest in the farmland, a rental agreement was signed with the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 169 occupier. The rent charged was a nominal $60 for half a year, with a view to confirming the ownership of the land by SI and the rental arrangement only lasted a year or so. The total amount of rent collected was not even enough to meet the annual business registration fee, not to mention the issue of tax evasion, so how could any profit be made? In addition, throughout these 19 years, SI has never engaged in any business activities other than purchasing the aforementioned farmland. Throughout these 19 years, apart from the aforementioned farmland, SI has never had any other assets, and apart from charging a nominal rent in order to maintain its rights, SI has never engaged in any other business activities.
Deputy President, another claim is that I concealed my interests in the farmland through an agent. I must point out that my wife's parental family began to hold shares in SI through an agent as early as 19 years ago, when the farmland was bought and back then, the consideration that I may embark on a political career did not play any part at all. Now, it is indeed absurd to associate my serving as the Secretary for Development with the arrangement for my wife and her parental family to hold shares back then.
Deputy President, on the issue of the farmland in Kwu Tung, I have responded to enquiries and given replies and explanations according to the truth on a number of occasions. I reiterate that I did not have any interest in the farmland, nor have I evaded tax payment. In addition, my wife and SI which owns the farmland have also issued statements a number of times. My wife has also published statements in several newspapers to clarify several important points of public concern, so as to dispel the doubts of the public. I understand the public concern over this matter, so I wish to take the opportunity of this debate to make clarifications again to dispel the doubts of the public.
I hope Members can be discerning about the truth of this matter and oppose Dr KWOK Ka-ki's motion. Thank you, Deputy President.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have to express concern about the incident of Paul CHAN absolutely not because of an individual, my opinion about personal investment or relevant factors. It is because of my concern about this incident, the handling of the incident by the Government, and the impact on the Government's governance and administration.
170 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
I recall that at the meeting of the House Committee last Friday, many pro-establishment colleagues said how Secretary Paul CHAN could have known a couple of decades ago that he would become a high-ranking official today. So, what could be done no matter whether the land he purchased was for leisure or investment, or even hoarding purposes? They were not wrong. Their arguments were even applicable to other incidents, such as the issue of "sub-divided units". Nevertheless, the problem lies in whether the declaration made by Secretary Paul CHAN is adequate and whether the Administration has selectively failed to follow up issues warranting follow-up actions or issues which might have breached the rules or the law.
The Secretary for Development is a politically appointed official in charge of the NENT NDAs Project involving tens of million dollars or even hundreds of million dollars. As early as 1994, Secretary Paul CHAN, his wife and their family members bought a plot of land in Kwu Tung situated within the NENT NDAs. While there might really be no problem with the purchase of that plot of land back then, our concern is how Secretary Paul CHAN dealt with the matter after taking office last year.
According to Secretary Paul CHAN, he already made a declaration to the Chief Executive last year, and his wife had already sold her entire interests. However, the buyer was their family member. His family, which might have hoarded land in excess of 10 000 sq ft, has a direct interest in the future compensation package. It is a pity that I still think that he has repeatedly attempted to cover it up and refrained from telling the truth if we did not make the enquiries. Hence, I cannot but describe his behavior as "squeezing toothpaste from a tube".
We can gain trust from others only if we can avoid situations which will arouse suspicions. Besides politically appointed high-ranking officials, civil servants must act with great prudence, too. As they must be "whiter than white", they will not accept invitations to treats of coffee or ball pens as souvenirs.
Some people will say that if the requirements for politically appointed officials are too high, no one will be willing to enter the "hot kitchen". I beg to differ, because we have no reason to lower the requirement or turn a blind eye to situations which are obviously not handled properly. We often say, "A drop of ink will tinge a glass of water".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 171
Deputy President, new guidelines on the handling of potential cases of conflict of interest concerning politically appointed officials were published by the Government in August this year. It is clearly stated in the guidelines that even if the official concerned has no direct involvement in pecuniary interests, a declaration of his interests, including relations with his immediate family members, friends, and so on, will still be made to the Chief Executive if people have an impression that the relevant interests will affect the judgment made by the official in discharging his official duties. As for the regulation of civil servants, there is currently a clear and concrete mechanism which is operated very stringently. Moreover, a declaration in writing has to be made. While all this sounds perfect, the devil is in the details. Can accountable officials muddle through by giving a brief account to the Chief Executive without explaining to the public their potential conflicts of interest?
Members of the public have entrusted accountable officials with the task of handling matters involving major public interests, because the former have faith in the latter that they have no conflicts of interest and will not abuse their power for personal gains. As a legislature responsible for monitoring the Government, the Legislative Council has time and again "kept one eye closed". Doing so will not only let some officials who might be at fault off the hook, but also fail the public who have expectations for us. Moreover, society might receive the wrong message that the officials can circumvent the rules so long as they are harboured by the Chief Executive.
Deputy President, I am not saying that officials cannot hold interests in land, but they must take the initiative to explain to the public without delay. Before assuming office as the Secretary, he took part in dealing with issues related to the development of the NENT in his capacity as a Legislative Council Member. Despite his purchase of land in his name in Kwu Tung a decade ago, he began to deal with major policies involving a conflict of interests with him after he had taken office as the Secretary in July. When he visited the districts for consultation, he said that it was only in September that he learnt of his conflict of interests. He explained that it was because he did not actually or nominally own land and, according to the requirements, there was no need for him to make such declaration openly. Nevertheless, there is an obvious gap between the public expectation and his handling of the matter.
Does the Chief Executive also agree that there is no problem with doing so? This is how LEUNG Chun-ying replied to the media, and I quote to this 172 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 effect, "The Secretary has acted in strict compliance with the declaration system and, as required under the system, made the necessary declaration with regard to interests." The Chief Executive's Office has not disclosed when the declaration made by Secretary Paul CHAN was received. Was the declaration made only after the incident had come to light?
This is unacceptable to the public. Is the system for declaration of interests by accountable officials flawed? Obviously, we need to invoke the P&P Ordinance to set up a select committee to pursue the matter.
The select committee will have to at least pursue the following matters: First, when was Secretary Paul CHAN aware of his conflict of interest with the NENT NDAs? He once said that he himself had no interest in the farmland in Kwu Tung, but according to the evidence produced by the media, he had personally signed a tenancy agreement with a villager, and so he should be a land owner. Such being the case, is his statement false? Second, Secretary Paul CHAN once indicated that the farmland was for leisure use as well as for lease, and had been left fallow over the years. Which statement is true and which one is false? This is crucial because integrity is in question. Third, does the CHAN family really have no more interest in the NENT NDAs? Does the transfer of interests to other family members mean that there is no more conflict of interest? The select committee needs to examine these issues objectively before reaching a conclusion. These important issues affect the future declaration system, too.
I hope to see progress in the discussion on the NENT NDAs Project, but we can see that only few people discussed issues pertaining to the Project during the several public hearings held in July. The focus of concern shifted to the private affairs of Secretary Paul CHAN. From an objective point of view, is Secretary Paul CHAN still fit for the task of promoting the NENT NDAs Project?
The explanation previously given by the Secretary can simply not allay public misgivings. Each time when a senior staff member of the Government is found to have integrity problems or even be possibly held liable, some people will invariably give all sorts of reasons, saying an inquiry should not be conducted by the Legislative Council. Like the Secretary, we have a significant responsibility. The Legislative Council will feel ashamed to face the public if we let everything go lightly without pursuing to the bitter end!
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 173
I hope colleagues who oppose the inquiry today can understand that a thorough inquiry into this matter will do more good than harm to the Secretary. Since the Secretary considers that he has not covered up anything and made any mistake in this so-called land hoarding incident, we should provide a platform to enable him to give a comprehensive and more detailed explanation to the public. If the outcome of the inquiry conducted by the select committee demonstrates his statements hold water, he will be able to regain public confidence. This is, after all, a good thing. I hope all colleagues can give the Secretary an opportunity to explain clearly to the Legislative Council and all Hong Kong people. To allow a Bureau Director suspected of having serious integrity problems, a conflict of interest or even breached the law to continue to promote a new and troublesome development project is definitely not good to society.
Secretary Paul CHAN must really stop saying that he "has no idea", "cannot recall" or "does not know", pretending that nothing has happened. While the Secretary owes us an explanation, Members of this Council owe society an explanation as well. The Legislative Council must take up this responsibility. Some people might think that everything will be watered down as time goes by. Hence, this incident will be forgotten if it drags on for a while. However, an untreated wound will only induce numbness. The wound will not heal but, on the contrary, deteriorate.
For these reasons, I support invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to set up a select committee to inquire into the incident of the Secretary for Development, Mr Paul CHAN, suspected of owning farmland located in NENT. Thank you, Deputy President.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the motion today is proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki in the hope of invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into whether Secretary Paul CHAN has any conflict of interest in the NENT NDAs Project. This I support.
Why do I support this? I do not mean I support the argument that Secretary Paul CHAN really has a conflict of interest in this incident. On the contrary, I support this motion because I hope to give Secretary Paul CHAN an opportunity to prove his innocence because in his speech just now, he stated that many of the allegations against him were unreasonable, distorted and incorrect. 174 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Certainly, the account given by the Secretary just now was already very detailed, saying he was not involved in any issues pertaining to vested interests. Nevertheless, it is a pity that the Secretary's account was given under the circumstances that he was not requested to answer any questions. I can point out direct that he was merely justifying or talking to himself. In fact, as Members are aware, despite the Secretary's persistent explanations in the past, as he pointed out in his speech just now, his accounts might give people the impression that the accounts given by him and his wife were fragmented and unclear. It is precisely for this reason that I worry that, following his account today, if we really invoke the P&P Ordinance in future to conduct an inquiry and when more questions are raised, he will again say that he has forgotten and omitted something. We are worried that, insofar as many matters are concerned, he is still unable to give us a truly comprehensive account today. As Mr Charles Peter MOK said just now, we would like to provide a platform to enable him to give a more in-depth and detailed explanation and clarification. So, why did he not give himself a chance to do so? Why did he not believe in "true gold fears no fire"? Why did he not let us conduct an inquiry? I recall that other government officials, such as Timothy TONG, reacted in the same manner, too. Very often, his full account was totally different from the one he gave in this Council. As a result, the Council was obliged to make repeated requests for him to give explanations before this Council. What problem does this reveal? When a person has a problem, his so-called clarification and explanation are not necessarily comprehensive. Such being the case, it is not our intention to convict the Secretary today. We just want to conduct an inquiry to uncover the truth. Why did he not let us do so? Why is he resistant to the idea so strongly?
Many people only know to cover up and run away after making mistakes. If they think that they have made no mistakes, why do they not face the consequences? Why do they lack the courage to do so? I believe you, as a Bureau Director, will find it difficult to promote a social policy. Very often, people on public occasions will cast doubts on your integrity and attitude. Will you not find it smooth to promote a policy under such circumstances? Why do you not reverse this environment and such situations so that you can really regain the public's trust? This is originally an excellent chance. I really felt ashamed when I heard your last statement, that is, your call on Members to oppose this motion proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki. In fact, this issue has something to do with your personal interest. Hence, you should not say something like that because there is a conflict of interest. It would be completely different if the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 175 statement was made by Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM instead, because she would be speaking as a third party. She could even call on Members to raise objection. But how could you possibly say something like that when it is a problem related to you? This precisely reflects that people like you, for the sake of defending themselves, dare not face the public. Neither are they willing to clarify direct that they have not made any mistakes. I find such an attitude absolutely unacceptable, not to mention that you are a Bureau Director.
Just now, even Chief Secretary Carrie LAM said that this matter should come to an end. Actually, we are eager to see this happen, too. We do hope that the Government is truly capable of promoting policies and addressing livelihood issues. But the point is the Secretary is responsible for promoting policies. If his integrity is often called into question when he is promoting policies, how can he accomplish his task? I hope this incident can be brought to a close expeditiously if doing so can enable him to promote policies smoothly. But, in order to do so, the truth of the incident must be uncovered and justice done to him, so that he can regain the public's trust and then implement the Government's policies. But, in this case, if insistence is upheld on using an undemocratic system of assembly to bring this incident to a close in an attempt to cover up some truths, what good will it actually do to the SAR Government as a whole? If the Chief Secretary said that this incident had come to an end, how could you explain and account for the low popularity rating of the Secretary since he took office? If the incident had come to an end, the general public should have put it in the back of their mind and would not have such an impression and rating of the Secretary.
Hence, I support this motion today because I really hope that the Secretary can have a chance to give the public a detailed explanation, so that he can regain the public's trust. Otherwise, the public's confidence will continue to slip. However, he has refused to do so. The greater his rejection, the more his popularity rating will drop. The lower his popularity, the harder it is for him to promote policies. What good will it do to this Government? I very much hope that the Secretary can examine his conscience and reflect on himself: What can he do if the situation continues?
I once told the Secretary in a dinner reception that the public had doubts about his integrity. It was actually not too meaningful should he insist on remaining in office. I advised him to step down or give up his post because, as far as I knew about him, Paul CHAN was sincere in getting the job done. This 176 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 is known to everyone. Now, his low popularity rating is attributed to his integrity problems. In fact, it has nothing to do with his poor ability or power of expression ― actually he is much better than many other Bureau Directors ― but why is his popularity rating so low? His integrity problems are to blame. Although we are giving him a chance, he has refused to accept it and, on the contrary, rejected our offer. So, how can he perform his duty in the future? Hence, I would like to tender him this piece of advice again: Secretary Paul CHAN, either you step down and quit this job or you let us conduct an inquiry. Moreover, this is just an inquiry, and you might not be incriminated as a result. Furthermore, you can clear your name. So, why do you not give yourself a chance?
For these reasons, Deputy President, I support this motion.
MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, actually, I also hope very much that this incident can come to an end. But my professional judgment tells me that this should not. Both Secretary Paul CHAN and I are professionals. About the explanation given by him just now, will it be acceptable to a professional accountant or auditor? For example, if an auditor goes to a company and check the account books, but the company says that a statement should be signed to prove that the relevant transactions exist, then will this auditor think that he must check certain documents first? This is one of the queries I have got.
Many Honourable colleagues in this Council say that the suspicions about hoarding land or the accusation concerned may actually have nothing to do with Secretary Paul CHAN and it is only an investment of his wife or family members of his wife. But Deputy President, please allow me to make an analogy. In the laws on listed companies, we can even find some provisions on connected transactions. Insofar as the meaning of connected transactions is concerned, if the director of a listed company makes a business transaction with persons connected with him, for less serious cases, the details of the transaction concerned should be fully disclosed; and for more important transactions, consent must be sought from all the shareholders of that company by votes cast. Now we are talking about the planning of the NENT NDAs and it is a project in which the Government will inject some $100 billion. The funds and resources involved in this project are far much larger in amount than a listed company.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 177
In the legislation related to listed companies, the definition of connected persons may include the wife, parents and brothers and sisters of Secretary Paul CHAN and their spouses, and it also includes the parents, and brothers and sisters of the wife of Secretary Paul CHAN. In this vein, if Secretary Paul CHAN claims that he does not have any direct or indirect interest and what are involved are only some interests of his wife or his wife's parental family, then it is obvious that there exists a conflict of interest or suspicion of conflict of interest, and so we are obliged to pursue this.
Deputy President, in a special meeting of the Panel on Development of this Council on 26 July 2013, by a vote of 11 to seven, members passed a motion with no binding effect urging Secretary Paul CHAN to step down. On the same day I also moved a motion which contained a humble request, and that is, to ask Secretary Paul CHAN to disclose information concerning the land and properties held by his family members and relatives within the boundaries of the NENT NDAs. However, the result of votes cast on this motion was seven votes in its favour and seven votes against it. And at that time the Deputy Chairman announced immediately that the motion did not pass because there was no majority obtained. But the Panel Chairman may have forgotten that in such circumstances, the Chairman can actually make a casting vote.
After all, we are just trying to glean some information. Secretary Paul CHAN said in his speech earlier that many people had made some unfair accusations of him and he had given explanations on many matters. But it cannot be denied that I am also very disappointed. It is because in July this year, many media people asked me what had actually happened and why a company called New Horizon Assets Limited appeared all of a sudden and how come the family of Secretary Paul CHAN owned such a large number of companies. And I must say that the full picture may also not include companies related to Secretary Paul CHAN or his wife's family. Of these 12 companies, four are overseas companies and they are: Classic Success International Limited, Excellent Assets Limited, Fidelity Management Limited and Orient Express Holdings Limited.
Our concern is not whether or not the family of Secretary Paul CHAN bought land some 20 years ago, but why did the Secretary not handle this intricate network of direct and indirect interests related to the development of land in the New Territories both after he had assumed the post of Secretary for Development and after he had been invited to become the Secretary for Development? What 178 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 we do not understand hitherto is the status of these local and overseas companies related to Secretary Paul CHAN or his wife's family, that is, who is in fact the owner? This applies especially to the four abovementioned BVI companies for which Secretary Paul CHAN has always kept his mouth shut and at most a statement from these companies is given. Our suspicions are therefore most reasonable and it is due to our professional judgment that we have suspicions about such information.
I recall Secretary Paul CHAN has once said that since his wife is a company secretary and in order to take care of the interests of her clients and owing to privacy considerations, it would not be appropriate to disclose the ownership information of these overseas companies. But as we think about it more carefully, since Mrs CHAN is a chartered company secretary, she should know that under the professional code of practice for company secretaries, any person providing professional service cannot have any business dealings with any client under any circumstances where there is a conflict of interest or alleged conflict of interest. In other words, if I accept an appointment and provide audit service for a company, I cannot be a business partner of that company at the same time because there will be a conflict of interest. So after listening to the explanation given by Secretary Paul CHAN to the media then, I could not help but have doubts about it being a genuine explanation or that there were facts behind that were not disclosed to us.
In addition, the wife of Secretary Paul CHAN has said that she has transferred all her shares in Orient Express Holdings Limited (sic) to her brother on 25 July and the stamp duty for that transaction was duly paid and a sale and purchase agreement was entered into. But the main point now is that this is not the fact we want to know. Although she has paid the stamp duty, and the concluding price of $2.7 million as claimed by her could well be a very reasonable consideration, as professionals, we want to know from where did that sum of $2.7 million come from? Did it come from money borrowed by his younger brother from his family members, or were there some other sources? We would want to know very much that what the source of the funds was in this transaction worth $2.7 million and not whether she has paid the stamp duty or whether a sale and purchase agreement has been entered into, nor whether the transaction was concluded at market price. What we want to know is the source of the funds.
Many people from the media have raised another question to me and that is, during the period from August 1994 to June 2008, the SI was a dormant LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 179 company, and according to what Secretary Paul CHAN said earlier, although the company was a dormant company in name, it did collect rent from land during the period of dormancy. The explanation given is for the protection of rights, that is, protecting his rights, and the rent collected is not large in amount. But, sorry, I must say that law is law and regardless of how small the amount of money received, and even though it may be as small as $10, provided that the act does not comply with the requirements under the Inland Revenue Ordinance or the Companies Ordinance, I have reasons to believe that he has contravened the law. According to the definition for dormant companies under the relevant rules and regulations, his company must not have any accounting transaction during the period before the company is considered compliant with the requirements of a dormant company. This has nothing to do with the amount of rent collected, for even if the amount is only $30, $40, $50 or $60, this will be a breach of the requirement. I hope the Secretary can explain this to me in his response later.
I would like to make use of this opportunity to clarify some fallacies held by certain Honourable colleagues. Certain Honourable colleagues have said that the incident took place a number of months ago and we should not pursue any investigation into it and no new evidence has been discovered since then. But it is precisely because of the fact that a number of months have passed and the matter has been dragging on for so long, and in our professional opinion and plus the fact that many members of the public are still very much concerned about the matter, we should launch an inquiry. We still have a lot of doubts and we cannot say for sure that Secretary Paul CHAN has offended the law. But since doubts exist, we should launch an inquiry to find out the truth. During the past two months, and incidentally, since we were in our summer recess, we had not pursued the matter. But that does not mean we want to water down the whole incident during the summer recess.
Certain Members from the pro-establishment camp have pointed out to me that invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to probe into Secretary Paul CHAN may lead to a huge waste of resources and time. As a matter of fact, we do not want to see such a state of affairs as well. This is because suppose the motion was passed in the meeting of the Panel on Development 26 July, and if Secretary Paul CHAN was willing to provide information on his companies to us or even appoint an independent auditor to check such information to prove that he and his family are not involved in any direct or indirect conflict of interest, then I believe the whole incident can be solved within a matter of days. The curtains will be down in a very fast and 180 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 sound manner. There will not be any need to cause so much trouble as Dr KWOK Ka-ki has to move a motion today to urge for the setting up of a select committee under the P&P Ordinance to inquire into the incident concerning Secretary Paul CHAN.
Even if an inquiry is to be conducted, our purpose is only asking Secretary Paul CHAN to take the trouble to produce the information so that this Council can study it. This will dispel the misapprehensions of Members as well as the public. There is actually no need for things to come to this pass and we have to take the trouble of invoking the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry. Secretary Paul CHAN, your destiny rests in your own hands, and no one can help you.
Deputy President, I so submit.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, before Secretary Paul CHAN assumed office, he once made the following remarks and I would like to read them out.
He said to this effect: "The expectation of society on public officers is such that apart from an absence of conflict of interest as a matter of fact, there should also be an absence of suspicions of conflict of interest in the opinion of the public." Therefore, according to the Secretary, he has always reminded himself that he should be whiter than white.
In the view of the Secretary, on the question of conflict of interest, public officers should not be touching the baseline of things and they should not allow themselves to stand on controversial grounds. This is because even if in the end the officer concerned cannot be found guilty in law, what would be the public impression of him? In Hong Kong, society demands that public officers should act according to the rules in matters concerning criticism of conflict of interest and they should adopt a stand of being whiter than white.
Secretary, these remarks actually come from your written response. Those resounding remarks can tell clearly how the Secretary looks at the question of conflict of interest. Since his assumption of office, he has faced all sorts of problems from "sub-divided units" to drink driving and hoarding of land. Of course and objectively speaking, it may be, as the Secretary said, there are many LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 181 explanations. These explanations would enable him to avoid having to face up directly to legal issues, but the issues that arouse in the public impression would have already existed objectively nonetheless. I would like to ask the Secretary, "If what you have said is used as the standard, how are you going to dispel public misapprehensions?"
The former Financial Secretary, Mr Antony LEUNG, once made this point in an interview concisely to this effect: "People in high positions should know how to avoid suspicions, and they should not be suspected of harbouring any wish to advance their own interests and once suspicions are aroused, they should resign from office. More importantly, the point is not whether or not something has actually been done. It is improper once public suspicion is aroused." Aptly because it was considered improper that the decision made by Mr Antony LEUNG on that day that his prompt resignation tendered to TUNG Chee-hwa was approved. I would think that for accountable officials, stepping down from office is also a manifestation of accountability.
In fact, in this Chamber we have repeatedly discussed issues of conflict of interest and invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to conduct inquiries. Many Honourable colleagues from the pro-establishment camp and also government officials always think that when the pan-democrats do this, their aim is to denigrate and smear the Government, causing obstruction to administration. But just look at this if you may, despite efforts made in defending government action and refusing to give an opportunity and a platform to persons alleged of misconduct to make a response in a credible framework, public misapprehensions about the Government and the accountable officials cannot be dispelled. It is when the integrity of the accountable officials is called into question that it constitutes the real impedance to administration by the Government.
Members must not deny that both the Government and the accountable officials do have enormous powers. These powers must be checked, and these powers can be effectively exercised only with popular trust. But the accountable officials concerned choose to evade repeatedly when their integrity is questioned by the public. They choose to rely on Members from the pro-establishment camp to come to their defence, in order to avoid facing an inquiry conducted under a credible framework. But that is an opportunity which can do them justice. So why are they doing that?
182 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
I do not have an intimate working relationship with Secretary Paul CHAN, but over the few years, I can see that the Secretary is hardworking and committed to addressing the housing problem, really wanting to get the job done.
As I have said in the meetings earlier, the Secretary does have great responsibilities and commitment when faced with the development of NENT. He has to face up to problems like the shortage of land and difficulties in housing construction and provision. He has to put his ideas into practice. Come to think about this, if he does not want to present the facts which he vows to be true on a platform with credibility, it would only attract queries about his personal conduct and all discussions will not get to the core of the matter. Just how are we going to undertake planning for NENT? How should we develop Hung Shui Kiu? How are we to ensure land supply to address the difficult problem of housing provision? If this is the case, we would be falling into a government framework which is running idle. If all these policy discussions and government operation continue to run like an idling engine, then all the events which took place during the 10-odd years in the past would continue to bear on Secretary Paul CHAN.
Would it be the wish of the Secretary to see the problems remain unsolved? I think that the reason why the problems are not solved only hinges on a thought of the Secretary, that he is unwilling to submit himself to a credible platform ― that is, the inquiry by a select committee formed under the P&P Ordinance proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki today.
Deputy President, actually, I do not have much to say about this because I am sure the Secretary knows it well enough. The remarks which I read out just now are standards which the Secretary gives himself. He can tell the public whether the things he is doing can meet these three standards and the criterion of being whiter than white. If he thinks that his acts can convince the public that he is already whiter than white, then there are only two possibilities left: First, he is treating members of the public as fools because it is like all our doubts and queries over the years are all unfounded; second, the remarks he has made do not apply to himself in reality. In that case, he would have a very serious problem of integrity indeed. In other words, what he says is not trustworthy.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 183
Secretary, I hope to hear your response later on. Will you use those three standards which you have talked about to point out that the explanation you offer to the public can make you whiter than white? I do not see at this moment that your explanation can make you whiter than white. This is because the explanation offered is not presented on any credible platform so that members of the public can challenge it. In such circumstances, how can members of the public be convinced that the response is whiter than white?
Therefore, I will lend my support to Dr KWOK Ka-ki's motion in the hope that Honourable colleagues can do justice to Secretary Paul CHAN and support invoking the P&P Ordinance to provide a suitable platform to inquire into the case concerning Paul CHAN. This would give the Secretary an opportunity to clear himself of the allegations made against him and restore his tarnished reputation. Thank you, Deputy President.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, there is an ethos pervading in society currently that public officers, regardless of their being government officials or Members of this Council, if they are found not to have acted according to the declaration of interest mechanism, they will be requested to step down. But even if they have declared their interests according to the requirements, Members would still say that the declaration of interest system is outdated and accuse them of not providing enough information. They will be pursued for a lot of information which falls outside the scope of information provided in declaration. If a reply is given slower than expected, they will be condemned as covering up things. And if it is because of the short time allowed that only the information requested is given, these people would be accused of providing information like squeezing a tube of toothpaste.
Another point which Members often make is that there is an increasingly higher demand from the public for public figures. It is also a fact that public feelings should be taken into account. However, different members of the public would have different views of the same thing. Then how can we know what demands are justified? It follows that the fairest approach is to act according to the systems of declaration of interest worked out by various government departments or organizations after study, such that these persons concerned have something to follow. So if public officers have made declarations according to the requirements, even if there are people who may 184 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 think that the information given is not complete or the system of declaration itself is not sound, they should let the people concerned have the benefit of doubt and the latter should be regarded as having passed the test.
Let me come back to the incident about the Secretary. Not long after the Secretary had assumed office, he found that he owned a piece of land inside the NENT NDAs. And he took action at once and made a declaration to the Chief Executive. Subsequently, the Secretary emphasized that he himself, his wife and his children did not have any interest in respect of the NDAs. The Chief Executive also personally confirmed that the Secretary had made the necessary declaration of interest.
It turns out that the Secretary has made a declaration of interest under the existing system and explained on numerous occasions the facts in relation to the farmland concerned. As a matter of fact, the Government has set up an established system and relevant procedures. If officials have followed such a system strictly, they should have met the requirements and come clean of any criminal liability. Unfortunately, on this occasion, although the Secretary has made a declaration, he is still under severe attack. Then what is the use of the declaration system? Of course, notwithstanding how stringent a system of declaration can be, there is bound to be room for further improvement. But before any change is made to the system, we should follow the system as it is. For if not, a situation will arise and that is, while those who have not declared will get killed, those who have declared according to the rules will also get killed. Is this fair and reasonable?
Certainly, people will say, "When there is no inquiry, how can we know that he is innocent and whether he has covered anything up?" According to media reports, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has decided to set up a committee to investigate the matter. I believe since the ICAC will investigate the matter, then there is no reason for us to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) at this moment and conduct an inquiry by this Council. This is because it will give the community a wrong message that the Legislative Council does not trust the ICAC. Also, an inquiry by this Council cannot be expected to be as comprehensive as the investigation done by the ICAC. If in the end the ICAC finds that the Secretary has done something wrong, I am sure he will be punished.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 185
An Honourable colleague has asked, why does the Secretary not make use of this good opportunity of a commission of inquiry formed under the P&P Ordinance to prove his innocence to the public? I think this argument can be likened to the case of a healthy person, but we suspect that he is not healthy and so we say to him, "Why do we not cut your body open to see and prove that you are all very fine?" I am sure any person who is to be tried under the P&P Ordinance, that is, the defendant, will have to bear the same kind of mental stress and torture like the person who is about to be cut open. If Members do not have any concrete and adequate evidence, they should not conduct a trial of any person by invoking the P&P Ordinance recklessly.
As I said in the House Committee meeting last week, I thought that the issues which we would discuss after the commencement of the new Legislative Session would be concrete matters which have impacts on the future of Hong Kong, like the free trade zone in Shanghai, and so on. Little did I expect that Members would still spend time on internal attrition. The friends whom I have met, be they young or old, have all said to me that we have wasted too much time and energy on internal attrition, causing the development of society to stagnate.
As we review our past, we can find that at one time we used to rank number one in the world in container terminals. But in recent years, our position has been taken over by Singapore and Shanghai. As far as I know, Shenzhen is going to overtake us soon. Also, before the reunification, our economy used to be on the same par as Singapore. But now the monthly household income in Singapore almost doubles that of Hong Kong. In such circumstances, why do we pretend to see nothing? Why do Members still spend time on internal attrition which is not necessary at all?
What is most worrying is that even the Central Authorities seem to have ceased to hold great expectations for Hong Kong. Apart from building the Qian Hai district in Shenzhen, a free trade zone is set up in Shanghai. According to many analyses made, the Mainland is trying to clone another Hong Kong in the hope that should anything go amiss in Hong Kong, a replacement can be ushered in. I would of course not wish to see this happen. But in the event that the Shanghai free trade zone takes away 10% or 20% of our business, it will spell great trouble for Hong Kong. Over time, it will land Hong Kong in a precarious 186 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 position and by that time, our so-called position as an international financial centre will be gone just like what has happened to our container terminals.
We should know that it is much easier to destroy than to build. And even if we work with one heart to develop our economy, it will take some time before we can see any results. I hope very much that the people of Hong Kong can be committed to building their community and refrain from indulging in internal attrition. Otherwise, our next generation will blame us for just poking trouble and not doing the proper jobs.
The Chief Secretary has just explained that the decision made by the Development Bureau is not the result of any personal judgment by Secretary Paul CHAN. In fact, the incident has dragged on for a long time. So before any new evidence is found, I urge Members to return to examining the practical issues concerning the NDAs project. They should stop wasting years of time and causing Hong Kong to be stuck in an impasse.
Lastly, I would like to mention in particular that the incident has caused great pressure to the Secretary, his family and relatives. Some media, especially those which do not abide by the law have resorted to using all means to stalk and take photos. This has caused uneasiness in his children and relatives. This sort of action is not regarded as reasonable in Hong Kong and it has gone way over board. I hope the industry concerned or the media can ponder seriously over this practice.
I will object to the motion. Thank you, Deputy President.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kin-por seemed to suggest just now that we are engaging in internal attrition. But even if we are, put it in his words, engaging in internal attrition, may I ask why we have to do so here today? He said that "it is much easier to destroy than to build. This, I very much agree. But who is destroying the systems of Hong Kong? It is actually LEUNG Chun-ying and Secretary Paul CHAN. Who created the problem of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 187
"劏 房 波"1 for no reason? Of course, it does not mean Mr CHAN Kin-por2, for he has no sub-divided units. Who created the problem of "圈地波"3?
The point is that if everything is fine, nobody would like to see internal attrition. Conversely, I must ask: Who has destroyed the systems of Hong Kong? Hong Kong people are already pathetic, for there is no democracy and no universal suffrage. Then, there are these Chief Executives coming to power, from TUNG Chee-hwa to Donald TSANG and then LEUNG Chun-ying, and we have seen more problems cropping up one term after another. This is the problem of the systems. We do not wish to see this happen; nobody would wish to see this happen. Whenever we put questions to the Government and exercise monitoring over the Government on behalf of the people, the pro-establishment camp will allege that we are engaging in internal attrition and that we should instead deal with issues like the free trade zone in Shanghai that is confronting us now. The internal attrition is indeed created by the Government itself. Go and ask Barry CHEUNG to come back and let him stay in the Executive Council, and if we shut our mouths up, does it mean that there would be no internal attrition then? Indeed, there is internal attrition because he has taken on the wrong people. It is because LEUNG Chun-ying has employed the wrong people that Hong Kong is caught in continuous internal attrition.
So, with regard to the entire problem that we are dealing with today, I do not think the situation is all very fine, just as Chief Secretary Carrie LAM said as she tried to play things down. She said that even if there is a problem of land enclosure, an individual still cannot decide on the relevant development, for there are professional departments, systems, and mechanisms as safeguards. But my question is: Does the Secretary not have any say? It is most unfortunate that when there is an issue of interest or conflict of interest, and if the Secretary has the intention to ― I am not saying that Secretary Paul CHAN has such an intention, for no investigation has been conducted ― if any person holding public powers has the intention to further a transfer of benefit covertly, it would be
1 "劏房波", which literally means "sub-divided units Po", is a nickname given to Mr Paul CHAN Mo-po for his alleged involvement in operating sub-divided units for lease.
2 Both Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Paul CHAN Mo-po have the character "波" in their Chinese names.
3 "圈地波", which literally means "land enclosure Po", is a nickname given to Mr Paul CHAN Mo-po for his alleged involvement in hoarding land in the New Territories. 188 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 impossible for anyone to find out about it. Can the system fully ensure that what a person in power has done secretly will not involve any transfer of benefit? It would be great if that could be assured.
Why are they called "Directors of Bureaux" or "accountability officials"? It is all because they have powers. Civil servants carry out their work only in accordance with the directions set by the Directors of Bureaux without questioning the directions. When the Directors of Bureaux provide a direction, the civil servants will not know what underlying interests there are and they will simply do as told. So, do not make those casual remarks to play things down, as if nothing has happened. In fact, I think this is terrifying. When the Secretary for Development himself is in control of the direction of the NENT development and even holds the power of life and death over the area, his family members nevertheless have interests in NENT. He said that the farmland in question is not large, but interests are still involved. If this problem is not addressed, the public would doubt whether the entire NENT development is taken forward for his own interest.
When the public have doubts about whether the NENT development is for his own interest, the relevant discussion will be knocked completely out of focus. As Members may recall, during the discussion on the development of NENT in the Legislative Council, everything was fine initially and we were discussing the general direction. However, this incident was revealed during the discussion and at the public hearing of the Legislative Council, there were queries about whether Secretary Paul CHAN was taking forward the NENT development for his own sake. In the entire incident, the perception of the people is indeed very important. When the Secretary has a blemish and when the public feel that no clarification or thorough investigation has been made, the outcome would easily be one of the public looking at the whole incident from the angle of conspiracy theory or transfer of benefit. Would that be a good thing to the Government?
In fact, the inquiry is really meant to give people the right to know, so that they will know what exactly has happened. Of course, as some Members have questioned earlier on, since the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) is investigating this case, does it mean that we do not trust the ICAC if an inquiry is to be conducted by the Legislative Council? This is why Mr CHAN Kin-por opined that an inquiry by the Legislative Council would not be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 189 necessary. However, Members have always confused two things. Every department or authority takes a different angle in handling each case. The Legislative Council aims to find out the truth. The ICAC may aim to probe into whether breaches of law are involved, and that is a different angle. Breaches of law and the truth are two different things. Therefore, I very much take exception to the remark made by Chief Secretary Carrie LAM, that the problem is not that serious since the development is not decided by just one person.
Indeed, this is so terrifying. Let us think about this: Insofar as the entire development is concerned, if there are suspicions about the Secretary having an interest in it, the direction of the entire development is already open to question. This is totally unacceptable. Worse still, if society has reached a state where no investigation can be conducted even into this incident and where the incident is only covered up and then considered settled, the public would feel that a darkness looms over society and many things are covered up. We really do not wish to see this perception in society.
The Secretary also made a point earlier on. He said that he apologized for being "clumsy" in communication. I think what he means by communication is his claim that he did not remember what happened at the outset and then his claim that his wife and her family member owned some farmland there. But it was found that this "family member" refers to his own son. This may as well be an invention of a new way to address one's own son, that is, by calling him "my wife's family member", and he sounded like he has no part to play at all. Such "hypocritical rhetoric" gives people the feeling that this is not as simple as just being "clumsy" in communication, but an attempt to cover things up.
He said that he was "clumsy" in communication, but as an accountability official or an official under the political accountability system, can his communication skills really be that bad? Sometimes I think when he was a Member of the Legislative Council, we had communicated with each other very well. Why have his communication skills become so bad after becoming a Director of Bureau? This has aroused suspicions among the people as they think that he is actually a person who is good at communication and that he does not know how to communicate only when he needs to cover things up. This is also the reason why we wish to conduct an inquiry into this incident.
190 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Another point made is that the Secretary has already made a declaration. In fact, the Secretary made it very clear earlier that he had declared his interests only in writing and after this incident was brought to light, he said that he had made a declaration to the Chief Executive. Was it a verbal declaration? I would like to seek clarification on this point, because I remember that he once said that only a verbal declaration was made. Then, the Chief Executive said that he had accepted his verbal declaration. Nobody knows what happened in the entire incident; there is not anything in black and white, and his claims about having made a declaration can be a way out for him. But what sort of declaration is that? I think it cannot be accepted as a declaration.
Besides, in respect of companies, the Secretary mentioned a lot of company names earlier, such as EA, FM, NH, and so on, and then there is also the question of BVI. Why do so many companies have to be registered in the BVI (British Virgin Islands)? As we all know, there is no way to find out who the owners are behind these companies. Then why does he have companies registered in the BVI? What is more, he has never made any clarification or given any answer in this respect. How can I find out if he is the registered owner of these BVI companies? Of course, he can deny it, but nobody knows. Perhaps LEUNG Chun-ying is behind these BVI companies. How can I find out? As he registered his companies at a place where company search is impossible, do we not have reasons to doubt what has actually happened?
Therefore, we in the Labour Party eventually considers it necessary to conduct an inquiry. If you, Secretary, has not covered up anything, I think you should also support the conduct of an inquiry. If you have covered up something, then you must definitely try all means to put up defence and the pro-establishment camp will also do so to put up defence for you. This incident would then vanish into thin air, adding another unresolved case in Hong Kong. Must there always be so many unresolved cases in Hong Kong? Every time when it is said that an inquiry must be conducted, it will turn out that no inquiry is conducted into any of these cases eventually. It is because the pro-establishment camp in the Legislative Council will definitely vote against it and they will definitely cover up everything for the Government, creating another unresolved case in the end.
The Secretary has said that he must be "whiter than white", but the most tragic thing is that the situation now is "blacker than black" and that it will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 191 continue to be black, like we will not see light eternally and no investigation will be allowed.
Thank you, Deputy President.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the theme of this debate is to urge this Council to appoint a select committee to inquire into the incident of the Secretary for Development, Mr Paul CHAN, owning farmland located in the areas of the NENT NDAs Project and related issues in accordance with the powers conferred by the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance).
In fact, last Friday when the House Committee resumed its meetings, Dr KWOK Ka-ki proposed a motion on the same topic. Members from various political parties and groupings already expressed their views and fully explained their respective positions. The motion was eventually negatived in the House Committee with 26 Members voting for it, 37 against it and two abstained.
That was only a few days ago and now, the same old topic is rehashed like "frying leftover rice" over and over again. Not only has this spoiled the appetite of some Members, many members of the public may feel puzzled: Can this parliamentary assembly in Hong Kong really not identify issues that are truly of public concern and can practically improve the economy and people's livelihood?
Taking one step back, I think even if we have to discuss this topic, we should clarify some fundamental principles and facts, or else the debate will be stripped of any real meaning. Many people have likened the P&P Ordinance to an "imperial sword". An "imperial sword", so to speak, is a symbol of supreme powers. In reality, we should not underestimate or neglect the importance of the P&P Ordinance.
This Ordinance comes from Article 73 of the Basic Law and provides an important basis for Members of the Legislative Council to monitor the administration of the Government. Section 9(1) expressly provides that the 192 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Legislative Council or its relevant committees can summon any person to give evidence or produce any document in the possession or under the control of such person. Therefore, it is only when an incident is considered by a majority of people as involving significant public interest and requiring clarification of the surrounding circumstances and when it is impossible to follow it up in depth through general procedures that the use of this "imperial sword" to conduct an investigation is considered necessary and appropriate. Colleagues of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong (the Alliance) and I unanimously consider that this is the fundamental principle that we have to uphold in weighing the pros and cons and considering whether this "imperial sword" should be deployed.
Is it necessary to use this "imperial sword" of the Legislative Council to inquire into this incident of so-called land hoarding by Secretary Paul CHAN? It is really difficult to conclude that there is a prima facie case at least judging from the developments at the present stage.
As I said at the meeting of the House Committee last Friday, the purchase of farmland by the family members of Secretary Paul CHAN 19 years ago was a lawful and normal act regardless of the purchase being meant for entertainment or investment purposes. Secretary Paul CHAN also made a declaration to the Chief Executive in October last year and transferred the shares directly held by his family members to avoid conflict of interest. We can say that he has already taken actions accordingly.
Secretary Paul CHAN had also explained this incident repeatedly at the special meetings of the Panel on Development held for several days successively in July this year. Therefore, unless there is new development or new evidence indicating a need for further investigation by the Legislative Council, the Alliance does not agree that the P&P Ordinance be invoked hastily at this stage to inquire into this incident, for this will further waste the time of this Council.
I believe unnecessary disputes can be avoided so long as some fundamental principles and facts are clarified. More importantly, the public have very high expectations of the Legislative Council. They hope that we can devote more time and efforts to economic and livelihood issues that are truly of concern to the community in order to do more practical work for the people.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 193
Deputy President, Mr HU Shi once said to the effect that we should say exactly what the evidence tells; nothing more, nothing less. I very much agree with this scientific, rational and fair attitude. The Legislative Council is a solemn parliamentary assembly, so it is all the more necessary for us to firmly uphold this principle.
Deputy President, the Alliance opposes the motion moved by Dr KWOK Ka-ki. I so submit.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, after the incident of MAK Chai-kwong, Paul CHAN was presented an unexpected opportunity and entrusted with a mission at a critical moment in being appointed as the Secretary for Development. But much to our regret, after he assumed office, the community has had a lot of queries and criticisms of his capability and credibility. It is because members of the public may not recognize his experience and expertise in the relevant portfolio and do not have confidence to believe that he is capable of doing a good job.
In fact, housing and land have all along been the most serious problems besetting the economy and people's living in Hong Kong. They are also factors causing great social grievances and confrontations between the community and the Government. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) has said that housing is most important of all in its administration and this is why we very much hope to have a highly competent Secretary for Development who can help the new Government resolve the housing and land problems, so that Hong Kong people can live in peace and work with contentment and their standard of living can be improved. So, it should give no cause for much criticism if some members of the public do not support Paul CHAN.
Most unfortunately, since Paul CHAN took office, there have indeed been incessant negative news about him being reported one after another. First, he was involved in drink driving; then he or his family members were alleged to be operating "sub-divided units", and there is this furore over land hoarding under discussion in this Council today. This series of problems involving his conduct 194 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 and integrity has indeed brought an extremely negative impact on him and also affected the prestige of the SAR Government.
Moreover, I think Secretary Paul CHAN has indeed taken a somewhat stalling and ambiguous approach in handling his several personal problems. For example, he told us that drink driving was a fact but he believed he was not drunk. I think as Members all understand, and even innocent children or even inexperienced youngsters will know, one should not drive after drinking. So I think the way in which he handled his problems seems to have caused misconceptions or a bad impression about him among the public. In fact, this series of acts involving his personal integrity has continued to drag down his popularity which once recorded a peak of -46%. I believe this is unexpected to the SAR Government, and also to Paul CHAN himself.
Deputy President, I think Paul CHAN is currently in a situation that can be likened to that of a football player who is considered as "so-so" by football fans, and worse still, some football fans have started to think that he is engaged in match-fixing and has a problem with his integrity. His situation now is really tragic as he is greeted with catcalls or even objects hurled at him every time he enters the pitch; the relatively radical football fans said that he is of no help to the team if he stays on, telling him to leave the team, while the more radical ones are even telling him to leave the football circle altogether in order not to affect the development of football.
Of course, this football player can argue against these allegations of match-fixing or integrity failure by saying that he will exert himself to play matches and lead his team to win more games in the hope of winning people's support and trust. But is this wish realistic? Does he think what other people think? I think Secretary Paul CHAN should be practical, and he should think twice and look into the problems. If possible, I hope he can prove his capability and integrity in the shortest possible time, in order to win over public support and trust. This way, he would be able to lead the Development Bureau in resolving the housing and land problems. Otherwise, it may not be a bad idea to take one step back and see the boundless sea and sky around him.
Deputy President, Mr Dennis KWOK has proposed to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to conduct an investigation into Secretary Paul CHAN … It should be Dr KWOK Ka-ki ― Does that mean Mr Dennis KWOK does not wish to conduct an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 195 investigation ― Dr KWOK Ka-ki suspected that there is an integrity problem with Secretary Paul CHAN and that the Secretary has covered things up. These are, in fact, very serious allegations. So, on the surface, I think they only want him to step down but frankly speaking, if they suspect match-fixing or integrity problems on the part of another person, they must produce the evidence in the first place. They cannot make these claims solely from their one-sided views or judgments or even feelings. This is like playing football. It is unreasonable to say that a football player is fixing the match or lacks integrity only because somebody saw him telephoning a football player on the opposite team before the start of the match. Therefore, it is unfair to the person concerned if the P&P Ordinance is invoked only on account of suspicions or feelings without the support of substantive evidence.
Deputy President, you may think that my position is wavering and may wish to ask me why. I think before we invoke the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry, we can discuss another deep-rooted issue in this Council today and that is, what kind of a Secretary does the Development Bureau need?
Deputy President, if the Secretary is competent without any problem with his integrity or he is a good Secretary, that is certainly a blessing for Hong Kong people. However, if a Secretary is of high calibre but has little integrity, should we let him continue to hold his office? Conversely, if a Secretary's capability is just so-so but he absolutely has no integrity problem and he is loyal to his country and observes filial piety to his parents, and he is affectionate and caring towards his friends, faithful to his love and a philanthropist but has ordinary working ability, should we accept such a Secretary? He is perfect and does not have any problem with his integrity at all. I think we must clearly think about it. What kind of a Secretary do we consider acceptable? Certainly, if a Secretary is of very high calibre but always tells lies, harbours evil intentions, sets eyes solely on profits or gains, refuses to admit mistakes and shifts the blame to other people, then we must start pondering whether he is suitable for holding the office of a Director of Bureau.
So, I think before proposing invoking the P&P Ordinance today, we must first draw a line. Since Dr KWOK Ka-ki wants the Secretary to step down, and if the inquiry found that there are really problems with his integrity but his ability is not bad, should we require him to step down? We must first draw the line and set out the circumstances under which he must step down. If his integrity is bad but has strong abilities, do we not need someone to plan the development of land 196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 or housing? Some people may challenge me and question: What ability does Paul CHAN have to speak of? Frankly speaking, it is premature to draw a conclusion now because he has been in office for some 10 months only. A term of five years consists of 60 months. So, strictly speaking, he has completed only one fifth of the race. He may be a slow-to-warm-up Secretary who shows great enthusiasm only at a later stage, reserving energy till the end of the race to overtake others and showing ever increasing courage as he fights on. We cannot hastily make a judgment now, saying that he is far from competent right from the outset. Of course, he has congenital deficiencies because he is inexperienced in this field. But the new Vice Chancellor of the University of Hong Kong, Peter William MATHIESON, has said recently, "I am a person with strong ability of learning, and I should be able to learn the ropes very quickly." Perhaps Paul CHAN has the same DNA as that of MATHIESON, a person with strong ability of learning and capable of taking charge on his own in resolving difficulties. Therefore, it is premature to pass the judgment that he is incompetent.
Honestly, from my angle, it is very difficult to judge whether he has no integrity in this incident. Simply put, only he himself knows the answer. He knows best what he has done himself, whether he has covered up his interests, whether he has been honest and open, whether he has lied without blinking an eye, whether he has shifted the blame to other people, and whether he has committed immoral acts. For all these questions, only he himself knows the answers.
I have just returned from the Mainland. I watched there a news report about Chairman XI in Hebei. Chairman XI made a remark which is very touching to me even though I heard it from the reports on television. He said to the effect that criticisms and self-criticisms are the most powerful weapon to resolve contradictions or conflicts.
We have made enough criticisms of him today. We still have a few more hours to criticize him but he must first criticize himself and examine himself. For all the work that he has done before or for so many things that he has handled since he took office, does he still have integrity and ability to deal with these negative issues? Otherwise, these bombs will only go bust one after another in the next few years. If that happened, not only would he plunge himself into troubles and plunge the Government into troubles, but the well-being of Hong Kong people would also be compromised.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 197
Certainly, the Secretary has said time and again, to this effect, "I already said everything that I have to say. I can say it again if you ask me to but I already said everything and so, I already justified myself to the sun and the moon. The only fault is that you misunderstand me, and you are biased against me, so I can do nothing if you do not believe me."
Secretary, if you wish to prove that you are a good official who is seen only once in a century, please expeditiously use your skills to prove that you have competence and integrity; please be honest and open and set out in detail the circumstances surrounding your several BVI companies in order to give an account to us and allay our concern. You have to tell us that this plot of land was purchased 19 years ago not for entertainment or holiday use. For how would anyone believe that you purchased it for entertainment and holiday use? How is a barbeque possible there when the place is overgrown with weeds? Could it be that the woods would then have to be burnt down in its entirety? So, you must explain afresh these issues in the shortest possible time in order to prove that you are capable of handling these problems. Otherwise, with this baggage on your back, it would indeed be very difficult for you to remain in office.
Deputy President, I am really caught in a dilemma today. As a pro-establishment Member, I really feel that I am caught in a dilemma. There is not sufficient information to prove integrity problems or conflict of interest on his part, but his explanation is hardly convincing, and he seems to be contradictory in his words and beating about the bush in his answers. It is very difficult for us to make a judgment.
Having said that, from another angle, I would like to tell Dr KWOK Ka-ki this: Even if a select committee were set up under the P&P Ordinance to investigate him, do you really think that the inquiry could find out anything? In fact, as we know from past experiences, some simple tactics, such as replying that "I am not sure", "I do not know" or "I do not remember", can help him get away with it. Nothing would be achieved in the end, only that our efforts would all come to no avail. Is it not better to leave it to the ICAC to investigate him? If we do not trust even the ICAC today, what other organizations can we trust?
I have known Paul CHAN for a few years. Insofar as this incident is concerned, I venture to give him some advice. Indeed, he has made a few mistakes. Despite his grassroots background, his knowledge of the grassroots is 198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 but weak. He always feel good about himself, thinking that the grassroots will definitely accept his explanation. But Secretary, you must understand that with regard to the compensation made in implementing the NENT NDAs Project and the interests to be obtained by your family, the grassroots will look at them from a different angle. As I said earlier on, you claimed that you had purchased this plot of land for entertainment and holiday use, but other people are simply not convinced. The grassroots do not look at it this way.
Lastly, I hope the Secretary will understand that for people who hold public office nowadays ― I do understand it myself ― apart from being governed and bound by law, social rules and declaration mechanisms, they are at the same time bound and restrained by morals, honesty, integrity and perceptions of the community. Therefore, I will abstain in the vote today. However, I hope that you can seriously pay attention to your standards of integrity and honesty in the remaining term of your office. For any intricate, entangled relationships of interests, you had better handle them with the mentality of avoiding doing anything that may arouse suspicions. I also hope that you will understand the need to look at anything from the angle of the grassroots and the public, and use the simplest and most direct language to explain your problems.
Deputy President, I so submit.
MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, after listening to the speech of Dr LAM Tai-fai, I fully appreciate the agony of being a Member in the pro-establishment camp. Since he dares not tell the public direct that he supports Secretary Paul CHAN, he has put forth some incomprehensible reasons to justify his action of abstaining in the vote. I heard him say that a criterion should be set to examine whether we want the post of the Director of Bureau to be taken up by an incapable person with credibility, a capable person with no credibility, a capable person with credibility or an incapable person with no credibility. He said that a decision could hardly be made in the present circumstances.
Though this Honourable colleague considers such a decision difficult to make, many members of the public have concluded at heart that Secretary Paul CHAN lacks credibility. Dr LAM Tai-fai said that the Secretary should be given a second chance so that he might prove his ability in his remaining tenure LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 199 of about four years. Indeed, this will only do harm to him. For if he lacks credibility, or at least Hong Kong people consider him lacking credibility, he will run into trouble in everything he does. When he talks about the development of NENT, people will assert that he has hoarded land and has not yet explained the case involving the companies domiciled in the British Virgin Islands, and they will not discuss with him. If he talks about the development of the harbourfront, people will query, "Do you have any credibility? If you have no credibility, I will not believe you no matter what you say." It would be a waste of time, would it not?
Against this background, if Secretary Paul CHAN is asked to prove his ability in his remaining tenure, as a means to gloss over his weakness of lacking credibility, I am afraid it will be a mission impossible. For this reason, I can hardly understand why it is so difficult to decide whether the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) should be invoked to investigate if Secretary Paul CHAN has a credibility problem. I am baffled by this line of logic.
Deputy President, from the perspective of the realistic interest of the public, the lack of credibility of Secretary Paul CHAN will have direct and adverse impact on the SAR Government, particularly in policies on land development and housing, dragging the development of the territory. Hence, at the press conference hosted by the pan-democratic camp last week, I urged that not only Members from the democratic camp should enforce justice on behalf of heaven, Members from the pro-establishment camp and even Directors of Bureaux and Secretaries of Departments under the accountability system should support launching an investigation to find out the truth of the case. It is most desirable that there is no question of a credibility crisis. This will give Secretary Paul CHAN a starting point to prove his ability in this remaining tenure of three or four years. But at present, it is still an unsettled case and a decision is pending. Even if the Secretary would like to do so, he can hardly make any progress. The development of Hong Kong is now dragged down by the Secretary for Development. What an irony? Yet, this is the actual case.
An Honourable colleague said earlier that at the opening meeting of this Session, we should discuss subjects like reclamation and the impact of the free trade zone in Shanghai on the development of Hong Kong instead of exhausting ourselves in idle discussion and internal attrition. However, have Members identified the crux of the problem, Deputy President? Had Secretary Paul 200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
CHAN submitted his resignation, had he done what he should do and had he stepped down, we would not have to step on the accelerator of a car filled up with fuel in neutral gear. We would not have to do that. We could have discussed other issues today. But since Secretary Paul CHAN has failed to give a clear and detailed account of the whole incident, explaining the full story and the circumstances surrounding the case, and refused to resign, we cannot but propose invoking the P&P Ordinance to inquire into the case to find out the truth. This is the cause of the internal attrition.
Deputy President, the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong announced the latest popularity ratings of officials under the accountability system on 10 September, which was about a month ago. Secretary Paul CHAN ranked the lowest with an approval rate of 14% and a disapproval rate of 60%, the worst rating ever registered since the survey series began in 2002. He has set the record for the poorest performance and the lowest net popularity rating among all Secretaries and Directors. It may be unprecedented, but I can hardly say if the worse is yet to come.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
If Secretary Paul CHAN said he had already explained the case on hoarding land, it is obviously shown in the result of the opinion poll on 10 September that the public do not accept his explanation, which is expressed in the rating the public accorded to him. In other words, the public are not satisfied with the explanation. Had the public accepted the explanation, the net popularity rating of the Secretary would not have recorded a low level of -46%. The public consider the Secretary's explanation more of a cover-up. The Civic Party had conducted a survey from July to August. It is found that over 60% of the respondents consider that Secretary Paul CHAN has told lies in explaining his case of hoarding land, and nearly 60% of the respondents consider that Secretary Paul CHAN should step down.
Since the land-hoarding incident involving the family of Secretary Paul CHAN was revealed, at least seven queries have yet to be cleared ― I have already counted that. To set the record straight, stating why the Civic Party supports Dr KWOK Ka-ki's motion on invoking the P&P Ordinance to inquire LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 201 into the incident of Secretary Paul CHAN on land hoarding and his family benefiting from the hoarding of land, I will now set out the seven major queries, for the record.
First, Secretary Paul CHAN said that the site at Kwu Tung North was bought 19 years ago for his children for leisure use, and pointed out that he was not involved in any interest in the farmland. However, villagers nearby had pointed out to the media that they had never seen the CHAN family making any leisure trip to the farmland. On the contrary, Secretary Paul CHAN had once signed a lease of the farmland as a representative. This is the objective fact.
The second query pending clarification is about the Statement Industries Limited (SI) he owned, which had applied to become dormant. President, you know that when a company becomes dormant, it is exempted from holding general meetings and making and submitting an annual return under section 127 of the Companies Ordinance, as well as employing an accountant to examine the financial statement of the company, but the dormant company should not carry out any commercial activities. The second query came in this juncture. SI had invited lease of the farmland when it was dormant, which meant involving itself in commercial activities, prompting suspicious of violation of the Companies Ordinance. However, to date, Secretary Paul CHAN has failed to give a detailed, direct and comprehensive explanation.
The third query is about the NENT NDAs Project. The project has been mooted for many years and the public consultation started as early as 2008. In that case, why would Secretary Paul CHAN only be aware that the farmland concerned was within the NENT NDAs and make declaration to LEUNG Chun-ying in September 2012? What was the response of LEUNG Chun-ying at the time and did he consider it a matter of concern? Around September 2012, had Secretary Paul CHAN withdrawn from the discussion involving the NENT NDAs Project in the Executive Council?
President, I had indeed asked that question on various occasions last year. Regarding the verbal disclosure made by Secretary Paul CHAN to the Chief Executive back then, will the authorities submit a written record to this Council and give an account to the public? Despite all the efforts I made in asking the question, no answer has been given by the authorities, and my question simply perished. As to the question of whether the Chief Executive had given any 202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 instruction upon hearing the disclosure, the authorities have said nothing about that either.
President, I have raised three queries, and the fourth one is about SI owing the farmland, which is held by another three companies. According to the newspapers, Orient Express Holdings (OE) holds 37.5%, Excellent Assets (EA) holds 50% and Fidelity Management (FM) holds 12.5%. Ms Frieda HUI Po-ming, wife of Secretary Paul CHAN, pointed out that in October 2012, she had assigned all 37.5% shares of SI held under OE to her younger brother for a consideration of $2.7 million. However, Mr HUI was only discharged from bankruptcy in February 2006, which prompts the query that Mr HUI is only holding the shares on behalf of his elder sister. To date, Secretary Paul CHAN has not explained the source of funds of Mr HUI.
President, the fifth query is that apart from OE, the other two companies, namely EA and FM, holding the shares of SI are overseas companies. Though Ms Frieda HUI said the two companies were held by her family, it is shown in the information of company registration that the two companies have close connection with the company Mr and Mrs Paul CHAN used for running their corporate consultancy business. Besides, the identities of the shareholders of these two companies have never been made known. In view of the art of "hypocritical rhetoric" mastered by Paul CHAN, where his natural son can be described as "family member of his wife", is there any hidden conflict of interest of a more significant nature behind EA and FM? This is the fifth query.
President, the sixth query is about the corporate consultancy business run by Mr and Mrs Paul CHAN over the years through Paul and Associates Consulting Limited. Secretary Paul CHAN used to be the major shareholder of Paul and Associates. Who was the minor shareholder then? It was a company called "Fidelity". Coincidentally, the shareholders holding this precious company "Fidelity" with Secretary Paul CHAN are EA and FM, the companies holding the site at Kwu Tung. By last year, Secretary Paul CHAN, EA and FM transferred the shares to a company called Strategic Assets which holds the company running "sub-divided units", the Harvest Charm Development Company.
President, it is evident that Paul CHAN and his wife have all along been running a business that conflicts with his capacity as the Secretary for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 203
Development, such as running "sub-divided units" and investing in land sites, through the aforesaid overseas companies and under the names of their family members. Since most of these companies are registered overseas, the identities of shareholders remain a mystery, leaving the media and the public no clue to monitor whether the CHAN's couple has really severed the ties.
The last query is about a statement made by Frieda HUI, which states that OE in which she held only holds 37.5% of the shares of Harvest Charm and another 37.5% of the shares are held by a company called Classic Success. In other words, Classic Success has been running a business of "sub-divided units" jointly with Mr and Mrs CHAN since many years ago. Paul CHAN said that Classic Success was held by a friend who did not want to be named. Who is that friend then? Would he be LEUNG Chun-ying, just as some colleagues suggested earlier?
Hence, the setting up of a select committee under the P&P Ordinance to inquire into the case is well justified by these seven major queries. I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, some people say that grand openings should be marked by the burning of firecrackers … You can't hear me? I have not used the microphone for quite some time, not quite get used to it yet. Some people say that firecrackers should be set off at grand openings to gloss the scene with a sea of red. Yet today, we are discussing a sad incident comparable to a funeral, no wonder the Secretary is dressed in white and plain clothing.
Regarding this Paul CHAN, I want to beat him every time I see him. But since I have to participate in the debate on the next motion, I will not take the trouble to approach him and shatter his so-called reputation. In future, I will make sure that his reputation is wrecked every time I see him. The issue now under discussion is straightforward. It is about the question of whether or not to summon Paul CHAN to a meeting and to question him according to the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance), so that he cannot conceal anything but tell all that he knows, and that he will provide 204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 objective evidence. The power conferred on this Council by the P&P Ordinance is not just on the paper, and the most important point is that he must produce the documents requested by this Council. Sometimes, I may not want to raise any question after I have read the documents.
The "anti-opposition camp", that is, the pro-government camp, says what we are doing are unnecessary. However, the first argument advanced by them is ludicrous. They said the Secretary would not have known that he would become a Bureau Director one day, for the site was bought 20 years ago, and they said that we in the opposition camp were maligning him. Buddy, come to think about the scenario of a man reporting a lost wallet he found on the street; I think he would not have known that he would found a lost wallet. Right? When he found the lost wallet, he told the policeman that he had found a wallet. Comparing the scenario with the present case, Paul CHAN had told LEUNG Chun-ying that, "Buddy, it is too bad that I cannot be the Deputy Financial Secretary, but since MAK Chai-kwong is "game over" now, you may appoint me to be the Secretary for Development, and I will go back and check how I will handle the site." Then, he was told by LEUNG Chun-ying to develop NENT. He then told LEUNG Chun-ying, that is the policeman in the scenario I mentioned earlier, that he had found a lost wallet, not by any deliberate effort, and had not expected to find the wallet. After he found the lost wallet and told the policeman about that, he asked the policeman what he should do with the wallet. But the policeman did not utter a word, and he simply put the wallet in his own pocket. Is this acceptable? It is not declaration of interest, is it? Is it acceptable? The policeman was wrong for not requiring him to report the case to the police station. Even though he was a "big boy", even he was given credit for his action and the instruction of not putting the wallet in his own pocket, it was wrong. After putting the wallet in his pocket, he was aware that keeping the wallet would be tantamount to theft by finding, so he hastily gave the wallet to his brother-in-law and let him keep it. I would say that it is comparable to a pick-pocket passing a stolen wallet to another person. Could this be regarded as a declaration and so no conflict of interest is involved? Buddy, what justification could that be?
Let us assume that those in the "anti-opposition camp" or the pro-government camp are running a company ― Mr IP Kwok-him and many others may be carrying on a business ― if one of their employees found a bag of money next to the safe and told his manager about the bag of money found, and the manager remained silent, the employee then passed the money to his LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 205 brother-in-law who came to visit him and let his brother-in-law take the money home. Is this acceptable? Should this be regarded as a declaration of interest that precludes any conflict of interest? Does it mean that the suspicion of corruption resulted from conflict of interest has been removed? Everyone knows that a person may have no intention to commit crime before he actually does so, but the person will still be found guilty of manslaughter if not murder. Right? Even if a person has not bought a knife for the purpose of killing and the victim was only killed accidentally, the person is considered to have committed homicide.
So obviously, the incident of Paul CHAN is comparable to the case of theft by finding. President, you seem to have studied classic Chinese, and you should know the phrase "Be scrupulous in money matters" ("臨財毋苟得"). This phrase does not mean that the rich should be called "毋" or "苟" or "得", the focus is on how one should handle money matters. Twenty years ago, he happened to get the site, and it might be a privilege offered by estate developers or it might be obtained through other channels. Later, he lied that he had been using the site for leisure purpose, which is not the case actually. Indeed, the site has been used for growing weeds while he waits for the opportunity to change the use of the site to make profit. Many estate developers in Hong Kong are using this practice in reserving sites. Carrie LAM knows this full well. Sites are reserved till their uses can be changed. He was also doing that. Certainly, he did not know that LEUNG Chun-ying would get elected, neither did I. He did not know that LEUNG Chun-ying's proposal of setting up five departments and 14 bureaux would end in failure. But is this an acceptable explanation for his conduct? Therefore, the pro-establishment camp is speaking nonsense every day, they are teaching wrong values to children every day and they are distorting facts and logic every day.
Second, what is the problem with summoning him before us for an inquiry? Secretary Paul CHAN said ― Secretary Paul CHAN, please do not put on a tired face as if you are dozing, for you are getting a salary of some $200,000 and you are obliged to listen to my rebuke, buddy ― that he had no fear for Members were very reasonable. Does it mean Members will suddenly turn unreasonable once the P&P Ordinance is invoked? The arrangement will only be more reasonable, will it not? There are formal requirements under the P&P Ordinance, so no one act arbitrarily. On the contrary, I can do whatever I want in the present context. I can chide him now, but I cannot do so in a situation 206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 governed by the P&P Ordinance, for I have to pretend to be neutral by then. If so, in what way will he suffer? He has said that he is innocent and that we are reasonable, but will we become unreasonable once we have invoked the P&P Ordinance? He made these comments, and I have not put words into his mouth. He has said that he will explain the case to Members step by step. If so, he may provide the information step by step at the committee set up under the P&P Ordinance, giving an account of the circumstances around his three BVI companies, which have been covered up so far. Even if some people do not want their identity known, he has to explain the case. If the identities of so many people cannot be disclosed, he should stop being a government official and return to the operation of "sub-divided units". If he is just running "sub-divided units", I will not care a dime about him.
Since he is a government official, he cannot tell us that his friends' identities cannot be disclosed, can he? Since LEUNG Chun-ying has used this as an excuse, Paul CHAN just follows suit. I have asked LEUNG Chun-ying to provide the information about his BVI company, yet he has not made it public to date and it remains an unknown if a trustee can be found. As a saying goes, "what a leader does, his followers will go further", and this is the case, is this not? The pro-government camp says that we should not waste time doing this. In fact, the Legislative Council had risen for two months, did Hong Kong collapse when it was not in operation? During the period, they did not come back for meetings and some of them even went on an extravagant tour. Buddy, is this fatal? The Legislative Council wants to investigate whether a government official is involved in conflict of interest, whether the conflict of interest has led to corruption and whether the Chief Executive has knowledge of it … He was smart. He did not mention Carrie LAM but only said that he had reported the case to LEUNG Chun-ying direct. He probably fears that there may be discrepancy between his statement and that of Carrie LAM.
In that case, I have to ask whether Carrie LAM has knowledge of it. If Carrie LAM has no knowledge of the case, what is the function of this "prime minister"? Has she been dismissed? Is it really because he is a "LEUNG's fan" and the treatment for insiders and outsiders is different? Is he not required to report the case to his supervisor? Is he exempted from reporting the case to the "prime minister", but to the "emperor" direct instead, so that the latter can suppress the "prime minister" with the authority of the "emperor"? What is he doing here? He keeps bragging that he is a "LEUNG's fan" and that he will not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 207 be given a death sentence or other punishment because of his status. Do you consider such practice not annoying? He should report his case to his direct supervisor, should he not? He should be reporting it to Carrie LAM. When MAK Chai-kwong was blamed for the blunders in the Development Bureau, Carrie LAM came forward stating that she trusted him. Honestly, she was doing the right thing, but the timing was a bit early. If she still said she trusted MAK Chai-kwong after the exposure of his case, I would be deeply moved, for the integrity of a person will not be damaged by one wrong deed, particularly that he had admitted his fault.
The case of Paul CHAN is different, for too many mysteries are involved. He had told LEUNG Chun-ying about the site, but had LEUNG given him any instruction? If they were so close, had LEUNG called Frieda HUI Po-ming? They mixed well together when they were in the business sector. Had they talked about this at that time? Perhaps LEUNG Chun-ying's wife had called Frieda HUI, using the spouse-approach, just like the approach adopted in toppling the Gang of Four where children were used to foster unity. Buddy, there is no way to explain everything. Their email exchanges ― as in the investigation of LEUNG Chin-man, we could know clearly when and who had he approached. I would like to ask Members in the pro-government camp: Can we make Paul CHAN explain the case without invoking the P&P Ordinance? I am quite eager to cross-examine him now, but if he presents all the documents, an examination may not be necessary. Buddy, in what ways are we monitoring the Government? The inadequacies and corruptness of the Government have surfaced, have they not? Those people were so bold when they chided Timothy TONG, probably because Timothy TONG is now in trouble and they wanted to join in the rebuking spree. If the problems concerning Timothy TONG are "grave concerns", why are those problems of Paul CHAN not, buddy? If Paul CHAN is involved in "grave concerns", why is he still qualified to act as the Secretary for Development? Dr LAM Tai-fai asked whether a capable person with no credibility could be a Director of Bureau. In my view, if the person is capable but lacks credibility, he should focus on doing business, rather than working as a Director of Bureau. Am I right? I will not block his way to get rich. How can person with no credibility take up a public office? We are now going to examine his credibility.
Honestly, I think Paul CHAN is not too bad. As I say, I am a fair person. He fears his wife and she has been involved in each and every incident. His wife makes the decisions for him and he simply enforces them. This is not 208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 abiding love, buddy. He is now a government official, though he cannot but follow the instructions of his wife at home, he cannot bring her to work. In that case, we can only punish him, not his wife. It is as simple as that. Honestly, I do not believe that Paul CHAN is a glutton for advantage, and had he been so, he would have done so long ago. However, he has failed to uphold the integrity principle of "remaining scrupulous in money matters". Members may ask President Jasper TSANG if he has come across large sums of cash in his lifetime. Can he take some of the money? Can he misappropriate public money? No, he cannot. Though we are good friends, I will tell him not to misappropriate public money if he tries to. No compromise is acceptable, for it is not a matter of giving face.
In the present case, I think if anyone does not support invoking the P&P Ordinance today, he must explain the reasons to the people of Hong Kong. Apart from the sophistry put forth by Paul CHAN, with which we are fed up, we have to obtain objective evidence for the representations made by him. We want to know the actual status of those few companies, the identity of the hidden persons, LEUNG Chun-ying's knowledge of the case and whether he had given instructions about this, and whether Barry CHEUNG was involved. They may be involved, for the whole gang of "LEUNG's fans" behaves like this. Besides, there is the concern of laying himself open to suspicions. I have been examined many times. Every time I was acquitted, the Judge would say that I had laid myself open to suspicions, "LEUNG Kwok-hung, had you not gone to the protest, you would not have been arrested, and so you cannot get back the court fees." He is laying himself open to suspicions, is he not? Thus, we have to investigate him.
Franklin LAM's case is also an example of laying oneself open to suspicions. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Kevin ZERVOS, said that they could not find any evidence and the professionals said there was not such evidence. This comment is a waste of time, for it is only a remark used to gloss over the mistake. Franklin LAM put up the flat for sale in August, but he offered extra commission in October. He started selling his flat in August, but could this be regarded as proof that he was not involved? Unfortunately, I could not attend the meeting at the time and no one had raised a discussion on this. ZERVOS is earning nearly $300,000 monthly, but he dares to gloss over the mistake and criticizes us … Franklin LAM faked to be pitiful and alleged that we had wronged him. Now, I ask him, if he intended to sell his flat in August, why did he offer extra commission when the "curbs" were about to launch? It just LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 209 happened that he did not have the chance to pay the extra commission. Had he paid it, he would have been arrested. All these people are pretending to be noble, yet they are whores. They want to be prostitutes, but they try to act nobly. Franklin LAM is one of them. The only person worthy of sympathy is MAK Chai-kwong, for he had admitted his fault honestly.
Barry CHEUNG is another example. His case is also a mystery. When the loan issue of Barry CHEUNG had aroused a great controversy in town and when he failed to pay the rent, Paul CHAN in the Development Bureau nominated Barry CHEUNG to the post of Chairman of the Urban Renewal Authority for another two years. Did Paul CHAN have any knowledge of CHEUNG's case back then? When I chided Barry CHEUNG in this Council in March, "YUEN Qiu" interrupted me immediately, which was seen by all the people of Hong Kong. He should have investigated the case upon learning about that. Paul CHAN, let me ask you, if this is not favouristism, what is it? It is because of his practice of favourtism that he did not tell Carrie LAM about the case, and he simply ignored this "prime minister". The "LEUNG's fans" are in their own league. They have their own league in the Government. If anything happens, they will go to find their ringleader, other "LEUNG's fans" or the boss of the LEUNG's gang. Paul CHAN, I ask you now, what instructions had LEUNG Chun-ying given you? What had he taught you to do? Had he told you to assign the shares to your brother-in-law and to describe your brother-in-law as a family member of your wife, just like your son?
Buddy, all these remain mysteries unresolved. Should we not ask him to clarify? If the pro-government camp is so powerful, they should ask him to provide the information. If they can obtain the information from him, I will not urge for the invoking of the P&P Ordinance. Mr IP Kwok-him, you should go forward and whisper in his ears the request for information, so we will all be spared of all these quibbles and harmony will be fostered. I want harmony too, but on the premise that he will present all the documents and emails. Has he done so? Can they get the information? If they cannot get the information, what are they doing here? They are blocking us in investigating him on behalf of the people of Hong Kong, are they not? Otherwise, what are they doing here?
Paul CHAN, you "ridiculous Paul", will you take a look at yourself? Honourable Members, look, this "ridiculous Paul" is now hanging out and getting nowhere. This "ridiculous Paul" should leave the Chamber.
210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
President, I know you support invoking the P&P Ordinance at heart. If you consider that the Ordinance should be invoked, you need only to remain silent. Yes, I am right, the President has not said a word. This is so for people share this view and consider it reasonable. Right? The President has really remained silent, which implies that "Long Hair" is right. As for Carrie LAM, she should respond, and if she does not respond now, it means she also supports this.(The buzzer sounded)
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, earlier, a Member from the pro-establishment camp said that we should not invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to conduct an inquiry into Paul CHAN on the first day of a new Legislative Session. I agree to this because Paul CHAN should have resigned of his own accord in the last Session or in July. In a democratic country, a principal official of a democratically elected government has long since stepped down because of such a scandal. If so, we would not have to waste our time discussing whether the P&P Ordinance should be invoked to conduct an inquiry.
Mr CHAN Kin-por's speech earlier is ridiculous. He said that we should not cut open the body of a healthy person because he does not need any check-up. I believe even Secretary Paul CHAN himself dares not say that he is all very fine. He can at most say that he does not suffered from a terminal disease and so a major surgery or euthanasia is not required. However, he is fraught with problems, which is evident to all Hong Kong people and undeniable. Does he have the courage to say that he is 100% healthy and free from any illness? A person will suffer from illness, just like a system which will be out of order. In such circumstances, he should not refrain from seeking medical help. Therefore, Chief Secretary Carrie LAM, you should not close your eyes, bury your head in the sand or make a cart behind closed doors, saying nothing has gone wrong, no review is necessary and nothing needs to be done. I would like to award a prize to CHAN Kin-por for shielding Paul CHAN.
At the House Committee meeting last Friday, Secretary Paul CHAN was saved from disgrace thanks to the royalists and the pro-establishment camp. I believe the same tragedy will possibly occur today because Dr KWOK Ka-ki's motion on invoking the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry into Paul CHAN will be negative, too. Of course, I said it is a tragedy as I look at this problem LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 211 from the perspective of all Hong Kong people. From the angle of the SAR Government or Secretary Paul CHAN, it is a piece of good news for they would have weathered through another ordeal.
However, I wish to tell the SAR Government and Secretary Paul CHAN that our determination and action to topple Paul CHAN will not cease merely because today's motion of invoking the P&P Ordinance is negatived. We cannot give Hong Kong people a false impression that a Bureau Director can sit safe and tight in his position without any anxiety even though he has committed a serious mistake or invited suspicions of an integrity problem as long as he can endure the scolding and remain cheeky.
Here I would like to advise Members from the democratic camp that we have to consider and decide the way forward after today's motion has been vetoed. If we "call it a day" after today's motion has been vetoed, the royalists would mock us, saying that we are unable to raise any subject matter for discussion and simply make use of the P&P Ordinance to hype up an incident in order to take political advantage, which is nothing but "dish of the day". Therefore, after today's motion has been negatived, we have to step up our efforts rather than being dillydally.
The People Power will certainly support today's motion because we had proposed a motion urging Paul CHAN to step down at a special meeting of the Panel on Development, and the motion was unexpectedly passed. From this, we can see that many Members from the pro-establishment camp do not want to shield him. If they really wanted to do so, why did they not call upon other Members from the pro-establishment camp to vote given that the number of pro-establishment Members in the Panel on Development is more than the democrats? Perhaps, they thought that the motion was not binding and it did not matter even if it was passed. However, today's motion will have actual effect.
I hope that the fighting spirit of Members from the pan-democratic camp in toppling Paul CHAN will not wither away. I remember that in February when Ms Cyd HO proposed a motion on invoking the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry into LEUNG Chun-ying, only five Members had spoken. The pro-establishment Members sneered on seeing that. Today's situation is a little bit better. I hope that all those 23 Members will speak and seize every opportunity to topple Paul CHAN in an all-pervasive, all-round and multi-angle manner.
212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
The People Power will continue to make efforts to topple Paul CHAN both inside and outside this Council. We have proposed in this Council to block the Development Bureau's motion and even funding application, thereby possibly paralysing its operation. We believed only by doing so could we exert the maximum political pressure on the Development Bureau, Paul CHAN and even the Government under the leadership of LEUNG Chun-ying, thereby forcing Paul CHAN to step down.
Like the bus tragedy in the Philippines, the President of the Philippines has refused to apologize to the people of Hong Kong all along. One of the reasons is that the SAR Government has not taken concrete actions to exert pressure on him. Therefore, we should try all means to exert the maximum pressure on the Government in order to force Paul CHAN to step down.
However, I heard some Members from the pan-democratic camp say earlier that they would not hinder the policies of the Development Bureau or the vetting and approval of funding as its business should not be confused with the Bureau Director. They said that they targeted at Paul CHAN rather than the Bureau's policies.
I wish to tell Members that whatever policies proposed by Paul CHAN, whose popularity rating was the lowest among all accountability officials due to various scandals, will be queried by Hong Kong people. Such a Bureau Director has become a negative liability asset of the Government for the public want him to step down expeditiously. Secretary Paul CHAN, if you wish the Government to function well, the Development Bureau to function well and Hong Kong to have a good future, you should step down because it is better to endure short-term pain than prolong the agony.
I hope those Members who do not agree with our approach but support today's motion on invoking the P&P Ordinance, although they cannot ensure the passage of the motion, will make all efforts to figure out other approach or even better approach so that we can continue to target at Paul CHAN inside and outside this Council.
Regarding our struggle outside this Council, the People Power will persistently pursue our cause and initiate an action against Paul CHAN by all Hong Kong people. This week, we will lodge complaints with the police, the Hong Kong Society of Accountants, and the Hong Kong Institute of Chartered LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 213
Secretaries. We will not miss any opportunity to topple Paul CHAN both inside and outside this Council …
(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary is not present and a quorum is not present. I request a headcount.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please continue.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I would like to reiterate here that the People Power will persistently exert all efforts to topple Paul CHAN both inside and outside this Council. When the media discovered that Paul CHAN had not declared his interest in the land at Kwu Tung and would make a huge gain if the land was resumed by the Government due to the NENT NDAs Project, he told unequivocally the public that in October last year, he had sold all the shares in Statement Industries Limited and resigned from the post of Director. He should have examined his interests in NENT and made a declaration. However, when a reporter asked him whether the farmland at Kwu Tung had been leased illegally in 1996 and 1997, he said that he could not remember and did not know it after so many years, not to mention how his brother-in-law could hold the company's shares again despite his declared bankruptcy. And I heard the answer just now: the money comes not from him and therefore it has nothing to do with him.
In fact, insofar as the land at Kwu Tung is concerned, Hong Kong people cannot trust the Secretary's superficial memory, not to mention that he has broken faith with Hong Kong people. How many more interests are there that he cannot 214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 remember or does not know? Or is it because he dares not mention it? However, the Secretary said that he is willing to explain to us. In that case, he should not object to a more equitable, independent and publicly accepted platform which will allow him to give a clear account. Thus, I do not understand why the Secretary urged Members not to support today's motion of invoking the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry.
Paul CHAN kept saying that he had made a declaration. It actually refers to a declaration to LEUNG Chun-ying. If LEUNG Chun-ying says that there is no problem, then there will be no problem although it is merely a verbal assurance. Subsequently in August, the SAR Government announced the "Guidelines for the Chief Executive in Handling Potential Cases of Conflict of Interest and Acceptance of Advantages and Entertainment Concerning Politically Appointed Officials", which is so long that I cannot read it out once more. In our discussion this morning, we already pointed out that this document was issued not in all sincerity and frankness. Rather, it was attached to one of the relevant links on the website of Chief Executive's Office in August. If you can see it, you are lucky. If you cannot see it, the Government is fortunate. It is LEUNG Chun-ying who makes the final decision on whether a relevant case is compliant with the guidelines. It is ultimately nobody but LEUNG Chun-ying. This is a kind of rule of law created by him entirely. It is a kind of "Ah Q guidelines".
When men are not credible, we can trust a system. When the system has become incredible due to flaws and loopholes, we have to rely on an inquiry. What will people feel if even an impartial inquiry is denied? Today, the pro-establishment Members will certainly vote against today's motion for they will not support it. They would have de facto helped the Government to create a "world-class shameless official" in disguise. There are motion debates every Wednesday in the Legislative Council. Last year, we discussed the problem of "sub-divided units" and Paul CHAN had operated these units. When we discussed how to build a safe city, Paul CHAN was arrested for drink driving. When Members are concerned about land supply, Paul CHAN is found hoarding land.
In my opinion, today's motion on conducting an inquiry into Paul CHAN can be regarded as a motion of "exorcism". In fact, I could see that the pro-establishment Members have a ghost in their minds. If the Communist Party of China has a ghost in its mind on the issue of universal suffrage, I believe the pro-establishment Members also have a ghost in their minds in respect of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 215 incident concerning Paul CHAN. At the bottom of their heart, they also want to kick Paul CHAN out for they fear that he may cause their boats to sink or drag down the SAR Government's popularity, making the Government unable to make any progress. However, if they have unintentionally supported the motion or uttered some "human words", they may fear they will be severely criticized by the leftist newspapers without being named that they should listen carefully, humbly accept advice and conduct introspection.
Some pro-establishment Members have uttered some "human words". One of them is Dr LAM Tai-fai, who is not present at the moment. He said that Paul CHAN's response to the farmland incident was made in a way like "squeezing toothpaste", unacceptable to society. Another example is Mr Paul TSE, who said that the verbal declaration made by Paul CHAN to LEUNG Chun-ying is merely a way out for himself, adding that the declaration mechanism is full of loopholes. However, I am afraid they will not be able to expel the ghost in their minds later on and will not support the motion today. In their speeches, pro-establishment Members always exonerate the officials. But today, amongst those who have spoken so far, most Members dare not speak in defence of Paul CHAN except those who have exerted the most effort to shield him.
Members at the meeting of the Panel on Development voted 11:7 to pass the motion on urging Paul CHAN to step down. They can hardly cite any reasons to shield Paul CHAN. They can at most criticize that Members have hyped up the incident by invoking the P&P Ordinance, which is a "nuclear bomb" or the "imperial sword" that should not be invoked or needs not be deployed at the present stage. Now I would like to help all of you expel the ghost in your minds. Pro-establishment Members may make reference to the remarks made by XI Jinping and Rita FAN on universal suffrage earlier on. XI Jinping stressed that we should act according to the Basic Law. In the Mainland, the authorities vigorously fight against corruption, resulting in the drop of wealthy people coming to Hong Kong to buy luxurious watches during the "Golden Week". It is possibly because money from bribery has dwindled, and so has their budget for shopping. If the pro-establishment Members can help Hong Kong topple Paul CHAN, it is in fact consistent with the national conditions. As for the problem of the ghost in their minds, Mrs Rita FAN said that the Central Government comprises of many people. Individuals will have a ghost in their minds, and so will individual officials. But the Central Government will not have any ghost in its mind. Therefore, we need not fear. Everybody here should expel the ghost in their minds and support the motion on invoking the 216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry into Paul CHAN. We are doing this for ourselves and others. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, just now Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung reminded me that we should shout "Shame on Paul CHAN!" This is precisely one of the reasons why I support this motion. President, many Members have mentioned the interests involving Paul CHAN. This placard has been used before and is used again now for the sake of environmental protection. Paul CHAN, who is nicknamed "land enclosure eunuch", has been involved in numerous evil acts such as "sub-divided units", drink driving and land hoarding for personal interests. His series of scandals have brought the Hong Kong Government and accountability officials into disrepute. In addition, a series of mistakes and crimes committed by high-ranking government officials, including "689" and "land enclosure Po", have led to a "jump ship" situation. This has never happened in the history of Hong Kong. Political Assistants have to "jump ship" one after another even though those high-ranking officials remain in office. This fully reflects the low popularity of the Government. The entire accountability team feel ashamed due to the Government's lack of credibility. They feel ashamed for being associated with them. In their opinion, if they remain in the same boat with the Government, they find it difficult to be accountable to their posterity and their own conscience.
President, I would like to discuss two main issues, that is, the Government's philosophy of governance and the importance of accountability. Now fewer and fewer people discuss issues concerning such principles because under the governance of local communists, graft and corruption, fraud and irregularities, as well as abuse of power seem to have become part of the main doctrine of the Hong Kong SAR Government. These acts are acceptable, encouraged and supported, apart from being rationalized and even legitimatized. The trend that the governance of Hong Kong is affected by communism and the Mainland has infuriated the people who feel extremely frustrated. In fact, I had repeatedly pointed out in the former Legislative Council a decade ago that Hong Kong would gradually become one of China's major cities after the reunification. There would be changes in such areas as economy, culture, people's livelihood and governance. Furthermore, Hong Kong would be influenced by the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 217
Mainland and adopt the communist practices in the fastest pace. LEUNG Chun-ying and Paul CHAN can be regarded as the exemplars. Both of them are the outstanding representatives of SAR officials who are influenced by communism and should be awarded the red badge.
President, concerning the importance of accountability, I would like to quote the statements of two great theorists. Thomas PAINE is a famous American thinker, writer and revolutionist, as well as one of the founding fathers of the United States. When the United States was founded, the design of its system was greatly influenced by many of his discourses and theories. In his book The Rights of Man, he said, "A body of men, holding themselves accountable to nobody, ought not to be trusted by anybody." Obviously, it means that in any political system, if the people in an organization are accountable to no one, then they will not be trustworthy. This is the principles of representative government and separation of powers. In other words, accountability is a prerequisite.
In the Hong Kong SAR, in the early implementation period of the accountability system designed by TUNG Chee-hwa, officials would still do their best to abide by the theories of accountability and they still had the determination to be accountable. As we all know, TUNG Chee-hwa, a nice old man, was incompetent in governing Hong Kong and his capability in public governance and administration was critically weak. Despite his incompetence, basically he was still a person with a sense of shame, mindful of getting things done. So, during his reign, several senior officials resigned because of different reasons, or took the blame and stepped down after offering repeated apologies to the public. You may not completely agree with his ideas and methods of governance, the approach of policymaking and selection of officials, not to mention that some persons selected by him were simply not the right candidate for the job. However, under the influence of the Communist Party of China (CPC), persons from the CPC or those who had direct audience with the top authorities were appointed as Bureau Directors. There were numerous media reports about such examples in the past. A number of officials, including Antony LEUNG, Regina IP and YEOH Eng-kiong (the former was a Financial Secretary while the latter two were Bureau Directors respectively), had resigned on the ground of having made mistakes in governance or being derelict in their duties. They had to take the blame and resigned due to certain problems or the acts they had committed.
218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Logically and theoretically, there are some similarity in the resignation of Antony LEUNG and Paul CHAN. But the case of Paul CHAN is a hundred times or even a thousand times more serious than that of Antony LEUNG. He is implicated in three crimes: operating "sub-divided units", having committed drink driving and land hoarding. Am I right? In response to the public queries in his capacity as an accountable official, his attitude is ambiguous and his words are evasive. In a nutshell, owing to the acts of Paul CHAN, Hong Kong people have lost confidence in the entire Development Bureau. Compared with the loss of confidence in Antony LEUNG, the situation of Paul CHAN is indeed 10 times, a hundred times or even a thousand times more serious. Under similar circumstances, Antony LEUNG had taken the blame and stepped down. How could Paul CHAN be so shameless that he continues to play delaying tactics, fiddling with rhetoric and the relevant administrative procedures? Hence, his popularity is extremely low and even hits a record low. Although Antony LEUNG had to step down due to declining popularity, Paul CHAN, who is nicknamed "sub-divided units Po", has created "sub-divided units", which shows that he is a person without conscience, right? He even put up pretexts after committing drink driving and refused to step down. This shows that he is shameless.
I have found some examples involving high-ranking government officials in foreign countries such as Australia or Europe. There are countless examples in which government officials have to resign due to drink driving. Hence, the fact that Paul CHAN has the audacity to stand here despite being involved in various crimes can be described as the most outstanding exemplar ever. Having referred to other countries' practices, if he can still remain in office, it can be considered a miracle among miracles.
Let us look at some discourses about resignation. Diana WOODHOUSE, an academic specialized in the study of resignation by British Ministers under the accountability system, has conducted a lot of research on this. She pointed out a very important issue, that is, the crucial relationship between resignations and the values of public administration. She said that the resignation of an official can ensure the continuous existence of the ethics of governance or the potential ethics in it. In other words, if an official refuses to resign, this shows that the ethics of public administration and its vitality can be regarded as having vanished completely. This is very important because if the governance team does not resign even though it has committed mistakes or run into trouble, the public will cast serious doubt on it, or even refuse to accept or trust the entire governance LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 219 structure and its philosophy of governance, as well as the standard of governance ethics. Public administration is related not only to law and money. The ethical standards of an official-in-charge and his insistence on and defence of the relevant values is the most crucial part of public administration. Why do some people have to tell lies? Why do some people have to resign after they have run into trouble? This reflects the importance of values and ethics of public administration.
However, the Communist Hong Kong Government under LEUNG Chun-ying's leadership can be said to have become degenerated in morals, just like the moral degeneration of the People's Republic of China under the governance of the CPC for 64 years. A person who has power has the money; a person who has power has easy access to women; a person who has power will be able to engage in graft and corruption; and a person who has power can enjoy political rights and other privileges and do whatever he wants. These are the CPC influences on Hong Kong. Now, Paul CHAN tells us that Hong Kong can tolerate those bad influences of the CPC and Members in the royalist camp will also harbour and tolerate such bad influences.
Let us take a look at the pain and suffering of the 100 000-odd civil servants over the past few years. A civil servant will be prosecuted just because of a minor offence. A staff member of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department borrowed a few hundred dollars from his subordinate for he had no money to buy food. He repaid the money in the same month at once after his salary was paid. However, he was still prosecuted by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Finally, a merciful Judge who sympathized with him acquitted him unconditionally. In other words, he was accepted and unconditionally acquitted by a Magistrate. Compared with the yardstick of the executive, the Judge is more merciful. However, the executive has now harboured some people. The executive will treat the low-ranking civil servants among the 180 000 civil servants in such a harsh and inhumane manner. The staff member concerned was prosecuted for having borrowed only $200 to buy food.
Earlier, I rendered assistance to a front-line officer of another department, the Department of Health. He went to see a traditional Chinese medicine practitioner who was being investigated by the ICAC. As a result, he was suspected of producing false documents and suspended from work without pay. Later, he was duly reinstated after we had fought for his rights and lodged a 220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 complaint. What suffering and pressure are being faced by civil servants? I have a stack of information with me, in which it is revealed that some of them have even been dismissed. The Complaints Division of the Legislative Council is handling dozens of cases concerning former police officers. The authorities have no evidence to prove that they have engaged in corruption except that they had purchased residential flats in the 1997 peak. Compared to their salaries, mortgage repayment had exerted an enormous pressure on them because they had to spend almost more than 40% of their salaries on this. Hence, they were subject to sanctions and eventually forced to resign although they had not committed any crime. The authorities have not initiated any prosecution either. Only an internal investigation was conducted by the Hong Kong Police Force, which considered that their financial arrangement was problematic because they were police officers and therefore ordered them to retire prematurely.
The plight of a police officer who was ordered or forced to retire was reported by a news programme earlier. He is now living in hardship. On the contrary, Paul CHAN can continue to do whatever he wants. He can continue to put on a cocky air, assume the dignity of his superiors to make a side profit while continuing to receive salaries from the public purse as a Bureau Director who can do nothing but daydreaming. How will those 170 000-odd civil servants look at this Bureau Director? How can those civil servants who have been subject to disciplinary action, ordered to retire prematurely or penalized by means of pay cut, in particular those low-ranking civil servants, be convinced?
Chief Secretary Carrie LAM is present in the Chamber today. How would she, as the leader of 170 000 civil servants, explain to them why this Bureau Director can enjoy privileges and why other civil servants are subject to that kind of treatment? Therefore, the People Power will certainly … As Mr CHAN Chi-chuen said earlier, we will exhaust all means to topple Paul CHAN. We will continue to launch an all-round attack against any policies proposed by him. We cannot tolerate the existence of those bad habits and bad conventions of the CPC in Hong Kong. We cannot allow those bad habits and bad conventions being tolerated. We all the more cannot allow the persistence of corrupt habits and attitudes. I hope that the royalists will not be intimidated by the prestige and despotic power (The buzzer sounded) … of the CPC doctrine.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 221
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, the Democratic Party supports today's motion by Dr Kwok ka-ki of invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to inquire into the incident of the Secretary for Development, Mr Paul CHAN, owning land located in NENT.
President, just now many Members mentioned the reasons of supporting the motion while Mr Alan LEONG has also raised seven major queries. President, there are really a lot of apprehensions among the public. The Chief Secretary also served as the Secretary for Development many years ago. But why was she not queried by the people? Perhaps it is because she is particularly sensitive to "interests". She is also smart and aware that a person holding the post of Secretary for Development should have a good background without any connection with land, "sub-divided units" or involvement in property transactions. The public also know that she does not hold any land or real estate in Hong Kong.
Although she is now serving as the Chief Secretary, I hope she will give some fair comments on the acts of her successor, the incumbent Secretary for Development. If a prospective Secretary for Development, his family, his family's relatives, and companies operated by them (including companies registered in Hong Kong and overseas), are involved in direct or indirect interests in the development projects to be handled by the Secretary for Development, should the authorities not conduct a thorough investigation prior to his appointment, thereby withdrawing the appointment?
It is already a mistake for the Government to have appointed Paul CHAN as Secretary for Development. Although he has immediately distanced himself from the "bad debt" or his wise investments years ago, he really has to make decisions during his tenure. Although he cannot formulate any relevant policies alone behind closed doors, the public will never believe that the Secretary's decisions are fair and impartial if he is alleged of having a conflict of interest in the process.
We have so many questions that we raised them at a meeting of the Panel on Development and moved a motion. However, we still consider the Secretary's reply today not convincing although he may think that he has given a clear account. One example is the farmland at Kwu Tung. Secretary Paul CHAN said in a statement that his wife Frieda HUI Po-ming did own interest in the farmland by holding 37.5% of the shares of Statement Industries Limited (SI) 222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 through another company. Frieda HUI also issued another statement that she had sold the interest in the farmland at Kwu Tung to HUI Ka-lun at a consideration of $2.7 million last year. HUI Ka-lun is the younger brother of Paul CHAN's wife, that is, his relevant family member.
Now the public want to know whether such a transfer or transaction, involving the transfer of property from the left hand to the right or from the predecessor to the successor, is bona fide or a mere sham? Are there any transaction documents or bank transfer records? Even though bank transfer records may be produced, the public still have many questions. According to press reports, a bankruptcy order was issued against HUI Ka-lun in 2002 and it was revoked only in 2006. Furthermore, he did not move and live there after having purchased the farmland.
In addition, where did the $2.7 million come from? The residence of Mr HUI Ka-lun in South Horizons was purchased at a price of more than $5 million by his wife, Ms MA, in 2009. The purchase price was financed by a mortgage loan which has not yet been fully repaid. This shows that he does not have sufficient capital. Where did the $2.7 million come from? Is it a loan from the bank? Or ― the possibility is slim ― Did Paul CHAN or his wife give $2.7 million to HUI Ka-lun so that he could purchase and hold the interest in the farmland before it is reverted to Paul CHAN upon expiry of his term as Bureau Director? All these have aroused suspicions which can never be dispelled.
There are other queries such as the relationship between Secretary Paul CHAN and SI. The relationship between SI and Secretary Paul CHAN is so close that we wish to gain some further understanding. There are three companies holding the shares of SI and these companies maintain an intricate relationship with each other. I am not as knowledgeable as him in this aspect, but I am not sure whether he is fully aware of it.
According to information, one of three company shareholders of SI is called Orient Express, which is related to the Secretary's wife Frieda HUI and CHAN Tian-hsing. This company holds 37.5% of the shares of SI and they are associated companies with each other. However, the biggest shareholder (holding 50% of shares) of SI is Excellent Assets Limited (EA). Who are the shareholders of this company? We want to know this not out of curiosity, but because we wish to know the interests at stake.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 223
However, EA is a company registered overseas and therefore an investigation into it is impossible. Who are this company's shareholders? Is it Secretary Paul CHAN? Is it Secretary Paul CHAN's wife? Is it his wife's family member, that is, his son? These questions cannot be verified unless he makes an affidavit to disclose the relevant information in an open and honest manner. However, has he done so? No, he has not, although he said that he is most willing to be accountable. Similar doubts have yet to be cleared.
There is another company called Fidelity Management Limited, which is holding 12.5% of the shares of SI. What is the relationship between this company and SI? The public do not know yet. In addition, these three companies had been responsible for managing another two companies (Fidelity Corporate Services Limited and Paul And Associates Consulting Limited) under close co-operation with Secretary Paul CHAN and his wife Frieda HUI Po-ming. What is the relationship among these companies? Such a complex relationship has aroused suspicions among Members and public. They cast doubts on whether the Secretary, as an important gatekeeper responsible for land, housing, development and planning affairs, is the one who owns the aforesaid overseas companies or the interest group in question.
Now, a Member has proposed a motion of authorizing this Council to conduct an inquiry into this incident by invoking the P&P Ordinance. As the Secretary said that he does not have any relationship with those companies, he should come forth at the first instance to support the inquiry by this Council so that public concerns can be completely allayed in one go. If he is proved innocent after the inquiry by this Council, the public will also do justice to him. But surprisingly, he has urged Honourable colleagues not to support the motion. Does he hope that Members of this Council will deal with the issue in a perfunctory manner? Does he mean that Members should turn a blind eye to the public concern about a conflict of interest? As a Bureau Director responsible for such an important policy portfolio as development affairs, does he mean that Members should adopt a sloppy attitude towards him? Does he mean that the pro-establishment Members should give the Government and the Bureau Directors blind backing?
The pan-democrats will never support him not because of any personal reasons, but because they want to preserve the integrity of the system and the credibility of the Government. If the Secretary for Development does not even 224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 have such basic credibility, he is not competent to remain in office. If he continues to serve as Secretary for Development, NENT will not see any development.
President, Members may have noticed the results of some recent opinion polls. The Chief Secretary or Secretary Paul CHAN may also have noticed it. As mentioned by an Honourable colleague just now, Secretary Paul CHAN was given a negative popularity rating (-46 marks) in September. In other words, his popularity rating is even lower than 0 and can be described as "diving at the bottom of the sea". It is a surprisingly low figure. Unfortunately, the Chief Executive was also given a negative figure, which has picked up recently. For Secretary Eddie NG, it is also a negative figure which is hovering at the bottom of the sea. I do not know whether there is any panacea which can salvage them to the surface, so that they can take a breath.
In the latest public opinion poll conducted by the University of Hong Kong, the question is, "If you had the right to vote on the reappointment or dismissal of Paul CHAN as the Secretary for Development, how would you vote?" A total of 1 006 members of the public were interviewed by the survey from 3 September to 5 September this year. The results showed that 14.1% of the respondents voted "reappointment", 60% voted "dismissal" and 25.9% abstained. President, the voting results of the public have clearly indicated that he is not suitable to be a Director of Bureau.
In his opinion, how can he "hold on" in such circumstances? If he insists on not resigning of his own accord, then the only feasible option is ― let him continue to serve as the Bureau Director with the duties of developing NENT ― to accept the inquiry by this Council under the P&P Ordinance and fully disclose the assets owned by him, his wife, his wife's family members, and associated companies in Hong Kong and overseas at the meetings of the select committee so that Members can determine whether there is any misconduct by a public officer or conflict of interest.
With these remarks, President, I support the motion.
MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President, the House Committee discussed a similar question last Friday. Since there was only two minutes of speaking time, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 225 we could merely declared our position. There were still many issues not discussed in detail.
First of all, the Liberal Party would like to state clearly that we are open about invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to conduct an inquiry into this incident. Under certain circumstances, we have invariably supported invoking the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry into some matters or persons. A few months ago, I even raised a motion on behalf of the Liberal Party, demanding the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong to handle problems in relation to Mr Barry CHEUNG, the then Chairman of Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange. In the course of deciding whether or not to support the motion, we considered whether this incident was worth investigating and what could we get from the investigation. Would the investigation result be serious enough to justify certain actions? We went through all those thinking processes before deciding what to do.
With regard to this incident, the wordings of Dr KWOK Ka-ki's motion is as follows: "to inquire into the incident of the Secretary for Development Mr Paul CHAN Mo-po owning farmland located in the areas of the North East New Territories Development Areas Project and related issues". The motion was very specific, confined to Secretary Paul CHAN, North East New Territories (NENT), farmland and related issues. As the motion is confined to such a narrow scope, I am not going to speak like other Honorable colleagues did. I will not widen the scope or put other government departments into perspective.
Purely judging from this incident and Secretary Paul CHAN, the Liberal Party notes that the whole incident happened in 1994 or nearly two decades ago, which was an investment involving his wife and her family members. If a Hong Kong citizen or his wife made an investment 19 years ago mindful of the job he could possibly take 19 years ago later, that person got to have a very long vision because he had to foresee whether there would be a conflict of interest between the investment decision then made and the nature of the position he would take 19 years after that. Judging from this point, we think that Secretary Paul CHAN could not have known it at that time.
In addition, there are also several points which have been mentioned recently, including the fact that Secretary Paul CHAN was a Legislative Council Member during the last term of the Legislative Council. At that time, I was not 226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 qualified to sit here as a Member of this Council. Now, he is a Bureau Director and the process of his becoming a Bureau Director is very complicated. He supported LEUNG Chun-ying to be the Chief Executive although Mr LEUNG Chun-ying was not even among the Chief Executive hopefuls initially. The first thing Mr LEUNG Chun-ying wanted to do after winning the election was to have the structure of five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux passed in the legislature. It was rumored that Mr Paul CHAN had been chosen to be the Deputy Financial Secretary. The idea was unfortunately repealed by colleagues last year. I am sorry, it should be year before last. As a result, the post was never opened. The subsequent resignation of the then Secretary for Development MAK Chai-kwong of his own accord has created an opening. I joked with Secretary Paul CHAN by saying that he took up the post of Secretary for Development without knowing why. Under this circumstance, I feel that it is impossible for him to foresee his having the decisive power in issues relating to the NENT New Development Areas (NDAs).
Moreover, we have noted that the whole NENT NDAs Project was not designed by the Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying. It was not devised by Paul CHAN as the Secretary for Development either. This great plan neither originated from Donald TSANG when he was the Chief Executive, nor from Mrs Carrie LAM in her capacity as the Secretary for Development at that time. In retrospect, the NENT NDAs Project can be dated back to 1997 when TUNG Chee-hwa became the first Chief Executive. As the facts are exposed to the public, does it mean that Paul CHAN could anticipate himself benefiting from this Project? The Liberal Party opines that it is absolutely impossible.
I now come to the compensation for farmland resumption, that is, the so-called benefits. It was more than $10 per square foot when he bought the land. Nowadays, it can be worth nearly $1,000 per square foot. Everybody knows that the professional civil servants in the Development Bureau assess and decide the compensation price according to market value. It is not dictated by the wish of the Bureau Director. We have missed one important point. The area in which the piece of land owned by Secretary Paul CHAN's family did not receive a higher compensation because of this incident being made known to the public. There is no such thing as higher compensation. As a matter of fact, the whole area covers his family's land is regarded as a lower compensation district. Of course, it also has nothing to do with him. He did not intentionally suggest giving lesser compensation, only that the professionals gave a lower evaluation of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 227 the value. In terms of the development of new areas in the New Territories NDAs, I feel that this series of facts has demonstrated that there is absolutely no relationship between his official post as the Bureau Director and what he had previously done.
We think that if the P&P Ordinance is invoked to conduct an inquiry, some Members will definitely be delighted to find out something wrong about him so that they can propose a no-confidence motion or an impeachment against him. It does not make any sense conducting an investigation to vindicate his previous position, does it? For the reasons I have just raised, the Liberal Party opines that if there is actually a need to conduct an inquiry, further action such as removing him from office or proposing a no-confidence motion will be unnecessary upon completion of the inquiry. I am talking about the incident concerning the NENT NDAs. Why do I have to repeat this incident over and over again? Because I have read last year's minutes of meeting. On the topic of "sub-divided units", the Liberal Party supported the no-confidence motion moved by Mr WONG Yuk-man. The incident at that time clearly showed that the Secretary for Development was involved in the issue of "sub-divided units", which was why we supported the no-confidence motion. Today, we do not support the motion because the motion clearly states that it has to do with this NENT incident. It is entirely different from the previous incidents such as drink driving, and so on.
By the way, I must mention in passing that I did not know Secretary Paul CHAN although colleagues in this Chamber may have known him for the past four years. I did not know of him as I was yet a Member of this Council. I only came to have some understanding of him after becoming a Member and his being appointed as a Bureau Director. According to the division of labour among the five Members of the Liberal Party, I am the only Member who represents the Party to join the Panel on Development. Therefore, I have had more chances to meet with Secretary Paul CHAN while working in the Panel on Development. Let me also take out and read the minutes of meeting. A total of 15 meetings were held during the period from 7 January to 31 July this year. Paul CHAN attended 13 of them as the Secretary for Development. Among the Secretaries, few of them have ever had such a high attendance rate. I also hope that other Secretaries can attend 13 out of 15 meetings. Some people may criticize by saying that attending the meeting is one thing while actually doing something after the meeting is another. In my opinion, as a new Secretary, he is at least willing to listen to Members' views. Whether representing all electors of functional constituencies or citizens at district levels, we can always make many 228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 suggestions to him with a view to persuading him to incorporate them into the Government's policy.
We have noted that the Government initially planned to implement the NENT NDAs Project with the public development approach, not under the "public-private partnership" approach. It has now turned into a public-private partnership approach. The Liberal Party opines that the current approach is more preferable because the project can be launched more quickly. We have also noted that, currently, housing is one the major problems in Hong Kong. We have great difficulty in finding lands. In the process of identifying lands, we have to look for lands wherever they may be. Developing NENT is more easily viable than other proposals such as reclamation and even making an artificial island in the middle of the sea in order to erect buildings on. We have noted that there are more than 200 000 people on the Waiting List for public housing. The business community has also expressed its views. We opine that hotel accommodation is insufficient. Shop rents are excruciatingly expensive because shopping arcades are insufficient. The exorbitant rents in Hong Kong's central business district is also attributed to the shortage of new development projects. As a matter of fact, the Liberal Party thinks that it is critically important to identify lands and launch projects as soon as new land is identified.
Paul CHAN has already become the Secretary for Development, it will not be beneficial to the overall long-term development of Hong Kong within the next five, 10 or 15 years if we get ourselves entangled in something that happened more than a decade ago. If we keep dragging, projects that are due to commence will be delayed for another year or two. Pre-occupied with this incident, he will lose the drive to perform his duties as a Secretary. This I do not think is a good thing. The development of the West Kowloon Cultural District has been postponed for over 10 years with only a few pillars finally seen on the construction site. The Hong Kong Wine and Dine Festival cannot be held there this year. As for Kai Tak Development, projects other than the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal are currently underway. By the time this project is materialized, most of the Members may have retired. What I wish to say is that the NENT NDAs Project may take more than 10 years to complete.
If we are still wishy-washy with the project, how can we compete with the pace of development of our Motherland? Qianhai was nothing but a piece of useless land in Shenzhen 10 years ago. Look what it has turned into nowadays. Regarding the recent concept of Shanghai Pilot Free Trade Zone, I can guarantee that all cities in the Mainland will introduce similar Pilot Free Trade Zone LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 229 concepts within the next 10 years if Shanghai proves successful. By that time, Hong Kong will certainly lose its competitive edge. The fact that Hong Kong's status shall remain unchanged for 50 years does not mean that it stays unchanged no matter what. We do not wish to stay put while watching the Mainland develop and grow.
I mentioned just now Secretary Paul CHAN's high attendance rate, but I missed one point. During the last four meetings on 25 July, 26 July, 30 July and 31 July, there were public hearings to discuss the NENT NDAs. Attending organizations totalled 48, 102, 77 and 56 respectively. We noticed that the Secretary did not leave the table except having to go to the toilet or for lunch all the while. I think he is quite a dedicated worker.
For all of these reasons, we will not support any vote of no confidence in or impeachment of Secretary Paul CHAN even after the inquiry. Under such circumstance, the Liberal Party states explicitly that we will vote against the motion of invoking the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry into this incident. Thank you, President.
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, first, I hope that the Secretary can raise his head and look this way. Many Honourable colleagues have cited the figures of various public opinion surveys, and I have also compiled the data on his popularity ratings since he took over his post. This is the career curve of Secretary Paul CHAN which, when looked at from a distance, appears to show ups and downs but in fact, all the rates are fluctuating in the negative territory. The rate went from -27% in November 2012, through -29% in January 2013, to -20% in March 2013, then to -24% and -28%, then rising slightly to -27%, and then dropping to -45% or -46% in July 2013. What actually does this career curve tell us? What does it signify?
In this context, today, we are debating in the legislature if we should approve the proposal put forward by Dr KWOK Ka-ki of the Civic Party to invoke the powers conferred on us by the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to establish a select committee to investigate the facts and circumstances behind the alleged interest that Secretary Paul CHAN has in NENT. We have to look into this matter thoroughly as there are connections, President. Without the backing of these figures, Members of the pro-establishment camp may think that Honourable colleagues on our side are 230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 engaged in sheer fabrication, imagining problems and showing symptoms of early psychosis. However, even if you describe us as such, this may be the thinking and emotions of an overwhelming majority of the Hong Kong public. Members of the public are deeply disappointed with the Secretary and actually angry with him, believing that he should no longer remain in office. Even if the policies are the best in the universe, be it that on NENT or the one on finding land for housing, if the Secretary is the worst, the most incompetent and the most inept person in the whole team and in the opinion of the public, has it ever occurred to us that a better course of action, for the good of the Hong Kong Government, the Hong Kong public and the policies themselves is not to exert a tremendous effort to make him stay, but to encourage him to leave by various means.
President and Honourable colleagues, just now, Dr LAM Tai-fai tried very hard to look at the expectations for the Secretary, asking if we want someone who enjoys high popularity but has low competence, low popularity and low competence, and so on. Honourable colleagues of the pro-establishment camp may try very hard to distract us, or try their best to find some arguments in such an adverse situation to speak in defence of Secretary Paul CHAN and come to his rescue. However, do they not have the feeling that when discussing this issue, they actually are quite aggrieved and cannot speak their true mind, that during the discussions, sometimes it seemed they were singing praises of him but at other times, it seemed they were censuring him. This is such a difficult situation. A simple speech lasting 10 minutes is intermingled with so much impurity; they have to extol you somewhat and defend you, but at the same time, they also have to censure him somewhat. Why have they come to such a pass? Are our Honourable colleagues actually speaking their minds, or are they trying to conceal their actual thoughts and the truth? Members of the public, Honourable colleagues and President, perhaps we all want to know if Hong Kong is a place where lies and "hypocritical rhetoric" reign, or if it is a place governed with truth and conscience.
In fact, as soon as Secretary Paul CHAN had taken office, he had to face a problem of integrity and this issue of integrity was not simply related to the problem of "sub-divided units" that he was involved in, rather, it was also related to the furore over the unauthorized structures and scandal involving the Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying, who appointed him, when running in the Chief Executive Election and that is why the negative energy and effects generated were so strong and all directed at him. If we try to analyse this situation, we can LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 231 look at it from two angles: First, as many Members said just now, how could he remember so much about something that happened 19 years ago? How could the Paul CHAN 19 years or several decades ago have known that he would take up such an office? How could a person have known more than a decade or two ago that the conduct and personal decisions of his family members and relatives would have repercussions nowadays and become a public issue, and that it is necessary to conduct such a thoroughgoing debate here? Some Honourable colleagues even demanded that a thorough inquiry be conducted to find out the truth by going through all the transactions, dealings and past records of all the companies in which Paul CHAN had been involved in the past. These Honourable colleagues wanted to tell Paul CHAN, "You have to come clean on all that you did in the past, including everything related to those off-shore companies, whether they were involved in any activities, and what kinds of activities they were involved in." Of course, this kind of argument is intended to tell Members that no one in the world has any power of prescience. We are not seers, nor is Kenneth CHAN, so why do we still want to give Paul CHAN such a hard time?
President, in fact, such a reply is very ridiculous. Come to think about this. Of course, no one is a seer and no one is prescient; no one could have known that the Kenneth CHAN several decades or two decades ago, who was just some 20 years old, would become a Legislative Council Member nowadays. Of course, no one would have known but the question is: Under this system, be it officials, civil servants or Legislative Council Members, we are no longer private individuals because we are involved in public policies, public powers and the use of public resources, so of course, all our words and actions can no longer be considered from the dimension of a private individual. This is why so many important political figures or politicos in various parts of the world are implicated in scandals. Strictly speaking, from the angle of a private individual, perhaps it can be said that there are actually many grey areas and indeed, chances are that one can no longer remember or is not sure about many things, so it is necessary to look into them further. But herein lies the problem: For a public figure, Member, public officer, Secretary or the Chief Executive, the public have very clear moral expectations for the people in these posts and I do not think such expectations are not any higher than those in the past. In fact, such expectations have all along existed and this is the ABCs and foundation of political ethics, so one cannot shift the blame by citing the argument of prescience or this being a personal matter.
232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
A former President of Germany also had a business partner several decades ago. They extended business loans to each other and were also involved in property deals. After this matter had come to light, scathing attacks were directed at him. Similarly, he also wanted to tell all people that those matters had happened several decades ago, being completely normal business dealings. However, since he was in such a prominent position as the President, the Chancellor, Angela MERKEL, told him, "Let's bring it to an end. Please give way and leave, we cannot afford to have a time bomb and a scandal like you."
In the United Kingdom, there was also a Member of the Parliament who went out in the middle of the night and in a park, he was found to have been involved in conduct that could not be ascertained to be immoral or not. However, he also knew that he had become a liability to his party, Government and team. He could either request an inquiry in relation to him or he could decide to assume political responsibility in the course of a thorough investigation. This is the most basic ethical requirement for public officers, so he chose to leave and in doing so, he also helped his team, Government and political party defuse a bomb. Therefore, Members must understand the importance of knowing one's position, in particular, it is important for public officers to know their position and they can no longer cite the excuse that something was the action of a private individual, that it dated back to several decades ago or that it is a complicated matter. The fact is: This is not so simple. Therefore, why do we have to take such pains and adopt such a roundabout way to discuss the establishment of a select committee under the P&P Ordinance to inquire into the truth of this matter?
After this incident had come to light, I once questioned and wanted to know in what way, in what circumstances and even the specific details of how Secretary Paul CHAN declared his interest to the Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying, in September. At that time, what instructions did the Chief Executive give him? Are there any details? Is there any actual proof? Did he come clean on everything? Or were there also some elements of misrepresentation, thus resulting in all of them being caught in this sinking boat? Your credibility is low, your popularity is low and your competence is also low.
The SAR Government has to deal with land disputes. From the Central Harbourfront land use about which I expressed great concern this morning, querying why it could not remain public realm and open space, through the land use of the former Lee Wai Lee Technical Institute and Queen's Hill Camp, to the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 233 land for development in NENT, they are all subject matters that warrant serious exploration, rational discussion and debate. However, on the ability, method of expression and persuasiveness displayed by you in the process of dealing with these issues, the public have given you a big thumbs-down. Do the country parks account for 40% or 70% of the land in Hong Kong? You can make a mistake even on this matter and it was necessary for the Development Bureau to issue a statement to say that the Secretary's comments did not represent those of the Development Bureau.
It can thus be seen that the public have formed certain opinions on this matter. As Legislative Council Members, we have to keep the gate, and monitor your performance and the operation of the Government on behalf of the public, so naturally, we have to ask a question: Why do taxpayers and the Hong Kong public still have to use so many resources each month to hire someone whose competence, credibility and integrity have been called into serious doubt to continue to serve as the Secretary and deal with a host of issues of great importance and solemnity relating to land and development? In fact, has it ever occurred to the Secretary that today, even though you may be lucky enough to escape unscathed and continue to sit in this boat securely, if you give in now, you will find much wider horizons then?
Honourable colleagues in the pro-establishment camp, in particular, those from functional constituencies, have cited many interesting arguments to speak in defence of you. However, do you actually know if they are sincere or false, and whether or not they have been subjected to coercion, thus making it impossible for them to speak their true minds?
Today, members of the public who are watching this debate also know that it is most likely that this motion will be negatived. However, even if this motion is negatived and we cannot establish a select committee under the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry into the land owned by the Secretary in NENT, as well as the truth about a host of activities relating to your company or the companies that are suspected of being once related to your company; even if this inquiry cannot make any progress, you must not think that after today, everything would just vanish like smoke. Things would not in the least bit be easy for you, the road ahead would only get narrower and steeper and the pitfalls that you fall into would also be deeper. However, Secretary, what bothers me even more is not your personal situation or personal problem. This is not a personal issue, rather, 234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 all members of the Hong Kong public have to keep you company in continuing to walk on in stupor.
With these remarks, President, I support Dr KWOK Ka-ki's motion.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, after the resumption of the Council, the first Legislative Council meeting is being held today. In the community, I have heard many good wishes expressing the hope that after a summer recess of two months, Legislative Council Members would care more about matters of people's livelihood and problems requiring urgent attention and resolve them in concert. Unfortunately, the first motion proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki after the Council has resumed is to demand that the powers under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) be invoked to investigate the incident of the purchase of farmland by the family members of Secretary Paul CHAN 19 years ago. Just now, Mr James TIEN has presented clearly his views on the purchase of land as an investment and I agree very much with them. Given the developments so far, we cannot find, nor is there any evidence indicating that Secretary Paul CHAN has abused his power for personal gains. What we can see is the relentless pursuit of him by the opposition by raising this subject matter repeatedly.
Some Members of the opposition even vowed that if Paul CHAN did not step down, they would contrive various ways to paralyse the work of the Development Bureau in the Legislative Council. Obviously, such an approach is making the matter personal. Today, the opposition is mounting an all-out attack on Paul CHAN and next week, they are going to expand the scope of their attack by moving a motion demanding that the Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying, step down. The purpose of this series of actions is actually all too clear, that is, they want to dent the prestige of "LEUNG's team" in governance and the ultimate aim is to topple LEUNG Chun-ying.
Secretary Paul CHAN is accused of hoarding land in NENT in an attempt to line his own pockets. The opposition has organized rallies to demand the resignation of Paul CHAN and the shelving of the NENT NDAs Project. Obviously, this is a move designed to hide a malicious intent because in the event that the NENT NDAs Project is shelved, the efforts of the LEUNG Chun-ying Government in increasing land and housing supply to ease the deep-rooted LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 235 conflicts in society would be greatly impeded and his governance would encounter even greater difficulties, so this is actually the true intent of the opposition in its continual pursuit of the issue of the acquisition of farmland by Paul CHAN's family members 19 years ago.
President, I have served as a Member since the era of the former Legislative Council. Before the reunification and in the early post-reunification period, when the Legislative Council or Legislative Council Members wanted to invoke the powers of the P&P Ordinance, they would be very cautious. Unless major public interests were at stake, they would not do so easily. At that time, although various political parties and groupings had different political stances, they could still target the issues at stake rather than individuals. For example, regarding the chaos that followed the commissioning of the airport at Chek Lap Kok and the substandard piling works incident involving Home Ownership Scheme units, the agreement of Members across all political parties and groupings had been secured before the powers under the P&P Ordinance were invoked to conduct inquiries. The aim was to review the shortcomings in order to avoid a repeat of these incidents. All Members only wanted to do a good job and were only thinking about Hong Kong's well-being.
However, I think the Legislative Council nowadays is different from that in the past, in particular, after Mr LEUNG Chun-ying had assumed office as the Chief Executive, the opposition would demand that the powers of the P&P Ordinance be invoked to conduct inquiries lightly: The incident of unauthorized building works relating to the Chief Executive, the incident of LEW Mon-hung "dropping a bombshell", the incident of the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange going bust and the disputes among the shareholders of the Digital Broadcasting Corporation Hong Kong Limited. Therefore, I think that this "imperial sword" of the P&P Ordinance has become a political tool of Members in the opposition to give publicity and political clout to themselves.
This time around, Secretary Paul CHAN is accused of allegedly abusing his power for personal gains and the opposition said that it had approached the Police Headquarters, the Company Registry, the Inland Revenue Department, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Official Receiver's Office to make reports on Paul CHAN for suspected perjury, violation of the Companies Ordinance, tax avoidance, and so on, respectively. As we all know, regarding these so-called "reports", various government departments will surely deal with 236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 them according to existing procedures. Therefore, I really cannot see any need for the Legislative Council to waste more public funds on intervention and conducting an inquiry.
As regards the approach adopted by Secretary Paul CHAN in dealing with the matter of the possession of farmland by his family members, although Members have voiced various views and criticisms, I think we should first sort out some facts. First, Secretary CHAN purchased the farmland 19 years ago. Mr James TIEN said earlier on that 19 years ago, the Government had not yet announced the development of Kwun Tung North and Secretary Paul CHAN was not in the bureaucracy either. As far as I know, he was an accountant at that time. This kind of land purchase is an entirely legal private commercial transaction and this kind of investment activities undertaken by Hong Kong people is fully protected by the law. Each Hong Kong resident has this right. Why has this kind of investments become land hoarding and profiteering now? This is not acceptable.
After Secretary Paul CHAN had been appointed the Secretary for Development … some Members said earlier on that his appointment as the Secretary for Development was actually the result of unexpected developments ― initially, he was probably a candidate for the post of Deputy Financial Secretary but subsequently, this post could not be created and at that time, someone else had already taken up the post of Secretary for Development. However, due to the occurrence of a certain incident, in the end, he was appointed to this post. Therefore, how can the claim that he was eyeing the chance to make an inordinate profit hold water? Moreover, the Government has already made it clear that after he had assumed office as Secretary for Development, he made a declaration of interest to the Chief Executive in September last year.
Certainly, some people may query if this is really the case. Why not produce some evidence? How could they challenge the Chief Executive and query if he had harboured him? They are practically challenging the Government, distrusting the existing mechanism and generating distorted opinion.
To avoid suspicions, Ms Frieda HUI, that is, Mrs CHAN, sold the company holding the shares relating to the land to his younger brother for $2.7 million in October last year and earlier on, the relevant company announced that the relevant farmland would be sold by open tender at market price. However, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 237 another issue has arisen here: It was queried if this sum of money had actually been handed to the younger brother of Mrs CHAN by Paul CHAN.
The key issue now is: Is the land owned by him? I do not consider it necessary to investigate the source of the funds belonging to the younger brother of Mrs CHAN. Is this something that the Legislative Council has to look into? What we are concerned about is whether or not he still owns the land. Some people queried that since he was once insolvent, how possibly could he still have so much money after going insolvent? How can we say that six years after bankruptcy, he still have to live on loans? The people who make this statement is purely imaginative, so this is really an eye-opener for me.
I learnt from the disclosed information that in this transaction, Ms Frieda HUI did not benefit from the fact that her husband is the Secretary for Development. On the contrary, we can see that the amount of money she received from the sale of this piece of land is far less than the amount of compensation payable by the authorities for land resumption in future.
Secretary Paul CHAN has also given an account of this incident in his explanations. Here, I have to level a criticism at the poor performance of Secretary Paul CHAN in giving accounts and making unclear responses, however, this does not mean that he has violated the regulations and the law and abused his power. According to all information available now, we believe that Secretary Paul CHAN has not violated any regulation or the law in dealing with this matter.
Just now, when some Members voiced their criticisms, I heard them point out in particular that if the powers under the P&P Ordinance were invoked, it would be possible to prove Secretary Paul CHAN's innocence and give him a chance to explain. I have served in the Legislative Council for a long time and when dealing with the incident relating to Mr KAM Nai-wai, I did not hear Members of the opposition make any similar remark.
Just now, Dr Kenneth CHAN demanded in particular that Members of the pro-establishment camp advance some presentable grounds. I have said that whether or not those are justified grounds must be decided by the public. However, I have heard Dr Kenneth CHAN cite some plausible grounds to support invoking the powers under the P&P Ordinance. It sounded as though he were giving a lecture, talking about popularity ratings all the time, and pointing out that 238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 because of the low popularity, it is necessary to run Hong Kong with conscience and political ethics. This is a conclusion drawn by him based entirely on his prejudice against a certain person.
I also noticed that Dr KWOK Ka-ki had pointed out the day before that since Secretary Paul CHAN had said he would give explanations on it incident again, it proved that he still had something to hide, so the Legislative Council should invoke the powers under the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry. I think that to cite these absurd arguments to support the invoking of the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry in relation to Secretary Paul CHAN is totally devoid of logic, simply a distortion in a biased and unscrupulous manner. This is just like what Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung did just now, that is, behaving like a rogue and making comments devoid of logic.
That Secretary Paul CHAN said that he was prepared to give further explanations on this incident precisely reflects that Secretary Paul CHAN is willing to be open and honest. However, such a course of action is vilified by Dr KWOK Ka-ki as "still having something to hide". Such an accusation is nothing but muckraking.
Hong Kong currently faces many deep-rooted problems in politics, society and the economy, including the housing problem, the poverty problem and even the problem of constitutional reform, and all of them require the sincere co-operation among various political parties and groupings in the Legislative Council to solve. However, it is regrettable that the opposition is constantly blowing political issues out of proportions in an attempt to pursue and attack the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration by politicizing all problems. To wage political struggles has become the usual fare and as a result, Hong Kong society is like an engine revving in neutral gear, getting nowhere and caught in internal attrition.
With these remarks, President, I oppose the motion.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, Paul CHAN must step down due to the problem with his integrity.
In July this year, the family of the Secretary for Development, Paul CHAN, was found to have hoarded 18 000 sq ft of farmland in the NENT NDA, so he LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 239 stood to receive tens of million dollars in compensation, so this smacks strongly of abusing his power for personal gains. This is the third major political scandal involving Paul CHAN after the incidents of "sub-divided units" and drink driving in less than a year since he has assumed office. After this incident was exposed, not only did Secretary CHAN fail to come clean and tell the whole truth, he even gave responses with the approach of "squeezing a tube of toothpaste". He even tried to resort to word play by saying that the land had been owned by "his wife and her family members" in an attempt to muddle through. This is an insult to the wisdom of the public. In the face of the condemnation from various quarters, Paul CHAN said shamelessly that he definitely would not resign. Moreover, he even trotted out the mottos, "Be righteous and compassionate" and "In adversity and perils I forge ahead, in poverty and want I remain passionate" to show his noble ideals, so this is really an insult to the sages and men of virtue and a downright outrage.
Paul CHAN is the accountability official with the lowest popularity rating ever since the introduction of the accountability system. In November last year, I moved a motion of no confidence against Paul CHAN in relation to the two scandals of "sub-divided units" and drink driving in a Legislative Council meeting. At that time, had Members in the pro-establishment camp been willing to cast votes in favour of the motion to send this mediocre official away, the sorry situation today would not have arisen. The pro-establishment camp only cares about the position they should take rather than the rights and wrongs of this matter, so the interest of Hong Kong society as a whole is injured.
Members of the pro-establishment camp all said that this incident had come to an end. This is to further antagonize the public in order to defend and harbour this mediocre official. There are quite a number of doubts over the scandal of Paul CHAN hoarding land and it is necessary for him to explain clearly to the public, so he must give them a clear account. Therefore, at a time when he is neither willing to step down nor give an account, it is imperative that the powers under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) are invoked to establish a select committee to conduct an inquiry into this incident. However, it is not this matter that I want to talk about now. I want to sincerely call on Paul CHAN to step down immediately by looking at this matter from the angle of political science or realpolitik.
In mid-September, Paul CHAN was further found to have evaded taxes by means of a dormant company. It is reported that the Commercial Crime Bureau 240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 of the police has intervened in the relevant case. I believe not only does this series of incidents reflect the problems with Paul CHAN's integrity, it also shows that he can no longer command the trust of the public. On account of this alone, he should step down. In relation to this, some people would probably say that the various allegations directed at Paul CHAN are purely misunderstandings and that without any concrete evidence, it is unfair to demand that Paul CHAN step down.
This being so, why not pass this motion that seeks to invoke the powers under the P&P Ordinance to establish a select committee, so as to vindicate Paul CHAN? In fact, the subtext of this kind of arguments is very simple, that is, unless the Court convicts him of an offence, he does not have to step down. This is really very ridiculous. No matter how mightily competent Carrie LAM is and how good her image is, there is no way she could defend such wrongdoings.
The nature of democratic politics is the politics of public opinion, the politics of the rule of law and the politics of responsibility. People who are used to committing all kinds of outrageous acts under a totalitarian regime would not understand what is meant by the politics of public opinion, the politics of the rule of law and the politics of responsibility. The politics of public opinion means that the Government has to base its administration on public opinion. At present, public opinion does not want him and all public opinion surveys show that his popularity is going from low to low. If the Government is unwilling to comply with public opinion in its administration, it will collapse sooner or later.
Recently, the General Manager of the representative office of Taiwan in Hong Kong, the Kwang Hwa Information and Culture Centre, talked about what is so good about Taiwan. The good thing about it is that if the Government is rotten, it can be replaced. MA Ying-jeou, in an attempt to establish judicial authority, found that Wang Jin-pyng was involved in influence peddling, so he swiftly expelled WANG him from the party, wanting to put an end to his political career once and for all. In the end, his opponent struck back and lodged an interlocutory appeal in court, so even the Kuomintang had to call it quits. Politically, MA Ying-jeou lost. In this regard, some Taiwanese think that the person catching the thief has become a coward, whereas the thief has become the hero, so what justice is there? This is precisely what is so precious about democracy, is this not?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 241
MA Ying-jeou 's popularity fell sharply after this incident and as a result, he got into serious trouble. Now, he has even become the subject of investigation. However, is there any chaos in Taiwan? Again, there is order in disorder and an increasing number of people are emigrating from Hong Kong to Taiwan. A corporal in the military was maltreated to death ― in fact, he died of overexertion in a drill ― so the Minister of National Defence had to step down. However, what has his death got to do with the Minister of National Defence? He still had to assume political responsibility.
The politics of the rule of law means that all the administration by the government has to comply with the law and the constitution has an even higher status than the law. One can promulgate administrative orders but cannot violate the law, whereas the law cannot violate the constitution. This is the ABCs of political science.
Today, in this legislature, we are arguing over whether or not he hoarded land and when the land was bought, saying that when the land was bought, this could not be considered a problem at that time because Hong Kong is a free market in which everyone can use their capital to seek profits. However, it is not these issues that are being discussed, and everyone has got the essence of the matter wrong. Chief Secretary for Administration, what is being discussed now is that the public do not trust him or your team ― it is said that a little gall can spoil a great deal of honey ― and herein lies the crux of the problem. When the public no longer trust Mr Paul CHAN or have doubts about him, how can he cling onto his bureau office? The rationale is really as simple as the Chinese character "一" (one).
The politics of responsibility refers to administrative responsibility, political responsibility, legal responsibility and moral responsibility. Let me assume that he does not have to assume legal responsibility, but surely he still has to assume political responsibility? If not, what does an "Secretary under the accountability system" mean? This is just the ABCs of political science, Chief Secretary. How can Hong Kong implement genuine universal suffrage? We cannot even sort out the fundamental political ethics and ABCs of political science, merely talking about "it was bought more than a decade ago and was transferred to his brother-in-law", so on, and so forth. What is the point of debating this now? If we want to argue over these matters, let us establish a select committee! This is a very simple rationale and I really do not understand 242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 what the point of arguing over it is. No matter how the pro-democracy camp talks, it is just repeating the same things.
If the public do not trust you, you have to step down. President, there are such examples both in China and overseas. In Britain, there is a well-known British Labour Party politician, Peter Gerald HAIN, who began to serve in the Cabinet of Gordon BROWN before 2008. He was an important minister in two Labour Governments. In 2008, he resigned from the Cabinet due to his failure to declare in time the amounts of political donations received by him when he was running in the election for the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party in 2007.
According to the electoral law in the United Kingdom, Peter HAIN should declare the amounts of political donations to the Electoral Commission as soon as possible after the election but as of November 2007, he only managed to declare £82,000 of the political donations in a timely manner. On 10 January 2008, the press disclosed that he had concealed his acceptance of £100,000 in political donations during the election. It later emerged that most of the so-called donations were channelled through a non-operating think tank. Among these donations, some even came from Apartheid supporters in South Africa. On 12 January that year, he issued a statement to explain again that this matter had arisen because of his busy schedule and that no impropriety had been involved in this incident. He also pointed out that the reports by the Guardian and other newspapers accusing him of deliberate cover-up were totally absurd. Moreover, he also pointed out that he had returned £25,000 of the donations.
However, after the Electoral Commission had referred the case to the Metropolitan Police, he declared that he would resign from the post of Secretary for Work and Pensions. He cited a desire to clear his name as the reason for his resignation and subsequently, it became even necessary for the Brown Administration to carry out a reshuffle, so in this incident, one leak can sink a great ship. This is how assuming political responsibility is like. Buddy, after the Metropolitan Police and the prosecution service found that HAIN had not committed any offence, he was reinstated.
Another example, which has been mentioned by some Members today, relates to the former Financial Secretary, Anthony LEUNG. A decade ago, Anthony LEUNG was accused of buying a car ahead of announcing a tax increase and the amount of tax in question amounted to $190,000. Subsequently, even though he had donated an amount double the sum of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 243
$190,000 (that is, $380,000) to the Community Chest, public wrath could still not be allayed.
I remember that at that time, I had discussions with him on this issue on two occasions and suggested that he should resign. Eventually, Anthony LEUNG tendered his resignation to TUNG Chee-hwa twice but on the first occasion, TUNG Chee-hwa did not accept it and his resignation was accepted only on the second occasion. He tendered his sincere apologies to the public. Recently, he made some remarks in relation to this issue involving Secretary Paul CHAN, to this effect, "People in prominent positions should know how to avoid suspicions and should not arouse the same. Once they have aroused suspicions, they have to resign.". He also cited his resignation in 2003 as an example.
What his remarks mean is that whether or not senior officials have any intention of abusing their power for personal gains is not the key. The most important thing is to have high political sensitivity to avoid doing anything that might arouse suspicions. Anthony LEUNG said, to this effect, "Back then, in joining the Government, my salary was reduced by over 90%. I did not even covet the high pay, so how could I possibly be greedy for the tax? However, whether I was greedy or not was not important. It was inappropriate to arouse public suspicions, so I assumed responsibility and tendered my resignation to Mr TUNG immediately.". Has Mr Paul CHAN read Mr Anthony LEUNG's views? Can he get any insights from them? Did Mr Anthony LEUNG commit a greater evil than he did?
Integrity is the most important quality of people pursuing a career in politics and this is true throughout the ages. In the Roman Empire of yore, the consul and orator Cornelius TACITUS said, to this effect, "When a department loses credibility, whether it tells the truth or a lie, whether it does good or bad, it will be considered as telling lies, and doing bad things.". This view was subsequently expounded by others and evolved into the "Tacitus trap". Our astute President also once cited this example to describe the dilemma faced by the present SAR Government now.
The former President of the United States, George BUSH, Sr. had an adviser, namely, Lee ATWATER of the Republican Party. A remark of his ― "Perception is reality" ― is much celebrated. The rationale is very simple. Some people think that this means speculation but in fact, this is not so, rather, people pursuing a career in politics should understand that other people's 244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 perception is reality. They cannot complain because all of us make judgments based only on perceptions and impressions. President, perceptions and impressions are important. President, you once demanded that the Central Authorities free itself of its ghost and as a result, you were besieged and attacked by a mob of people, who criticized you and told you not to demonize the Central Authorities. In politics, perceptions and impressions will become reality. In particular, in a so-called democracy, public figures or political figures will certainly get the blame for the slightest reasons, needless to say.
If Secretary Paul CHAN still does not understand all this, he can look at ZHUGE Liang in the era of the three kingdoms. ZHUGE Liang suggested "seven ways for observing people"： First, pose to them philosophic dilemmatic questions to see their values; second, make them speechless through argument to see their response; third, discuss your strategy with them to see their knowledge; fourth, tell them there is a disaster coming to see their courage; fifth, fuddle them with wine to see their nature; sixth, give them benefit to see if they are honest or not; and seventh, confide a job to them to see their credit.
These seven ways can be summed up as values, response, knowledge, courage, nature, honesty and trustworthiness. Paul CHAN has personally demonstrated how to fuddle oneself with wine to show one's nature. In the face of this issue, can he still cling onto his position as the Secretary? He had better step down immediately.
Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, although the motion question under discussion today is whether or not the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) should be invoked to set up a select committee to inquire into the incident of owning farmland and related issues, after hearing all the speeches delivered in the debate so far, I find that most of them, particularly those in support of the establishment of a select committee, carry an ulterior motive actually. Their intention has absolutely nothing to do with setting up a select committee or conducting an objective and impartial inquiry. They just want to exploit the opportunity to press for Secretary Paul LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 245
CHAN to step down or humiliate him. Certainly, we understand that this is the political reality of Hong Kong today, but I believe the whole matter can appear to be fairer if Members can examine the main purpose of the discussion on this question and give objective and detached comments.
What is more, we should not grill him today because of his sliding popularity, or else we will be passing a judgment before trial based on some of his past records or scandals. Furthermore, we should not exploit this opportunity as a means to "overthrow LEUNG" or compromise the political scene in Hong Kong. Otherwise, Hong Kong people, as many Members opposing the motion said, will only think that Members are already in a state of behaving unduly or engaging in internal attrition in Hong Kong.
Hence, let us come back to the most fundamental issue. What is the main purpose of this motion calling for the setting up of a select committee? As we all know, this motion seeks to examine whether there are issues of public concern involving serious failures and government officials, particularly high-ranking officials, or institutional failures. Certainly, we have to examine if there is a prima facie case to prevent us from, as pointed out by Mr CHAN Kin-por earlier, performing an operation on a patient to examine whether or not he is suffering from an illness. Instead, the operation has to be performed because there are relatively obvious symptoms. Whether or not the operation will turn out to be successful is another matter.
Hence, under the aforesaid most fundamental principle, how should we evaluate this incident? First of all, we have to note two aspects: The first point is whether some live issues are involved. Regardless of whether public officers or incidents are involved, we cannot turn a blind eye if the situation is still unfolding and will continue to deteriorate if no actions are taken. Just as the LEUNG Chin-man incident or earlier incidents, such as the one involving the West Kowloon Reclamation Concept Plan Competition, which came to light before Mr LEUNG Chun-ying took office as Chief Executive, their significance or critical importance is comparatively low. However, if these incidents are still going on, or the harm will become fatal, we must be more careful.
The second factor which has to be examined is the sensitivity of the incident. In the example cited by Mr WONG Yuk-man just now, the portfolio of the relevant cabinet minister in the United Kingdom is related to welfare or 246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 labour issues which are, comparatively speaking, not too sensitive. In comparison, the handling of issues related to the development of Hong Kong, especially when voices denouncing real estate hegemony are constantly heard nowadays, can be described as extremely sensitive. In particular, insofar as real estate development is concerned, people have been under the impression that a price movement or a piece of news can create an enormous impact. Hence, this incident is highly sensitive.
Earlier, some arguments were advanced by some colleagues who oppose the motion. They include, for instance, incessant calls will be made for the resignation of government officials; declarations should be considered adequate; endless internal attrition will go on; collective decisions should be made by the Government, as suggested by the Chief Secretary, not by individuals; and the argument about lapsed novelty, as advanced by Mr James TIEN, which means that no new meaning or evidence can be found for the incident happened years ago. Although these arguments are to a certain extent sensible, we still have to evaluate the incident from two perspectives, namely whether the incident is still going on and the harm will become fatal, having regard to the two crucial factors mentioned by me just now.
In this regard, we can also compare the incidents involving Mr Franklin LAM and Barry CHEUNG. Certainly, no one will support any calls for the P&P Ordinance to be invoked to inquire into these incidents. Neither will the public consider that we should use resources or money to pursue these incidents. Nevertheless, we must reconsider and handle them carefully if the two key criteria mentioned by me just now are met.
President, is there a prima facie case for this incident? Just now, Mr Alan LEONG raised seven points in this regard and explained them in great detail seriatim. I am particularly concerned about the fifth, sixth and seventh points, that is, issues relating to the composition of and the interests behind the British Virgin Islands (BVI) companies, or companies registered overseas. Insofar as this incident is concerned, does it involve any other issues which might cast doubts on his integrity, besides his "clumsy" communication, as admitted by Secretary Paul CHAN himself?
We find that there are indeed some inconsistencies in the Secretary's accounts of this incident, particularly in regard to the use of land or the definition LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 247 of "family". I have also noted a new argument today for explaining why he leased the relevant plot of land at $60 to a farmer who appeared to have the intention of encroaching on his land. My perception is that, this so-called adverse possession argument has never been mentioned before. So, will it be a brand new idea conceived by Secretary Paul CHAN after careful consideration or under the guidance of an attorney to absolve himself? Although this is understandable, insofar as the masses and society are concerned, I am afraid this approach of coming up with new ideas or new definitions on every occasion to explain the previous consistencies will not help allay but aggravate the public's misgivings.
President, it appears that a prima facie case has been established today, but can a tipping point be reached to oblige us to press this button? In this connection, I have to consider whether there are other alternatives. The Secretary has attended the panel meetings of the Legislative Council a number of times and accounted for this incident. But, as he himself admitted, he is afraid that his explanations are "clumsy" or getting more and more "clumsy". The Secretary might have issued some public statements, though they are no match, in terms of depth, length or technique, for the 14-page explanation given by the Chief Executive sometime ago on his unauthorized building works. I have suggested that the Secretary consider adopting … affidavits, which are well accepted and recognized in the market and in law, or representations on the interests behind those BVI companies. Because this is basically widely recognized, provided that there is a need to do so for the purpose of, for instance, conducting corporate transactions, especially for property possession by BVI companies, or applying for bank mortgages, even though technically the actual persons who hold the interest cannot be ascertained. It is acceptable for a person to swear an oath and confirm the persons who have or do not have interests, provided he is prepared to face the risk of perjury.
Under the present circumstances, invoking the P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry appears to be a feasible, middle-of-the-road proposal which allows the general public to gain a better understanding, one which is recognized in law, without expending enormous manpower and resources of this Council. However, it is a pity that Secretary Paul CHAN appears to be unconvinced that this is an appropriate solution. I hope the Secretary can explain in his reply and tell us whether he will carefully consider this approach as a way out to make some colleagues accept that this is a middle-of-the-road proposal.
248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Although the opening speech delivered by Secretary Paul CHAN in this Council just now can be seen as a public record theoretically, and we can thus gain a better understanding of the whole story, it is after all just an important political document, which is not as legally decisive as an affidavit. In this regard, I would like to appeal to the Secretary to reconsider this option.
As regards the question of whether the Secretary was able to make this decision more than a decade ago because of his ability to seize the opportunity ahead of others, his knowledge of the benefit to be reaped in the future or, as alleged by certain colleagues, his intention to abuse his power for personal gains, I can say according to my knowledge of Paul CHAN as a Bureau Director or a former colleague in this Council that he may not be that bad. However, could it be the case that as a professional well versed in accounting principles, he had handled these matters too cautiously to protect himself by making investments through BVI companies? Actually, this is a common practice, though it will give the public the impression that intricate relationships are involved. Politicians, be they from the business or professional sector, even including me, actually need to do some reflections, because it is actually difficult for the Secretary to give explanations, or satisfactory explanations, in the face of such allegations.
In particular, we encounter another problem this time around, one relating to dormant companies. Although dormant companies are very common, Secretary Paul CHAN, a former leading figure in the accounting profession, ought to be well aware of the requirements and consequences in law in relation to dormant companies. Insofar as requirements in law are concerned, such companies must not have any open accounts in order to fit the relevant definition. Otherwise, they cannot or ought not be exempted from such requirements in law as annual declaration, auditing, and so on, and must fulfil these responsibilities all the same. Moreover, the directors and shareholders of the companies concerned must be accountable. In this regard, even if the transaction in question is simple, such as a tenancy agreement involving a rent of $60 only, it is still an open account. Just as Mr Kenneth LEUNG said, I hope Secretary Paul CHAN can give us a clear explanation in his reply. Given his role in such a transaction, why does he still consider it appropriate for his company to be described as dormant and hence be entitled to the exemption? This point probably needs to be clarified, too.
In conclusion, President, most colleagues … excuse me, I should have said quite a number of colleagues and members of the public think that many LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 249 inconsistencies still need to be clarified. This motion also matches the two key factors mentioned by me earlier, that is, the incident is still unfolding. Moreover, sensitive issues related to the making of decisions on NENT or future major infrastructure development are involved. It was certainly most preferable, as Chief Secretary Carrie LAM said, if the Secretary did not have any properties in Hong Kong. Actually, there is no need to go so far, but the Secretary should at least not give people the impression that something unknown is going on behind an unknown number of BVI companies. Although we have no idea of the number of his previous companies, we know that the number of BVI companies involved was at least five or six. What was going on behind each of these companies? There is indeed a need to squarely address and clarify these companies, particularly when they involve many other allegedly unlawful or possibly inappropriate transactions.
It is hoped that the Secretary can undertake to at least swear an oath and confirm the truthfulness of the statement in his opening speech. If he can further swear an oath and confirm the seven points raised by Mr Alan LEONG or the queries raised by other Members today, or undertake to make an affidavit within seven days, I believe Members can then have peace of mind to vote against the motion. Otherwise, for the protection of the public's right to know, I am afraid Members of this Council, including me, cannot vote against this motion arbitrarily.
Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, the popularity rating of the Government has risen recently. Some people attribute this phenomenon to the support rendered by a majority of the public as a result of the "double curbs" measures adopted by the Government recently to clamp down on the property market. Some people also attribute this phenomenon to the poverty line introduced by the Government recently, which causes many people to believe that the Government is very determined to alleviate poverty. There are also other comments like this and that. However, I find a remark made by a friend of mine a couple of days ago more specific and probably to the point. He was implying that the aforesaid factors were entirely irrelevant. Actually, it was because all 250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 the opposition Members were out of town while the Legislative Council was in recess. As a result, the Legislative Council was completely quiet, and government officials could thus concentrate on their work. Is it really the case? It turned out that, as expected, after everyone was back in this Council, a discussion was held last week in the House Committee on this motion today, which seeks to set up a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to inquire into Secretary Paul CHAN. A motion of no-confidence in the Chief Executive will be proposed in this Council next week, too.
Today, we also heard some Members say that the Secretary should not mind the inquiry if he was really innocent. I think they were right. If Secretary Paul CHAN is innocent, why should he be afraid of the inquiry? We were told by the Secretary that he was not afraid of the inquiry, only that a lot of time would be wasted as a result. The Research Division of this Council and I have studied the amount of time required to be spent if an inquiry is to be conducted under the P&P Ordinance and the extent of impact on us. According to the information given to me by the relevant staff, the pro-establishment camp would usually support invoking the P&P Ordinance to deal with important issues. For instance, in 2008, we supported the establishment of a select committee to inquire into matters relating to the employment of Mr LEUNG Chin-man … Last year, we supported an inquiry into the involvement of Mr LEUNG Chun-ying in the West Kowloon project. In 2008, we also supported the setting up of a select committee to inquire into Lehman Brothers-related matters. All these inquiries were conducted under the P&P Ordinance.
In the end, we can see that the inquiry conducted by the select committee set up in connection with Mr LEUNG Chin-man lasted exactly two years, from the commencement of the inquiry in December 2008 to the submission of its report in December 2010, and the time spent exceeded 200 hours. President, I have no idea how many Members will join the select committee set up this time around. If all Members are interested, the select committee may end up having more than 60 members, even including the President. Should that happen, we will have no spare capacity. We will have to devote 25 days to the inquiry into Paul CHAN alone. Perhaps the period can be shortened, as with the inquiry into LEUNG Chun-ying, which lasted from February 2012 to June 2012. Strictly speaking, that inquiry is not over yet. It was "put to an end" because the opposition Members were simply too busy. They had to conduct an inquiry into LEUNG Chun-ying while staging a filibuster. The report is still not published LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 251 because they are too busy. The amount of time spent on the inquiry into Lehman Brothers-related matters is even longer. It has taken exactly four years, from the commencement of the inquiry in October 2008 to June 2012, before its report was submitted.
Although an inquiry is a time-consuming process, it does not mean we can avoid it even though it is warranted. If it is really justified, we should render our support. But of course, we should look at the reality. Just now, Members should have clearly heard Chief Secretary Carrie LAM say that Secretary Paul CHAN has already made a declaration, and the Government is of the view that the declaration is true and proper. As regards matters concerning the farmland, the relevant shareholders have clearly stated that Paul CHAN has never had any interest in the aforesaid company. So, what is Dr KWOK trying to investigate? Paul CHAN does not belong to that company. Why did he not state clearly that his target was Paul CHAN's wife? Let me tell you ― I am very angry, though I do not want to be too angry ― when we want to investigate a person, as he pointed out at the beginning of his speech, we cannot let a corrupt government official off. Neither will I, as a friend of his said, tell him to muddle through with one eye closed, though I do not know which Member he was talking about. No, we must keep our eyes open and look at the reality clearly.
Today, I call on Dr KWOK to keep his eyes open and look at the reality. What does he want us, 70 Members, to investigate and how much time does he expect us to spend? This meeting started at 11 am this morning and it is already 6 pm now, but we are still discussing whether an inquiry should be conducted. Members should also know it very well that reports have been filed to the ICAC against Paul CHAN by a Member and members of the public. We might as well let the ICAC conduct the inquiry first. There is nothing we can do if the inquiry does not bear fruit. We will not follow up the inquiry either. If the ICAC is considered to be ineffective in conducting the inquiry, we can bring up the matter again for discussion. If there is concrete evidence, it is impossible for us not to follow up the matter, right?
In this connection, I hope to tender Dr KWOK a piece of advice. Sometimes, it is good to have ideals, but we should not pursue our ideals blindly, and put aside or even neglect other problems facing the public and society. We have to put words into actions, and there are a lot of things we have to do. I, CHIANG Lai-wan, am not supposed to join these Members to investigate this and that in this Council. No, I am not.
252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
I still have many things to say, but I know many Members have already expressed their views today. So, I think I have to stop here. President, I oppose the establishment of a select committee under the P&P Ordinance. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, Members, I would like to thank the 20 Members who have expressed views on this motion. When I spoke for the first time, I already made a clarification in a concise manner regarding a number of points concerning matters which my wife and relatives in her parental family owning farmland in Kwu Tung. With respect to the other concerns raised by Members, I would like to make the following supplement so that Members can have a better grasp of the circumstances surrounding the incident.
Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan accused me, when I responded to the incident for the first time, of saying that I did not remember and that the matter did not concern me. In the response made the second time, I talked about my wife and family members. And at the third time, I gave more details and talked about my wife and her son. This accusation made by Members is very misleading. I am sure Members who attended the meetings of the Panel on Development will know that this is not true. It is because on the same day when the media reported the incident, that is, in the morning of Monday, 22 July, I took the initiative to meet the media and take questions both before and after the Panel meeting. I also gave replies to questions Members asked during the meeting before I flew to Tianjin to attend a meeting. On the following day, that is, Tuesday, I was in Tianjin. And I also took the initiative to answer questions from the media. Therefore, the claim that my response on the first occasion was "I did not remember and the matter did not concern me" is not correct.
As for the misunderstanding caused by the phrase "my wife and family", I have already made a clarification. I will do so for a second time now. This misunderstanding is related to media standups on two occasions in the same LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 253 morning and they both took place on 22 July. The first occasion took place before the meeting of the Panel on Development. Before I entered the meeting room I spoke to the microphone to this effect: "My wife used to be a director of a company and a minority shareholder. That company was owned by her and her family and her family members. The company bought a piece of farmland with an area of about 20 000 sq ft in Sheung Shui in 1994, that is, 19 years ago." The company referred to here is obviously Statement Industries Limited (SI). And by "family" and "her family members", it was intended to mean relatives on my wife's side.
The standup on the second occasion was after the meeting. When I walked out of the room, I came to the microphone and the first question posed by the media was to this effect: "What are your actual interests in the company Orient Express?" The reply I gave at that time was to this effect: "I do not have any actual interest in the company Orient Express. That company is owned by my wife and her family. At that time, what the media people were asking and what was being referred to in my answer were both the company called Orient Express. And by "family", it would of course include children. Therefore, the shareholders mentioned in these two exchanges are shareholders of different companies, the first referred to SI and the second referred to Orient Express (OE).
President, in retrospect, had I used the phrase "relatives of my wife on her side" when referring to other shareholders of OE, then the misunderstanding would have been avoided. It is therefore unfortunate that such an unnecessary misunderstanding was caused. It was also beyond my expectation. But I must reiterate that I did not hide anything or deliberately tried to cause any confusion.
President, Mr Kenneth LEUNG said that he has taken a professional approach and used his professional judgment to look at these issues. But I find the queries raised by Mr LEUNG to be one-sided and hastly. But I do not wish to refute his arguments seriatim. I would just talk about three points. First, he mentioned laws on listed companies and connected persons and their definition. He was trying to apply all these concepts to me and the incident on this occasion. I would think that this is not proper. President, the codes of practice applicable to me as the Secretary for Development are the Code for Officials under the Political Appointment System and the Code for Members of the Executive Council. These are different from the concept of connected persons in the laws on listed companies and they must not be confused. In the declaration of 254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 interests forms for Members of the Executive Council open to public inspection, the codes mentioned are not the code related to connected persons in the laws on listed companies, but the Code for Officials under the Political Appointment System and the Code for Members of the Executive Council which I have mentioned. I said in the opening speech that I had made my declaration of interests according to these two codes.
Second, Mr LEUNG mentioned that on 26 July, a motion proposed in the meeting of the Panel on Development failed to get passed. The motion was about urging me to disclose the interests in land which I and my family own in NENT. President, I remember at that time I asked Mr LEUNG in the meeting what the definition of "family" was and whether it referred to "my wife and children". At that time, Mr LEUNG replied, "No." Then what kinds of relatives are included? Mr LEUNG did not explain it. President, how can people follow an instruction like that? President, just how wide is the scope of relatives whose interests should be declared? Can this requirement really be enforced? Is it fair at all?
President, what I wish to emphasize is, first, now my wife and children do not own any interest in land in the NENT NDAs and neither do I. Second, apart from the farmland held by OE in Kwu Tung, my wife's family does not own any other land in the NENT NDAs. President, the third point is when Mr LEUNG said that since my wife is a company secretary, there was alleged conflict of interest when my wife entered into a business partnership with her family members. President, this allegation is both very serious and arbitrary. I would like to ask him to point out exactly where the conflict lies and how a conflict is caused. I urge him to produce evidence. In this Chamber, the speech made by each Member is immune from legal liability. But Members must not make any arbitrary and irresponsible remarks.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan questioned that when I declared my interests to the Chief Executive, I was trying to mend the fold. President, it was never intended to make any amends. I had said repeatedly when I gave replies to Members' questions that in late September 2012, when I knew that this lot of farmland in Kwu Tung falls within the scope of the NENT NDAs, I took the initiative to make a declaration of interest to the Chief Executive. I followed the existing mechanism when I made such a declaration.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 255
President, in addition, several Members and political parties also asked about who the shareholders and directors of the offshore companies concerned are. They have also raised queries. With respect to this, I have explained in the opening speech made earlier that the companies Excellent Assets Limited (EA), Fidelity Management Limited (FM) and New Horizon Assets Limited all hold shares of OE in their capacity as agents for my wife's family. In fact, it is not unusual at all to appoint a company to act as an agent to hold the shares of another company. That people become clients to the agents because they want their privacy to be protected and this has nothing to do with me. I have never made use of EA, FM or NH to hide my interests in the farmland through this arrangement of agents. Moreover, there is no attempt in tax evasion. The shares held by the agent companies are not owned by these agent companies and the shares are held in the form of a trust on behalf of the clients. The agents can exercise the relevant rights of the shares only as per the instruction of the clients and the agents cannot dispose of the relevant shares at their will, nor can they disclose the identity of the clients without authorization.
President, it is not uncommon at all to hold shares as agents for other people. I wish to cite two examples which are familiar to the public. First, a complaint was lodged against Mr Albert HO last year about him having deliberately concealed the fact that he was the director of a certain company and had interests in that company in the form of shares held and he was also alleged to have interests in the land and properties owned by that company. Second, Mr James TO was also complained against previously for not registering his interests in the company called Target Link Limited. In these two cases, both Mr HO and Mr TO acted as agents and held the shares for a third party. I am sure Members know very well the issue about agents holding shares for other persons. So they are always asking about the identity of the shareholders and directors for these three offshore companies. If the legal implications of agents holding shares for a third party are not understood, I do not think the crux of the matter is understood.
Since the agent companies do not actually own the shares they hold, so the question of who the shareholders and directors are has nothing to do with the share rights of Statement Industries Limited (SI) which they hold. Moreover, SI pointed out in a statement made on 24 July that as from 10 October last year, all its shareholders are individuals and no offshore companies are involved. With respect to this, in the annual report submitted by SI to the Registry of Companies, 256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 this fact is clearly shown. As for the use of offshore companies, the practice is very common in the professional and business sectors. This applies to arrangements in the inheritance of estate and control of shares. The main purpose of these is to protect privacy. In general, if it is only meant to form a controlling company and to carry on no business, it would be more convenient and less expensive to use offshore companies than Hong Kong companies.
President, a few Members and also political parties have asked about SI applying to the Registry of Companies in July 1994 as a dormant company, then collecting a half-yearly rent of $60 and alleged that is false representation and even tax evasion. With regard to tax matters, I have explained very clearly in my opening speech, so I would not repeat them now. In fact, on 2 September 2013 SI issued a statement to clarify matters. It was on 2 September that this statement was issued rather than as Mr Paul TSE has questioned, that new arguments are advanced only today. It is not that case. On 2 September, SI issued a statement. President, please allow me to quote from that statement which is to the following effect. This is only an excerpt and I quote: "In May 1994 when SI purchased the farmland in Kwu Tung, it did not intend to lease it. At that time the company only held that piece of farmland and it did not own any other land or assets, and it did not engage in any business activities. Therefore, in July of the same year when a representation was made to the Registry of Companies to apply to change the company into a dormant company, it was a true reflection of the situation at that time." (End of quote) President, hence there is no such thing as making a false representation. Besides, SI does not have any other assets apart from this piece of farmland, nor did it engage in any business. Therefore, at that time, no attempt was made to change the company into an active company again before collecting the nominal rent which was meant to protect the company's ownership of the land in question. It is only an omission. SI has made it clear in its statement that it will commission professionals to follow up the matter.
President, both Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr Alan LEONG have asked about how is the company called Classic Success related to me and my wife. In fact, my wife has pointed out in her statement made on 25 July that neither she, our children, me nor OE, has got any interests in the company Classic Success. A solicitor will be commissioned to check and verify matters.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 257
As for the questions asked by Mr WU Chi-wai, I must emphasize that I have made a declaration of interests according to the Code for Officials under the Political Appointment System and the Code for Members of the Executive Council. In order to avoid causing suspicions of any conflict of interest, my wife took the initiative on 10 October last year to sell all her shares in SI (that is, 37.5%) which were held through OE. Now my wife and children do not have any interest in land in the NENT NDAs, and neither do I.
Mr Charles Peter MOK asked me how I would handle compensation matters concerning the resumption of land in NENT. President, I must point out that the mechanism regarding compensation for land resumption was approved by the former Legislative Council in the 1980s. The Lands Department will undertake an independent review under the mechanism every year and revise and update the compensation amounts. This will be done twice every year and published in the Gazette. The Development Bureau and I do not take part in this.
As for the accusation of land hoarding, I must say that it is not true. It was 19 years ago that SI purchased the farmland in question and had it intended to hoard land, it would not have purchased land just once. As a matter of fact, no one could have foreseen what kind of use this piece of farmland would be put to 19 years later.
Mr Paul TSE suggested that I should give an account of the whole incident in the form of an affidavit. President, please allow me to say that I really think that there is no need for it. This is because all along I have responded to enquiries from Members and the media according to the facts. I hope Members and friends in the media will realize that I have taken the initiative to make disclosures and declarations according to the relevant mechanism. I have responded to Members' questions according to the facts.
As for the criticism that I have made responses to the incident about the farmland in Kwu Tung like squeezing a tube of toothpaste, I am sure all Members who were present at the meeting of the Panel on Development on 22 July would know that on the day the media reported on the incident, that is, in the morning of 22 July, and it was a Monday, I took the initiative to meet with the media and take questions both before and after the Panel meeting. In the meeting of the 258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Panel, I replied to questions raised by Members. Then I flew to Tianjian to attend a meeting. On the following day, that is, Tuesday, I was in Tianjian and I also took the initiative to answer further questions from the media. Then I attended four public hearings of the Panel on NENT and I also answered questions from Members and the media both before and after the meetings. On the other hand, my wife and SI issued statements respectively on 24 July (Wednesday) to respond to points of concern expressed by Members. After that, my wife issued two statements to clarify matters. President, all these took place within about one week. As the piece of farmland was owned by my wife's family and it happened a very long time ago, so they needed time to check the information. I must point out that my wife and I have done our best to explain and give an account of the incident according to the facts and as soon as we can.
President, I understand that the community and Members of the Council are very concerned about the incident concerning the farmland in Kwu Tung. But I hope that the incident will not affect any rational discussion on the Government's attempt to open up land and implement the project of NDAs. On 4 July, we announced a revised proposal for the NENT NDAs. This is mainly to change the two NDAs of Kwu Tung North and Fan Ling North into an extension of the existing Fan Ling/Sheung Shui new town and to incorporate Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling into the development study for North New Territories and to undertake new planning. The proposal which we have announced was made after careful consideration of the public views collected, and it is also the result of planning and technical studies and assessments in engineering.
The Fan Ling/Sheung Shui/Kwu Tung New Town Project is the first new town development after the reunification in 1997. It is an important source of land supply to us in the medium and long terms. And it is an important source of housing supply starting from 2022. As many as 60 700 housing units will be provided and 60% of these, that is, about 36 600, are public rental housing or Home Ownership Scheme units.
The planning and engineering study work regarding the Fan Ling/Sheung Shui/Kwu Tung New Town Project is mainly undertaken by the Planning Department, the Civil Engineering and Development Department and consultancies commissioned through open recruitment exercises. During these studies, the Development Bureau will not take the lead in the detailed planning LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 259 and design work regarding individual lots and when undertaking planning studies and preparing proposals, no consideration will be made of the identity of the title holders of individual lots. In the future, the Development Bureau and relevant government departments will continue to do their best and discuss clearance and resettlement arrangements with the people affected. All these are done in the hope of ensuring that this new town project, which is so important to the future development of Hong Kong, can be taken forward smoothly. I also hope that Members will not do anything to cause delays to this project which is the result of more than 10 years of studies, consultations and repeated discussions. Still less should they, for reasons of matters related to my wife's family, hold any misunderstandings or even obstruct this new town project which is for the good of the people of Hong Kong.
As a matter of fact, the motion moved by Dr KWOK Ka-ki under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance is not necessary. It is not fair either. The speech he made last week in the House Committee and the criticisms he made against me as aired on the radio this morning are also inconsistent with the facts. I implore Members to veto this motion.
I will work with my civil servant colleagues to strive for sustainable development in housing and economic matters in Hong Kong. I am grateful for the understanding and support shown by colleagues in the Development Bureau and other departments, and I appreciate their spirit in serving the public.
Thank you, President.
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): President, this is the first meeting in the 2013-2014 Legislative Session and we have spent more than five hours debating the motion proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance). Mr IP Kwok-him and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan have given notice that a motion of no confidence in the Chief Executive will be proposed next Wednesday.
In fact, during the summer recess over the past two or three months, we expected to see that once the Legislative Council sits after the summer recess, certain Members will pursue a relentless attack on some officials or pursue some 260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 issues. I can only say that there is nothing I can do about this kind of things. This is because while I have great respect for the right of this Council to deliberate on matters, we should know that there are many issues before us and irrespective of whether they are on economic development or improving people's life, an interactive collaboration between the executive authorities and the legislature is badly needed.
On the motion today, I would like to respond to Members' speeches made on the motion from the two perspectives of the declaration of interests system and the incident itself. I would also like to implore Members to vote against this motion proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki.
In terms of system, as a politically appointed official (PAO), Secretary Paul CHAN must comply with the Code for Officials under the Political Appointment System. And chapter 5 of the Code provides for the prevention of conflict of interest, including requiring the PAOs to declare their investments and interests on a prescribed form for public inspection. This is meant to maintain public trust and confidence. In addition, PAOs are required to report to the Chief Executive any private interest that might influence, or appear to influence, their judgment in the performance of their duties. All PAOs shall avoid handling any case where there is actual or potential conflict of interest.
Moreover, Secretary Paul CHAN is also a Member of the Executive Council. The Executive Council practises a strict declaration system. When each Member of the Executive Council is appointed and every year thereafter, they shall fill in forms on annual returns of registrable personal interests for Members of the Executive Council. This is for the declaration of personal interests. Members of the Executive Council shall also consider matters discussed in the Executive Council to see if they would touch on private interests and Members should make a declaration before the relevant items are discussed in the Executive Council. PAOs serving in the Executive Council are also subject to this declaration system.
Last year, the Independent Review Committee for the Prevention and Handling of Potential Conflicts of Interests (IRC) formed by the former Chief Justice Mr Andrew LI Kwok-nang and four other independent persons undertook a review of the Code with respect to provisions on prevention of conflicts of interests as well as the declaration system in the Executive Council. In May last year the IRC published its report. It is pointed out that the requirements for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 261
PAOs to make declarations "are comprehensive and extensive as those in the civil service declaration system". Also, the "IRC considers that the present system of declaration and handling of interests and investments concerning PAOs set out in the PAO Code, which is consistent with that applicable to the Civil Service, is largely satisfactory." The Code as applicable now has been improved in line with recommendations made by the IRC.
Therefore, in terms of system, the present declaration system can be regarded as stringent enough and also proven. It also strikes a proper balance between the handling of potential conflicts of interests and respect for privacy.
I would like to emphasize that we must seek a suitable balance in this incident and we should protect and respect the privacy of individuals. As an accountable official myself, I will certainly support the accountability system and I do attach great importance to transparency in governance. However, Members should agree that if importance is not attached to privacy and if the privacy of individuals is not protected, it would be difficult for any government to find capable persons to join its team of accountable officials.
On the incident itself, the Secretary has once again given a detailed account earlier. I wish to stress that with respect to the Secretary's handling of matters related to the owning of a piece of farmland by his family or relatives within the scope of the NENT NDAs, as the Chief Executive has reiterated, it is entirely consistent with the requirements of the existing declaration system. Nonetheless, the wife of Secretary Paul CHAN took the initiative in last October to sell her interests in the farmland concerned in the hope of completely pre-empt any occurrence of conflict of interest. Secretary Paul CHAN has repeatedly explained the incident to the public and the Legislative Council and there is no evidence which shows that there is any contravention of rules or improper conduct in the discharge of his duties as the Secretary and in his handling of NDAs. As Mr James TIEN has pointed out in the analysis he made, there are well-established mechanisms regulating this kind of large-scale planning in land and such activities are carried out by professional civil servants who act according to their professional judgment. Hence there is no question of a policy secretary dictating the result. In such circumstances, there is no practical need to propose invoking the P&P Ordinance to set up a select committee to conduct an inquiry. It is also not an effective way to use the precious time and resources of the Council.
262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
President, in respect of the handling of this incident, Secretary CHAN agrees that the communication and explanation made could be improved. I hope that Members can be pragmatic and give the Secretary enough room to allow him to make use of the existing platform to clarify the issues. They should assess the explanation given by the Secretary in an objective manner and not lightly invoke the P&P Ordinance to form a select committee.
We are well aware of public expectations for the conduct and integrity of public officers. The existing mechanism can effectively prevent the occurrence of conflict of interest or transfer of benefits. PAOs are under the scrutiny of the Legislative Council, the media and the general public. The team of accountable officials in the present-term Government, including I myself and Secretary Paul CHAN, are all committed to making solid achievements. Ever since Secretary Paul CHAN has assumed office, he has served the public with dedication and exerted his best to identify land to build more houses and promote various infrastructure projects. I hope Members can pass a fair judgment on the work done by the Secretary.
With these remarks, President, I implore Members to vote against this motion.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you may now speak in reply.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I am very disappointed with the speeches delivered by Chief Secretary Carrie LAM and Secretary Paul CHAN in the Council today. As I pointed out clearly in my opening speech, the establishment of a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) is an objective approach with no established stance. The key is to enable matters of grave public concern, involving Hong Kong's significant interest and considered extremely important by the public, to be clarified in this Council by invoking the P&P Ordinance.
I am certainly aware of Hong Kong's development needs and the need to spend a lot of time and energy on land identification and development, in order to resolve many of the problems in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, I still feel very disappointed after hearing the speech delivered by Chief Secretary Carrie LAM just now. She should know it very well that a select committee set up under the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 263
P&P Ordinance will only serve as a platform to enable all persons concerned to testify faithfully. If every word of Secretary Paul CHAN was true and he did not have any private motive or any unusual move, why would he be afraid of explaining to the public in this Council, and what is he afraid of?
The Chief Secretary should be aware that one of the functions of the Legislative Council is to monitor the executive, which is a key component of Hong Kong's political structure. However, in her speech just now, she said that raising queries in this Council would mean a waste of time for the Legislative Council and her. I am extremely disappointed about that. Having served the Government for more than three decades, she definitely knows the Legislative Council serves precisely as a mirror to ensure that she and her team (including the Secretary at the back) are prudent and accountable to the public. Without an effective Legislative Council, I believe Hong Kong will not be the same as it is today. Just now, she mentioned that if a select committee was set up for this purpose, conscientious people will be frightened off. In fact, what really scare off conscientious people are a team without credibility and a dishonest Chief Executive. These are the real reasons why many people dare not join the team. It has nothing to do with the questioning of the Secretary in this Council. I believe the Chief Secretary has nothing to fear because she has no ties with any interests, and hence she can come before this Council with dignity and honour without fear and anything to hide. There is no need for any persons or principle officials with righteousness and integrity to be afraid of the Legislative Council or select committees. I express great regret that the role of the Legislative Council as a watchdog of the Government has been dwarfed by the Chief Secretary.
I have no comment on Secretary Paul CHAN because he has time and again shirked his responsibility over this matter to his family members. This is precisely the main reason for him to face Members of this Council and the public today. He is too smart and most calculated. From his initial purchase of land through countless companies … I believe very few people in Hong Kong is as conversant as a professional accountant like him … I can simply not count the number of companies, agents, share rights, and so on, with an English name. I must point out here again that several kinds of people will do something like that for the purpose of money laundering, tax avoidance ― I avoid the word "evasion", whereas some shareholders do not want to reveal their identity.
The holding of shares by the Secretary or his wife is not a problem. Hong Kong people will not mind anyone making investments. Insofar as this 264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 matter was concerned, he actually had a lot of opportunities to do better. First, when he was accidentally appointed as the Secretary for Development, he should be aware of his many ties with land and might as well confess to the Chief Executive, saying, "In fact, I might not be a suitable candidate for this post because of my personal ties." Second, when he was tasked with handling and announcing the NENT project, though there was no need to make public the holding of shares by him or his family members, he could explain clearly to the public without concealing anything, only that he did not choose to do so. Third, during the period between July and September, he had many opportunities to explain clearly to the public those very complicated ― I consider them very complicated because I am not an accountant ― share rights issues pertaining to holding of shares, controlling stake, and so on. Just now, a Member pointed out that he had chosen to do nothing, though he could make an affidavit.
Although he had three opportunities to do so, he did not seize any one of them. But then he blamed some people, saying they had an ulterior motive to investigate him. Who would have so much time to do so? I hope the Hong Kong Government can do a good job in administration. Had it not been the media's exposure, who would have known about the incident? We will not hire a private detective to stalk him all day long in order to find out the whereabouts of the sites. Fortunately, there are still some independent media in Hong Kong today. In his repeated comments just now, these plots of land were described as if they had nothing to do with him. However, it is clear from the media's reports that, first, the agreement for sale and purchase was signed by himself; second, despite his claim that he was not involved, the villager who signed the agreement recognized him; and third, despite his another claim that he was not involved, one of the directors of Statement Industries Limited was Paul And Associates Consulting Limited, which was under his control. It was only on 15 April 2011 that he resigned from the company and sold his stake.
Given his intricate relationships with these companies, no one knows whether his remarks are true or false. As I explained very clearly just now, I recall an important point raised by Mr WONG Yuk-man, that is, the public's perception is tantamount to the fact. Hence, the Legislative Council is duty-bound to explain to the public whether this perception is the truth. If it is a far cry from the truth, the Secretary will be able to take forward the task of the Development Bureau in an upright and honest manner. For the Secretary himself, his colleagues and the Government, it is the best gift. The work of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 265
Development Bureau will be benefited in every way, too. However, he did not choose to do so. On the contrary, he let slip all the opportunities, including the opportunity to "reveal everything to the world and inform the public". Is it really the case that he had something to hide from the public?
After watching today's live broadcast and the newspaper reports tomorrow, members of the public will certainly ask questions like this one: Why are the Government and Paul CHAN reluctant to tell the truth? Such questions will linger on. One should not think that he will be let off the hook if today's motion, which seeks to invoke the P&P Ordinance, is vetoed. There is no way for the Chief Secretary and the Secretary to get away. These queries will linger in the public's minds. With respect to everything done by government departments, including the Development Bureau, members of the public will ask these questions: Will the officials themselves or their family members be benefited? Why did he not seize this opportunity to resolve these problems once and for all?
There are some people who will not make me feel the least bit disappointed. I am talking about Members who are his apologists. They are absolutely no surprise. I am not at all disappointed because the reason why they came forth and spoke was to give him a helping hand. President, it stands to reason that this motion pertaining to the P&P Ordinance will be vetoed because this Council is distorted, with 35 Members, except for five from "super District Councils", returned by functional constituencies, or a minority of the people. President, separate voting is practiced here. Even if every member of the public considers it necessary to investigate him, the motion before this Council today will still be negatived. This outcome precisely demonstrates to everyone in Hong Kong that this Council is distorted and abnormal and explains why we cherish the constitutional development in Hong Kong and fight for the abolition of separate voting. Why do we fight for the election of all Legislative Council Members and the Chief Executive by universal suffrage of "one person, one vote"? This is precisely because we hope Hong Kong can continue to move forward. The Secretary might be unaware of this point.
In today's debate, many colleagues from the pro-democracy camp have raised many questions in great detail, including the seven queries raised by Mr Alan LEONG and those raised by Mr Kenneth LEUNG as an accounting professional. However, I can still not hear an honest reply from Secretary Paul CHAN. I would like to respond to the speeches delivered by certain Members here. Mr CHAN Kin-por said that there was no need to care about the public's 266 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 perception, provided he was permitted to do so under the system. What sort of a system is this? According to this system, Secretary Paul CHAN may make declaration to the Chief Executive and seek his consent. The system per se is problematic. If it is not operated in this manner and every government official is required to reveal everything to the world and inform the public clearly of the interest involved, the whole incident will not have come to this pass.
I believe it is a bit difficult for the public to believe that Mr LEUNG Chun-ying is a fit goal-keeper who can guard the goal properly and act in a fair and impartial manner. Since the day of his announced intention to run in the Chief Executive election, he has given the public the impression that he is not an honest person. I recall this remark made by a hospital nurse that her toddler son would point at the television and ask her this question when LEUNG Chun-ying appeared on the screen: "Is he the liar?" Is there not something wrong for Members to expect the public to believe the Chief Executive did not find anything wrong after hearing the Secretary's explanation?
Concerning the establishment of a free trade zone in Shanghai, some people opine that things can be sorted out properly if no inquiry is conducted into Paul CHAN. Some people have even likened that to making a replica of Hong Kong. If there is no clean government, rule of law and freedom of speech here, replicas of Hong Kong can definitely be produced. China has hundreds of thousands of cities, and many of them are even bigger and richer than Hong Kong. Why do investors still prefer to stay here? It is because they still have faith in the systems in Hong Kong, including the cleanliness and integrity of government officials. If agreements signed on the Mainland are the same, there is absolutely no need for them to sign agreements here in Hong Kong. It is because investors have no faith in the corrupt systems on the Mainland that Hong Kong is able to survive. This is the value of Hong Kong. We are making an effort to protect rather than destroy the core values of Hong Kong. Unless there is democracy in China ― something I am pleased to see ― they can definitely not make countless replicas of Hong Kong. I hope more replicas of Hong Kong can really be found in China, though this is something impossible in the near future.
Dr LAM Tai-fai is a very smart person who often quotes the teachings of Buddha. He is really remarkable because sometimes I could not figure out whether Members seeking to protect Paul CHAN were trying to make things easy or difficult for him and LEUNG Chun-ying. This is why I think he is very LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 267 smart. If all problems are found to be resolved and all obstacles removed, the popularity ratings of Secretary Paul CHAN and LEUNG Chun-ying might rise by 10 to 20 points. So, people who are not their "good friends" might be benefited if no investigation is carried out, because this incident will continue to be under wraps. Do Members think that, by keeping the lid on this incident, members of the public will believe there is nothing wrong with Secretary Paul CHAN, and hence the NENT development project will be able to proceed smoothly, the Government will gain credibility and the Chief Executive can command more respect from members of the public? The answer is definitely in the negative. In fact, it is the other way round, that is, they might be harmed as a result. This explains why it is really very difficult to see things clearly. It is not easy to draw a line between loving and hating him. I have no reason to say that I love him. In fact, if the Government and Paul CHAN are honest, they should not oppose today's motion.
I so submit. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Dr KWOK Ka-ki 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)
Dr KWOK Ka-ki rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.
(When the division bell was ringing, Mr Albert CHAN stood up and waved a placard)
268 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please sit down.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Thank you, President.
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 Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the motion.
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the motion.
Dr LAM Tai-fai abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the motion.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 269
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the motion.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 34 were present, nine were in favour of the motion, 24 against it and one abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 35 were present, 19 were in favour of the motion and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The fourth and the fifth Members' motions. These are two motion debates with no legislative effect. I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee: that is, the movers of motions each may speak, including making a reply, for up to 15 minutes, and have another five minutes to speak on the amendments; the movers of amendments each may speak for up to 10 minutes; and other Members each may speak for up to seven minutes. I am obliged to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fourth Member's motion: Formulating long-term infrastructure planning to promote sustainable development.
Members who wish to speak in the motion debate will please press the "Request to speak" button.
I now call upon Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok to speak and move the motion.
270 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
FORMULATING LONG-TERM INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion entitled "Formulating long-term infrastructure planning to promote sustainable development" as printed on the Agenda be passed.
President, since the reunification of Hong Kong, the number of local infrastructure projects has been fluctuating owing to various factors, such as the planning imbalance and political rows, and for this reason workers have sighed that "one can die of overeating at one time and starve to death at another". To the construction sector, when construction projects abound, there is the problem of manpower shortage from engineers to construction workers; when construction projects are scarce, problems such as unemployment and underemployment will arise. The saying that "one can die of overwork at one time and starved to death at another" is most accurate.
Many people are concerned that the scale of infrastructure projects will diminish significantly after the completion of the 10 major infrastructure projects, thus affecting the sustainable development of the economy of Hong Kong. Major infrastructure projects consist of many parts and each part involves different professionals and different job types, requiring long-term planning and co-ordination among various resources. Therefore, it is necessary for the Government to formulate a blueprint of infrastructure planning in the long term or for at least two or three decades, in order to pre-empt situations where construction projects are insufficient, unemployment surges, or too many projects are carried out at the same time, which would otherwise lead to such adverse consequences as shortage of human resources, a sharp increase in construction costs, and so on.
President, Hong Kong actually has quite a long history in making strategic planning on infrastructure projects. The Hong Kong-British Government formulated in 1984 the Territorial Development Strategy which was subsequently revised on many occasions. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) published the Final Report on Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy (HK2030 Study) in October 2007 with the objective of drawing up a long-term planning strategy to guide future development and provision of strategic infrastructure of Hong Kong. Some projects mentioned in the Report, including the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HK-ZMB) and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 271
North East New Territories New Development Areas, are incorporated into the 10 major construction projects. This shows that the previous planning has achieved concrete results and also proves that long-term infrastructure planning absolutely must not be neglected.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
Having said that, since 2007, there have been many changes in the internal and external environment of Hong Kong. Insofar as the external environment is concerned, the global financial tsunami in 2008 and the economic recession that followed have caused countries like the United States to adopt the so-called Quantitative Easing (QE) measures to cope with the problems. This has resulted in an influx of "hot money" and risks of asset bubbles. But once the United States decides to exit, chain reactions will take place all over the world, which include "hot money" flowing out of markets, interest rates reverting to an upward trend, property prices undergoing adjustments, and so on. Hong Kong would inevitably be hit hard.
Regarding the development needs of Hong Kong, on the one hand, the State published the Outline of the 12th Five-Year Plan in March 2011 which expressively supports Hong Kong to continuously play an important part in the overall development of the country by, among other things, expediting the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Quality Living Area and improving the transportation system among the Pearl River Delta (PRD) Region, Hong Kong and Macao.
On the other hand, new trends have emerged in the setting of regional competition. As pointed out in the 2013 China Urban Competitiveness Report published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the development gap between Mainland cities and Hong Kong has been narrowing gradually. It is worthy of our attention that the Shanghai Pilot Free Trade Zone established in September has been attracting foreign capitals and international organizations to set up regional headquarters there. This will bring new opportunities and challenges to Hong Kong.
In respect of social aspirations, the housing problem has become the first and foremost livelihood issue causing distress to the public. This is one of the 272 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 adverse consequences of the lack of long-term planning in the past. The last long-term housing strategy was formulated in 1998 and now, the public are demanding that improvement be made expeditiously to the quality of living. However, the land that can be made available for development in a short time is limited. There is a need to make bread, but the problem is that there is no flour.
In the meantime, the authorities are facing increasingly complicated social aspirations, and there have been more and more controversies over and resistance against conventional ways to increase the provision of land, such as reclamation and land resumption.
In the face of these challenges, Deputy President, Hong Kong must maintain vigilance in times of peace and make preparations for the rainy days. We must properly draw up long-term infrastructure planning in line with our position and strategy. This will ensure sustainable development and the launch of suitable projects in a timely manner in response to economic downturn to stimulate the economy and protect employment, which will also be conducive to continuously training and nurturing local engineering talents.
With regard to the formulation of long-term infrastructure planning, what suggestions or expectations do society have for the SAR Government?
First, urban development and population policy. When it comes to urban development and infrastructure planning, it does not purely mean hardware, and a very important software is the population policy. To ensure sustainable development in Hong Kong, we must decide on the size of population in the metropolis that we aim to develop and the source of relevant support for the economy. We must also decide on the standard of living that should be attained for the people. The key to all these questions is the population policy. Urban development and infrastructure planning cannot bear fruits without some most fundamental long-term strategies in relation to population growth, industrial policy, policy on economic development, and policy on sustainable development.
In this connection, the SAR Government should set up an executive body exclusively responsible for population policy planning, with a view to taking forward population policies in the short, medium and long terms, based on which long-term integrated social and urban planning, distribution of population, distribution of economic activities and relevant infrastructure planning can also be formulated.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 273
Second, land planning and housing supply. This is an essential part of the overall urban planning. To facilitate planning, Hong Kong needs to have sufficient land that can be made available for use in the long run. It is only through setting up a land reserve that the housing problem in Hong Kong can be resolved at root and the Hong Kong economy developed. The SAR Government should formulate long-term land and infrastructure planning in line with the results of public consultation on the long-term housing strategy.
On the development of land, I think the Government should hold an open mind, apply flexibility in its thinking and adopt diversified planning choices, including changing land use, land resumption, redevelopment, reusing closed quarry sites, implementing the development of North East New Territories and the Loop area, a suitable degree of reclamation outside the Victoria Harbour, developing rock caverns and underground space, and so on.
Besides, the authorities should set up a committee on the development of Lantau to more vigorously take forward the planning of Lantau and the provision of matching facilities there, in order to give impetus to the housing and economic developments in the surrounding areas.
Third, transport and logistics infrastructure. To meet the growing cross-boundary transport needs and provide value-added services, Hong Kong is in great need of a comprehensive integrated strategy to tie in with, among other things, the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link and the HK-ZMB to be completed in future, in order to improve the cross-boundary traffic connecting network and the existing sea, land and air crossings. Meanwhile, both hardware and software of the Hong Kong International Airport urgently need upgrading. If the third runway is not developed early, the airport might reach capacity soon, and this would undermine Hong Kong's position as an international aviation hub. In the long term, it is all the more necessary to consider the strategy of development after building the third runway.
It is also necessary for Hong Kong to improve the mass transit railway network. From planning to the commencement of works and finally to completion, a new railway has to go through a series of procedures, including conceptual study, feasibility study, preliminary design, detail design, public consultation, collection of views from districts and members from various sectors of the community, and so on. Statutory gazettal of the relevant direction is also 274 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 required under the Railway Ordinance. If government funding is required, it is necessary to seek approval from the Finance Committee of this Council before works can be launched, and it often takes more than a decade to complete the entire project. Therefore, the earlier the planning is made, the better. Hong Kong is currently pressing ahead at full steam with the construction of five new railways, four of which will be completed one after another next year or in the year after next. What other railway projects will be launched thereafter? If the construction of railways cannot be sustained in the short term, a gap will soon emerge in railway infrastructure.
Moreover, as the PRD port network is improving, the hardware facilities of Hong Kong ports have started to lag behind. After more than a decade's study, the Hong Kong Container Terminal 10 remains at the study stage. The Study on the Strategic Development Plan for Hong Kong Port 2030, which is scheduled for completion in the first half of this year, has yet to be published so far. Besides, the logistics industry has long been lacking land for the construction of relevant facilities. The authorities must expeditiously draw up a specific timetable for designating Areas 38 and 49 in Tuen Mun for provision of logistics facilities, in order to meet some of the demands for land.
Fourth, green infrastructure and quality living. Although Hong Kong is known as a cosmopolitan, many basic urban facilities are below par. The pressing problem of waste disposal and the danger of our city being seiged by garbage are precisely the adverse consequences of holding discussions without making decisions and making decisions without putting them into practice in the past. Therefore, in formulating long-term infrastructure planning, it is imperative to have regard to green infrastructure, in order to strike a proper balance among economic development, environmental protection and ecological conservation and create a quality living sphere.
The environmental industry is one of the six industries where Hong Kong enjoys clear advantages. We should vigorously promote scientific research and application in such areas as renewable energy, advanced incineration technologies, cleaning of water resources, energy conservation and emission reduction, low-carbon technologies, and so on. For example, the authorities should expeditiously draw up plans to reserve land in the vicinity of the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities of the HK-ZMB for setting up additional fuel storage facilities for the storage of biodiesel, so as to ensure that the demands of the shipping and logistics industries for clean fuels would be met in future. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 275
Moreover, the Regional Co-operation Plan on Building a Quality Living Area was jointly published by Hong Kong, Guangdong and Macao in June 2012 to promote co-operation in environmental protection and recycling economy. The SAR Government should strengthen co-ordination and planning and put the proposals into practice.
All in all, to ensure proper infrastructure planning, the Government must not be short-sighted. It must abandon the conventional demand-led planning approach and adopt a supply-led mentality while stressing the need to be forward-looking. Meanwhile, it is necessary to rationalize the procedures and promote collaboration between the Government and the relevant professions, with a view to maintaining the leading position of Hong Kong's infrastructure in the region. To sum up in a few lines, it is necessary to pay regard to urban development, population and industries, land planning and quality living, while ensuring matching support in such areas as housing supply, transport and logistics, green infrastructure, and training of talents.
Deputy President, as for the amendment proposed by Mr Charles Peter MOK, I think his amendment has actually changed the focus and narrowed the comprehensive scope of areas that should be covered by long-term infrastructure planning stressed by me in the original motion. Therefore, while I always strongly support the development of information technology, I cannot support Mr MOK's amendment to this motion. Mr MOK, I will further explain this later on.
Deputy President, Hong Kong is home to over 7 million people. Hong Kong must strive for sustainable development and create more opportunities of upward mobility for the new generation. This, I think, is a common vision shared by all. There can be different views on the specific direction or approach of development but even though there may be disputes, home is still home, and we cannot build a better home without long-term overall planning, especially long-term infrastructure planning. The SAR Government should, on the basis of the HK2030 Study, expeditiously put forward proposals for improvement and motivate public involvement to forge a consensus before implementing the proposals step by step. It is imperative for the authorities to ensure that there is an adequate establishment of civil servants of the professional grades and that various kinds of resources are well co-ordinated within the Government, so that there will be planning, policies, talents and resources for implementation.
276 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
I trust that in all matters, preparedness leads to success whilst unpreparedness leads to failure. Success hinges on the adequacy of preparations. Opportunities are always reserved only for people who have made preparations. Let us work in concert to build a better home in Hong Kong with sustainable infrastructure and sustainable development.
With these remarks, Deputy President, I call on Members to support my original motion.
Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok moved the following motion: (Translation)
"That, given the changes in the global economic environment as well as the development needs and social aspirations in Hong Kong, this Council urges the SAR Government to expeditiously formulate long-term infrastructure planning, properly conduct public consultation, correspondingly allocate resources, and ensure the timely provision of adequate land and various supporting infrastructure facilities, so as to enhance the functions of Hong Kong as a regional economic hub, boost the economy and promote employment, bring forth a quality environment and green living, promote sustainable development, and create more opportunities of upward mobility for the new generation."
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok be passed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK wishes to move an amendment to this motion. This Council will now proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the amendment.
I now call upon Mr Charles Peter MOK to speak and move his amendment to the motion.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move that Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's motion be amended.
Deputy President, perhaps it is because the Legislative Council has just resumed its meetings this year that there is only one amendment proposed to this LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 277 first Members' Motion with no legislative effect proposed by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok. But I found it a bit strange and disappointed to hear Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok say earlier that he would not support my amendment, and I would like to listen to his reasons later on.
First of all, as Ir Dr LO rightly put in his original motion, the global economy is changing, and so is the world. Hong Kong is changing too, just that the philosophy of governance and the mentality of economic development actually has neither changed nor progressed with the times over the years after the reunification. Without proper long-term planning, naturally there is no sufficient preparation made for the future. It takes a long time for infrastructure to be constructed and developed, and in the process, land planning, various supporting infrastructure facilities, and so on, are also required, and we cannot say that this process is completed simply when some land is identified in a short time. What is most worrying is the planning approach of "cutting the Gordian knot". When buildings are completed and even when people have moved in, it nevertheless turns out that there is no planning for economic development or supporting facilities for employment. As a result, only endless troubles will follow.
The original motion mentioned the need to properly conduct public consultation and this cannot be more correct. The reason is that it is all because the Government has ignored public opinions that full consultation was never conducted to listen to public opinions on many redevelopment or development projects, such as the Government Hill, the North East New Territories development, the People's Liberation Army berth, and so on. Had the Government listened to public opinions, how would such huge controversies have arisen, resulting in the Government being taken to task all the time for acting like an enemy to the people?
It is worth mentioning that the original motion also proposed to create opportunities of upward mobility for the new generation. I think it means not only promoting the economy to create opportunities for the new generation to move upward in the job market and receive better pay and employment benefits. It is because apart from taking up employment, many people, including the elderly, the middle-aged or the youth, may choose to start a business. If the Hong Kong economy continues to rely on the financial services and real estate development and even though the economy may seem to be robust, the 278 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 commercial viability of various trades and industries will be affected, and it will be the general public, especially our next generation, who will suffer.
Deputy President, in response to the original motion, I think apart from properly making long-term planning, it is also necessary to develop the technology industries, including the information technology (IT) industry. This is an indispensable part because technology can provide convenience in people's living and promote economic development. This is why I have added wordings relating to technology in my amendment on top of Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's original motion.
In order to develop a knowledge-based economy and society, I think the first thing that Hong Kong should do is to popularize IT applications. It is impossible for every member of the community to be an IT expert, and this should not be the case anyway. But if the ordinary public can easily apply various kinds of technologies, it will provide a lot more convenience to them in their living, business operation, and personal development. Housewives can benefit from this; children can benefit from this; and so can companies and enterprises.
I have always said that in order to develop technology industries, especially the IT industry, in Hong Kong, we must strike a balance in the development of four areas, namely, image, talents, investment, and market. The amendment that I have proposed today actually focuses on the market aspect.
By market, I mean we have to create the market demand for sustainable development and develop a favorable environment for development by supporting the healthy growth of technology enterprises. The idea of "Digital New Town Development" in my amendment is precisely proposed in this direction.
One of the biggest problems faced by the IT industry is the lack of a market, or the size of the market being too small. On the other hand, the biggest problem faced by technological research and development (R&D) is technology transfer, or the difficulties in commercialization. While we support the call for the Government to formulate long-term infrastructure planning and enhance various supporting infrastructure facilities, why do we not seize this opportunity to incorporate innovative technology applications into the planning right from the beginning?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 279
What does this mean? Put in language which is comprehensible to ordinary members of the public, what I am trying to say is that when developing infrastructure projects, including urban redevelopment and new town development projects, such as building new public housing, government buildings and road infrastructure, apart from constructing bridges and roads, there are actually many other things that need to be planned and built. As I said in the amendment, they include introducing intelligent security, intelligent transport systems, high-speed wireless network for easy access by the public, and so on. All these are equally important to residents who will move into the district in future and also to people who will be working there, or the shop operators and even tourists.
I think the creation of a new local market is the best way to support the economic development of Hong Kong, and what we are talking about today can really be "killing two birds with one stone" because, apart from improving the infrastructure to the benefit of the people, we can also create more market demands for local technology industries, including the IT industry, and of course, the engineering sector, too.
As I mentioned earlier, Hong Kong needs to have sufficient high-speed wireless networks. In fact, in many recent discussions, there are also views that Hong Kong needs a public Wi-Fi network with sufficient coverage. This is, from any angle, part of the infrastructure and in other words, it is not the case that only "bricks" are considered infrastructure. These are basic and essential facilities to the living of the people and for meeting the needs of all the citizens and even tourists.
In developing new public housing, government buildings and road networks, the Government can actually consider ways to reserve space for installing such facilities as routers. This can obviate the need of making considerations concerning the safety and application of the relevant facilities as currently required when they are installed in areas managed by different government departments. Hong Kong is gradually carrying out redevelopment or new town planning work in various districts or communities. Why do we not introduce, on a pilot basis, the best IT applications and even the various locally-developed technology applications? This can set an example for the developed districts in Hong Kong. The Government should first provide these IT infrastructure facilities in the new developments and then extend them to other parts of the territory.
280 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
As regards providing support to the sustainable development of industries, I think the Government is duty-bound to support the development of the IT industry and technology industries as a whole in Hong Kong, for this will have a very positive effect on the diversified development of Hong Kong economy.
In an article published in his blog last week, the Financial Secretary expressed support for Hong Kong to increase the investment on technological R&D and step up efforts to facilitate the commercialization of results of technological R&D. While he also pointed out that we may be oversimplifying the matter in thinking that huge investments on technological R&D can promote economic growth in Hong Kong ― This, I do agree, because we always say that there is now too little technological R&D but in fact, the Government's share accounts for over 90%. This phenomenon is not healthy, for enterprises should also share the responsibilities. But in order to find a way out for local technological R&D and make enterprises willing to make such investments, the Financial Secretary said that we should concentrate on areas in which achievements have been made, including system integration ― I think it may be more accurate to call it applied research ― I hope that the Government can really take the lead and set an example in respect of this approach or suggestion and create an environment to enable good local research and good local products as well as services to give play to their potentials.
The ultimate objective is, as stated in the original motion, to create more opportunities of upward mobility for the new generation. Young people in the new generation really should not just blindly go after the financial services industry which they think will enable them to make the biggest money. Rather, they should follow their own interests and abilities, and capitalize on innovation and technologies to create opportunities for them to change themselves, to change society and to change the world.
Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok expressed his concern earlier that my amendment would shift the focus that he wishes to stress. I think this will not be the case. Instead, my amendment should be able to enrich the contents of his original motion. We only hope to better Hong Kong's infrastructure in future so that the public can have greater benefits.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 281
With these remarks, Deputy President, I call on Members to support my amendment. Thank you, Deputy President.
Mr Charles Peter MOK moved the following amendment: (Translation)
"To delete "given" after "That," and substitute with "with the development of information technology,"; to add "of the knowledge-based economy" after "the development needs"; to add "to improve people's living through comprehensive planning and application of technology" after "social aspirations"; to delete "and" after "allocate resources,"; to add ", and launch 'Digital New Town Development' to introduce innovative technologies and build a technology infrastructure which supports wireless cloud computing technology, and promote the development of areas such as intelligent security, intelligent transport systems and wireless network coverage, etc., in infrastructure planning for urban redevelopment and new town development, such as new public housing, government buildings and road infrastructure, etc., and later extend these new technology infrastructure facilities to the whole territory" after "infrastructure facilities"; and to delete ", promote sustainable development" after "green living" and substitute with "; this Council also urges the SAR Government to promote local industries, including the sustainable development of the information technology industry, adopt the achievements of local applied technological research and development on a priority basis"."
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Charles Peter MOK to Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's motion, be passed.
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok for proposing this motion today and also Mr Charles Peter MOK for proposing an amendment, so that we can, together with colleagues from the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, exchange views with Members on the infrastructure planning and economic development of Hong Kong.
282 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
The motion proposed by Ir Dr LO involves a number of policy areas, which include land supply, enhancing the position of Hong Kong as a regional economic hub, promoting employment, bringing forth a quality environment and green living, promoting sustainable development, and creating more opportunities of upward mobility for the new generation.
In respect of infrastructure planning, the Administration will co-ordinate the needs in different policy areas. The Development Bureau will, on the one hand, take forward infrastructure projects to achieve the policy objectives of the Development Bureau and on the other, assist in the co-ordination and management of infrastructure projects required in other policy areas and provide technical guidance, in order to ensure that various infrastructure projects can be taken forward in an orderly and efficient manner.
I will first explain the current situation of infrastructure investment.
Infrastructure investment can boost the economy, create employment, upgrade Hong Kong's long-term competitiveness and promote the sustainable development of Hong Kong. With the support of Members and various sectors of the community, we have been able to continuously increase the investment on capital works over the past few years. In 2013-2014, the expenditure on capital works is estimated to reach as high as $70 billion. With the major infrastructure projects and other projects entering the construction phase in the next few years, the estimated annual expenditure on capital works is expected to exceed $70 billion on a sustained basis.
Among the major infrastructure projects, projects with funding granted by the Legislative Council which have just commenced include the Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link, the Centre of Excellence in Paediatrics in Kai Tak Development Area, Tin Shui Wai Hospital, the widening of Tolo Highway/Fanling Highway, as well as site formation and infrastructure works of Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point. Projects that have currently entered the main construction stage include the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, Central-Wan Chai Bypass and Island Eastern Corridor Link, South Island Line (East), Shatin to Central Link, and various infrastructure projects in the Kai Tak Development. The cruise terminal building and the first berth have already commenced operation since June this year, and the first batch of public housing in Kai Tak was also made available in August for tenants to move in gradually. Projects expected to be completed in the next couple of years include the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 283
Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Hong Kong Section), Harbour Area Treatment Scheme Stage 2, sludge treatment facilities, replacement and rehabilitation of water mains stages 3 and 4, and so on.
Moreover, long-term infrastructure planning includes Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point and the third runway, which will strengthen our ties with the Mainland and places outside Hong Kong; railway projects, Tseung Kwan O-Lam Tin Tunnel, and Tseung Kwan O Cross Bay Link, which are proposed to improve traffic in the districts; infrastructure projects relating to waste management facilities for improving the quality of people's living; and projects for improving healthcare facilities, such as the redevelopment of Queen Mary Hospital. These projects are vitally important to improving the quality of people's living and enhancing Hong Kong's competitiveness. Colleagues of the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments are actively conducting studies and making arrangements for consultation and public engagement. They will report to the relevant panels in due course to seek Members' support. We will continue to work closely with the relevant Policy Bureaux to ensure that the projects can be taken forward smoothly and in an orderly manner.
The supply of housing and land mentioned in Ir Dr LO's motion has been the talk of the town over the past year. I would like to take this opportunity to briefly report on our work in this respect.
To meet the housing demand and other needs of Hong Kong people, the 2013 Policy Address has given a clear account of the policy blueprint of the current-term Government on increasing land supply to tackle the housing problem. The Policy Address has clearly stated the guiding principle of facilitating social and economic development and the vision of improving the living space of the people of Hong Kong through increasing land supply. For this purpose, the Government will continue to adopt a multi-pronged supply strategy in the short, medium and long term through the continued and systematic implementation of a series of measures, including the optimal use of developed land as far as practicable and identification of new land for development. For example, the 10 initiatives put forward in the 2013 Policy Address will increase the supply of housing land in the short-to-medium term. These initiatives include converting 36 "Government, Institution or Community" and other government sites, 13 sites in Green Belt areas which are devegetated, deserted or formed and 16 industrial sites for residential use.
284 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
In respect of land supply in the long term, the population of Hong Kong is estimated to increase by about 1.4 million in the next three decades, and coupled with a decline in average household size, growing public aspirations for a quality living environment, persistently robust economic activities and increasing community demand for public housing, there will be a keen demand for land for housing and various economic uses. To cope with the continuous growth in population and set up a land reserve to make available land in a timely manner to respond to market demands in future, we are actively taking forward a number of long-term land supply projects. Projects involving the development of infrastructure to provide support include the North East New Territories New Development Areas (NENT NDAs), Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area, development of New Territories North, development of Lantau Island (including the Tung Chung New Town Extension), review of deserted agricultural land in North District and Yuen Long (including the Planning and Engineering Study for Housing Sites in Yuen Long South), reclamation on an appropriate scale outside Victoria Harbour, and rock cavern and underground space developments, and so on.
The Public Engagement exercise and the Planning and Engineering Study of the NENT NDAs have been completed, and I already made public the results of the Planning and Engineering Study in early July this year. Stage 2 Public Engagement of the Tung Chung New Town Extension was also completed in July this year and the entire study is expected to be completed in 2014-2015. Stage 2 Community Engagement of the Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area also commenced in July this year to collect more public opinions on the proposed outline development plan.
Mr Charles Peter MOK proposed the development of information technology (IT) infrastructure to develop Hong Kong into a smarter city and improve the living of the people. In fact, with the rapid advancement of IT development, it is necessary for Hong Kong to grasp and make good use of IT technologies to upgrade the quality of living and productivity. To this end, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau is reviewing the Digital 21 Strategy and conducting public consultation on the proposed new strategy, the theme of which is "Smarter Hong Kong, Smarter Living". The new strategy proposes a number of initiatives to leverage on new technologies to propel continuous economic and social development. The public consultation exercise will end on 30 November this year.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 285
One of the proposed initiatives of the new strategy is the development of smarter city infrastructure. Hong Kong is a populous modern city where there is a need to manage its resources and the multitude of metropolitan functions effectively to maintain a high standard of living. The new strategy proposes the use of sensors more extensively in city management and encourages greater data sharing among government departments as far as practicable, so that the public and the Government can access accurate data and make informed, data-based decisions. Certainly, we must take into consideration factors on various fronts when implementing specific initiatives, in order to dovetail with the actual circumstances and social needs.
As regards the other policy areas mentioned by Ir Dr LO, which include enhancing the functions of Hong Kong as a regional economic hub, boosting the economy and promoting employment, bringing forth a quality environment and green living, promoting sustainable development and creating more opportunities of upward mobility for the new generation, and the proposals made by Mr Charles Peter MOK in his amendment of launching "Digital New Town Development", improving people's living through application of technology, promoting local industries, including the sustainable development of the IT industry, and so on, I will give another response after listening to Members' views.
Thank you, Deputy President.
MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I thank Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok for proposing a very important motion today. This is also an issue of great concern to me.
The World Economic Forum published its latest Global Competitiveness Report some time ago. Compared with last year's ranking, Hong Kong has moved two places up to the seventh this year but is still behind Singapore. What we need to be more careful about is that Hong Kong's competitiveness ranks only the 23rd in innovation. As the neighbouring cities are actively upgrading their competitiveness, the situation of Hong Kong is like sailing against the currents in that either we keep moving on or we keep falling behind. We must work harder and properly formulate long-term planning on various fronts. Otherwise, we could only watch other cities catching up with us, not being able to do anything.
286 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
President, speaking of infrastructure planning, Hong Kong's competitor in the region, Singapore, put forward a very ambitious development blueprint some time ago. A key area of work mentioned in it is the expansion of the Changi Airport by constructing Terminal 5 and a fourth runway with the target of doubling the passenger capacity 12 years from now.
Let us turn to the Shenzhen Airport. They have two runways now and will soon develop a third one. The airport in Guangzhou is about to commence the construction of the third runway, and the construction of a fifth one is expected to commence in 2017. But let us look at Hong Kong. The construction of a third runway has been discussed for a long time and a decision has yet been made even after much delay. Even if a decision can be made on its construction in 2015 as scheduled, as the construction works will involve such projects as reclamation and construction of artificial islands, we can expect to see the third runway at the Hong Kong Airport only in 2023. No wonder many members of the community are concerned that if Hong Kong continues to hold discussions without making decisions and make decisions without putting them into practice, our competitiveness will not only lag behind Singapore but we will even be overtaken by such cities as Guangzhou and Shenzhen.
President, I understand that the economic development in a society certainly must have regard to other factors in order to strike a balance and accommodation has to be made for each other. That said, it does not mean that we must stop all the developments to accommodate other factors. If we invariably oppose all construction projects involving environmental issues and hold strong views on any project relating to economic development in the Mainland, the economy of Hong Kong would very soon lag behind other regions. Worse still, it would be questionable if there would be sufficient employment opportunities.
President, we actually have to speed up the pace of development of society as a whole, especially the pace of infrastructure development. There is a quite sensitive issue that we must raise and that is, the labour shortage in the construction sector. Like Hong Kong, Singapore also faces the problem of a labour shortage in recent years but Singapore has taken a proactive attitude and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 287 drawn up measures to practically address the problem. For instance, the Singaporean Government allows the ratio of local construction workers to foreign workers to be as high as up to 1:7. As for the local workers, it will train them to become supervisors who oversee the work of foreign workers, and issue different visas according to the qualifications and monthly wages of foreign workers, with a view to controlling the number of low-skilled workers.
I wish to emphasize that I am not suggesting the SAR Government to copy wholesale the practices of Singapore, because each place has its own different social conditions. But as we should be able to see, the Singaporean Government has not evaded the problem it is facing, and it has adopted instead a diversity of measures to address it. This is worthy reference for Hong Kong.
In fact, many industries are facing the problem of labour shortage in Hong Kong. The construction and nursing industries are the hardest hit. If we do not actively review the labour policies and consider allowing the importation of foreign workers for some industries in need, the consequences would emerge gradually in five to 10 years' time. When that happened, there would be no way for buildings to be constructed and there would be no one taking care of the elderly. It would be too late to make remedies then.
President, at the end of last month, Shanghai's Pilot Free Trade Zone was officially launched. It will take the lead to adopt measures to open up six service areas, namely, finance, shipping, trade and commerce, professions, culture, and social services. To Hong Kong, the establishment of the Free Trade Zone will bring opportunities but there is no denying that Hong Kong will also be facing taller challenges. The quicker the pace of future reforms and opening up, the greater the challenges Hong Kong will face. Many people are concerned that the Free Trade Zone will pose threats to Hong Kong's position as a financial centre, but the expansion of the scale of opening up and intensification of reforms in our country is an irresistible trend. Some people always hope that the development in the Mainland will not affect Hong Kong, but this is not a positive attitude. Instead, we should upgrade our competitiveness, which is the right thing to do.
President, as a cosmopolitan city and a free economy, Hong Kong should accord top priority to developing the economy and maintaining its competitiveness by properly taking forward infrastructure projects because 288 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 infrastructure is vitally important. Without good infrastructure and without good fundamental conditions, local investments would not stay in Hong Kong and investments would not come to us from overseas. But nowadays, our society has become highly politicized and this has in one way or another impeded the pace of economic development. Members of the public expect the Legislative Council to do more practical work to promote the development of society and democracy. I hope that various sectors of the community can put aside their arguments and avoid engaging in internal attrition but focusing their energy on the development of the economy and people's livelihood. Only in this way can Hong Kong's advantages be brought into play continuously.
This is the first meeting in the new Session after the Legislative Council resumed. Before I rose to speak, Members had already expressed different views on many issues. But I hope that we can deal with these disputes in all calmness. I hope that some new schemes or projects can be launched smoothly in respect of the development of Hong Kong, especially the development of the economy and people's livelihood.
With these remarks, President, I support Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's motion.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think it will be impossible for us to finish all the items on the Agenda before midnight today. Therefore, I will suspend the meeting at around 10 pm until afternoon tomorrow.
MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): President, this motion calls on the Government to formulate long-term infrastructure planning and this, I certainly agree. However, the Government owes the social welfare sector a policy paper on social welfare planning in Hong Kong. In saying this, I am, of course, using this motion as an excuse for voicing my other views, and my purpose is to remind the Government that since it published the Report on Long-term Social Welfare Planning in Hong Kong in July 2011, which was more than two years ago, the Government has taken no action at all. I, therefore, have to take this opportunity to remind the Government and the Secretary not to just adopt stalling tactics because the social welfare sector and I are still keeping a close eye on them and will not let them get away.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 289
Let me come back to this topic today. Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's motion seems to be talking about long-term infrastructure planning on the surface but in fact, the motion is also about providing more land and boosting the economic development of Hong Kong, underpinned by the thinking that these are ways to promote the sustainable development of Hong Kong and facilitate the upward mobility of young people. President, for these topics which use different packaging to urge the Government to further slant towards the consortiums for them to reap greater benefits, we have seen them in a number of motions proposed in the past, including "Promoting Hong Kong's economic restructuring", "Enhancing the overall sustainable competitiveness of Hong Kong", and "Maintaining and enhancing Hong Kong's position as an international financial centre", and I took all the trouble to point out on every such occasion that such proposals meant for the benefit of the future development of Hong Kong are, in fact, completely detached from the grassroots who are in dire straits. Some people hold that Members and the general public are really living in two Hong Kongs and it is really the case that "you have your life and we have our busy schedules". This has further proved how ineffective this undemocratic electoral system is and how pressing it is for the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive to be returned by universal suffrage.
Some two centuries ago, the great classic, The Wealth of Nations, written by economist Adam SMITH put forward the concept of "invisible hand". He considered that if everyone pursues his own maximized interest, he can frequently promote that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. This has become the golden rule of the advocates of market force, especially the commercial sector. However, some experts in the academia have often reminded us that the essence of this book by Adam SMITH actually lies in the advocacy for "wealth of people" and "equal distribution of wealth". In the book it is said, "Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many.". Adam SMITH was, in fact, saying that only a society where wealth is genuinely distributed equally can truly achieve the wealth of nations, and it has been proved that equal distribution of wealth in society cannot be achieved by relying on the "trickle down" effect brought about by the rich people getting richer. Rather, it should be achieved by building a society that relies on democratic systems and respects people's rights.
The Hong Kong Government currently has some $700 billion in its reserve and an annual surplus of tens of billion dollars, and the greater part of social 290 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 wealth is plundered by real estate developers, plutocrats and tycoons, while at the same time one seventh of Hong Kong people are living below the poverty line. This scenario has persisted for years and Hong Kong is gradually losing the power to maintain sustained economic growth. A few days ago a friend of mine in the academia told me with grave concern that in his view, the steps taken by two tycoons of selling a considerable part of their assets recently should not be political gestures or whatsoever, but steps taken out of real economic considerations. Having the innate ability to detect the early signs of the economic trend, they decided to leave the market as soon as possible and make plans to make wealth elsewhere instead. This is indirectly telling us that Hong Kong is already gradually losing the power to maintain sustained economic growth.
Disregarding whether the analysis of this academic is a most accurate understanding of the current situation or no more than alarmist talk, the fact is that the gravity of the wealth gap in Hong Kong has become notorious in the world and the problem has long hit the tipping point for social unrest. Last week, after much efforts made by the community over the years, Hong Kong has finally drawn a poverty line. But judging from the Government's list of "cannots", it seems that there is no room for optimism about the possibility of the Government taking the lead to mitigate the poverty problem in Hong Kong. I wish to point out that the polarization of the rich and the poor has not only created social inequality and sowed the seeds of social instability, but it is also not conducive to the economic development of Hong Kong. If social wealth can be distributed equally through various social policies formulated with the people's mandate, allowing the people to truly share the fruits of economic prosperity or, put in other words, allowing the use of social wealth by the general public and allowing the free flow of such wealth, the well-being of society can then be truly enhanced, and only in this way can a quality environment and green living be brought forth, sustainable development be promoted, and more opportunities of upward mobility be created, as suggested in the original motion.
President, the problems now faced by Hong Kong, such as the wealth gap, lower social mobility and bleak future prospects of young people, must be tackled with the approach of diversification of economic development, such as targeting efforts at the six industries where Hong Kong enjoys clear advantages as proposed by the Government some time ago, namely, medical services, testing and certification services, environmental industries, education services, innovation and technology, cultural and creative industries. The emerging industries rely heavily on direct participation by the Government in the early LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 291 stages of their development. I call for the Government's proactive intervention in the initial operation of businesses in the emerging industries when great difficulties are usually involved. The Government should increase its strength in the provision of resources for building a platform and developing the market, thereby creating a quality environment. Only in this way can sustainable development be promoted.
President, I so submit.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, the motion proposed by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok is a motion that cannot possibly be opposed, for we all hope our society will move forward and a direction for sustainable development will be set.
Let me talk about the direction of sustainable development. Over the years, the Government has overlooked a certain aspect in planning, which is the application of the North-to-South approach in planning. What does it mean? To put it simply, all focuses of development are set along the two sides of the Victoria Harbour. As a result, Grade A commercial buildings, headquarters of government departments and public organizations are all located in Central, Admiralty and Tsim Sha Tsui, and these districts have become the metropolitan core. The consequence of such development is that all job seekers have to commute from North to South. We all understand the situation. Every morning, traffic congestion is found in Kowloon-bound tubes of various tunnels. We know where the traffic queues will extend and where the queue in Wan Chai direction after crossing the harbour ends. Hence, I think this issue is worthy of examination by the Government. Over the past many years, the Government has been developing new towns, whereas the development project in Kowloon East has commenced recently. Though the development plan is enormous in scale and the authorities have invested tremendous resource in it, the authorities fail to establish another city centre zone.
As a result of over-concentration of economic development on both sides of the Victoria Harbour, the rent of the relevant lots rise incessantly, thus affecting the competitiveness of the territory. Due to the significant rise in rent, only shops selling luxury goods, such as jewelry shops on Nathan Road, can afford the rent, whereas other shops incapable to cope with the exorbitant rents have to leave. This is extremely undesirable to local economic development. As urban core areas are concentrated along both sides of the Victoria Harbour, 292 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 traffic planning, as well as railway and road construction, rely excessively on the South-North traffic axis. The West Rail, Ma On Shan Extension and the Shatin to Central Link under construction are in general using this approach to carry residents in the New Territories to work in urban areas.
The primary task of the strategy on secondary city centre is to alter the old mindset of focusing development in the Victoria Harbour, and to examine the establishment of various levels of city centres in core areas other than the Victoria Harbour through planning and various polices and measures. For instance, government offices buildings, public organization complexes and social service complexes of a considerable scale and non-scattered distribution may be built to provide one-stop services. This arrangement will attract the business sector to move into the areas for development and create a large number of employment opportunities, thereby attracting the public to move into such areas for living and work, thus achieving a better balance for overall development of Hong Kong.
The merits of this strategy include the creation of a new commercial district with relatively lower rents and alleviation of the high density of development on Hong Kong Island and urban areas in Kowloon. On the other hand, job opportunities available in new towns have all along been lesser than those available in urban areas, and many residents of new towns have to work across districts. The introduction of the concept of secondary city centres will increase the job opportunities in new towns, so that low-income grass-roots residents may not need to work cross-district, thus alleviating their burden in meeting the transport expenses. According to the figures of the Census in 2011, in the working population in the new town districts in the New Territories, namely Tuen Mun, Yuen Long and North District, 60% of them had to work cross-district and up to 30% of them had to work on Hong Kong Island or in Kowloon.
In fact, the idea of secondary city centres is not a brand new concept in planning. Back then, the intention of new town planning was to develop new towns into self-contained communities, so that local residents did not have to travel a long way to work in Kowloon or on Hong Kong Island. However, we notice from the development of new towns in the past that most of the lots of new towns are still used for residential purpose, and the migration of industries to these new towns is minimal. Under this circumstance, the provision of transport and matching facilities has become a significant problem, prompting frequent and serious complaints from residents who have to bear the heavy burden of transport expenses and few job opportunities.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 293
I would like to add one point. In respect of the planning and development concept, the authorities have all along not paid much attention to the composition of classes in various districts. We notice in particular that there is a trend of polarization in classes living in the urban area and new towns at present. On the one hand, grassroots in the urban areas affected by the redevelopment are forced to move into the remote areas in the New Territories. In turn, people from the upper class who can afford high-end residential flats and spending will move into these urban areas, which is commonly known as aristocratization of urban areas. On the other hand, the planning of new towns has increasingly yielded to polarization. Perhaps because residents in public rental housings provide the major source of labour force, forming the base of labour force in planning, the authorities often arrange for grass-roots households to live in those districts in the New Territories when they carry out planning, thus contributing to a geographical polarization of classes.
The objective of the secondary city centre strategy is to establish another city core through the dispersal of industries, so that our living does not have to be concentrated along both sides of the Victoria Harbour and job opportunities for the middle and lower classes in various districts can be increased. The authorities may correct this phenomenon of polarization of classes by constructing more Home Ownership Scheme flats of affordable prices. In this discussion on sustainable development, I earnestly hope that the Government will consider this concept carefully and in detail, so as to rectify the problems now encountered in planning through secondary city planning. The planning arrangement of North to South has in particular caused significant problems to our daily life, including traffic congestion and shortage of job opportunities. Thank you, President.
MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong is now going on a construction spree. The capital works expenditure of the Government for 2013-2014 has already exceeded $70 billion, and the commitment for capital works has reached $310-odd billion, which includes the construction of railways, highway links, hospitals and stadiums, and so on. Moreover, the North East New Territories New Development Areas (NENT NDAs) Project is now at the planning stage. It is an enormous infrastructure project which will re-shape Hong Kong and has far-reaching impact on the daily life of the public. Today marks the resumption of the Legislative Council after the two-month summer recess, and I find it meaningful that the subject of the first motion is on formulating long-term infrastructure planning.
294 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
To ensure that this enormous infrastructure planning and public consultation will be carried out properly, the element of information technology in infrastructure development as mentioned in the amendment should be included. I believe we all agree with this. As a representative of the labour sector, I am concerned more about the supporting arrangement for and the industrial safety of these works in execution.
Early this year, I proposed a motion on ensuring occupational safety, pointing out that in view of the increasing number of large-scale works projects to be commenced in Hong Kong in the future, the Government must expeditiously adopt effective measures to ameliorate the problem of the large number of fatal industrial accidents in the construction industry, so as to ensure occupational safety. Despite the passage of the motion, the problem of industrial accidents causing deaths and injuries has not seen any amelioration. During the summer recess of this Council, two accidents causing the death of two workers occurred in the construction industry. I proposed in my motion that construction sites must adopt the same safety standard adopted by the sites of the Housing Authority in order to lower the number of deaths and injuries caused by accidents. However, to date, the Government has not yet responded to this. The economy of Hong Kong makes an average annual GDP of $2,000 billion. It is a well-off developed region, and the practice of risking workers' lives for infrastructure development should no longer be tolerated.
At present, the infrastructure development in Hong Kong has not yet reached its peak, yet employer associations have already urged for the importation of labour, simply turning a blind eye to the high unemployment rate of young people. According to the information of the Census and Statistics Department, in the second quarter of this year, the unemployment rate of young people aged between 20 and 24 was 8.3% and that for young people aged between 15 and 19 was 17.8%. In order to ensure the healthy development of infrastructure in Hong Kong, the authorities have to rationalize the relationship between the training of talents and the supply and demand of manpower for the trade. I have reminded the Government repeatedly in the past that it must co-ordinate the schedule of implementation of different projects, so that works of a similar nature will not be carried out in the same period and compete for workers, creating an artificial shortage of manpower.
President, one of the key factors that ensure an adequate supply of talents to support the sustainable development of infrastructure is the training of a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 295 sufficient pool of talents in Hong Kong. I know that the Construction Industry Council has provided a lot of financial incentives to encourage young people to join the industry and receive training. However, these measures are inadequate. A comprehensive review of the existing education system must be carried out to change the culture of neglecting technical and practical subjects, so that youngsters in Hong Kong will receive training and pursue development according to their strengths and interests. This will provide talents for the various industries, including the construction industries, in Hong Kong, so that the construction industry here can have healthy and sustainable development, and create more opportunities of upward mobility for the next generation.
President, I so submit.
MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, concerning the motion proposed by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok today, other Members from the Liberal Party will express the views of the Liberal Party from a macroscopic perspective when they speak later. As for me, I will speak mainly on land supply and planning relating to the logistics industry.
The SAR Government has said repeatedly that the logistics industry has significant impact on the economic development of Hong Kong. Let us look at the Budget presented by the Financial Secretary this year. He said in the first paragraph following the preamble to the chapter that the trading and logistics industry contributed to 25% of the GDP of Hong Kong and employed 770 000 workers. However, the support rendered by the Government to the logistics industry over the past years offers little to write home about. In stark contrast, our competitors, neighbouring cities, have made rapid development. The third runway of Guangzhou Baiyun Airport will open next year; after the opening of the second runway of Shenzhen Airport two years ago, the authorities are now considering the construction of a second airport. But what is the situation in Hong Kong? The construction of a third runway has not yet been confirmed. As for the logistics park, which has been under discussion for 10 years, it has simply vanished. In view of such progress, how can we promote the sustainable development of the logistics industry?
The existing infrastructure for logistics in Hong Kong cannot cope with the development of the industry. Recently, members in the industry have complained to me about the inadequacy of backup zones of container terminals in 296 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 coping with the increasing quantities of re-exports and the increasingly longer waiting time for the collection of containers. Besides, there are complaints that the letting rate of warehouses is approaching capacity. The scarcity has prompted the rent for warehouses to rise continuously, which has added difficulty to the operation of the industry.
In fact, operational costs in Hong Kong are on the high side. If pricing is not our competitive edge, the only way out is to capitalize on the advantage of our international transport network that connects to places all over the world to develop high value-added logistics services. The National 12 Five-Year Plan offers definite support for Hong Kong to develop into a high-value goods inventory management and regional distribution centre. For the development of logistics business in this area, additional support and infrastructure facilities are required. For instance, land and warehouses will be required for various processes like goods inventory, packing and unpacking, processing and distribution. Though in the Policy Address of 2009, it was said that the Government had identified a number of sites with a total area of 29 hectares for logistics use around the Kwai Tsing area, which was close to the container terminals and airport, a total of only 6.9 hectares of land for logistics use has been made available so far. The progress is extremely slow. Besides, the sites are allotted to tenderer offering the highest bid. The price of sites introduced this year was 51% higher than last year. Modernized logistics centres built on these sites will only invite large enterprises to move in, and the majority of small and medium enterprises can only see the gates shut on them.
Recently, a trade association of the logistics industry has conducted a survey on the demand for logistics storage, and the findings indicate that there is a shortage of logistics storage of 400 000 sq ft to 500 000 sq ft in area. Given the shortage in supply, land prices and warehouse rental will naturally go up. The cost of rental is already 50% to 80% higher in comparison with that of two years ago. Hence, the Government should draw reference from the practice of constructing government industrial buildings in the 1960s and the 1970s of the last century. It should construct government warehouses as infrastructure facilities supporting the development of logistics and then lease the warehouses to small and medium operators in the logistics industry at a reasonable rate, so that their development will not be stifled because they cannot afford the exorbitant rents.
Recently, the Government has launched some planning consultation papers, two of which is related to the logistics industry. The one on Reclamation LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 297
Outside Victoria Harbour and Rock Cavern Development mentioned the proposal of constructing a logistics park at Siu Ho Wan in Lantau. The industry hopes that the proposal will be implemented as soon as possible, for the site is close to the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, the Hong Kong International Airport and Kwai Chung Container Terminals in Tsing Yi, which will facilitate the shipment of goods in the shortest time, coping with the existing objective of the logistics industry in making prompt transshipment. Moreover, the consultation paper has also mentioned using rock cavern as logistics warehouses, which is a rather novel concept to the industry. However, if the cost incurred is affordable, I think it will help to alleviate the problem of land shortage.
Another consultation is on Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area Planning and Engineering Study. It mentions inter alia setting aside 62 hectares of land for logistics use and for the construction of a multi-storey logistics centre to replace the 190 hectares of site now used for port back-up and open storage, commonly known as "container depots" by the industry. This idea is fundamentally wrong. These container depots are used for temporary storage of raw materials of all kinds, large mechanical equipment, and prefabricated building components, and served as an interchange for cleaning, repairing and storing empty containers. In future, irrespective of whether or not Hong Kong is going to develop high value-added logistics services, we still need these "container depots". Therefore, I think that carrying out planning for the district, the Government may consider consolidating the 190 hectares of "container depots", thereby increasing their usage and reducing the area required. Moreover, the Government must provide alternative sites in other districts, such as Tuen Mun, Yuen Long, and so on, to enable the continued operation of the industry.
No infrastructure can be built overnight. Take the third runway as an example. It takes a dozen years starting from study to completion, which is expected to be commissioned in 2023. However, the Civil Aviation Department estimates that the existing dual runway will reach its full capacity in 2015, which means the flight flow can hardly be increased during the interim. Since the relevant infrastructure has not been promptly completed, the development of the air service industry and the logistics industry has eventually been impeded. In view of this, the prompt provision of infrastructure facilities is crucially important to the sustainable development of the logistics industry. The authorities should formulate comprehensive and long-term planning for logistics infrastructure facilities as soon as possible, so that by means of constant development of 298 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 infrastructure, it will foster Hong Kong's competitive edge, stimulate economic development and create more employment opportunities.
President, I so submit.
DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): President, this summer, I visited the Mainland a number of times. In September, I went to an ethnic minority autonomous region, the Enshi Tujia and Miao autonomous prefecture, to lend hands to poverty relief. I took the plane to Yichang from Shenzhen and went straight to Badong County upon arrival. In the past, it took a one-day drive to go there through the national highway 318 Guodao, but now with the construction of the highway connecting Yichang and the autonomous prefecture, it can be reached in two hours or so. In addition to Yichang and the autonomous prefecture, the highway is also connected to Chongqing. With proper infrastructure and quality highway, the journey is safe and fast.
As I arrived at the city which I have visited before, I felt that the city was dynamic, lively and full of opportunities. President, on my way back, I visited the Three Gorges of Yangtze River to watch the dam. We all know that the dam, which measures some 2 000 m by 185 m, is a national infrastructure project taking 17 years to build. It is now the world's largest power station providing one ninth of the electricity for the nation, which output is 10 times of the nuclear power plant in Shenzhen. This infrastructure project has not only provided a solution to electricity supply but also alleviated the big flood threatening the Three Gorges of Yangtze once every 10 years. At present, local residents no longer have to worry about the sudden hit of natural disasters, and the economy thrives remarkably.
President, you know full well that upon the opening of China after the reform, highway networks covering the whole nation have been established. Express railways have developed rapidly, whereas infrastructure likes bridges, dams and power generation facilities have all been completed, promoting economic development and enhancing the standard of living of the people.
President, I will now return to the case in Hong Kong. It has been 16 years since the reunification. We have indeed wasted much time. Infrastructure projects have been lagging behind and we can only admire the rapid development of the Mainland. Take the Kai Tai site as an example. We LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 299 all know that the site has been left vacant under the sun for more than 10 years, where planning and construction works have only been started in recent years. The runway of the Hong Kong International Airport is another example. As Mr Frankie YICK has made it clearly earlier, the existing runway will soon reach its full capacity, but the construction of a third runway has not been taken forward so far. The early bird gets the worm, and Guangzhou Airport in our vicinity has taken the advantage. As for the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, it is a major national infrastructure project. However, in Hong Kong, the project has been thwarted by proceedings of judicial review and the progress has slowed down, lagging far behind the Mainland and Macao. For the Express Rail Link, due to the filibuster, it was only passed after strenuous efforts had been made. At present, regarding the development in North East New Territories, I believe the project will be impeded by the personal problems of Secretary Paul CHAN.
President, I very much approve of the motion of Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok on formulating long-term infrastructure planning. Honestly, it is not my profession, so I can hardly offer professional and insightful opinions in this aspect. Yet, I may analyse the case from the perspective of a member of the public and as a Member. I think we all agree that the Government must carry out infrastructure development, for infrastructure is conducive to the development of society. However, in infrastructure development, the Government must play a dominant role in focusing all the effort on development, lead properly and know how to solve the difficulties and overcome the challenges encountered in the course. Now, it appears that there is great difficulty in developing infrastructure. As we could see earlier, each and every issue has to be handled by Chief Secretary Carrie LAM. She is comparable to a pioneer paving the way for the authorities to play the trumps, and it seems that all infrastructure and issues have to be handled by her. I do not know whether we should be glad or sad about this.
Moreover, I think that the Government must be open-minded in infrastructure development and listen to more views. In policy formulation, the Government should consider the overall interest of society. Before any policy is introduced, the Government must gauge the views of the public in an extensive manner, consider arguments repeatedly and conduct proper consultation. It should not be biased, nor should it introduce unrealistic policies. Otherwise, it will be a waste of time and resources. The veto of the expansion of landfills is a case in point. The Government has not conducted proper consultation, and it has neither considered arguments repeatedly nor explained the case to the public.
300 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
President, in the introduction of policies, promotion techniques are also important. If the government official responsible for promotion is not skilled at it, no matter what policy or infrastructure planning is introduced, it will eventually fail halfway. Therefore, a suitable candidate is very important. Or else, a good deed will turn out to be bad and the chance of success will be slim. By then, it will only do harm to Hong Kong and make the implementation of many infrastructure projects in society impossible. Hence, before the introduction of any policy, the authorities must consider appointing the right person to enforce the policy, so as to ensure its successful implementation. If the public do not trust the person responsible for implementing the policy and have no confidence in that person, yet the Government insists on launching the policy, I think the outcome will be less than desirable even if double effort is made.
Finally, since every issue in Hong Kong will be politicized nowadays, I think that in the implementation and formulation of policies, the Government must maintain good communication with major political parties and groupings, including independent Members. Nowadays, many politicos are votes oriented. They are only concerned about the short-term interests of electors to the neglect of the overall interest of society. As many issues have been politicized, society is led into endless disputes in the discussion on these issues. Hence, in my view, politicos should understand that they should act in the overall interest of society, whereas the Government should make proper efforts in lobbying and communication. Otherwise, even if policies are formulated, the Government will not be able to put them into implementation, and the policies may be opposed by the public and vetoed by the legislature.
Today, I must support the motion proposed by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok. However, I also hope that he will monitor the Government, and pay attention to how the Government implements the policy, or else, all policies will be reduced to empty plans that will never be realized.
President, I so submit.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): President, I would like to thank Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok for proposing the motion. He has expressed concern about infrastructure projects and how the projects are taken forward, yet I would like to talk about planning in the context of community development.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 301
As a saying goes, "once roads are in place, riches will follow". I think Members also know this saying, for it is the concept of development of many cities. It means that comprehensive road networks and well-appointed infrastructure facilities will promote regional development. The United States is one of the countries with the highest level of urbanization. Back then, when it promoted urbanization, one of the most important measures it implemented was the large-scale construction of infrastructure facilities, for where infrastructure facilities are provided, people will live there and an economy will be developed there.
However, the development concept adopted in the past in Hong Kong was just the contrary. In the development of a new community, people were required to move in before supporting facilities were constructed. Regarding the fundamental needs of a community, such as medical services, transport, education, shopping and recreational facilities, and so on, the Government applied the principle that the provision of supporting facilities should be subject to established standards, which meant it would start building the facilities only when the population in the community reached the required size. In other words, it will wait till the demand for supporting facilities emerges in the community to respond to such demand, which means supporting facilities are provided on a demand-driven approach. Precisely because of this policy approach, a shortage of supporting facilities is found in many communities. Why can supporting facilities not be provided before taking forward community development?
First, in the absence of these community facilities, the public must endure the inconvenience caused by such inadequacy. We have been working in the communities all along and we know the examples of inadequate community support. President, let me cite Kowloon East as an example. Kowloon East has a population of 1 million, but only one hospital, the United Christian Hospital, is available and it has to serve two major communities, Tseung Kwan O and Kwun Tong. It is only common that patients have to wait for three hours for a three-minute consultation with the doctors. For those seeking treatment at the accident and emergency department, they may have to wait for six hours. The waiting time for a number of disciplines of specialist consultation for new cases is the longest in the territory. We consider this unacceptable.
The other example is the new public housing estate areas covering Choi Tak Estate, Choi Fook Estate and Choi Ying Estate, also called the "Three-Choi 302 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 estate region". The population in the region is now close to 40 000. The residents had moved in since 2008, but the first bus route only came into service in 2013. I would say that there is no market, no library, no study room and other community facilities in the community. It is imaginable how inconvenient it would be to the 40 000 people living in this community.
People are moving into the Kai Tak new area, yet the funding for the construction of two primary schools in the district has just been allocated, and they are expected to be completed in succession in 2015. Since there is no primary school, many parents will start worrying once they move in. They have to find school places for their children in nearby districts, and if no place is available, they will have to search other districts. Before the completion of the new schools, children can only take school buses to study in schools in other districts. Try to imagine the possible inconvenience caused. It is the result of planning without co-ordination.
The planning of infrastructure should correspond to population growth and demographic changes. In fact, regarding the examples cited by me, the Government can closely estimate the time and the number of residents moving in. Community facilities will have to be built sooner or later, so why does the Government not allocate funding for the construction of these facilities in conjunction with the construction of the estates? Why does it have to wait till the grievance of residents escalates and the cries for help get louder to build the facilities? I think that the authorities should put the interest of the residents first. It should settle the matter in one go by providing all the facilities required in advance, so that when residents move in, they can enjoy a comfortable and convenient environment. Only this can it be called good governance in planning.
Indeed, residents do not only have to endure the inconvenience caused by the shortage of facilities, they also need to bear with the nuisance caused by infrastructure works resulting from the lag in planning. Take the Kai Tak area as an example. Since schools and other facilities will soon be constructed, residents will be living in a dusty environment every day. Let me cite the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal as another example. Despite the completion of the terminal, the transport and road network support is far from satisfactory. It is evident that the planning lacks co-ordination. It gives people the impression that the Government adopted stopgap measures in taking forward the works, and lacked comprehensive consideration in dealing with the problem in advance. If the problems are handled in a piecemeal manner, the policies implemented will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 303 lack co-ordination, leaving the public at a loss. However, this is a common problem in many communities.
President, recently, we are discussing the development plans for North East New Territories and New Territories North region, and even engaging in advance discussions on other infrastructure development plans. I think the Government should change its old mindset of adhering to the demand-driven approach in development and make proper planning in the course of consultation. Besides, in the course of community development, all supporting infrastructure must be launched immediately. Otherwise, we will see a recurrence of the problem now experienced by Tung Chung, where the inadequacy in transport infrastructure is identified and facilities like hospitals are constructed only after the residents have moved in for a long time. It is understandable that the residents have widespread discontent about the unco-ordinated planning all along. Thank you, President.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, this is a good timing to discuss long-term planning, and I hope this discussion will awaken the Government. President, concerning long-term planning, more often than not, change in top management like the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux will lead to significant defects and retrogression. This is particular so when the incumbent Secretary for Development ― the Secretary for Development has left the Chamber ― is a layman in planning, and I have raised this point repeatedly. It is the greatest defect for a layman in planning to become the Secretary for Development, am I right? It is comparable to appointing a person who does not know how to play football as a player of the Hong Kong National Football Team to take part in competition, where the team will definitely be defeated. At present, the greatest defects in planning as a whole are: First, a layman is leading other laymen. If a bureau is led by an incapable person, it will naturally produce a negative outcome.
Second, policies and procedures are subject to constant changes. In the past 20 to 30 years, we have seen clearly that a population policy would first be formulated, to be followed by demographic projection, and then the formulation of comprehensive planning. In 1980s, there was urban planning, for which the discussion on the formulation of the development of a metropolis and suburban areas was conducted for a very long period of time. From 2000 onwards, six years were spent on the discussion of the planning for 2030. The document had 304 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 been finalized, but it was scrapped and started all over again. In the absence of supporting demographic figures and comprehensive planning, the Government formulated the planning document on 2030 under the slogan, to the effect, "Hong Kong's future to be created by you and me". Last year, the Government scrapped the planning on 2030 again. This series of so-called long-term planning indeed lacks continuity and justifications.
Now, LEUNG Chun-ying has taken office. He has overturned the policies of Donald TSANG, particularly the series of housing development policies put forth by Michael SUEN under his nine-stroke approach. However, when the current-term Government implements its housing policy, it does not have any system and supporting figures, or any blueprint as the basis. It only hastily builds a toothpick-building here and two buildings there. Am I right? It is the problem with laymen. It is the greatest laughing stock and disaster to have the Chief Executive and the Secretary who knows nothing about planning formulate long-term planning for Hong Kong.
My point is that it is the normal and regular practice to first formulate the population policy, including taking back the power to approve the 150 one-way permits. If the Government does not take back the power to approve the 150 one-way permits, there will definitely be mistakes in its long-term planning. How can it make long-term planning if it does not know who will enter Hong Kong every day? For it does not know whether the people entering Hong Kong will be farmers, elder people, children, middle-class people or investors. If the Government has no power to control the population, how can it plan community development and decide the number of public housing, private housing and luxury flats to be built? So, it is simply outrageous. In the absence of the power to control the population policy, any planning will be doomed to failure.
The present discussion on planning is nothing but an attempt by the Government to make remedies once every year. For the purpose of vote rigging and as a means to manipulate the election outcome, the Mainland authorities will examine persons of which age group are the easiest to be affected in election and then decide how many of such people should be allowed to enter Hong Kong to influence the decision on every issue. The Mainland authorities' practice is not for the good of the economy of Hong Kong nor the overall interest of Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 305
After formulating the population policy, the Government will have to consider all the sites in the territory, the distribution of newly added population and the improvement of old communities. Back then, during the planning of the Kai Tak area, it was stated clearly that one of the needs was to disperse the population in old districts like Hung Hom, To Kwa Wan, Kowloon City, Kwun Tong and Wong Tai Sin to Kai Tak, with a view to ameliorating the problems of those districts, so that demographic and geographical development will be balanced and enhanced. Later, this requirement was cancelled. Once there is a change in the post of the Director of Bureau, the policies laid down previously will be left behind. In fact, the distribution of population and the improvement of districts are related to the support for the overall planning of Hong Kong.
Moreover, to which districts should the newly added population be assigned? It is obvious that the authorities had adopted the approach of developing new towns. Since the development of new towns involves infrastructure planning and railway planning, in the past, the authorities would carry out overall urban planning after population planning, which was the long-term strategic planning study, and then followed by the comprehensive transport studies. One step followed another and one aspect linked closely to the other. It is very clear. However, there is no co-ordination now among departments. The latest comprehensive transport study was the one I begged Eva CHENG to do before her retirement. I told her the planning then was not good, for in the past, a comprehensive transport study would be carried out every 10 to 15 years. Due to the chaos in development and the lack of overall support and studies in the railway system, problems of detachment and discontinuity in planning surfaced. Since various aspects were not linked properly, blunders in support were doomed to occur, including blunders in infrastructure, railways and roads.
We have had many painful experiences in the past, such as the blunder in the new town development in Tuen Mun in the 1980s where schools had not been built when residents moved in. As a result, there was slight improvement in subsequent new town developments. However, we then experienced the disaster in Tin Shui Wai. Due to a change in housing policy and the fiscal deficit faced by the Government, the construction of all public facilities, including stadiums, swimming pools and libraries, were suddenly called to a halt.
As such, the matching of long-term planning with other policies and resource deployment is extremely important. Therefore, a powerful and professional team is the key to planning. If the planning work is to be led by 306 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
"689 LEUNG Chun-ying" and the "sub-division unit and land-hoarding Secretary", I can give the stark warning here that: It will definitely lead to a disaster, when society as a whole and Hong Kong will definitely sink further and the people of Hong Kong will definitely suffer more. Therefore, we must topple "689" and press "land-hoarding Paul" to step down to do justice to the public.(The buzzer sounded)
MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the motion debate proposed by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok on "Formulating long-term infrastructure planning" today is very meaningful, for it allows Members to examine the planning policies adopted by the SAR Government in the past at our first meeting. I strongly support Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's motion.
Regarding the long-term planning of the Government at present, it is only limited to the 10 major infrastructure projects carried over from the previous Government. Among them, only five projects have been implemented. The consultation of some of the projects, such as the Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area and the North East New Territories New Development Areas (NENT NDAs), has only commenced recently. As such, there are comments that the 10 major infrastructure projects will drag on for a long time. In my view, the current-term Government has no long-term planning at all in this respect.
Long-term infrastructure planning is of very important to the overall development of society, and it also provides a direction and guidelines for development. The 10 major infrastructure projects have far-reaching impacts on Hong Kong, for among them are railway networks connecting Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories, as well as others relating to our cultural life, such as the West Kowloon Cultural District. Moreover, there are projects which involve the development of the Loop, Kai Tak and the new development areas mentioned earlier.
Development in the various aspects mentioned will bring vitality to Hong Kong. The development of the railway network in particular will shorten the transport time within the living circle of Hong Kong people to an hour or half. In other words, it will take less than 45 minutes for one to travel from Tin Shui Wai to Admiralty for work, and it will take no longer than an hour even if he ventures farther. In a small place like Hong Kong, the 10 Major Infrastructure LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 307
Projects will help enhance the continuously of Hong Kong people continuously and boost the vitality of the economy. The effect will definitely be far-reaching.
Against the backdrop of the 10 Major Infrastructure Projects, the current-term Government seems to have changed its strategy and highlighted that the Government accords top priority to the housing construction in its administration. As such, the Government is making constant efforts to identify sites for housing construction. But what is the result of such efforts? It is the lack of planning and direction. Mr CHAN Kam-lam gave particular mention to the community problem of supporting facilities. In retrospect, the social problems in Tuen Mun and Tin Shui Wai are caused by the shortage of supporting facilities. Regarding the planning adopted by the Government so far, the public indeed hold a different view. In my view, the current-term Government must be more far-sighted and put forth long-term infrastructure planning, so that the public may participate in the infrastructure of future society. This is an important procedure in ensuring sustainable development.
In fact, Hong Kong really needs to make vigorous efforts in infrastructure development. Take the pressing housing problem as an example. The current-term Government has launched a number of so-called "housing blueprints". However, I have to point out that the mere construction of residential flats is inadequate, and the Government must construct adequate supporting facilities, such as transport networks, recreation venues and community facilities, and so on. All these are conducive to the development of district economy, enabling residents to live in peace and work with contentment. An enormous demand for infrastructure has thus emerged. I agree that supporting facilities should be constructed concurrently with the development projects and such construction must not be demand-driven. It is the experience of the previous terms of Government, and we must remember it. I also hope that the Government can act boldly to correct the mistakes and practices in the past.
Recently, the Government is conducting consultation on the NENT NDAs and the Hung Shui Kiu NDA, yet we can see that the Government has already lost its direction. As in the case of the Hung Shui Kiu NDA, the population involved in the development is as large as 220 000, yet no supporting facilities are provided, and the public housing estate next to Long Ping Estate of Yuen Long which will accommodate 50 000 residents is also not provided with supporting facilities. This will bring disastrous problems to the NDAs in future. We thus 308 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 propose that the Government should adopt a people-oriented approach in infrastructure planning, and the supporting facilities should match with the resident population and create more employment opportunities.
President, I hope that the Government will do a proper job in long-term planning of supporting facilities, bringing real benefits to the public.
I so submit.
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the motion moved by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok mainly because I support formulating long-term infrastructure planning.
Planning for hardware, which is in need of development, is certainly important. The Democratic Party will render our support to it. However, there is an inadequacy in the original motion, that is, a lack of planning for software. Mr LEUNG Che-cheung just now mentioned that the 10 major infrastructure projects proposed by Donald TSANG during his re-election campaign have only been partially completed. When it comes to infrastructure, we have immediately observed certain problems relating to an inadequacy in infrastructure construction or planning. Is this related to the Government of the previous term? Of course, our Chief Secretary for Administration, who is admired for her fighting spirit, served as the Secretary for Development responsible for infrastructure in the previous-term Government.
We can see a myriad of problems nowadays, from the lack of primary school places earlier to the long queue of applicants for kindergarten places today. In face of a shortage of formula milk powder, a restriction on its export is imposed. There are shortages in office space, public rental housing, shopping malls, private housing, hospitals, medical doctors and nurses. In fact, given such a myriad of problems, infrastructure development proposed by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok is really important. But meanwhile, this has to tie in with the so-called human resources development. Otherwise, even though hospitals have been built, if there are no doctors or nurses, service cannot be provided to the public. The Government has to undertake comprehensive risk management in this aspect.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 309
Besides, we also support Mr Charles Peter MOK's amendment because the development of a city requires supplementary facilities. The Digital New Town Development proposed by Mr Charles MOK is also the latest global trend. A lot of these so-called digital cities are now developing in this direction. In the past, Hong Kong gave people an impression that it was a most modernized city leading the trend. However, when we look around the neighbouring regions, we can see that they have been catching up with Hong Kong in terms of both hardware and software.
Regarding hardware, as Dr LAM Tai-fai mentioned earlier, we have witnessed the rapid development in the Mainland. Within 10 years, many Mainland cities will catch up with and even surpass Hong Kong. It seems that even Singapore, which often compares itself with Hong Kong, has overtaken Hong Kong. Hong Kong really has to make improvement expeditiously.
When it comes to software such as wireless network coverage or intelligent city, Hong Kong needs to launch a number of pilot projects. I know that the Government has recently put forward a "Digital 21" programme related to smart living. I think Hong Kong should not lag behind the times in applied technologies. The current-term Government should exert itself in this regard.
President, I would like to raise the following point in my remaining speaking time. The problem of "blind scramble for land" by the Government without prior planning has provoked social conflicts.
The Government has recently put forward plans to develop sites as small as less than 1 hectare in various districts. If these sites are used for suitable development, there should not be any problem. But I would like to offer an example. The Government intends to auction a lot of 0.05 hectare in area near Tung Yuk Court and Tung Tao Court in Shau Kei Wan before the end of this fiscal year as at 31 March. It is estimated that with a floor area of around 50 000 sq ft, 70 to 80 residential units can be built. This is not the crucial factor in this example. The most important point is that the Government has forgotten its promise made in the past. It was explicitly stated in the Housing Authority's sales brochures of Tung Tao Court and Tung Yuk Court that a minibus stop would be built on that site. But the Government will now change the use of the site … despite the undertaking in the sales brochures that a minibus stop would be built on that site, the site will be used for building residential flats for sale. Just 310 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 now Mr Albert CHAN also mentioned the problem of "blind scramble land". The aforesaid incident is just one of numerous examples and similar situations have occurred in various districts. We will pursue the case at a panel meeting shortly.
But this symbolizes a problem. Coming back to Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's motion, the Government's policies are in a mess and devoid of any sound planning. It has even broken its previous undertaking made to the residents. Although there are many government departments, there is only one Government, that is, the Hong Kong SAR Government. The SAR Government's commitment must be fulfilled. It cannot be self-contradictory and say that the Housing Department's commitment is denied by the Development Bureau. This is totally nonsense. Therefore, in reviewing the long-term planning and development, the Government should look at its previous undertakings to the residents and should not break its promises lightly.
The Democratic Party supports Ir Dr LO Wai-kok's original motion and Mr Charles Peter MOK's amendment. I hope that the Government will not forget its past undertakings to the residents in formulating long-term policies. It has to provide software and supporting facilities such as human resource development, or else no service can be provided to the public on the completion of these infrastructure facilities.
I so submit.
MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, in the Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014 released by the World Economic Forum last month, Hong Kong was ranked seventh among 148 countries and economies. Hong Kong has moved two places up compared with its ranking last year. It is pointed out in the Report that Hong Kong was ranked top in the world for infrastructure and financial market development. Nevertheless, today's motion on "Formulating long-term infrastructure planning to promote sustainable development" proposed by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok has precisely reminded the Government that it should spare no effort in formulating long-term infrastructure planning and its implementation for a quality living and better economic environment built upon the existing advantages of Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 311
Infrastructure includes transport systems, road networks, buildings and communication facilities which will provide momentum for social and regional development. In Hong Kong, large-scale infrastructure planning and construction has been launched since 1970s. Hong Kong, as a tiny place, has become one of the modern cities in Asia with the most sophisticated infrastructure after many years' efforts. Since the reunification, infrastructure co-operation between Hong Kong and the Mainland has become increasingly closer. The 10 Major Infrastructure Projects such as the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, and so on, are related to the Mainland. I strongly believe that these two infrastructure projects will provide better development opportunities for the trade and logistics services of both places, thereby benefiting employment and the economy. For this reason, in the formulation of infrastructure planning, it is necessary to take into account the development situation of the Mainland regions near Hong Kong.
President, with the progress of society, the demand for infrastructure facilities by the public has also changed. To maintain and improve the quality of living, we have to upgrade our thinking in urban development. Therefore, apart from planning and construction of infrastructure, environmental factors should not be overlooked as green urban planning is also an important concept in sustainable development. But unfortunately, Hong Kong has lagged far behind many countries and economies in environmental protection, especially waste disposal which is being discussed in the whole territory.
In Hong Kong, the solid waste per capita is 1.27 kg per day, which almost ranks the top in the world. Therefore, in order to effectively and continuously reduce waste, waste reduction at the source and turning waste into energy are two indispensable options. Compared to Taiwan, Seoul, Singapore and other neighbouring regions, there is obviously a lack of sustainable and effective strategy and planning in this aspect in Hong Kong. Therefore, many people in Hong Kong feel frustrated. So, I hope the current-term Government will allocate more resources to this aspect, speed up the formulation and implementation of long-term waste management policy so that environmental protection can become part of our daily life, and this will be conductive to the sustainable development of Hong Kong.
President, in a new era when sustainable development is pursued, energy conservation is also one of the important elements. Hence, we have to promote 312 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 green buildings. In fact, the concept of going green has become prevalent in Europe, the United States and some Asian countries. However, Hong Kong is only a beginner in this aspect. According to Greenpeace's data, less than 1% of the buildings in Hong Kong are green buildings. In Singapore, the target of making 80% of the buildings green by 2030 has been laid down. Hence, we should exert ourselves to catch up with others and expeditiously set a specific target and policy guideline on the development of green buildings in order to provide incentives to the business sector in training relevant professionals. In doing so, Hong Kong will be enabled to pursue the path of sustainable development, thereby promoting the development of local economy and social development.
With these remarks, President, I support Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's motion.
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok for his motion. In fact, it is difficult for anyone to oppose this motion. Just now many Honourable Members have pointed out a series of problems arising from planning and implementation of infrastructure. They also queried whether Hong Kong should seize the opportunity for continuous development in the future.
To respond to public aspirations, it does not make any sense for the authorities not to develop infrastructure. But in the Government's opinion, urban renewal or change in land use cannot provide an adequate supply of land that enables it to launch large-scale development like drawing a picture on a piece of white paper. Hence, its attention in infrastructure development tends to focus on reclamation and development of the rural areas near new towns in the New Territories. As a result, the livelihood of fishermen or farmers, and even the development of the agriculture and fisheries industries in Hong Kong are being threatened.
I would like to specifically point out that infrastructure is developed on the premise of groundwork having been perfectly done in other aspects. I would like to reiterate that the agriculture and fisheries industries do not ask for the cancellation of all projects that are conducive and imperative to the development of Hong Kong. Nevertheless, it is absolutely necessary for the Government to re-examine the compensation mechanism and introduce a long-term development policy for the agriculture and fisheries industries or other policies on sustainable development. Otherwise, it will be difficult for the Hong Kong economy, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 313 people's livelihood and the agriculture and fisheries industries to have sustainable development at the same time.
The Government must realize that under the policy of increasing land supply by reclamation and developing rural areas, fishermen and farmers are the important stakeholders, as well as victims of such development. It is because they and their ancestors may have been engaging in agricultural production and fisheries in those areas to support their families. In their eyes, development launched by the Government is no different from invasion by aliens. Even if the Government can cite persuasive reasons like roads and airports to be built in the future can bring significant economic benefits to Hong Kong, local residents (including fishermen, farmers and even other members of the public) may not listen to the Government, nor will they be prepared to accept its views without objection. They will also consider that compensation is not a gift from the Government.
Therefore, if the Government has to develop those areas right now, a mechanism which can preserve the dignity and future livelihood of fishermen and farmers, as well as calculate the damages for them according to the actual situation will be essential. Why do I have to repeatedly stress the importance of formulating this mechanism? Has the Government made an effort? The answer is in the negative. The Government has given ex gratia allowances to the fishermen, ex gratia allowances for land resumption and clearance, as well as other kinds of ex gratia allowance. We have heard a lot of it.
However, the problem is that the arrangement made is not good enough. I would like to cite a few examples. Although works of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (Hong Kong Section) have been carried out for two years, meaning that the livelihood of fishermen has been affected for two years, they still do not know how much compensation they will get. Although the Government has proposed the total amount of compensation, the fishermen do not know how much they will get, not to mention that they has not yet received a single cent. In that case, what should the fishermen do? As two years have passed, how can they not take to the streets to voice their grievances?
In addition, some fishermen who operated on rowboats reflected that in the past when reclamation was carried out for the Disneyland, they were only offered an ex gratia allowance of a few hundred dollars. In the process of grant the ex gratia allowance, the Government stressed the requirement of "fairness", 314 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
"transparency" ― this is correct ― thus, the procedures were particularly complicated. Their livelihood was hindered because they had to spend at least three days on attending the briefing, waiting for the distribution of chits and registration. However, the Government had only issued them a few hundred dollars as ex gratia allowance. If so, how could the fishermen participate in it? A few hundred dollars is not enough even to cover their transport expenses. This is a big problem.
Another example is the NENT NDAs Project in which a special cash allowance of $600,000 is offered to those affected households and farmers. But after checking the relevant documents, I found that the original intent of the allowance is to cover the construction costs of rebuilding a bungalow by households affected by clearance. Do you think that $600,000 is sufficient to construct such a building? No, it is not enough, let alone meeting the living expenses of these residents in the future. Does the Government think that the fishermen and farmers who are forced to wind up their business or relocate elsewhere are not miserable and painful enough? Why should they subsidize the Government by several hundred thousand dollars to assist the Government in pursuing sustainable development?
In my opinion, the Government should carefully review whether the compensation mechanism is reasonable and whether it complies with the original intent. If the Government can raise the compensation amount, the major obstacle to land resumption for future infrastructure projects can be cleared, thereby achieving a win-win situation. In this connection, I have repeatedly pointed out the aforesaid issues and proposed a "comprehensive plan on agricultural village" in the hope that the fragmented agriculture industry can be reintegrated and the first obstacle can be eliminated for the Government, in addition to pursuing sustainable development for the agriculture and fisheries industries. I hope the Government will give prudent consideration to this.
Speaking of the agriculture and fisheries industries, I would now like to talk about something personal. A friend of mine has sought my advice on his career. My friend, who also studied civil engineering, and I returned to Hong Kong in 2003. I believe everybody knows how bad the economic situation was in 2003 during the outbreak of SARS. Even though one could find a job, the monthly salary was only $7,500. On the contrary, an employee in Macao, our neighbouring city, would earn a higher salary as the allowance alone would reach as much as 10,000 MOP, since the local Government had exerted a vigorous LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 315 effort in developing construction projects such as casinos, gardens and parks. Hence, my friend was attracted by all this and went there for career development.
Later, after the announcement of the 10 Major Infrastructure Projects by the Hong Kong Government, the local employment situation in the construction industry improved as the number of infrastructure projects had also increased. Then, he returned to Hong Kong for career development. Do you know how much he earns? His monthly salary is now $60,000, reflecting that his salary increase is greater than that of property prices. I once discussed with him the reason for this. He said that due to a serious shortage of manpower in the construction industry, competition for manpower has been very keen. Of course, the Government should conduct a review of its labour importation policy. He added that a company ― as I have merely heard of this from a friend, so would the Government and the industry please find out whether this is true or not ― had raised his salary and promoted him to be manager in an unconventional manner even though he only had the qualification for supervisor in order to pry him away from another company. Therefore, I think the Government should give prudent consideration to providing appropriate manpower training to meet manpower needs in the course of infrastructure development in the future.
Due to the time constraint, President, I shall stop here. Thank you.
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, a sufficient supply of land and good infrastructure are inseparable from the long-term development of a city. Therefore, the Liberal Party supports the motion proposed by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and the amendment by Mr Charles Peter MOK.
However, it is common knowledge that the biggest problem in Hong Kong is land supply. According to a report published by the Government earlier, the population of Hong Kong may rise to 8.9 million and the number of households to 3.1 million by 2039, representing an increase of nearly 30%. It is estimated that an additional 2 000 hectares of land is required for residential use, apart from 2 500 hectares for other facilities and so it means 4 500 hectares in total.
The problem as we see it is that in the coming 20 years, the population will increase by more than 1 million or even 2 million, resulting in an additional demand for 4 500 hectares of land. Where could we find such an abundant supply of land? Presently, there are 200 000 people waiting for public rental 316 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 housing. The Government has been at pains to cope with such a demand. Suppose the population will grow by more than 1 million or 2 million in the coming 20 years, how could the problem be tackle? How could we address such a problem? Therefore, several Honourable colleagues mentioned earlier that the policies on population and admission of professionals must be supplemented by other initiatives, and our focus should not be placed on building more infrastructure facilities only. Can we solve the problem by merely having the money to develop infrastructure or erecting more buildings?
In additional to land for residential use, we must also cater for the needs of the industrial, commercial and retail sectors, as well as all kinds of auxiliary facilities. Why did I mention the retail sector? According to the relevant statistics, 48 million tourists visited Hong Kong last year and spent a total of $360 billion, fostering an extremely robust retail sector. However, statistics also show that the supply of retail space only grew by 3% from 2006 to 2011, while the number of visitors rose by 85%. Hence, the supply of retail facilities is lagging far behind the demand. In other words, in the past the Government did not have any long-term plans on land supply for both housing and even industrial and commercial uses. Spectacular growth in the retail sector has driven the rentals and the prices of various commodities to a very high level. Therefore, we can observe that the Government is desperately looking for land albeit in a disorderly manner.
Currently, there are voices calling for the resumption of golf courses or even the utilization of land in country parks. It seems that with the simplest methods, the problem of land supply can be resolved. In fact, the Government may extensively expropriate abandoned agricultural lands, increase plot ratios, revitalize industrial buildings or speed up the pace of urban renewal. We feel that these are more practical measures to make good use of land resources. The Government does not adopt these proposals simply because they are more difficult.
Moreover, we have also witnessed that works have just commenced on sites such as the West Kowloon Cultural District and the old Kai Tak Airport after they have been left idle in the sun for more than a decade. But the problem is that the long-term planning has never been materialized. More importantly, even if long-term planning has been formulated, is the Government capable to implementing it? Referring to official data, suppose the extra land demand would rise to 4 500 hectares by 2039, and given the current unemployment rate of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 317
3%, no matter what sort of infrastructure or land development projects were pursued, manpower would be inadequate to implement such infrastructure projects even if the authorities managed to identify sufficient land to build public rental housing or flats under the Home Ownership Scheme.
Therefore, concerning the policies relating to labour, manpower training, admission of professionals or importation of workers mentioned by me just now, they must tie in with infrastructure facilities before sustainable development can be facilitated.
President, I so submit.
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, of course, the Labour Party supports the question of today's motion but regarding the proposals in the motion, I feel very worried. Insofar the question of this motion is concerned, Members agree that it is necessary to have long-term planning as well as sustainable development.
However, after hearing Members' speeches, I began to feel worried about one thing. In fact, all Members from functional constituencies are performing their functions. I do not know if Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok proposed this motion on infrastructure development because the engineering sector wants to have more employment and development opportunities. In fact, I also studied engineering and all of us hope that more projects can be launched. However, sometimes, do we want to see the launch of these projects too indiscriminately, in particular, do we want to see the launch of large-scale projects indiscriminately? I think large-scale projects are risky and the bill can easily run to tens of billion of dollars. Does Hong Kong really need this kind of thinking?
Earlier on, when another Member representing a functional constituency spoke ― it was either Mr Jeffrey LAM or Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan ― he began to talk about importing labour because what those people think about is always such matters. Mr Charles Peter MOK has cast a glance at me just now. He also talked about the IT industry, that is, the IT infrastructure and Mr HO also talked about the infrastructure for the agriculture and fisheries industry. If all Members only talk about their own areas, what does long-term planning actually mean? Now, they are only planning for their own areas. What does long-term planning mean? How should the priorities be set? Each functional constituency says 318 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 that its area should be accorded priority, but this would not work. Hong Kong cannot continue to function like this, so I believe that it is very important to abolish the functional constituencies at an early date. And I believe Mr Charles Peter MOK would also agree. I would not oppose the IT sector represented by Mr Charles Peter MOK because IT is an absolutely important infrastructure. However, what we are talking about now is to formulate long-term infrastructure planning and in this regard, how actually should the priorities be set? I think Members are all looking at it from the perspective of their own functional constituencies, not about carrying out overall planning for Hong Kong at all. I believe that all the ideas on infrastructure voiced by Members separately now should all be presented for the public/people to carry out planning on their priorities, rather than letting individual functional constituencies do so.
I also said just now that the first and foremost position of the Labour Party is: For some time, large-scale infrastructure projects have received too great a boost in implementation and now it has been found that this is not beneficial to either Hong Kong or workers because workers also do not want to see any excessive boost within a certain period of time, thus leading to too great a workload at one time, followed by long periods of unemployment at another. Such a situation is not desirable, so well-conceived planning is essential and we must not give infrastructure projects too great a boost within a short period of time. If we push too hard, the construction costs of projects would surely be high and the problem of labour shortage mentioned just now would surely arise. These situations would surely happen, so we must work out how to develop infrastructure at a steady pace.
Certainly, I also understand that it is necessary to set priorities in society. Be it the construction of Home Ownership Scheme flats or public housing, it is necessary to set priorities. If we all hope that more public housing should be built and given priority, we have to discuss if other projects have to wait further and which projects should wait. These issues have to be discussed by all of us together and the people should be allowed to carry out planning.
The situation that I wish to see the least is that all of us only think about large-scale infrastructure and the integration of China and Hong Kong. In fact, the construction of the Express Rail Link costing $60 billion should by no means be given priority, yet the Government thinks that this project should be given priority because it has political priority. Meanwhile, the construction of markets in Tin Shui Wai has never materialized. If the people are allowed to carry out LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 319 democratic planning, the issue of markets in Tin Shui Wai would become very simple and it would only be necessary to discuss one question: When will the markets be built? Building markets is not expensive, nor does it require a lot of manpower, but these matters are never discussed. Can Members refrain from always according priority to large-scale projects? Some minor projects are also badly needed by the community and the people, for example, markets in Tin Shui Wai. In addition, with regard to homes for the elderly, clear planning is also necessary and more homes have to be provided. Otherwise, elderly people applying for places in this kind of homes would not be able to get a place even by the time they die. The present situation is that there are more elderly people who cannot apply successfully for places than those who can, so this would not do.
When carrying out planning on infrastructure, can the scale be reduced somewhat? If the people are given charge of planning, some of their needs are only very minor, so why can the Government not meet their needs? Maybe things that are minor are the most important ones because a lot of community facilities and ancillary facilities can really improve the living of all people. Therefore, I hope that the infrastructure projects to be planned need not be large-in scale. We should discuss the overall planning, including relatively micro planning for the local districts.
Another view to which I must respond to is the importation of labour. Some Members have painted the situation in such a light that it looked as though no one were willing to join the construction industry. At present, the workers working in container terminals want to queue up to join the construction industry but cannot get any break. At present, dozens of crane operators at the container terminals want to join the construction industry as crane operators, but how did it turn out? A construction company ― I am not going to name it ― could only give me one vacancy in 10 weeks. Subsequently, I made enquiries with the Construction Industry Council and the reply I got was that there were not enough vacancies for crane operators, then it said that the companies concerned had to deal with this matter on their own. However, after the matter was referred to the companies concerned for action, for reasons unknown, it was always impossible for my group of workers to join the queue. Maybe there are already many people in the queue.
It can thus be seen that there is a need for training in this regard. Some people are queuing up to find jobs but there are not enough training facilities for 320 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 workers in the construction industry and now, it is even said that labour has to be imported. In fact, why are arrangements not put in place for training properly? Why do we not do a good job of occupational safety and health, so that young people and their parents or family members can all be proud of being a construction worker? In fact, at present, such an effect can already be seen, so we should by no means import labour, rather, we should encourage workers to pursue development in this field and the effect would be even better. However, some Members have begun to mention the importation of labour, thus offsetting the results of past efforts. It turns out that all the infrastructure projects are designed for the business sector and to put the GDP in a better light, while the wages of workers are still suppressed and they have no other employment options. In view of this, for whom is the infrastructure actually intended?
Therefore, I think that infrastructure planning as a whole has to involve the people and be formulated by them, instead of looking at it from the angle of the small-circle interests of the functional constituencies represented by Members. All of us should consider it together. However, at present, the entire planning has run out of hand, probable because all parties have no confidence (The buzzer sounded)…
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE, your speaking time is up.
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): … in Secretary Paul CHAN.
MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I am promoting planning for the functional constituency represented by me. The most important point in the motion moved by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok is to drive economic development by means of infrastructure development in Hong Kong. In the past, several instances of using infrastructure to promote investment could be found. For example, in the 1990s, there was the Hong Kong Airport Core Programme costing hundreds of billion dollars and in recent years, the Chief Executive of the previous term, Mr Donald TSANG, also launched 10 Major Infrastructure Projects, hoping to drive economic development by means of hardware infrastructure.
This kind of economic thinking of the Keynesian Economics is aimed at creating demand and revitalizing the economy by means of expenditure by a big LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 321
Government. There is no doubt that this will lead directly to an increase in infrastructure projects and employment opportunities for the construction industry and relevant professionals. However, is it an established law that increasing government expenditure would lead to overall economic growth? This is a debatable issue. Whether or not government investment can create the so-called multiplier effect often depends on other factors, for example, the interest rate and inflation then prevailing and the effects of the global economic situation. Moreover, this also depends on whether or not the infrastructure projects per se represent value for money and whether or not they can drive local development.
Basically, as a mature economy, Hong Kong's infrastructure network can be described as highly mature after several decades of development. The latest Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum points out that Hong Kong's infrastructure, including transport, power supply and communication, ranks the first globally.
President, here, I am not denying the importance of hardware infrastructure development in Hong Kong. In fact, I support Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's motion. If any infrastructure project has long-term positive benefits for Hong Kong, it absolutely merits our support. However, one major point I wish to raise is that investment in infrastructure may not necessarily lead to long-term economic growth. Although in the 1970s or 1990s, infrastructure development, which was at its peak, successfully enabled Hong Kong to achieve further progress, according to the Forbes magazine, in Hong Kong nowadays, our GDP has reached US$45,944, ranking eighth globally and our economy is one of the mature and well-developed ones. Therefore, our emphasis and priority in the development of our economy should be determined having regard to the actual situation, as sole reliance on implementing infrastructure projects cannot make the economy develop in a sustained and continual manner.
In the Global Competitiveness Report mentioned by me just now, when compared to the year before, Hong Kong's latest rank has risen two places to seventh. Apart from the infrastructure projects mentioned by me just now, in the two pillars of "efficiency enhancement" and "financial market development", Hong Kong also has a very high ranking, being the first; whereas in "goods market efficiency" and "labour market efficiency", it also ranked second and third respectively. Judging from the rankings, Hong Kong enjoys greater advantage in the several aforementioned pillars in the international community.
322 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
According to the definition of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a knowledge-based economy refers to economies which are based on the production, distribution and use of knowledge and information. Cities developing towards a knowledge-based economy have several characteristics, including firstly, continuous innovation, high-end talents, strong financial support for high-technology industries. In Hong Kong, knowledge-based economy has been the subject of discussion for many years but has our development strategy actually moved in such a direction? In the Global Competitiveness Report, our rankings in many pillars are a disgrace, lagging far behind others, for example, we ranked 19th in "business sophistication" and 31st and 23rd in "health and primary education" and "innovation" respectively. The report also recommends that Hong Kong must make improvements in its higher education and development of technological innovation.
President, in the aforementioned report, the areas in which Hong Kong is lagging behind the general trend mentioned can be categorized into items related to social infrastructure. The concern in social infrastructure is adopting the perspective of sustainable development of society as a whole and turning Hong Kong into a society in which various classes can give play to their potentials in a sustained manner in such areas as education, culture and health, and into a place that can also continually attract and retain talents. Part of Mr Charles Peter MOK's amendment also targets the backwardness of Hong Kong's social infrastructure and puts forward strategies. President, in my motion next week, there will also be a debate on social infrastructure.
President, I so submit.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's original motion. I think that as the representative of the engineering sector, this motion moved by Ir Dr LO to urge the Government to "expeditiously formulate long-term infrastructure planning, properly conduct public consultation, correspondingly allocate resources" is most comprehensive, timely and appropriate. The Government's planning on infrastructure should be forward-looking, in particular, inter-departmental co-operation is necessary and the shortcoming of various departments working separately should be overcome before long-term infrastructure planning can be formulated as soon as possible.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 323
Why have I raised this point in particular? I wish to cite several major, medium and minor examples to let the Secretary and the senior management of the Government see why I say that there should be foresight and why the situation of various departments being fragmented must be put to an end and that various departments have to co-operate.
The first example is related to the manufacture of proprietary Chinese medicine. The Government is now introducing GMP, that is, Good Manufacturing Practices. This measure taken by the Government offers no cause for complaint and it is being implemented by the Food and Health Bureau. However, has the Government taken any complementary measures in terms of infrastructure? It seems there is nothing of the sort.
In fact, the relevant panel of the Legislative Council once held a public hearing and invited the industry to voice their views. They all asked if the Government had provided any support in terms of factories, facilities and training for workers while the Government was implementing GMP. For example, the authorities require factories to be more than 10 feet tall, but where can they find this kind of factories? If the Development Bureau does not co-ordinate with the relevant departments, it would be just empty talk to require the adoption of GMP in the manufacture of proprietary Chinese medicine in Hong Kong. This is one of the examples.
The second example is the extension of the South Island Line. Residents unanimously and strongly demand that the railway be extended to Wah Kwai Estate, Wah Fu Estate and connected to Queen Mary Hospital, so that it can serve the entire Hong Kong Island. But we can see that government departments just adopts the approach of crossing the bridge when coming to it. They can see such a step, however, the next step remains to be taken and no decision has been made. As a result, problems have arisen. Another example is that residents demand that the Island Line be extended from Chai Wan to Siu Sai Wan and their wish is very clear. They have been making this demand for over a decade but the Government remains unwilling to give the green light despite the passage of a long time. Recently, I heard a rumour saying that we should not be impatient and that the project would only be implemented only a little bit later. Is that really so? Therefore, I believe that there must be overall co-ordination for these infrastructure projects among various government departments and one cannot just "cross the bridge when one comes to it".
324 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Finally, I wish to cite a minor example. There is a piece of land which has been left vacant for many years next to the Siu Sai Wan Complex. The site is under the management of the Hospital Authority (HA). Although residents strongly demand that healthcare and medical facilities be provided there, so far, the site is still "taking a sun bath" and security guards have even been hired to keep guard over it, so this is really over the top. This example precisely illustrates the lack of co-operation among departments and the inappropriate allocation of government resources. This is also a problem and inadequacy pointed out by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok in his original motion. I can still cite many examples but the major, medium and minor examples cited by me can already illustrate this point adequately.
President, I have some reservations about Mr Charles MOK's amendment because he only mentioned the development of the IT sector. This is certainly no cause for complaint but the problem is that the wording of his amendment mentions "Digital New Town Development", in particular, the reference to "promote the development of areas such as … wireless network coverage … extend these new technology infrastructure facilities to the whole territory …".
President, recently, I chaired a complaints meeting and now, I have brought alone the strong complaints presented by residents at the complaints meeting. They pointed out that currently, there is practically no regulation over the pollution of radiofrequency radiation. On that day, residents from Tsim Sha Tsui, Causeway Bay, North Point, Wong Chuk Hang, Mong Kok and Sai Wan Ho said that the installation of transmitters on the rooftops of buildings was virtually subject to no regulation. For example, on the rooftop of a building in Causeway Bay, a total of 13 transmitters were installed and all of them are oriented towards residents' beds at the distance of less than 10 ft away, thus causing insomnia and mental disturbance among many residents, and even children suffer from sleeplessness. Among the members of the public who came to lodge the complaint with us, one of them had a brain tumor precisely because of such exposure for an extended period of time. However, the regulation of radiofrequency radiation pollution in Hong Kong is quite backward and an outdated standard which is 50 times that of Shenzhen is adopted.
In view of this, since Mr Charles Peter MOK proposed "Digital New Town Development", we hope that Mr MOK will follow up the measures taken by the Government to regulate radiofrequency radiation. In addition, for the sake of public health, the existing laws should also be amended and relevant regulation LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 325 imposed. Otherwise, if such full implementation and full coverage is introduced unilaterally, our health would be seriously affected by radiofrequency radiation.
I hope Secretary Paul CHAN would bring the issues pointed out by me here back with him for consideration by the relevant departments. As regards the introduction of such facilities in newly built public housing and government buildings as mentioned in Mr MOK's amendment, I also believe that it is necessary to consult the public, and we definitely cannot do so unilaterally. Thank you, President.
MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, there is a shortage of usable land resources in Hong Kong. In recent years, the effect of land shortage restraining economic development has begun to surface. Be it the housing needs of the public or business expansion in the business sector, they are all constrained by high land prices and rent increases, so all SMEs are moaning in misery. If Hong Kong is to develop in a sustained manner, long-term infrastructure planning is needed. The original motion proposed the timely provision of adequate land and various supporting infrastructure facilities to boost the economy and promote employment. This think is very much in line with the actual situation in Hong Kong.
Take the Hong Kong International Airport as an example, more than two decades ago, when the Government decided to build the airport, the positioning is very clear. In terms of hardware, not only was the airport intended to be the best one in the region, and also in terms of complementary facilities, plans were proposed in the light of the actual situation then, including allocating and reclaiming land on Chek Lap Kok, improving transport links with the urban area and making reasonable arrangements for commercial and residential land use. Looking in retrospection at the 15 years since the commissioning of the airport, although there is still a lot of room for improvement, generally speaking, the design at that time was quite forward-looking and that explains why in the keen competition between the airport in Hong Kong with the other airports in the region and even throughout the world, the former can still maintain a leading edge. This is attributable to the far-sighted planning.
In recent years, many of the urban development projects of the Government have fallen into the bizarre circle of making plans but having no planning. Although quite a good job is done with regard to the airport in Hong Kong, the 326 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 planning for Lantau, on which the airport is located, has not been followed up and implemented having regard to the planning in the past. As a result, the potential of such complementary facilities as convention facilities, control points, transport and hotels cannot be fully realized. The number of residents in the district is in an imbalance and there is a mismatch between the working population and jobs, so Yat Tung Estate has even become another community of sadness. Lantau possesses very good tourism resources but the residents there cannot enjoy them. All these are the consequences of a lack of comprehensive and long-term planning.
Meanwhile, the old airport at Kai Tak, which was vacated due to the removal to the new airport, is a valuable piece of land that is hard to come by. Not to mention construction projects that have not yet been implemented, if we carry out an analysis based solely on the newly commissioned Kai Tak Cruise Terminal and the future Kai Tak Development Area to see how they can interact with Kowloon East and tourism in Hong Kong, there is already a great deal of scope for development and the issues worth exploration include:
First, the issue of the positioning of the cruise terminal and the Kai Tak Development Area in Kowloon East. In the Draft Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plan approved by the Executive Council in September 2012, the Kai Tak site was proposed to be developed as the "Heritage, Green, Sports and Tourism Hub of Hong Kong". This prime site would incorporate various uses, such as residential, cultural and sports, tourism and recreational ones. Given the positioning of the Kai Tak New Area, before the commissioning of new sports and tourism facilities, the Government should take the lead to use the cruise terminal now in operation as the vanguard and combine it with the traditional tourism components in Kowloon East to gradually realize the positive value of tourism in that area.
Second, the issue of the positioning of Kowloon East in tourism development in Hong Kong. With the increasing number of Mainland tourists, the capacity of traditional tourism areas is becoming inadequate. The Government should carry out planning for the tourism complementary facilities in Kowloon East anew, so that it can become a new tourism bright spot in Hong Kong and give visitors more choices. In the Chief Executive's Policy Address in 2003, it was proposed that the Kai Tak Fantasy be built on the former runway in Kai Tak and Kowloon East be energized into a commercial and trade zone. When this district is made up of various tourism elements, it can perform the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 327 function of diverting visitors without causing nuisance to the residents in the district, so it is necessary to rely on planning to achieve reasonable deployment.
Third, the issue of the positioning of the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal in the tourism market in the Asia-Pacific Region. The objective of building the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal is to "develop Hong Kong as a leading regional cruise hub in the Asia-Pacific Region". To become the leading tourism homeport in the Asia-Pacific Region, first, it is necessary to have an abundant source of clients. In the first year or two after the commissioning of the terminal, it is estimated that the source of clients for Hong Kong would increase steadily but a few years after that, if we want to maintain a large and stable source of clients, it is necessary to rely on the sources of clients in the Pearl River Delta Region and South China to drive the growth.
Two years later, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link will be commissioned one after the other and a large number of visitors will be brought to Hong Kong through various channels. If the clients outside Hong Kong rely solely on the existing local complementary transport facilities to go to the cruise terminal, the facilities cannot meet the need of developing the sources of clients at all. The Government should plan ahead and prepare for the time when more and more cruise lines would use Hong Kong as the homeport by making preparations for the complementary transport facilities linking various control points with the cruise terminal, so as to enhance the reception capacity of the cruise terminal and the degree of convenience, thereby forging Hong Kong into a genuine tourism homeport in the Asia-Pacific Region.
President, first-rate infrastructure development can drive the development of the relevant industries and well-conceived complementary facilities can link up scattered resources to enhance the value of a district. If Hong Kong can make preparations early, it can avoid being replaced by its surrounding areas, thus achieving the ultimate goal of revitalizing the economy and promoting employment.
President, I so submit.
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, my thanks go to Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok for proposing a motion today on long-term infrastructure development 328 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 for discussion by Members. I believe Members have a consensus in discussing this question, that is, a long-term planning awareness and a holistic concept are essential. All kinds of development must be people-oriented, with serving the people as the primary goal and basis. Despite the positive economic results that may be achieved by development, the latter must not be pursued for the sake of the economy as well as its own sake.
When it comes to a holistic concept and visionary planning, the future population growth and distribution must be taken into account. Therefore, a comprehensive population policy is most crucial. Without knowing the future population growth, it is impossible to project the extent of their basic need which has to be addressed in the future, including transport, housing, community facilities and healthcare demands. Such being the case, from what perspective should planning be made? Depending on the education and quality of these people, we have to determine Hong Kong's future economic development and make more planning correspondingly.
After all, a population policy is absolutely crucial. We can hardly discuss how to pursue infrastructure development without grasping the population policy properly. Hence, I am not making use of the subject to make a fuss. I just hope to point out in concrete terms that, if Hong Kong is to properly pursue its long-term infrastructure development independently, it must ensure that the development is targeted and compatible with the people-oriented and social development needs in a sustainable manner. To achieve this, we must strive for playing a dominant role and autonomy, which means that efforts must be made to lobby the Central Government for the authority to vet and approve the entry of future Mainland immigrants and even determine the number of immigrants. If this crucially important matter cannot be addressed properly, I believe future design and planning will be affected by all sorts of uncertainties.
When it comes to infrastructure support, as I pointed out earlier, it definitely hinges on population distribution, demographic structure and the education level of the people, which together will determine whether Hong Kong can proceed in the direction of knowledge-based economy and have the conditions to develop high-technology industries before an infrastructure layout can be mapped out properly. At present, we can actually see a lot of cases of mismatch.
Just now, many colleagues already pointed out a very simple phenomenon, that is, a large part of the population is now concentrated in the New Territories. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 329
In the future, we will only find more and more people living in the New Territories, even New Territories North. However, there are fewer job opportunities in the area. As a result, the daily flow of people goes from North to South when they go to work and vice versa when they go off work. Our railway network also runs in the North-South direction. This phenomenon is certainly attributed to the existing structure, as local job opportunities are mostly concentrated on Hong Kong Island and in Kowloon, thereby causing many problems of traffic congestion and exorbitant transport expenses. As a result, many people cannot go to work because of these factors. Very often, there is a manpower mismatch, meaning that vacancies are left unfilled on Hong Kong Island, but workers remain unemployed in the New Territories. It is mainly because the wages offered by labour-intensive industries are not high, and yet their working hours are comparatively long. People will find these industries even less attractive if they have to travel a long way to work and pay exorbitant transport expenses.
For these reasons, as pointed out just now by Mr WU Chi-wai of the Democratic Party, there is indeed a need to develop the satellite city concept in the future and study the feasibility of relocating the Government's numerous major facilities to new commercial areas, or even relocating such major facilities as government complexes to other districts. This is very crucial.
On the other hand, I would also like to point out that a balance must be struck between other social objectives in pursuing development. To emphasize quality life, we must explore ways to conserve the environment and monuments, as well as preserving our collective memories. Hence, the comments made by many people regarding restricting reclamation, avoiding the acquisition of green belts, and protecting country parks, are understandable. Although just now the Secretary appeared to describe the third airport runway as a project that will definitely go ahead, it is actually not entirely right for him to say so because, to my understanding, the project has yet to get the green light. A feasibility study is still going on, and there are still a lot of disputes. In this regard, besides the demands of the economy, we still have to assess the possibility of resolving the serious noise pollution problems and the impacts on the marine ecology environment. A conclusion has yet to be drawn about all these.
For these reasons, we must handle the matter carefully while striking a balance between other social objectives, that is, the need for environmental protection. Furthermore, a good policy tool must be used in pursuing 330 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 development. Let me cite the Tsoi Yuen Tsuen as an example. It was already not bad for the Government to take special measures for special problems. Very often, there is even a lack of good and reasonable tools for land resumption. As pointed out by Mr Steven HO just now, many fishermen have not received proper rehousing and compensation yet. Actually, the same goes for many farmer villages. There is bound to be strong resistance should the Government fail to address all this properly.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, the motion proposed by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok today, entitled "Formulating long-term infrastructure planning to promote sustainable development", is excellent and to the point, so to speak.
As Hong Kong's present social development lacks a direction, social development is in a mess: a lack of space for accommodation, housing construction and even hiking. Things like these are attributed to the Government's lack of long-term infrastructure planning and a direction for sustainable development.
Despite my support for the direction of the original motion, I am concerned that the proposals therein cannot be put into implementation. Not only am I very worried, I do not have any high hopes either. Why? It is difficult to proceed in the relevant direction if the several crucially important problems cannot be resolved.
The first problem concerns the population policy. The speech delivered by Mr Albert HO just now is very clear, and I strongly agree with him, too. There is no way to make planning without a population policy. Because it is impossible to project the production of flats and kindergartens ― this is precisely the problem faced by kindergartens. Nor is it possible to forecast the production of community facilities.
Wrong measures will be implemented in the absence of a population policy because the Government will engage in massive production of certain facilities if they are found to be inadequate. Doing so will lead to imbalanced development and unsatisfactory result. Hence, in the absence of a comprehensive and forward-looking population policy which can act as a framework, long-term planning can hardly be implemented, not to mention the pursuit of sustainable development.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 331
The second problem is related to real estate hegemony. Development can hardly be pursued if we cannot break the real estate hegemony. Let me cite Hung Shui Kiu as an example. Despite the Government's intention to develop the area, the local residents find that the leading role played by the Government is very weak. Why? It is because a large plot of land in Hung Shui Kiu is private land. Although the Government might wish to discuss with real estate developers ways to make planning for development, the latter might regard the former as not worthy of serious consideration. It is because the developers believe they can pursue development on their own without relying on the Government. There is nothing the Government can do even if the developers have a different intent of development. Hence, so long as real estate hegemony remains, there is no way for the Government to properly plan for community building. This is the second point.
The third problem is related to the problem before us ― a serious housing shortage. In order to resolve the housing problem faced by the middle class and the grassroots, the Government has resorted to blindly scrambling for land and building flats in an indiscriminate manner without regard to community development as a whole. Its approach of making use of every single site will compromise community development overall. Its messy approach of construction and lack of community planning is not only unsatisfactory but also imbalanced, because planning obstacles will arise in future. The Government's present approach of making use of every single site for housing construction does not take into account the needs of the community and demographic development.
President, let me cite the town centre of Yuen Long as an example. It is the view of many residents that the Government allows property developers to build a large number of private flats without considering whether Yuen Long can accommodate a large population. On Sundays or even weekdays, Yuen Long Main Road is simply blocked, with its originally narrow footpaths crowded with people. It is simply impossible for one to get through.
President, the situation at light rail stations is even more appalling. Although the platforms are packed with waiting commuters, the frequency of the trains is inadequate. So, what can be done? What is the Government's planning all about? The Government has ignored everything but continued with its approach of making use of every single site for housing construction, thereby causing all sorts of problems.
332 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
The West Rail is also another problem. Although its development appears to be very satisfactory, the West Rail has nearly reached its full capacity. Despite the revelation made by official figures that it has merely reached 60% of its capacity, this is actually not the case. It is already unable to cope during peak hours. I have been told by many residents that they cannot board the trains even having waited for three or four trains. Despite the present situation, the Government still insists on expanding the population and building more flats without regard to the balanced development of the district. How can further planning be made in the future? How can sustainable development be pursued? It is simply impossible. The present approach of blindly scrambling for land has produced a lot of undesirable effects.
Furthermore, in order to gag the public, the Government indicated earlier that it would identity sites in every part of the territory for the construction of different types of buildings, but it turned out that the golf course in Northeast New Territories was spared. As a result, many people queried why the golf course was spared from the construction of flats. But then, the Government suddenly changed its mind and indicated that some areas would be recovered for the construction of low density buildings. Such being the case, the future development of the relevant site will definitely be restricted, and it is impossible for comprehensive development to be carried out.
The approach adopted by the Government to resolve its popularity problem and the housing problem facing the public can be described as "messy". Because of its approach of making use of every single site for housing construction, overall planning is not taken into account. As a result, sustainable development and planning will simply be out of the question in future. Given the messy conditions, it is simply impossible for planning to be made for the future. It will be extremely difficult to make ideal planning for the future, too.
Most importantly, the Government does not listen to the voices of the people. Moreover, it has completely ignored the views of the people.
The fourth problem is related to the lack of community participation. Insofar as community development is concerned, the responses of the masses are the most concrete. Nevertheless, the Government has paid no respect for public opinion. In the course of development, it sticks to its will without regard to the voices of the people. For instance, despite the calls voiced by many residents in Hung Shui Kiu, the Government has chosen to discriminate against these LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 333 non-indigenous residents, determined to "exterminate their village and clan" by removing five non-indigenous villages without taking into consideration their present living conditions and aspirations and listening to their feelings. The Government does not care about anything. It is only determined to "exterminate their village and clan", such that a balance (The buzzer sounded) … cannot be struck in community development. This is why I hope there is democratic participation …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, the speaking time is up.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): … in community development
MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, at the turn of the last century, Hong Kong could be described as renowned for its infrastructure facilities. However, it has gradually lost its edge over the past eight to 10 years. In recent years, very often great controversies would arise when many major infrastructure projects, including the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD), the subsequent Express Rail Link and Kai Tak development, as well as the recent North East New Territories New Development Areas Project, got the go-ahead. Many people would complain that they had not been consulted, or they had no idea of the project until then, thus forcing the suspension or delay of such projects. Let us look at some Asian cities, such as Singapore, which has often been regarded as our competitor. The Marina Bay reclamation area in Singapore, for instance, has received growing attention from the international community. Members can often see the coverage of Gardens by the Bay or Marina Bay Sands in travel magazines. However, the commencement of the construction of Gardens by the Bay was not announced until 2005. Meanwhile, Marina Bay Sands was completed in 2010 for commissioning in 2012, though its construction commenced in 2006 only.
Let us study carefully the planning strategy adopted by the Singaporean Government. In its opinion, these facilities should not be built for the sake of city development. Neither should they serve the sole purpose of building some "white elephants" for the sake of drumming up support. However, at the turn of the last century, the Singaporean Government already began to consciously plan for the development of its finance industry, and its layout plan has already borne fruit. From gradual planning to completion, we can see that it had very clear 334 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 and long-term planning and development policies to enable major infrastructure to progressively dovetail with its direction of economic development for gradual implementation.
I would like to respond to the speeches delivered by colleagues earlier. Just now, Mr Jeffrey LAM pointed out the labour shortage problems encountered in Singapore when major infrastructure projects were carried out. Some colleagues also attributed the tight supply of labour for infrastructure projects to labour mismatch, which had also resulted in inadequate job opportunities. However, I wish to point out, as Mr Jeffrey LAM said just now, even if the Singaporean Government had come up with labour policies to complement its infrastructure projects, local residents were still dissatisfied with the policies. Businessmen might not understand this situation very well. If they get in touch with members of the public or taxi drivers in Singapore, they will hear their discontent with their Government's labour policies. Therefore, during the development of major infrastructure projects, we should not harbour the wishful thinking that importation of labour is the only way to facilitate infrastructure development. Instead, we should put emphasis on the nurturing of local talents.
Compared to the past many years, the support for the ruling party in the recent election in Singapore has dropped, partly attributable to the local residents' dissatisfaction with the Government's labour policies and the prevailing high inflation rate. While we all agree that the Singaporean Government has labour policies to complement its infrastructure development, I hope to remind the authorities, and I also hope the Secretary can pay attention to the fact, that labour policies must be handled properly. Otherwise, people will be dissatisfied with infrastructure development. Worse still, grievances will be stirred up, too.
President, I would like to say a few words about Kaohsiung. The recently developed New Bay Area in Kaohsiung has attracted much attention. It was not until some three years ago that Kaohsiung Mayor CHEN Chu announced the plan to develop the old port of Kaohsiung into Asia New Bay Area and the spending of NT$30 billion, or approximately HK$7.9 billion, on the construction of five major facilities, including an exhibition centre, a cruise terminal and a maritime and cultural centre. She also made it clear that Kaohsiung would be turned into a trade and exhibition, sightseeing and cultural metropolis. While her words still ring in our ears, the exhibition centre was already commissioned this month. Hong Kong will also face competition as a result of the maritime and cultural centre, which is expected to be completed even earlier than the WKCD in Hong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 335
Kong. After the introduction of a new global mindset and implementation of a new vision and strategic planning by the local government in 2008, a consensus on development was gradually fostered by the Government and the community until the green light was given to the implementation of the Asia New Bay Area flagship project and the planned construction of this large group of infrastructure facilities.
This project has not only integrated Kaohsiung's old port district with the neighbouring sites and the Government's public facilities, it has also taken into consideration the landscape and buildings of the city, thereby retaining a diversity of local community economic elements while striving to develop harbourfront investment lots with a competitive edge. The development of Kaohsiung has attracted so much attention that some newspapers have even described it as a threat to Hong Kong. Let us take a closer look. Although Kaohsiung cannot match Hong Kong in terms of the scale of investment in infrastructure, we have to pay attention to the fact that Kaohsiung was capable of completing several major cultural infrastructure projects in a matter of a few years. Moreover, the authorities concerned were capable of planning in a gradual and progressive manner having regard to the original characteristics and advantages of the old districts there. They will not "parachute" all of a sudden industries to the local community which are unrelated to the latter to avoid stifling the local community economy. Compared with the WKCD which has been in the making for years, its planning is really more comprehensive and efficient.
In retrospect, the suspension in recent years of many development proposals in Hong Kong halfway has aroused suspicions about the Government being inefficient in taking forward infrastructure development and given people the impression that it is engaging in discussions without decision, or making decisions without implementation. The Government might say that a comprehensive consultation mechanism is already in place, and people will be consulted on every planning proposal. However, we hope it can understand that in order to cope with changes in the social environment today, it must respond to new developments whenever necessary by setting up an efficient consultation mechanism to allow all stakeholders to express their views during the initial period of infrastructure development planning, so that a consensus can be fostered. As the end users of every infrastructure plan must be Hong Kong people, this is the only way to make long-term infrastructure planning properly. Since these development projects belong to the 7 million people in Hong Kong, we hope the authorities can allow them to express their views, so that a consensus 336 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 can be fostered, rather than focusing on some administrative procedures. The authorities must really adopt a bottom-up approach (The buzzer sounded) … to cater for the needs of the people. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, regarding the proposal put forward by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok on infrastructure development, it is not that there is no infrastructure development in Hong Kong. It is only that the wrong infrastructure is being built. I oppose the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge because, as we can see, it is simply useless to Hong Kong upon completion because it is built to serve Macao and Zhuhai only.
Members of this Council have made it a habit to say that Hong Kong will be marginalized if there are no more bricks and mortar. This is utter nonsense. We are going to have an Express Rail Link (XRL), too. President, you should be able to see the ongoing heated debates, too. Although the current cost overrun has already exceeded $60 billion, it is still not enough. Will there be commuters for the XRL, which costs more than $80 billion to build? With so many ghost cities on the Mainland, are the XRL there able to draw commuters?
We are constantly following others. Some people will say something like this after a study visit, "We might as well do something like that." In my opinion, both infrastructure and the economy should be given the first and paramount consideration. By economy, I do not mean raising productivity, for this is what businessmen and scientists should do. So, what do I mean by economy? I am actually talking about a better distribution of the wealth and resources in our society. As an organ vested with public powers, the Government must perform this task.
My first and paramount task is to launch a land reform campaign when I run in the Chief Executive Election in 2017. Land resources are so precious. The land hoarded by real estate developers ― in comparison, the land hoarded by Paul CHAN is really negligible, right? This is actually the case. I would like to ask Secretary Paul CHAN this question: Will he tell the real estate developers that if the land hoarded by them for such a long time is not used for … for instance, if a plot of agricultural land is not used for cultivation, can section 105 be invoked to resume it? In that case, country parks will be spared, buddy. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 337
Some plots of land were used to build glass, enamel or soy sauce factories, cultivate grass, store containers or even left idle in water when they were resumed. The fact that the land hoarded by developers is more than the land released by the Government, which means that "raw land" can be turned into "ready land" at any time, already constitutes a problem. However, the Government does not do anything about it. Instead, it is wielding the axe at country parks.
President, if I say that I will run in the Chief Executive election and follow in the footsteps of Singapore to ensure that 85% of the population is housed in condominiums, can the Government achieve this goal? Does it have the boldness to carry out land reform? This is the simplest question. Now the so-called land shortage is actually attributed to the hoarding of land by some developers, which has left every one of us oppressed. It is stipulated in law that private land will be spared from resumption for housing or industrial purposes, or construction of a road in the rural areas in the New Territories because land resumption is troublesome. Am I right? Has the Government done anything?
Immediately upon assumption of his office, Donald TSANG expressed his determination to promote the "six major out-and-out damned industries", which meant that the entire family could survive on such industries. Despite the rounds of applause he got in this Council, had he accomplished anything? I pointed out in this Council that his proposal would not work, for it was mere empty talk. Actually, people were still talking about finance and real estate. However, I was criticized by others for having no foresight. Buddy, the land shortage remains unresolved. The education problem … what does education mean? Education requires a long-term and steady approach. Hong Kong has nothing. Some silicon can still be found in the Silicon Valley? Buddy, what should we do? Can happiness be found in the Happy Valley?
Hence, our manpower resources are extremely crucial. President, despite the efforts made by the Government in promoting 15-year free education, early childhood education is in trouble. There are simply not enough school places, not to mention free education. As we all know, more affluent young people will either pursue International Baccalaureate courses or study abroad. What can be done about it? For people who stay in Hong Kong, there is nothing the Government can do to improve education. Am I right? Although the provision of 15-year free education has caused a stir, the Government cannot even handle the incident involving kindergartens. We have requested the Government to raise the age of university students receiving subsidy from 19 to 29, but then the 338 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
Government is unable to do so. Is all this not infrastructure? Buddy, Paul CHAN is again stirring up trouble in response to the request made by the Hong Kong Baptist University to build a campus for its Chinese Medicine institute. Has he dealt with that matter properly? What has he done as the Secretary for Development?
As regards our Chief Executive, I call him "compensated-dating Chief Executive", am I correct? He wears a smile every day, and he smiled even when he met with AQUINO. President, do you know about this incident? Did you watch the television broadcast? After visiting Chongqing and licking the boots of a member of the Chongqing Municipal Administration Commission, who is a subordinate of ZHANG Dejiang, he was told that there would be a new development zone in Chongqing as big as Hong Kong. Wearing a smile, LEUNG Chun-ying said he had to go and find out if there would be business opportunities. Buddy, what business opportunities can there be? If he really wishes to rescue Hong Kong businessmen, he should first go to Dongguan rather than Chongqing.
President, what is going on in Chongqing? A major development zone is being launched there, to be followed by initial public offerings (IPO) and private equity funds speculations, because there is no need for private equity funds to pay tax and investments can be made there, too. The previous stock put up for IPO was said to have enclosed land for the construction of rockets, and another one for aircraft carriers. This was how IPO speculations were made possible. When representatives of the Chongqing Municipal Administration Commission come here, they can join us in doing what we are doing in Qianhai, the Loop area and Northeast New Territories. Buddy, this is what you have been doing. The Government is unable to resolve the housing problems. When it comes to transport, the Mass Transit Railway Corporation Limited (MTRCL) is free to … a colleague of mine protested against monopolization by the MTRCL this morning. The MTRCL service is in a terrible mess because of its monopolization of the market.
President, in this discussion today on development, all Members have focused on one point only. They have not talked about people, education for children and whether they will have promising prospects when they grow up, whether people without a shelter can find a place to live, how the transport problems facing us can be resolved, the need for inexpensive transport, and so on. Such being the case, what is the goal of development?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 339
Simply put, do we eat for the sake of survival, or vice versa? Now, everything is distorted. We are afraid of being marginalized if we fail to complement the Mainland. We have to hurry up to do something because Shanghai is going to be opened up. President, this "compensated-dating Chief Executive" will only betray rather than help us.
MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong used to be a blessed land of milk and honey. But during the past few months, I began to hear more and more people around me say that they would consider emigrating to Taiwan. I can read about this trend in newspapers and magazines, too I think you, President, would agree that the problem about Hong Kong is not that it does not have any money or land. Rather it does not have a government which is democratic and recognized by the people and which has got vision. The Government we have is not able to undertake any long-term infrastructure planning and to let the people of Hong Kong know where Hong Kong would stand 10 or 20 years from now in areas like education, environmental protection, industrial policy and land policy.
It follows that this motion debate proposed by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok today is very meaningful. President, there is a book published recently and I would very much like to recommend that you should read it. This book, published by the former chief adviser of the Central Policy Unit, Leo GOODSTADT, is entitled Poverty in the Midst of Affluence. The book points out the causes of poverty in Hong Kong. It turns out that not long before and after the reunification ― he is not condemning the SAR Government alone ― the problem of policy dysfunction also happened in the colonial government. What was the greatest dysfunction? President, according to GOODSTADT, the greatest blunder is the tilt towards the business sector, especially the real estate developers, and the refusal to lend a helping hand to the disadvantaged. The result is poverty in the midst of affluence as we find in Hong Kong now. He has rightly hit the mark.
GOODSTADT cites the examples of the Cyberport, the dragging of issues like minimum wage and competition law for many years and the fact that the Government surrenders the right to control land to the real estate developers. The result of these is a free-fall situation in the property market. In 2001, the Housing Authority stopped the sale of Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats. In 2002, the Housing Authority cancelled a plan to build HOS flats on 25 lots of land and surrendered 17 of them to the Government, including the one which was 340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 the former site of the North Point Estate, for the purpose of building private-sector housing. As many as over 40 000 public housing units could have been built on these lots.
What about the Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying, now? I have heard him say many times that he was the convenor of the Executive Council. But he seems to know nothing. He tries to shift the blame away from himself. But can he do it? He was the convenor of the Executive Council ever since the reunification and it was because he was in charge of housing policy that he was highly regarded by TUNG Chee-hwa. Therefore, now he cannot possibly shift the blame for the imbalance in housing planning to the former government. In addition, as land policy favours the real estate developers and besides causing the bad consequence of poverty as we see now, it also leads to four major problems which structural in nature. These are, first, monotony in the industrial mix in Hong Kong. This directly leads to the second problem and that is, the absence of prospects for the young people and chances of upward mobility. The third problem is the long-standing imbalance in the property market and hopelessness for middle-class people and the grassroots to buy their own homes. The fourth problem is inadequate land and infrastructure to address the problem of population ageing in Hong Kong.
Owing to the time constraints, I just wish to point out and discuss the problem of monotony in the industrial mix in Hong Kong. Now the industrial mix as we can see is a predominance of the finance industry and an oligarchy of real estate companies. The Civic Party advocates issues like green economy and redefining demand and supply in Hong Kong. We actually made these suggestions three years ago. But it seems that there has been no response from the SAR Government. If the Government is to restructure demand and supply and move towards a green economy, it should consider setting aside land for recycling or setting up a food waste recycling centre and invest in certain green industries.
The Civic Party also advocates the promotion of cultural and artistic industries as well as creative industries. Although Donald TSANG once proposed that these industries be promoted, nothing much has been done and no achievement has been seen. President, you may notice that street performers in Ladies Market have been driven out of existence recently. The authorities say that the venue would only be open for two days in a week. Why should this be so? These people are not hawkers of goods; they are performers. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 341
Government can afford to spend $21.6 billion to build the West Kowloon Cultural District, but it is driving these street performers out of existence. I fail to see the logic in this.
President, education is an important part of infrastructure as well. Nowadays we can hear grumbles and grievances from students and parents in Hong Kong about places of learning from kindergartens up to universities. President, time is really short now, but I wish to point out, we really want to have a government that has political recognition. We should make use of Chief Executive elections which are held once every five years and competitive in nature, and adopt the voting system of "one person, one vote" to map out a blueprint for the next five years. I so submit.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, making improvements to infrastructure in order to drive economic development is a time-honoured creed in a free economy. This is something which every person in Hong Kong firmly believes in. However, with the glaring wealth gap in recent years, the more robust the economy grows, the worse people will suffer. The disparity does not only lie in wealth for there is also inequality in opportunities of development. The zaibatsu can easily control all the shopping malls near an infrastructure project and the people will have to bear the consequences of exorbitant rentals for the commercial premises. Infrastructure projects should originally bring in a huge pedestrian flow and facilitate business operation in the district concerned. But the SAR Government always contracts out the public space to developers and condone their monopolizing all the business opportunities which should be shared by all commercial tenants and even hawkers.
The SAR Government contracts out the ownership and management right of public space to the developers. The stations and platforms of the MTRCL are full of commercial advertisements. Last week, some programmes were even broadcast inside the stations, to the dislike of many people. As we have more infrastructure projects, the public space we enjoy becomes less and less. I do not think this kind of development is what we want.
The MTR is probably the largest infrastructure in Hong Kong. Commuters ride on MTR trains every day and there are 5 million passenger trips daily. The MTR has become a necessity to the people of Hong Kong. But in 342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 the company's insane drive for greater profits, it raises its fares often despite having frequent mechanical failures and incidents. The SAR Government which holds nearly 80% of the shares of the MTRCL does not interfere with anything that the Corporation is doing, and so members of the public are living in great hardship. A number of Members of this Council, including me, have been urging the SAR Government to buy back the MTRCL. But as the former CEO of the MTRCL CHOW Chung-kong has joined the Executive Council, I would think that it is nonsense to talk about urging the SAR Government to exert even the minimal control on the MTRCL.
The most disgusting thing is that the MTRCL is driving out the green space and in the end, the sites become posh homes with screen-like buildings and huge shopping malls. Prominent examples of these can be found in YOHO Town in Yuen Long, Festival City in Tai Wai and LOHAS Park in Tseung Kwan O. Now the MTRCL is building the Island South Line and the Kwun Tong Extension. In 2011, the corporation obtained two lots of land in the former Wong Chuk Hang Estate and the former Valley Road Estate as subsidy. I am afraid in the end these sites will have some multi-storey sealed shopping malls and screen-like buildings on top of the stations. The rents and property prices of the entire areas will surge as a result.
If we want to cite the infrastructure project in Hong Kong which can be called the greatest failure, we must name the Western Harbour Crossing (WHC). The tunnel is operated by a syndicate under a franchise and throughout more than a decade of its commissioning, it has charged expensive tolls have never seen any reduction. The reason is that there is only a scanty traffic flow and it is a tunnel exclusive for the use of rich people or the middle class for commuting between West Kowloon and Central or Sheung Wan. It is in stark contrast to the Cross Harbour Tunnel at Hung Hom which is packed and congested with such a heavy traffic flow.
Since the WHC is unable to reap any profits and cannot benefit the people, it is only a white elephant and a laughing stock in infrastructure. In February, the Transport and Housing Bureau made three proposals on raising the toll for the Cross Harbour Tunnel at Hung Hom and lowering the toll for the Eastern Harbour Crossing. Nothing is done to do anything about the WHC. When a syndicate runs a tunnel and fails to reap any profits, why did the Government not buy back the WHC a few years ago during the financial tsunami when asset price LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013 343 was low? A government like this will fail to achieve anything even if it builds more infrastructure facilities.
I do not oppose the SAR Government increasing infrastructure facilities, but the infrastructure projects launched by the SAR Government are often hijacked by the syndicates, tantamount to betraying the people of Hong Kong. Take the example of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail, originally a terminus could have been built in Kam Sheung Road, Yuen Long or at another location, but the Government was bent on taking care of the interest of the zaibatsu in West Kowloon and so a terminus is arbitrarily erected in West Kowloon. As a result, the construction cost has doubled. The pollution and shocks caused by the construction projects have affected the daily life of people living along the alignment. The cruise terminal at Kai Tak fits in with the project Energizing Kowloon East headed by Carrie LAM, the Chief Secretary for Administration, so one will certainly find the Kai Tak area another disaster-stricken area as the developers scramble for land to build luxury homes and huge shopping malls.
Recently, I watched a television programme called Face to Face. The host of the programme is an outspoken person, but he was made speechless when he met Gordon WU. Gordon WU asked him what was the point of keeping so much land as country parks and why should the land not be used to build public housing estates. We are flabbergasted to see that he did not know how to answer. The other day when I hosted a programme on the Internet with another person, we pointed out together that it was precisely because we had country parks that we had not gone out of our mind. Secretary Paul CHAN has also set his eye on the country parks and that is why these developers echo his view. But I wish to remind him not to lay hands on these country parks. And what he is doing with the infrastructure projects is but a scam.
After these infrastructure projects are finalized, the immediate consequence we can see is a surge in property prices and rents in the district concerned. The financial benefits thus derived are shared among the big consortia. But the social costs like pollution, congestion and inflation are all borne by the public. When the SAR Government formulates long-term infrastructure plans, just whose needs in development does it want to satisfy? May I ask Secretary Paul CHAN, who vows not to step down, which social groups he is serving? Development, countless heinous crimes are committed in thy name!
344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 October 2013
The focus of the motion proposed by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok is place more on transport than the environment. The Environmental Bureau had put forth the argument that landfills are a necessity in infrastructure facilities for waste disposal. The Bureau then tried to hard sell the proposals to expand the Tuen Mun and Ta Kwu Ling landfills. The result was a fiasco in this Council. From this it can be seen that this Government has lost its orientation in formulating or launching a policy. This accounts for the fact that our infrastructure facilities in environmental protection lag far behind that of many countries. And this is not a problem with hardware but software. The problem with software means accountable Directors of Bureaux like Paul CHAN just will not get up from their seats and go. Just think what good things can they ever do? With respect to this motion, we might as well save the trouble of hearing his reply.
Infrastructure in Hong Kong only benefits the giant consortia and developers, whereas the common people are no more than victims.
Thank you, President.
SUSPENSION OF MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 5.15 pm tomorrow.
Suspended accordingly at Ten o'clock.