LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6775

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 20 May 2020

The Council met at Eleven o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6776 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6777

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

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

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

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

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

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN, J.P.

6778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

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

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

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

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6779

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

THE HONOURABLE JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, S.B.S., P.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

PROF THE HONOURABLE SOPHIA CHAN SIU-CHEE, J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER HUI CHING-YU, J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY

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

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

6780 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.

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

LAYING OF PAPERS ON THE TABLE OF THE COUNCIL

The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:

Subsidiary Legislation Legal Notice No.

Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) (Certification and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulation 2020 ...... 68 of 2020

Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) (General) (Amendment) Regulation 2020...... 69 of 2020

Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) (Safety and Survey) (Amendment) Regulation 2020...... 70 of 2020

Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) (Fees) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulation 2020 ...... 71 of 2020

Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) (Amendment) Regulation 2020...... 72 of 2020

Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution) (Amendment) Regulation 2020...... 73 of 2020

Stamp Duty Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 8) Regulation 2020 ...... 74 of 2020

Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Public Pleasure Grounds) (Amendment of Fourth Schedule) (No. 2) Order 2020 ...... 75 of 2020

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6781

Road Traffic (Breath Analysing Instruments, Screening Devices and Pre-screening Devices) (Amendment) Notice 2020 ...... 76 of 2020

Road Traffic (Rapid Oral Fluid Test Instruments) Notice ...... 77 of 2020

Road Traffic (Amendment) Ordinance 2011 (Commencement) Notice 2020 ...... 78 of 2020

Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulation 2020 ...... 82 of 2020

Other Papers

Securities and Futures Commission Approved budget of income and expenditure for the financial year 2020/2021

Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation Annual Report 2019 (including Financial Statements and Independent Auditor's Report)

Report of the Bills Committee on Professional Accountants (Amendment) Bill 2018

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. First question. Mr Paul TSE.

(Mr James TO indicated his wish to raise a point)

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

6782 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): I suggest that we observe a one minute's silence to mourn the death of the late Mr Allen LEE, a former Legislative Council Member.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TO proposed to observe a one minute's silence in memory of the late Mr Allen LEE, a former Legislative Council Member.

Just like all fellow Members, I learn with deep regret of the death of Mr Allen LEE, and on behalf of this Council, I would like to extend our profound condolences to his family.

However, according to the usual practice of this Council, as far as Legislative Council Members are concerned, we will only allow the observance of silence to mourn the death of a serving Member.

Therefore, will Members please express their condolences for Mr Allen LEE on other occasions or by other means.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, please raise your question.

Relief measures of the Government

1. MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, while I understand that this is the usual practice of this Council, I would like to express my deep condolences here.

President, the social incidents, which have persisted for more than half a year, have dealt a heavy blow to Hong Kong's economy. Then, the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic (formerly referred to as "novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia") has been sweeping across the globe, plummeting the global economy and stock markets. Some members of the accounting sector have predicted that if the Government does not implement additional relief measures, the economy of Hong Kong may fall further, with bankruptcy and winding up cases reaching a peak in August this year and registering a huge year-on-year increase of 20% to 30%. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6783

(1) whether it will raise the amount of the cash handout to each adult Hong Kong Permanent Resident to $20,000, and collaborate with the banking sector so that banks may, upon receiving signed authorizations from individual clients and having verified the latter's eligibility for receiving the sum, disburse the sum in advance, so as to address the urgent needs of members of the public; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) as members of the public filing bankruptcy petitions are currently required to deposit with the Official Receiver a sum of $8,000 and pay a court fee of $1,045, whether the Government will, in view of the expected emergence of a surge of bankruptcy, offer concessions on the relevant fees or make such payments on behalf of the persons concerned, so as to prevent an increasing number of members of the public from suffering the hardship of "failing even to afford the payments for bankruptcy applications"; and

(3) in view of the suggestion made by some senior scholars well versed in real estate and economics that the titles (with resale restrictions) of the public housing units held by the Housing Authority, the total estimated value of which amounts to $100 billion, be transferred for free to those sitting tenants who have resided in the units for 10 or more years, so that the management and maintenance expenses, which are close to $20 billion a year, can thus be saved and reallocated to meeting expenses on public housing development and provision of support for the sandwich and middle class (e.g. providing tax concessions, rent subsidies or home purchase support), whether the Government will consider this suggestion; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, we understand fully that the social events last year and the COVID-19 pandemic have brought immense impact to various industries and sectors. The Government has launched four rounds of relief measures amounting to more than $30 billion between August and December last year. Since the beginning of this year, three rounds of measures totalling $287.5 billion to assist the affected industries and the public were announced, including the first round of $30 billion relief measures under the Anti-epidemic Fund in February; 6784 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 the $120 billion relief package in the 2020-2021 Budget; and the second round of $137.5 billion relief measures under the Anti-epidemic Fund in April. The Government will closely monitor the situation in the community and continue to implement counter-cyclical measures and provide targeted support to enterprises and the general public for riding out the crisis together.

After consultation with the Transport and Housing Bureau, our reply to Mr Paul TSE's question is as follows:

(1) The Cash Payout Scheme ("the Scheme") announced by the Financial Secretary in his Budget will disburse $10,000 to each Hong Kong permanent resident aged 18 or over with a view to encouraging and boosting local consumption, and relieving people's financial burden. It is expected to benefit about 7 million people. For the amount of disbursement, having thoroughly considered all the counter-cyclical and mitigation measures and their financial impact, we consider $10,000 an appropriate amount. The preparation work for the Scheme has reached its final stage. We will announce the details as soon as possible. The Government's target is to strive to commence registration in end June and start making payment within July. We expect that majority of the 7 million eligible citizens will receive payment by the end of August. The proposal mentioned in Mr TSE's question will also require authorization from the party concerned to use his/her personal data and to perform verification of eligibility. It will not expedite payment disbursement time in practice.

(2) As for the bankrupts, Rule 52 of the Bankruptcy Rules (Cap. 6A) provides that the debtor shall deposit a sum of $8,000 with the Official Receiver's Office ("ORO") upon presentation of bankruptcy petition against himself. ORO does not have the discretionary power to waive or reduce the deposit. The deposit is for covering costs and expenses in processing the bankruptcy case, e.g. the accountable and advanced costs incurred in gazetting and publishing statutory notices, charges for conducting various searches (e.g. bank search, land search and company search), expenses incurred in the service of notices, statutory court fees, etc. In fact, our policy is that the fees charged should in general be set at levels adequate to recover the full costs of providing the services to ensure that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6785

costs for providing the services do not fall on the general taxpayers. It is also a common international practice to require a debtor to pay a deposit upon presentation of bankruptcy petition against himself. The arrangements in Hong Kong are similar to those adopted in other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and Singapore. The current amount of deposit for debtor's bankruptcy petition against himself was revised in 2013 (from the then level of $8,650 to the current level of $8,000). ORO will keep in view the cost recovery situation of the relevant services and will consider reviewing the deposit amount where necessary. As for the $1,045 court fee payable to the High Court for filing a debtor's petition, the fee level, same as fees for commencement of other causes or matters, is stipulated in the High Court Fees Rules (Cap. 4D).

(3) Public rental housing ("PRH") units are valuable public assets. Transferring the ownership of PRH units to PRH tenants for free is not in line with the principle of effective use of public money and housing resources, especially amid a public housing supply that can yet to satisfy the demand in society at the moment. Furthermore, transferring the ownership of PRH units to sitting tenants will also drastically reduce the number of PRH units available for allocation, which will severely lengthen the waiting time for families applying for PRH. Therefore, the suggestion of transferring the ownership of PRH units for free is not feasible.

The greatest challenge in relation to public housing is the shortage of land supply. We will strive to identify land under a multi-pronged approach so as to effectively resolve the housing problem in the long run. We will also continue to maximize the use of the land secured for public housing construction.

Furthermore, in recent years, the Government has also proposed various short- and medium-term support measures to meet people's housing needs and home ownership aspirations, as well as relieve the housing problem. These measures include accelerating the sale of unsold flats in Tenants Purchase Scheme estates; expediting the sale of Home Ownership Scheme and Green Form Subsidized Home Ownership Scheme flats; further increasing the quota for White Form Secondary Market Scheme; launching Starter Homes for Hong 6786 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Kong Residents pilot project; increasing the supply of transitional housing; and on a trial basis, providing a cash allowance to eligible General Applicant households who are not living in PRH, not receiving Comprehensive Social Security Assistance and have been waiting for PRH for more than three years.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, I would first of all like to extend my welcome to the Secretary, who comes to answer our questions in this Council for the first time. With regard to public housing, I do not expect the Secretary or the current-term Government to think out of the box and make the very revolutionary move to implement my proposed policy. As for raising the amount of the cash handout from $10,000 to $20,000, judging from the reply given by the Secretary just now, consideration will also not be given to the idea. Since no actions will be taken to follow up on issues of greatest and greater concern, let us focus only on the minor issue of the fees paid for bankruptcy applications.

As pointed out by the Secretary in the main reply, there is a need for the Government to recover the full costs, and we all find this understandable. However, the court fee payable is actually not the full costs involved, and how much will it take every day for bringing a case to court? The Government has never determined the fees payable on the basis of the actual costs incurred, and after payment of the court fee of $1,045, no other costs will be levied even though the case concerned is eventually brought to the Court of Final Appeal. The Secretary also said that fee concessions would be provided as appropriate, and while we are talking about the offering of rental, rates and tax concessions, the bankrupts are also faced with a very pathetic situation. As for the eMPF Platform for Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") schemes, although an Annual Registration Fee will be charged at a level of 0.03% of the net asset value, it will still not be possible to recover the total costs in 6 or 10 years. This can hardly be regarded as a complete reflection of the users pay principle, because the Platform has to be heavily subsidized by the Government, or may be even by MPF users.

Under such circumstances, I would like to ask: Do the authorities want to see bankruptcy applicants borrowing from loan sharks in order to file bankruptcy petitions?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6787

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, we understand fully that the current economic situation of Hong Kong is very difficult. In order to stabilize the economy, safeguard jobs and relieve people's burden, the Government has launched two rounds of relief measures under the Anti-epidemic Fund, and together with the relief package in the Budget, measures totalling about $290 billion and accounting for nearly 10% of our Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") have been implemented. We can fully understand and appreciate the difficulties faced by the bankrupts, but as a matter of fact, no matter whether or not we are under the impact of the epidemic, bankruptcy applicants will still find themselves in a financially difficult situation.

As I have said in the main reply just now, our policy is that the fees charged should in general be set at levels adequate to recover the full costs of providing the services to ensure that the costs for providing the services do not fall on the general taxpayers. Moreover, it is also a common international practice to require a debtor to pay a deposit upon presentation of bankruptcy petition against himself.

Hence, the Government should follow the principle of cost recovery when determining the fees charged for providing services in processing bankruptcy cases, but ORO will keep in view the cost recovery situation of the relevant services and consider reviewing the deposit amount where necessary. We will continue to consider providing other appropriate assistance, having regard to prevailing socio-economic circumstances.

MR JIMMY NG (in Cantonese): The Government announced in the Budget this year that it would disburse $10,000 to each Hong Kong permanent resident aged 18 or above. We all know that the cash handout serves as "emergency money", but people have to wait for more than two months before receiving disbursement of the sum, and this may turn the good thing into a bad one. As for the relief measures under the Anti-epidemic Fund, many of them require proactive actions on the part of individuals or enterprises to register in person, while payment will even be made by cheque through post in some individual cases, thus attracting criticisms about the whole thing as reminiscent of the Stone Age.

Can the Government try to think out of the box when it comes to the arrangements for making payment, such as establishing a standing mechanism for disbursing funds with a view to saving the trouble of having to register every 6788 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 time? Besides, with regard to the Government's implementation of measures for smart city and smart government development, I fail to see how efficient the operation of e-government is, and it can even be described as proceeding at tortoise speed or a speed slower than a tortoise. The arrangements adopted for disbursing funds this time can totally reflect the inadequacy of e-Government services, and when developing such services as the eID services and the "iAM Smart" platform, has the Government given consideration to including functions of making cash disbursements to members of the public and enterprises when similar relief measures are introduced in the future?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, together with a number of government departments and related institutions (such as banks), we are now working in full swing on the required preparatory work, including determining the workflow of the Scheme, designing and developing the computer systems, etc., and will launch the Scheme and announce the details as soon as possible. As a matter of fact, we have started the preparatory work in advance during the deliberation of the Appropriation Bill 2020, so that registrations may be accepted as early as possible for disbursement of the sum expeditiously once the Government's funding proposal is endorsed.

According to the current plan, eligible citizens will only be required to complete a simple registration procedure, and indicate at the same time their preference for receiving the payment through bank transfer or by cheque. It is our principle to adopt a simple, convenient and secure approach in determining the registration procedure and the design of the entire workflow, so that eligible citizens will receive the sum as soon as possible in an orderly manner, and will need to produce only simple personal data to complete the registration procedure.

However, the Government will not be able to make disbursements of funds without registration because it does not have the bank account information of the 7 million eligible citizens in the territory. Furthermore, under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, information held by the Government should not be used for any purpose other than the original purpose for collecting the data. Eligible citizens are thus required to register and indicate the payment method they prefer, and what they need to do is to produce some simple information to complete the registration procedure.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6789

MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): As mentioned by Mr TSE in the main question, some members of the accounting sector have predicted that if the Government does not implement additional relief measures, the economy of Hong Kong may fall further, with bankruptcy and winding up cases reaching a peak in August this year. Mr TSE has thus asked the Government whether it would raise the amount of the cash handout to $20,000, but the Government stated in the main reply that it "consider[s] $10,000 an appropriate amount".

As we can see, the unemployment rate is ever increasing, and it will be most desirable if the Government can put in place an unemployment loan fund. However, the supplementary question I would like to raise is: Will the Government give further consideration to issuing consumption vouchers, thereby assisting citizens to tide over the difficulties amid the current epidemic and boosting consumer sentiment?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): I have said earlier and I hope Members will understand that by introducing the Scheme to disburse $10,000 to eligible citizens, the objective of the Government is to relieve the burden of the people. In this connection, what are the consideration factors behind the Scheme that seeks to disburse $10,000 to eligible citizens?

First of all, we aim to stabilize the economy, and to relieve the burden of the people as well. If Members would take a holistic view on the measures proposed on various fronts, they will realize that as mentioned in my reply given just now, the total amount involved in implementing these measures will basically account for nearly 10% of our GDP. Therefore, the objective of adopting the current arrangements is to safeguard jobs and set people's mind at ease amid the present economic difficulties.

MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): Secretary HUI, let me first declare that I have not personally taken part in any discussions between the banking sector and the Government concerning the disbursement arrangements for the cash handout. With regard to the suggestion put forward by Mr Paul TSE in the main question, I understand that one additional procedure will be needed for processing the documents received if eligible citizens are made to sign another authorization form before the sum of $10,000 can be disbursed to them. Such 6790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 being the case, will consideration be given by the Secretary to allowing banks to disburse the sum immediately after receiving applications from individual clients and obtaining verification from the Government of their eligibility for receiving the money, so that there will be no need for banks to wait for allocation of funds from the Government? I believe the time gap thus arisen should not be too long, and the costs involved should also not be too high. Will the Secretary explore with the banking sector the possibility of adopting this measure to slightly expedite the entire process?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, the supplementary questions raised just now by several Members are all related to the registration procedure. Actually, by conducting registration of eligible citizens under the Scheme launched this time, we would like to obtain citizens' consent for authorizing the Government to use the data so collected for making the required arrangements in the future should a similar scheme be launched then, so that they need not complete the registration procedure again. Hence, we will retain the personal data collected for the Scheme launched this time.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): It will definitely be an irony to the social system of Hong Kong if bankruptcy applicants, as suggested by Mr Paul TSE in his supplementary question raised just now, really have to borrow money from loan sharks in order to file bankruptcy petitions, and I believe this is not something most of the citizens would like to see.

Hence, I would like to point out directly that several major types of persons have obviously been excluded from the measures currently launched by the Government under the Anti-epidemic Fund. Firstly, family carers, and housewives play the most crucial role in guarding a family against the epidemic by undertaking anti-epidemic work of the entire household; secondly, causal workers; and thirdly, working people of an advanced age, and they do not need to make MPF contributions. My supplementary question is very simple: Will the Government launch any measures or the third round of relief measures under the Anti-epidemic Fund to assist these three types of persons?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6791

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): The Government has launched four rounds of relief measures amounting to $30 billion between August and December last year, and as we all know, three rounds of relief measures totalling more than $280 billion were announced in the beginning of this year to assist the affected enterprises and members of the public, including the $30 billion relief measures under the Anti-epidemic Fund, as well as the $120 billion relief package announced recently in the Budget. Together with the second round of more than $130 billion relief measures under the Anti-epidemic Fund in April this year, a huge sum of money has already been spent on relieving the difficulties faced by the people. We will closely monitor the situation in the community and continue to implement counter-cyclical measures and provide other targeted support to enterprises and the general public for riding out the crisis together.

MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): President, I would like to follow up on part (3) of the main question raised by Mr Paul TSE. The Secretary indicated in his reply that due to housing resources problem, it would be difficult for the Government to accede to the request made by Mr Paul TSE and transfer the titles of public housing units for free to sitting tenants. However, the Secretary has not mentioned clearly in his reply the number of vacant units every year, and to my knowledge, the number of such units does not exceed 10 000.

In this connection, if the Government can increase housing production by 10 000 units every year, all of the 1.2 million sitting tenants will become owners of public housing units, and I believe more than $20 billion of maintenance expenses will thus be saved. Handing over the management of these units to their owners will help to facilitate the continual development of the entire community and our economy, as well as develop a sense of belonging among residents of such units. Since the reply given by the Secretary has no substance at all, I am prepared to give one more chance to the Secretary to answer the question again.

UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): I thank Mr Abraham SHEK for his supplementary question. As stated by the Chief Executive in the 2019 Policy Address, allowing all sitting tenants to purchase the public housing units they are now living in will reduce the number of units available for allocation in the short term, and will inevitably lengthen the 6792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 waiting time for public housing applicants. Given that there is now an acute shortage of public housing units, and from the perspective of effective use of housing resources, it is difficult for us to take forward the suggestion for the time being. However, when the overall supply of public housing in Hong Kong has become more stable, the Government will, in a timely manner, invite the Hong Kong Housing Authority to explore the possibility of re-introducing the Tenants Purchase Scheme.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second question.

Misconduct of police officers

2. MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, some members of the public have relayed that recently, some police officers, who had lost control of their temper when handling public events, misbehaved themselves, for instance, hurling abuses at members of the public and reporters as well as subjecting them to violence. Although the Police have indicated that the police officers involved in 21 incidents have been rebuked, those members of the public doubted the effectiveness of this course of action. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of police officers who were rebuked in each of the past five years and, among them, the number of those who were subsequently imposed other punishments and the details of such punishments; whether the records of having been rebuked will affect the promotion prospect and remuneration packages of police officers;

(2) as the Police have indicated that they have rebuked a traffic police officer who drove a motor cycle into a crowd back and forth in November last year, and will rebuke seven police officers who swore at a member of the public on 8 March this year, whether the Police will take actions apart from rebuking these police officers (e.g. launching criminal investigations and ordering them to apologize to the victims); and

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6793

(3) although the Police have stated time and again that they respect freedom of the press and have reminded police officers to facilitate reporters' news covering work, a number of reporters have expressed that during their news covering activities in the past eight months, police officers repeatedly hindered their news covering work and subjected them to violence, whether the Police have assessed if the Police are unable to restrain police officers from committing such acts; if they have assessed and the outcome is in the negative, whether the Police can undertake that police officers will not hinder reporters' news covering work and treat them violently?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, since early June last year, more than 1 400 protests, processions and public meetings have been staged in Hong Kong, many of which eventually turned into illegal acts. According to section 10 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232), it is the statutory duty of the Police to maintain public safety and public order. When unlawful acts occur, the Police must take actions to maintain public order and safeguard the lives and properties of the public.

The Police attach great importance to the conduct and behaviour of their officers. Police officers must meet requirements on behaviour and discipline, and must uphold the Police's values in areas including impartiality and professionalism.

My reply to various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) and (2)

The discipline of police officers is regulated by the Police (Discipline) Regulations. In the past five years (i.e. 2015-2019), the figures are as follows:

(i) For disciplinary offences which are minor and handled by "minor offence reports", there were a total of 362 cases or on average 72 reports per year;

6794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

(ii) a total of 235 officers, or on average 47 officers per year, were awarded punishment upon disciplinary proceedings not falling within (i) above, among them 30 were dismissed, compulsorily retired or ordered to resign; and

(iii) a total of 100 officers, or on average 20 officers per year, were awarded punishment for criminal convictions, among them 55 were dismissed, compulsorily retired or ordered to resign.

Apart from regulating officers' discipline in accordance with the Police (Discipline) Regulations (Cap. 232A), the Police also manage officer's discipline and conduct through administrative measures for immediate intervention and rectification. "Rebuke" is an administrative measure and is the starting point of the penalty mechanism. Regarding certain alleged inappropriate behaviour of individual police officers, the Commissioner of Police has rebuked police officers in 22 cases. These cases mainly included the inappropriate use of force, the use of inappropriate language and inappropriate behaviour.

Rebukes made by the Commissioner of Police aim to immediately intervene in, stop and rectify the inappropriate behaviour of officers, as well as let other officers know that such behaviour is inappropriate. "Rebuke" is the starting point of the penalty mechanism. If it is found by the Police upon further investigation that other actions are required, criminal or disciplinary investigations and procedures will be undertaken. The Police will handle such cases in accordance with the established mechanism in a fair and impartial manner.

Regarding the aforementioned some 20 cases in which officers were rebuked, the Police have undertaken disciplinary review for four of them, while the Complaints Against Police Office ("CAPO") has received complaints regarding 19 of them. Given that the procedures of CAPO and the disciplinary review procedures of the Police are underway, it is not appropriate for me to comment on the details of the cases. The Police do not maintain the breakdown of statistics in relation to "rebuke" as requested in the question.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6795

Regarding the promotion of officers, the Police will consider the overall performance of officers in appraisal and selection, including job performance, abilities, and discipline. As for salaries, the Police will consider whether an officer should be given an increment in accordance with the relevant regulations of the Civil Service Bureau. Only officers whose performance (including conduct, attitude and efficiency) is considered satisfactory upon due appraisal will be recommended to be given an increment.

(3) There is a need for media practitioners to undertake reporting duties, and the Police have a duty to adopt measures to safeguard public safety and public order. In particular, this duty is a statutory one which the Police must discharge. During operations and where circumstances permit, the Police will strive to complement the reporting work of the media on the basis of mutual understanding and respect so that both sides can perform their respective functions.

During operations over the past months, the Police have from time to time encountered instances of reporter "impersonation", including fake reporter identification being seized, self-proclaimed reporters found to be not employed by the media organization they claimed, people wearing outfits similar to those of reporters and immediate departure upon being questioned about reporter credentials. In the past, persons suspected of "impersonating" reporters engaged in acts inconsistent with the duties of reporters, and even attempted to obstruct police enforcement, participate in illegal and violent acts, and even to commit the serious offence of snatching suspects from police officers.

The Government believes that professional and bona fide reporters engaged in media work would not engage in illegal acts or intentionally obstruct police enforcement while covering events. The Police, where operations are not affected, have been facilitating reporters as far as possible. The Police have also always reminded reporters that they should also pay attention to police instructions, and maintain appropriate distance with the Police to ensure the safety of both sides.

6796 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

The Police are a professional team and attach great importance to discipline and conduct. The behaviours of individual officers are subject to a rigorous disciplinary and administrative regime. Officers have their own personal responsibility and are responsible to the Police. If anyone has any complaint against police officers, CAPO will handle such in a fair and impartial manner, while the Independent Police Complaints Council ("IPCC") will exercise independent and serious monitoring.

To enhance communication and explore how to foster the mutual understanding and respect of policing and reporting work, the Commissioner of Police has invited media organizations for a meeting this week―my understanding is tomorrow. IPCC has also made two recommendations in its report released last week, i.e. (1) review how to facilitate the work of reporters in major operations without causing undue hindrance to the Police's enforcement actions; and (2) review the need for engaging media representatives to draw up a Code of Practice allowing the Police and media to fulfil their respective duties and for ensuring the safety of all concerned. The Security Bureau will set up a task force to follow up and I will personally supervise. I believe that the media and the Police will look for a consensus on the basis of mutual respect and understanding, which will be beneficial to the work of both sides.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, Secretary John LEE's main reply, in particular the second half of it, was nothing but blatant lies. He again resorted to sleight-of-hand manoeuvres to distort the facts. He tried to use the pretexts of "reporter impersonation" and "snatching suspects" to exculpate police officers. He tried to justify the evil deeds of police officers with the guidelines and codes that frontline police officers had never enforced or followed. It was simply barefaced cheek that he was able to attend this Legislative Council meeting and read out a script that he himself may not believe.

President, the picture on my left shows how badly my head was bashed with batons by police officers unreasonably in Sheung Shui in July last year. The police officers left after venting their anger on me, without specifying the offences that I had allegedly committed. The other picture shows the incident LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6797 that took place on 21 March. I went to Yuen Long to discharge my duty. Several police officers pepper-sprayed me like this without giving any reason. They left after venting their anger on him, without arresting me or specifying the offences that I had allegedly committed. I held a press conference upstairs just now. And this female reporter in the picture had the same encounter as I did, and her head had swelled up into one big potato head. Two weeks ago, which was the Mother's Day, some police officers battered and attacked her in a female toilet because she took pictures of male police officers engaging in irregular conduct against several women in a female toilet. All the above incidents are ironclad evidence.

President, here is my supplementary question. As the Secretary for Security, does he intend to continue to act like an ostrich and connive at the corrupt Police Force? Does he intend to continue to be oblivious to all such ironclad evidence, including police brutality, power abuse, assaulting members of the public by law enforcement officers, or even the possibilities of torture? Will he continue to let the Police violate the codes, break the law and go against disciplinary requirements? Will he allow this outrageous situation to persist? Does he intend to continue with his malicious acts of selling his soul and burying his conscience, and to connive at police brutality?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, it is the Honourable Members who have betrayed their conscience. First, what Member said just now is one-sided. He can lodge a complaint and we will handle it fairly and impartially. Many video clips which captured the happenings from a particular angle are inconsistent with the truth. I remember watching a video clip in which rioters were seen throwing objects in a shopping mall, and police officers were seen protecting a family from being hit by the objects with a shield and assisting them to leave the mall. However, in another video clip shooting from another angle, the police officers appeared to be driving the family out. Hence, we cannot determine the facts with a single video clip. We will handle complaints fairly and impartially. Members can lodge complaints and tell us what they encountered. People who think that justice is on their side should lodge a complaint.

Second, the Member has just made a serious accusation. President, I must point out loud and clear that my reply is entirely based on facts. I understand that reporters have to perform their duty. We believe that professional and bona 6798 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 fide reporters will do what they should do. But let me cite an example, and we have already made public the related facts before. In August last year, the Hong Kong Journalists Association ("HKJA") found a press card issued by a Macao news agency at the scene of a protest. However, after verifying with the news agency concerned, HKJA found that the press card was not issued by the news agency. Is this not a fake press card?

Moreover, a YouTuber from Canada said he bought a reflective press vests and a fake press card in Hong Kong―revealed by the YouTuber himself―and then he started shooting the protests. He even said that the protesters were the truly violent ones. In addition, in September last year, the Police intercepted a person at the Lantau Toll Plaza and found in his possession a reflective vest and a piece of paper with the word "PRESS" printed on it. However, the person failed to produce a press card. Another person who was arrested for possessing a bomb was also wearing a reflective vest when he was arrested. Besides, it was also shown on television that some people wearing reflective vests were seen "snatching suspects" from police officers at New Town Plaza in Sha Tin. All these are hard facts.

I understand that reporters need to do their job. And police officers also need to do their job. I thus very much support the idea that the Police have invited media representatives for a meeting to seek a consensus on how to facilitate both sides in discharging their duties and accomplishing their jobs. This will be beneficial to both sides. Complaints against individual police officers for disciplinary offences should be dealt with case by case based on facts and evidence. The offenders shall bear the responsibility. This is in line with the spirit of fairness and impartiality of Hong Kong.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, I have to clarify. First, I already reported the matter to the Police …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6799

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You do not need to clarify this point. You only need to …

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): I certainly need to clarify because he said that I had not reported the matter to the Police. President, I reported the case to the Police, but the case was unsettled …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not a debate session. Please sit down.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, can you let me finish first?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You only need to point out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. You are allowed to speak to point out the unanswered part, instead of speaking to clarify facts. It is because …

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): I have not finished what I want to say. I had only uttered a few words and you already stopped me there.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WAN, you have uttered many words. Which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, my question is as follows: Will they investigate these irrefutable cases? Is it true that the Police will not initiate any investigation if the case is not reported to the Police? I did report to the Police, but the case was eventually unsettled.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?

6800 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, we welcome anyone to report a case to the Police. Upon receipt of a report, the Police will certainly conduct an investigation. However, the point is that the person who reports a case must provide information to the Police in his real identity. It is commonplace that many people make accusations on the media without providing further information. I welcome the Member to report his case to the Police.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, the opposition camp keeps talking about "police brutality", but never talks about "black brutality". These people are video editors. After capturing selected segments of the happenings, they wilfully amplify the acts of a handful of police officers who have lost control over their emotions. They wantonly smear the Police Force by putting the cart before the horse. This is not at all conducive to restoring peace in society. Actually, we saw clearly the "before" and "after" of such incidents, and so did members of the public. We witnessed how rioters threw petrol bombs, vandalized public properties and assaulted members of the public in the riots …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM, please raise your supplementary question directly.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): … That is why police officers have to strictly enforce the law and stop violence. I would like to ask the Government and the Police: Have they tried to understand the true reasons behind cases of police officers losing control over their emotions in different cases? Have they taken into full account other circumstantial factors, including protesters' violence, when the Police consider punishing the police officers? Is rebuke a serious penalty that may adversely affect the promotion prospect of police officers?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): As in the past, the Police have along been handling major demonstrations, especially riots, in compliance with various guidelines and procedures, and with the laws of Hong Kong. If the performance of individual police officers in the course of an operation has caused dissatisfaction among members of the public, we should conduct a thorough investigation, rather than making a premature judgment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6801

Regarding the disciplinary penalties imposed on police officers, "rebuke" is an administrative measure. As I clearly explained just now, the Commissioner of Police is of the view that this approach allows for early intervention, so that police officers will get to know the types of behaviour that should be rectified. I therefore very much support the immediate intervention measure adopted by the Commissioner of Police by way of rebuking the police officers concerned. Besides, rebuke is only the starting point of the penalty mechanism, and the Police will then take further follow-up actions based on the actual situation.

If the disciplinary offence committed by the police officer is confirmed in the investigation, the officer will then be subject to disciplinary proceedings and be given punishment according to the disciplinary procedure of the Police. If necessary, such cases will also be handled in accordance with the law. Hence, over the years, disciplinary matters of police officers have been handled in accordance with the Police (Discipline) Regulations under the Police Force Ordinance. The Police (Discipline) Regulations deal with disciplinary matters of the Police in a holistic manner, and both minor and serious disciplinary offences are subject to punishment. Early intervention by the Commissioner of Police in the form of administrative measures serves to perfect the entire disciplinary mechanism.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, while the Government and our pro-establishment colleagues keep mumbling "black brutality", rioters, etc., the Police still got a historic low rating in a recent opinion poll amid subsiding epidemic in society. Almost half of the members of the public gave the Police a zero score. Half a year ago, I asked whether one single police officer had been given disciplinary punishment. I need to ask this question again today. The Secretary just said "rebuke" was the starting point of the penalty mechanism. But a sergeant who was rebuked for ramming his motor cycle into a crowd can still be promoted. How could people believe that the Police can rebuild its strict discipline? How could they believe that the Police or the Government is treating the public fairly?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): What the Member just said was precisely the statements that would make members of the public believe that they were telling the truth. The Police have all along been attaching great importance to discipline. But what the Member just said gives people the 6802 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 impression that the Police will not take actions against officers who have committed a disciplinary offence or broken the law. This is certainly untrue. Actually, I have already clearly pointed out in my main reply that the Police will penalize police officers who have committed a disciplinary offence or even broken the law. The figure speaks for itself that punishments have indeed been imposed. It is wrong and misleading to say that punishments had not been imposed. People who do not know the truth may think that what the Member had just said is the truth. This is wrong, and I must clarify and strongly state that this is wrong.

The figure speaks for itself that the Police have imposed punishments on offenders. Moreover, in relation to the recent incidents, the Commissioner of Police has established of his own accord the "Integrity Audit Action Group" ("IAAG") to conduct integrity checks. He established IAAG of his own accord. IAAG will, first of all, proactively investigate cases of serious disciplinary offences; and secondly, review whether certain procedures are susceptible to higher risks and thus require rectification or strengthened regulation; and thirdly, monitor and supervise the conduct of police officers. This is also a measure that is proactively adopted by the Commissioner of Police. Hence, the Police Force always upholds strict discipline. I hope people will not be misled by some biased remarks.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third question. Dr KWOK Ka-ki.

(Mr Steven HO indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, what is your point of order?

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): I notice that discriminatory terms are used in the third question. I hope the President will make a ruling and clarification because the document, once tabled at a Legislative Council meeting, represents the Legislative Council. If we do not speak out, this discriminatory term will become parliamentary and the public will think that the Legislative Council adopts this term as the name of this disease.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6803

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, the question is raised by the Member concerned. As long as the content of the Member's question does not violate the Rules of Procedure, I will, as far as possible, respect the aspirations of the Member and approve the question to be raised by the Member.

I notice that in mentioning the official name of the virus in his oral question, Dr KWOK Ka-ki also provides a commonly known name of the virus. In this case, I regard the commonly known name as supplementary information.

However, I remind Members that the World Health Organization has earlier officially named the virus as "COVID-19", that is coronavirus disease 2019. This is the professional name. Members should use this name as far as practicable, so as not to arouse unnecessary misunderstanding or disputes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki.

(Mr Steven HO indicated his wish to raise a point of order again)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, what is your point of order?

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, I wish to add a point. Actually, WHO (World Health Organization) has said that it is an allegedly discriminatory term. I hope that when The Legislative Council Commission ("LCC") or the Legislative Council Secretariat handles these terms in future … perhaps LCC may need to discuss whether the use of these commonly known names should be regulated. Otherwise, I may also address a Member by his/her name, followed by a commonly known name or a nickname. Am I allowed to do so? President, this term is obviously discriminatory.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, I have already explained that the content of his question complies with the Rules of Procedure. I will of course make a separate ruling on whether the name used by the Member is derogatory in the relevant context. The Secretariat had carefully examined the content of Dr KWOK Ka-ki's question prior to obtaining my approval.

(Mr CHAN Han-pan indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

6804 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Han-pan, what is your point of order?

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, if we do not stick to the rules when dealing with the use of a term, or if we do not handle it properly, such precedents will give rise to dire consequences. I consider it inappropriate to allow the use of offensive expressions by adding a so-called "commonly known name" after the official name. If this becomes a permitted practice, can we add a nickname of, say, "a charlatan in the mutual destruction camp who always bad-mouths others" when we mention Dr KWOK Ka-ki in a question to be raised in future? We certainly would not be allowed to do so, nor would we do that.

So, President, we hold that you should make a ruling. In the case of inappropriate expressions being used, the Secretariat should delete them, rather than allowing them to be printed on the Agenda. Otherwise, many different commonly used names may appear on our Agenda in future.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As I have already explained, Members' questions were carefully examined by the Secretariat according to the established practice. So, would Members please calm down and be patient.

(Mr Steven HO asked aloud in his seat whether the Secretariat should be held responsible)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, please do not accuse the Secretariat. The Secretariat is neutral.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please raise your question.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, "people with harelips are wary of broken bowls". Don't be so emotionally fragile and get hurt so easily. These people are hopeless …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6805

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, are you going to raise your question?

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Yes, I am. But they have said so much. I also wish to state my views.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Now is the time to raise your question, not to express your personal views.

Tackling the epidemic and related matters by the Hospital Authority

3. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I am going to ask the question now. Since January this year, there have been successive confirmed cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (commonly known as "Wuhan pneumonia") imported into Hong Kong from the Mainland. In February, several thousand members of the healthcare personnel of the Hospital Authority ("HA") went on strike for five consecutive days, demanding that the authorities impose a ban on the entry of all visitors into Hong Kong via the Mainland and adopt measures to reduce their risk of infection, including ensuring an adequate supply of face masks. Moreover, it has been reported that due to the tight supply of personal protective equipment ("PPE"), some healthcare personnel are requested to reuse their isolation gowns or temporarily keep their used face masks in paper bags for reuse. HA has also repeatedly lowered the requirements stipulated in the infection control guidelines on the protection specifications of PPE that should be used by healthcare personnel when conducting various medical procedures. Regarding HA's tackling of the epidemic and related matters, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has assessed if HA has contravened Article 27 of the Basic Law (which stipulates that Hong Kong residents shall have the right and freedom to strike, etc.) by issuing letters to the staff members who participated in the strike asking them to explain the reasons for their absence from duty; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, how the Government will follow up the matter so as to protect such employees' rights under the Basic Law;

6806 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

(2) whether it knows the ranks of the officers who made the decisions to repeatedly lower the requirements on the protection specifications of PPE and their justifications therefor; and

(3) whether it knows the quantities of the various types of PPE currently kept by HA and the numbers of days for which the stock can last; the details about HA's procurement of each type of PPE since the epidemic outbreak, including the method, quantity, place of origin and amount of expenditure; whether the Government has supplied to HA or assisted HA in the procurement of the relevant PPE; if so, of the details?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus infection, the Government has been closely monitoring the development of the situation and responding comprehensively with decisive and appropriate measures. In accordance with the Government's prevention and control strategies, we have introduced specific measures in the areas of health surveillance, compulsory quarantine, isolation treatment, health declaration, exit screening, reducing cross-boundary flow of people, enhancing "social distancing" locally, supporting various types of frontline staff and provision of protective equipment for the community. We are very grateful for the unfailing contributions from healthcare and frontline staff and will continue to accord priority to meeting their needs for protective equipment, etc.

In consultation with the Hospital Authority ("HA") and the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, my reply to the various parts of the question raised by Dr KWOK Ka-ki is as follows. President, I would like to clarify that our reply is made in relation to coronavirus disease 2019 ("COVID-19"), not the disease in any other name:

(1) The Government and HA always take the safeguarding of the health of the public and protection of Hong Kong's healthcare system as the top priority. In response to the industrial action from 3 to 7 February, which affected public hospital services, HA activated the Major Incident Control Centre to closely monitor the operation of public hospitals, and to deploy manpower and adjust non-emergency services with regard to service needs, with a view to focusing resources on dealing with the epidemic and maintaining emergency LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6807

medical services. The Government and HA also repeatedly urged healthcare staff participating in the industrial action to return to work as soon as possible to avoid affecting public hospital services and treatment of patients.

HA noted that around 7 000 staff had not reported duty as scheduled on various dates during the above period. HA will gather information from the staff concerned on their individual circumstances and consider the follow-up actions for each case in accordance with HA's human resources policies and the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57).

(2) HA has been following international guidelines and expert advice in providing healthcare personnel with stringent infection control guidelines and training in order to safeguard them from infection at work.

The Central Committee on Infectious Diseases and Emergency Response ("CCIDER") of HA is responsible for providing strategic advice on the management of infectious diseases, infection control and outbreak contingency plans. It also convenes meetings in response to international and local situations of infectious diseases so as to coordinate the relevant contingency measures. Its membership comprises representatives from the Centre for Health Protection of the Department of Health, coordinating committees and central committees of relevant specialties and Head Office of HA, as well as HA's experts on infection control and infectious diseases.

HA has been closely monitoring the latest situation of the COVID-19 and making reference to international guidelines including those issued by the World Health Organization ("WHO") and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States ("CDC"). Since HA had limited knowledge about the pathogen, characteristics and mode of transmission of the novel coronavirus infection at the onset of the outbreak, personal protection equipment ("PPE") of higher specifications was used in order to prevent airborne transmission. However, as the outbreak developed, the international community has gained a better understanding of the virus and confirmed that the pathogen 6808 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

(SARS-CoV-2) is mainly transmitted through contacts and droplets. CCIDER hence revised its recommendation on PPE for HA after making reference to the latest international recommendations, clinical evidence in literature and local clinical experiences, and having regard to the global supply of PPE.

(3) As at 15 May, the PPE stockpile of public hospitals includes approximately 27 million surgical masks, 3.6 million protection gowns, 5.7 million face shields and 2.3 million N95 respirators. At the current usage rate, the stockpile of various protective equipment is sufficient for use for around more than two months.

Following the swine flu pandemic in 2009, HA reviewed its stockpile of protective equipment by making reference to the depletion of protective equipment during the pandemic period, as well as relevant information available from WHO. HA's stockpile of PPE has increased from 42 days to 90 days since then, with a view to building sufficient emergency stock. With the development of the COVID-19 outbreak, HA has expedited the procurement of PPE in large quantities since January 2020 and increased the stockpiling target to six months. In addition, HA proceeded with global procurement in late January through the flexible approach of direct purchase, with a view to procuring the appropriate protective equipment soonest possible. The Government Logistics Department has also shared information with HA and provided it with facilitation to assist it in procuring the necessary equipment. With the Government's assistance, the protective equipment ordered earlier by HA has arrived at Hong Kong gradually. The Government will continue to closely liaise with HA and make the best effort to ensure that adequate protective equipment will be provided to healthcare staff for patient care.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, the current fight against "Wuhan pneumonia" relies totally on the efforts made by Hong Kong people and the healthcare personnel. To be honest, were it not for the facts that members of the public proactively wear face masks and that, by means of a strike at the sacrifice of their career prospects and even work safety, the healthcare staff urged the Government to save Hong Kong by closing all borders, I believe the epidemic situation today would not have been what it is now.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6809

However, what disappoints me most is that the Secretary has not responded to several points of utmost importance. Despite the requirement in Article 27 of the Basic Law that the right to strike of every Hong Kong citizen, including HA staff, shall be protected, the Secretary, giving no reply at all in this regard, has allowed or connived at the use of various personnel-related laws by HA senior management to oppress their staff members and even reserve the right to penalize such staff members in future.

Moreover, although the Secretary has repeatedly pointed out that different guidelines from Hong Kong and overseas experts are already available, the picture in my hand shows how HA staff are fighting "Wuhan pneumonia". They have no N95 respirators and only one isolation gown. A job originally undertaken by 14 staff members has to be taken up by two staff members only. They are …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you have already raised a supplementary question.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): No, President, please let me ask the Secretary …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have already raised a supplementary question on Article 27 of the Basic Law. Please let the Secretary answer.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Namely, why is it necessary to resort to the use of plastic bags as isolation gowns …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, you have already raised the supplementary question. Please sit down.

Secretary, please answer.

6810 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, in fact, along with the development of the epidemic, HA has been following in lockstep with international practices, including those of WHO and CDC as I mentioned just now, and locally HA has also been working hand in hand with experts through internal mechanisms and infection control meetings to determine the required specifications of protection gowns for healthcare staff.

On the one hand, while the international community is deepening its understanding of the virus, the international guidelines will undergo constant adjustment and HA will follow them as well, but on the other hand, according to HA, they discussed such adjustment with their staff on each and every occasion. As long as the stock lasts, HA will provide its staff with protective clothing with a view to easing their mind, because HA also understands that protecting its staff means protecting the public.

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki indicated his wish to ask another supplementary question)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you have raised two supplementary questions. If you wish to ask again, you can press the "Request to speak" button again.

(Mr WONG Kwok-kin indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-kin, what is your point of order?

MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): President, the term "Wuhan pneumonia", a totally improper term, has been used in the question. In my view, it should not appear in any official papers of the Legislative Council. For the following two reasons, I urge President to make a ruling. First, looking at the whole question, the addition of the term "Wuhan pneumonia" is unnecessary because its reference does not enhance the public's understanding of this question. So, this is a gratuitous and stigmatizing term.

Secondly, the recent World Health Assembly proposed and requested that various countries should take measures to prevent discrimination and stigmatization related to this epidemic. China is a member state of WHO. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6811

Under "one country, two systems", is it appropriate for the term "Wuhan pneumonia", such an improper term, to appear in an official paper of the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China? President, please make a ruling. Of course, President, I know that someone has suggested …

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr WONG Kwok-kin is raising a point of order. Please let me deal with Mr WONG's point of order first, and then you can raise yours. Please sit down.

MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): President, someone has suggested that the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council do not officially regulate such terms. But the Rules of Procedure have neither explicitly allowed the use of such terms. Therefore, since the Rules of Procedure are silent about them, I hold that President can continue to use the power vested in you by Rule 92 of the Rules of Procedure to rule on this matter. President, please make a ruling.

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

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, the point of order raised by Mr WONG Kwok-kin has nothing to do with this question at all but he has used so much time on it.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please raise your point of order.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, my point of order is that if you allow him to waste the Legislative Council's last little bit of time this way, Members can hardly ask questions. He has already wasted a lot of time.

6812 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, had you not raised this point of order, I could have used the time to deal with the point of order raised by him just now.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, you are condoning Mr WONG Kwok-kin's abuse of time.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-kin, earlier, two Members have already pointed out this problem and I have made an explanation. The public will tell for themselves whether it is fair. As regards whether a professional nomenclature should be used, those who are professionals, particularly healthcare personnel, should conform to WHO's official terminology.

Certainly, it is not the Legislative Council President's duty to review the heading and wording of a question. As long as the questions raised comply with the Rules of Procedure, I will respect Members and give them as much leeway as possible. On this occasion, the question has been handled in accordance with the same principle.

Moreover, the Legislative Council has not dealt with Members' questions for weeks. This question was not provided to the Secretariat yesterday or within this week, and it had been forwarded to the Government long time ago, so its content was made known at an early stage. It is up to each Member to decide whether he/she would respect his/her own country or place or WHO.

Prof Joseph LEE, please raise your supplementary question.

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, the focus of this question is whether the Government has done a good job in preventing and fighting the epidemic in order to protect frontline healthcare staff. Nevertheless, it is really eye-opening to me that, due to the dispute over the name of the epidemic, some pro-establishment friends have gone so far as to successively withdraw from the meeting, instead of exercising their powers to check and balance the Government and to monitor the Government's anti-epidemic work.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6813

President, my question is very simple. Although the Secretary has given a reply, Dr KWOK Ka-ki's question is very straightforward. First, part (2) asks whether HA has lowered the standards for control measures. President, as a matter of fact, in February, HA's guidelines stated that patients should be given two surgical masks per day while nurses or frontline healthcare staff should be given four. Nevertheless, fast forward to May and patients are probably given one mask per day while frontline healthcare staff have only one or two. If this does not constitute a lowering of the standards, what are the reasons behind?

President, part (3) of the main reply indicates that HA has 2.3 million N95 respirators, but frontline healthcare staff have reported that different models of N95 respirators are given to them. Some of the models do not fit their face contour and are totally unsuitable for them to wear, and such respirators are given to them without undergoing fit tests.

President, despite the Government's strenuous efforts, neither frontline healthcare staff nor patients feel that the Government is protecting them, and that is without mentioning the Government's latest request for HA to resume some non-emergency services and even allow hospital visits.

President, my supplementary question is: Is it true that the authorities' efforts serve to stockpile sufficient PPE and N95 respirators for two months' use in order to cope with anticipated increased consumption after the resumption of services in the future, instead of protecting the existing frontline staff?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I thank Prof Joseph LEE for his supplementary question.

For the sake of openness and transparency, HA releases information on the consumption and stock levels of protective equipment at present. The current stock is sufficient for two months' use. However, with regard to the protective clothing being used by frontline staff, I did make an enquiry with HA. They replied that while there was no definite quantity, each hospital ward would provide its healthcare staff with protective clothing based on infection control measures and the ward's own needs, and HA would provide protective clothing once they voiced their needs, if any. I believe that HA, like all of us, has never stopped caring and working to protect frontline healthcare staff.

6814 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Prof LEE has mentioned N95 respirators, which are still in short supply worldwide. As we all know, the COVID-19 epidemic is still quite volatile and severe across the globe, so N95 respirators are still in short supply globally.

HA is actively studying whether, in addition to global procurement, there are other options for the supply of respirators, including locally manufactured nanofibre respirators, as well as other overseas models of respirators. HA will keep itself constantly informed of the latest development. As the transport and supply of protective equipment (in particular the raw materials) remain stressful worldwide, HA has to exercise careful management and enhanced control of the stock levels of protective equipment on the one hand, and provide adequate protection for frontline healthcare staff on the other.

HA will, in its internal newsletter entitled "COVID-19 Bulletin", keep their healthcare staff posted of the stock levels of and information and policy on protective equipment. Lastly, HA has also set up a hotline to answer and address any enquiries made or concerns felt by individual healthcare workers.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Prof LEE, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): My last supplementary question is very clear. Is it because of the need for a two-month stockpile that the authorities have imposed restrictions on frontline staff, requiring them to reuse protective equipment or prohibiting them from using it?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Prof LEE, you have pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, in fact, as I have just mentioned, I believe that the stock level is a piece of transparent information that can be made public. If there is a need for frontline staff to use protective equipment, HA is providing and will provide its healthcare staff with adequate protective clothing with a view to protecting them.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6815

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary's main reply is so reminiscent of the incident in which the Chief Executive had purportedly misquoted the remarks made by the late South African President MANDELA. After in-depth research, it was confirmed that the remarks were misquoted by the Chief Executive, thereby tarnishing the reputation of this former South African President.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki asked about some healthcare personnel being requested to reuse their isolation gowns and temporarily keep their used face masks in paper bags for reuse. Not only has the Secretary failed to officially respond to the allegation, but has even said that this practice was adopted with reference to the latest international recommendations, clinical evidence in literature and local clinical experiences.

Will the Secretary clearly inform this Council which international research paper or which research finding has been taken as reference for the said practice? Has the Secretary defamed science, defamed empirical research and defamed medical research?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr SHIU Ka-chun for his supplementary question.

First, as I have just mentioned, HA has referred to the overall recommendations of WHO and CDC on the use of protective clothing and will also refer to the different guidelines they issue in response to the changing epidemic. In addition to drawing reference from the above sources, as I have just mentioned, HA has worked hand in hand with experts through internal mechanisms and infection control meetings to determine the protective clothing to be used in different medical procedures and hospital wards.

As regards whether protective clothing should be reused, the reply I have received from HA indicates that healthcare staff will certainly keep using protective clothing or N95 respirators in the course of carrying out the same procedure, but when they carry out another procedure, they can in fact change to other protective equipment on a need basis. Therefore, there is no question of forcing them to reuse anything.

6816 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fourth question.

Obstruction caused by objects placed on footpaths

4. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in recent months, the Police have placed a large number of mills barriers on certain footpaths, and fenced off government buildings with huge water barriers. Some wheelchair users and visually impaired persons have complained to me, alleging that such objects have caused inconvenience to them, including passageways leading to lifts being obstructed, tactile guide paths being broken up, and iron gates of the water-barrier enclosures being too narrow for wheelchairs to pass. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the Police have formulated guidelines stipulating that impacts on the use of barrier-free access facilities by persons with disabilities ("PWDs") should be avoided when the aforesaid objects are placed on footpaths; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) whether, while PWDs are participating in public events or travelling, channels are available for them to seek immediate assistance when their access is obstructed by the objects placed by the Police; if so, of the details; if not, whether such channels will be established; and

(3) whether the Police will immediately examine the impacts of their placing the aforesaid objects on the travelling of PWDs, and remove such objects as early as possible; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, members of the public may conduct assemblies and processions and express their views, but they must do so in a lawful, peaceful and orderly manner, and should respect other people's rights.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6817

Regarding barrier-free facilities, the Government has formulated policies and objectives to provide a barrier-free environment for persons with disabilities ("PWDs"), with a view to enabling them to access premises and make use of community facilities and services on an equal basis with others, thereby helping them live independently, fully take part in various activities and integrate into the community. All government departments have Access Co-ordinators and Access Officers who coordinate efforts in enhancing the accessibility of barrier-free access and facilities of government premises under their purview. All government departments, including the Police, follow these policies and objectives. There is no need for the Police to formulate their own policies and objectives.

The Police all along handle all public order events ("POEs") in a fair, just and impartial manner in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong. It has been the established policy of the Police to endeavour to strike a balance between facilitating the smooth conduct of lawful and peaceful public meetings and processions on the one hand, while on the other, minimizing the impact of such events on members of the public and road users, as well as maintaining public safety and public order.

During the demonstrations over the past months, the Police remained steadfast in discharging their duties, and handled the provocations of demonstrators with tolerance and restraint. However, not only were the Police not being informed of some protests in advance in accordance with the law, people participating in the protests conducted unlawful assemblies in various places, many of which ended up in violence. The escalating and frequent violence of rioters seriously threatens the lives and properties of the public. The Police have a statutory duty to maintain public order and public safety. In situations where public order and public safety are seriously threatened, the Police must take actions decisively to curb violence and restore public peace.

A consolidated reply to the three parts of the Honourable Member's question is provided below.

Since June last year, there have been over 1 400 demonstrations, processions and public meetings in Hong Kong, many of which developed into serious breach of law and violent incidents. Every now and then during that period, rioters advocated besieging, blocking and vandalizing the Central Government Offices, the Legislative Council Complex, police stations in various 6818 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 districts, disciplined services quarters and other buildings. These acts have seriously affected the work and life of people using the above premises, including the emergency services provided to the public by the Police.

Moreover, some rioters threw petrol bombs at police stations and government properties, set fires, attacked police vehicles and police stations, hurled objects and sprayed graffiti at the Police Headquarters, as well as vandalized government facilities, posing serious threat to public safety and public order. After risk assessment and in order to protect these buildings, the Police considered it necessary to enhance the security thereof. Apart from deploying officers to station at these buildings, a number of measures had been implemented to prevent attacks and damage, including setting up water barriers.

When the Police take relevant security measures, they will communicate with the managers and responsible persons of the property management of the premises concerned. This is to ensure the effective implementation of the security measures on the one hand, and minimize the impact on people using these premises and road users, including PWDs, on the other. When security measures are put into effect, the Police will maintain contact with the responsible persons of the property management concerned for reviewing the security measures and arrangements from time to time.

The Police have contacted different stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations ("NGOs") offering support to PWDs, and explained to them the reasons for implementing security measures by the Police. Meanwhile, the Police have also explained to them the Government's barrier-free policy. For access to government venues or use of relevant facilities therein, PWDs may directly seek help from the Access Officer responsible for the accessibility issues of the relevant government venues if necessary.

I need to point out that the use of water barriers and the implementation of additional security measures in these government buildings were necessary counter-measures taken in response to the frequent violence and attack incidents that took place in some government premises which provided services to the public and police stations over the past few months. If members of the public conduct POEs in a peaceful, lawful and orderly manner, and do not commit serious violent acts of vandalism and attacks such as those we saw on television, there would be no need for the Police to implement the above security measures.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6819

I hope the public would address the serious damage and undesirable impacts of the rioters' violence on our society. Since June last year, a large number of shops, and even courts including the Court of Final Appeal, the High Court and Magistrates' Courts have been vandalized. About 740 sets of traffic lights across the city have been intentionally vandalized more than 1 600 times, which include cutting of wires, defacing or even burning down. Besides, as at 11 March 2020, the barrier-free facilities, including escalators and lifts, of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") have been vandalized about 120 times and over 80 times respectively. These violent acts of vandalism of the rioters have severely affected the daily lives and access of people from all walks of life, including PWDs, causing inconvenience or even danger to all commuters. If Members care about the accessibility of PWDs, they should care about the facilities for PWDs, and should vehemently condemn the violent acts of rioters that destroyed the facilities for PWDs. The public should firmly reject the violence of rioters. Moreover, Members must not acquiesce to or glorify violent acts of the rioters, and not become accomplices in destroying the tranquility of our society.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the prime culprit in destroying the tranquility of our society is the Government led by Carrie LAM. If not for the "extradition to China bill" forcibly introduced by Mr John LEE, if not for the Government turning a deaf ear to the voices of millions of citizens, and if not for the Government using police brutality against peaceful protesters, would Hong Kong be in such a deplorable state?

I am now pointing out to the Secretary, politely and calmly, that these obstacles are causing obstruction to PWDs. President, the location where this photo was taken was one of the lifts at the footbridge outside Citic Tower. This lift is one of the barrier-free access facilities, but when its doors are opened, the access is blocked by water barriers. One of my assistants is a wheelchair user, and he needs to get past these barriers every day, while some visually impaired persons also have such experience of being obstructed by these barriers. I asked the Secretary politely and calmly when these barriers would be removed, whether there were guidelines on the setting up of these barriers, and whether PWDs should be provided with information on how to obtain instant assistance when trying to get past these barriers. However, the Secretary did not respond at all. What kind of attitude is that? President, please ask him to answer this question.

6820 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, as I explained in great detail earlier on, all government departments have Access Officers and Access Co-ordinators. If a person needs any accessibility assistance in any relevant venues, he may seek help from the responsible Access Officer and Access Co-ordinator. Their information is published on the website of the Labour and Welfare Bureau. The information on Access Officers and Access Co-ordinators in each department is openly available. As I have clearly highlighted in the main reply, if anyone needs assistance, he may directly seek help from them.

However, if we genuinely care about barrier-free access and if we really hope that such facilities can be used by PWDs, have we tried to understand why these facilities are not available for use and why we need to safeguard social security as a whole? It is because PWD facilities were damaged by violence. This is not only my own assertion, but some PWD representatives like the Hong Kong Blind Union ("the Blind Union") also share this view. Over the years, they have been strenuously requesting MTRCL to install various barrier-free access facilities, such as tactile guide paths, audible warning signals on escalators and lifts, etc. We should endeavour to protect all such facilities which are installed to facilitate the travelling of PWDs. For what reasons do these facilities have to be vandalized? And how come some people would defend these vandals afterwards? Therefore, I think we must bring order out of chaos and dig deep to the root of the problem. And the root cause is violence.

Besides, the Equal Opportunities Commission ("EOC") also strongly condemns these acts of vandalism which ignore the basic needs of PWDs. It highlights the substantial difficulties and safety issues faced by PWDs in their daily lives. EOC is of the view that these facilities cannot be vandalized as this will affect the travelling of PWDs and their other needs in daily lives, and may even put PWDs in danger. Hence, we should dig deep to the root of the problem and ponder about why these PWD facilities would be vandalized as well as what security work we need to do. If there had been no violent vandalism by rioters, and if there had been no rioters who subjected Hong Kong people to constant worries of being attacked, we would not have put in place the special security facilities. Looking back at what happened in the past year, if there had been no such violence, we could have lived and worked in peace in the normal way, as we had always been in the good old days.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6821

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I did not ask the Secretary about PWD facilities being vandalized, but about the setting up of barriers. For example, a lift that could originally be used is now blocked by barriers.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, please point out the part of your supplementary question which has not been answered.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I have already asked my question. What vandalism is he talking about? There is no such thing as facilities being vandalized, only that some PWD facilities have been obstructed by the authorities.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please sit down. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, we need to look at the cause and the effect, and the cause in this case is violence. The example I quoted earlier aims to illustrate the fact that violence will result in an array of problems which will also affect PWDs. Of course, we all want to see that everyone can get back to his normal life without the need to step up security. Nevertheless, on the cause and effect relationship, we should be able to see very clearly that our present security work is attributed to the violence from rioters. Hence, they are definitely related, President.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): There is such a shameless person as John LEE. If it was not because of him and Carrie LAM who introduced the "extradition to China bill", would Hong Kong be put in this miserable state today? Dr Fernando CHEUNG asked about these PWD facilities in a normal manner, and I have thought that it would be answered either by Dr LAW 6822 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Chi-kwong or the Commissioner for Rehabilitation. But to our surprise, it is John LEE who answers this question and talks so much nonsense. This is ridiculous indeed. We are now asking some questions related to PWDs, but the Security Bureau is telling us, on behalf of the Police, how it suppresses other people. Frankly speaking, the Police have the say over everything in Hong Kong. Even the setting up of water barriers to obstruct PWDs is done by police officers or the subordinates of John LEE.

President, my supplementary question is: Is he telling every citizen in Hong Kong that Hong Kong is governed by him, John LEE, and the dirty cops, and no one else can say a word? Is it true that he is the one who decides where to set up water barriers or how to obstruct PWDs? Yes or no?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, Dr KWOK is indeed shameless in making these comments, because being totally oblivious to facts, he wantonly attacks other people from his own perspectives and for his own interests. Since his question totally departs from facts, I do not need to respond at all.

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki stood and spoke loudly)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please sit down. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I object to his description of the Police, and I myself have not described Members in this way. Hence, if the Honourable Member respects himself, he should know that he should not have made comments in a way that mainly aimed at airing personal attacks against other people.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Members in the "violence-condoning camp" are hypocrites fond of playing the trick in which "the thief cries 'Stop thief'". In the past year, Members in the "violence-condoning camp" have been glorifying, condoning and advocating this LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6823 kind of street violence. It is due to the ordeal of our Legislative Council Complex being stormed and vandalized that so many water barriers and the like need to be placed outside. We also feel helpless that …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, please directly raise your supplementary question.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): … President, I know and I also feel that this will cause inconvenience to PWDs. However, Dr Fernando CHEUNG also admits himself that he wants mutual destruction and he is now already half-way successful, but now he hypocritically says that PWDs need to be assisted. I hope that Dr Fernando CHEUNG genuinely wants to help PWDs in a comprehensive manner.

President, Secretary, I want to raise a question. Many PWDs have told me that many traffic lights installed with electronic audible traffic signals, having been damaged by rioters, have not been repaired. PWDs, especially visually impaired persons, find it inconvenient and dangerous when crossing the road. I would like to know whether the Secretary has any statistics on the situation of traffic lights installed with electronic audible traffic signals. For example, how many of them have been damaged? How many of them have yet to be repaired? When they will be repaired? Is there any chance of claiming compensation from rioters and Members of the "violence-condoning camp"?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I do not have such information at hand. I will provide a written reply to Members in due course. (Appendix I) Nonetheless, I agree that many acoustic devices meant to assist PWDs in using certain facilities have been damaged, and the damage of these devices will greatly affect PWDs in using the facilities. In regard to this kind of vandalism, when the persons responsible for such damage are arrested by the Police, we will certainly hold them accountable. While they need to shoulder their criminal liabilities, they also need to take up their civil liabilities.

In some past cases relating to, for example, damaging certain facilities of MTRCL, the court not only found the persons guilty of criminal offences, and also ordered them to pay compensation for the loss suffered by MTRCL. In a 6824 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 case involving two defendants, if I recall correctly, each of them had to pay compensation of $140,000 to MTRCL. As regards these cases, if we have evidence, we will hold the persons responsible for the damage criminally and civilly liable for their acts.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Secretary John LEE just mentioned the Blind Union in his explanation. However, I hope he could remember that the Blind Union had released a statement some time ago about a visually impaired person being intercepted at an MTR station by a police officer, who even queried whether the white cane used by the visually impaired person was an offensive weapon. And the Secretary dares to mention the Blind Union at this meeting.

The main question of Dr Fernando CHEUNG is very simple: Do the Police have guidelines on the setting up of these barriers? For how long can these barriers be placed there? Where are the District Access Officers? Will they take the initiative to understand, find out and decide for how long these barriers will be left there? These are the sub-questions in the main question of Dr Fernando CHEUNG. I hope the Secretary can directly answer them.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): As I mentioned very clearly earlier on, these are additional security facilities. If violence does not exist, these additional security facilities are not needed at all. Hence, simply speaking, we should stand united to call for cessation of violence, and then it will be unnecessary for the Police to place these facilities. This is the first point.

Secondly, information on Access Officers and Access Co-ordinators is public information available on the websites of the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the departments concerned. In case a member of the public makes such a request, each Access Officer will handle the request, and not only the Police Force is involved in handling the request. In respect of any one single government building, no matter it is a problem about water barriers or other facilities, if people seek help from or lodge complaints to Access Co-ordinators, they will deal with the requests or complaints.

Thirdly, the Police have taken the initiative to liaise with some PWD representatives and NGOs, including the Hong Kong PHAB Association and Ebenezer School and Home for the Visually Impaired, giving them an overall LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6825 explanation on the measures adopted by the Police Force in respect of barrier-free access and facilities which includes the reasons why additional special security measures had to be put in place at certain locations, as well as the means by which they may seek assistance. The Police will also provide them with some open information of the departments, such as the contact details of all the staff concerned as listed on the websites as well as the relevant web links. The Police will continue with such communication in this aspect, in the hope that while smooth travelling of PWDs can be safeguarded, people can also understand why the Police need to adopt these measures, with a view to enhancing mutual communication.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth question.

Impacts of discarded face masks on the environment and ecology

5. MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, before I raise my question, I have to declare that I am a face mask supplier.

My question is, to prevent infection of the Coronavirus Disease 2019, healthcare personnel and members of the public need to always wear face masks. Some environmentalists have pointed out that a large number of face masks are disposed of improperly every day, giving rise to not only risks of virus spreading but also pollution to the environment. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the Environment Bureau ("ENB") has compiled statistics on or estimated the accumulated and average quantities of face masks disposed of each day across the territory since the outbreak of the epidemic;

(2) as some environmentalists have pointed out that anti-virus N95 masks and surgical masks generally contain degradation-resistant materials, and currently a large number of face masks are discarded along with domestic waste in landfills every day, whether ENB has assessed the impacts of such a situation on the environment and ecology; and

6826 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

(3) of the measures adopted by ENB for handling the pollution to the environment and ecology caused by discarded face masks?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, it is difficult for us to accurately provide the statistics on how many face masks have been used by Hong Kong's people since the outbreak of the epidemic. However, with an estimated population of about 7.5 million and a labour force of about 4 million in Hong Kong, the amount of disposable face masks used daily could be in the order of millions.

Based on the estimation that around 4 million to 6 million face masks are used in Hong Kong daily and each face mask weighs about 2 to 3 grams, the face masks disposed of at landfills every day will weigh some 10 to 15 tonnes. According to the report on Monitoring of Solid Waste in Hong Kong―Waste Statistics for 2018, the amount of municipal solid waste ("MSW") disposed of at landfills was 11 400 tonnes per day ("tpd"). On this basis, it is estimated that disposable face masks discarded during the epidemic will account for about 0.1% of the MSW disposed of at landfills.

Disposable face masks are mainly made of plastic materials, such as non-woven fabrics, filter layers and elastic strings and so on, and waste plastics is the third largest constituent of MSW in Hong Kong. According to the 2018 report mentioned above, the amount of waste plastics disposed of at landfills was about 2 300 tpd. On this basis, it is estimated that disposable face masks discarded during the epidemic will account for about 0.5% of the waste plastics disposed of.

Since disposable face masks, including N95 masks and surgical masks, are made of composite materials of different kinds and metals which are difficult to be separated, they are not suitable for recycling or discarding in recycling bins to avoid contaminating other recyclables. In addition, the Government announced on May 5 that it would distribute reusable masks to citizens of Hong Kong. This can help reduce the use of disposable face masks.

At present, discarded face masks from hospitals and isolation centres handling suspected and confirmed cases will be disposed of as clinical waste by delivering to the Chemical Waste Treatment Centre for incineration at a high LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6827 temperature of about 1 000°C. All the emissions will be treated by advanced air pollution control equipment to ensure compliance with the stringent emission standards to protect the environment.

As for the face masks used by the general public, they will be mainly collected along with the domestic waste by the refuse collection vehicles and sent to landfills directly or through refuse transfer stations. In the transfer stations, the waste will be conveyed to the purposely-built seal-tight containers via automated conveyor system, and then transported by sea or road to the landfills for disposal. The process of waste handling at the transfer stations is mainly operated by machinery, and the staff at the stations do not need to contact or handle the waste with their hands. The contractors of the transfer stations will regularly clean the waste tipping hall, the floor, the waste conveyor system, and the waste containers and trucks to keep the place clean and hygienic. Wastewater generated from the transfer stations will be properly treated before discharging into the public sewers, and subsequently transported to the government sewage treatment works for further treatment.

The landfill is designed and constructed as an enclosed containment incorporating multilayer composite liner system covering the entire area of the site, and leachate will be collected and properly treated. At the end of the daily operation, the contractor will cover the tipping areas with a layer of approximately 150 mm of soil and cement-based cover material to ensure environmental hygiene and prevent the emission of odour. In addition, the biogas produced in the landfill will be collected by the gas collection system for better use―the generation of energy. Under the enclosed environment in the landfill, the domestic waste will decompose and undergo anaerobic digestion. Thermal energy will be generated during the process and the temperature in the landfill will be increased, which will help kill pathogens, including bacteria and viruses. Escherichia coli ("E. coli") is often used as a microbial indicator of pathogens. The lower its level, the less likely the pathogens would be present in the environment. We have taken leachate from landfills for testing of E. coli, and the test result showed that there is no E. coli in the leachate. Therefore, the disposal of face masks in landfills would not result in the spreading of diseases.

During the epidemic, relevant departments will step up their efforts in cleaning up discarded face masks and refuse, and remind their staff to stay vigilant, observe good personal hygiene and dispose of refuse properly. As many members of the public visit country parks in recent days, relevant 6828 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 departments, including the Environmental Protection Department and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD"), have stepped up inspections and cleaning of venues. At the same time, AFCD has also publicized through different channels, including hanging publicity banners and posting posters in country parks with high visitor flow to urge the visitors to maintain environmental hygiene and protect the ecosystem. AFCD staff will also remind hikers to take their litter home when patrolling the country trails. If littering is found, appropriate enforcement actions will be taken.

In response to the epidemic, the Government has been constantly reminding members of the public to fight the virus together in the past few months through various channels to maintain strict personal hygiene and appropriate social distance with others at all times, and make proper use of personal protective equipment (such as face masks). Used personal protective equipment should be properly discarded in lidded rubbish bins and must not be littered elsewhere to avoid causing health risk and adversely affecting the ecosystem.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, according to recent press reports, on average, 200 million face masks are discarded each month by Hong Kong people. As the epidemic has lasted five months, about 1 billion face masks have been discarded, and we do not know how much longer the epidemic will last before the epidemic subsides. It is possible that another 1 billion face masks will be discarded in the coming days. Although the Secretary pointed out that face masks discarded only accounted for about 0.1% of the MSW disposed of, which is not a large quantity, the crux of the matter lies in the differences between discarded face masks and ordinary food waste or other refuse. At present, many private companies place dedicated litter bins for the exclusive use of collecting the face masks discarded by their employees, which is a very good practice indeed. My supplementary question is: Will the Government place dedicated litter bins on the streets for the public to dispose of their face masks given that face masks may be contaminated with pathogens or even virus? In particular, we should take into account that many street cleaners have to pick up face masks discarded on the streets, or some members of the public just discard their face masks in ordinary litter bins. Under such a scenario, the health risks are transferred to these street cleaners, and the risks not only lie in landfills. For that reason, has the Government considered what it can do to protect the health LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6829 of street cleaners in Hong Kong? Will it make arrangements so that dedicated collection boxes or stations can be put in place for the collection of face masks?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHUNG for his supplementary question. The Government has been doing its best in this regard. As to government premises, such as facilities managed by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department or visitor centres of country parks, we have already put in place internal guidelines. Lidded rubbish bins are placed near the entrances of such premises to facilitate the disposal of face masks by members of the public when they need to change or discard their face masks, thereby making subsequent handling of discarded face masks easier. Furthermore, we will also, through inter-departmental cooperation, launch publicity measures to encourage other private premises and institutions to draw reference from this practice. Having visited some quasi-governmental bodies, such as the Science Park, we were given to know that similar measures have been put in place. For that reason, as far as the premises allow, we will encourage governmental and other organizations to put in place this arrangement with a view to minimizing the health hazards posed to frontline workers.

MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): President, since the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic, both the consumption of face masks and the quantity of discarded face masks have been rising incessantly. Used face masks can be seen on the streets, in country parks, on beaches or even inside eateries. As this will increase the risk of spreading the virus, one is worried that it may result in a gap in the fight against the epidemic. While confirmed infection cases are sporadic in Hong Kong for the time being, it is expected that the epidemic will last for a while. Therefore, the quantity of discarded face masks will be astoundingly high. I hope the Government will face this issue squarely and take proactive measures to tackle the issue of discarded face masks in order to minimize the chance of spreading the virus.

I agree with the Government that anti-epidemic measures should be as stringent as circumstances permit. But I note from the Secretary's reply that he has not actively responded to the proposal of learning from the experience of the Mainland in which face mask recycling machines are placed in public places with a view to encouraging the public to dispose of used face masks properly for central recycling by the Government. In the long run, we should endeavour to 6830 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 research and develop smart face mask recycling machines with built-in anti-bacterial and disinfection functions in order to eradicate pollution that may be caused by the disposal of face masks. Will the Government consider adopting this approach?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LAU for his supplementary question. First of all, we agree that we should care about the risks faced by frontline workers when they handle refuse, in particular the risks arising from discarded face masks being mingled with ordinary waste. Just now I have explained that in all government buildings, no matter they are open to the public or just offices for government staff, we have put in place internal guidelines and we have inspected these premises. Basically, lidded rubbish bins have already been placed at the entrances of these premises for the exclusive use of collecting discarded face masks to minimize health risks.

Regarding room for improvement in this area, we will listen to Members' views and see what we should do next. Nevertheless, we will also draw reference from the practices adopted by other places in the world in dealing with the disposal of face masks, and there are two aspects that I would like to touch upon. First, as mentioned by Mr CHUNG, a diversified approach should be adopted by encouraging the use of reusable masks, with a view to reducing the use of disposable face masks and achieving the goal of reducing waste at source. Second, different people may have different needs. Therefore, there are different scenarios under which disposable face masks are used. In this regard, the Government will set an example by placing, as far as practicable, face mask collection boxes with lids in public areas to facilitate the disposal of face masks in a proper manner.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, as the Secretary stated in his main reply, the Government would put in place discarded face mask collection boxes, but I am afraid that it may not be a solution that can address the root cause of the problem. From the angle of reducing waste at source, will the Administration consider issuing guidelines under which the 200 000-odd-member strong civil service is encouraged or even compelled to use reusable masks, such as cloth face coverings, when they go to the office, instead of using the one-off disposable face masks?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6831

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LEUNG for his supplementary question. I believe the entire Hong Kong society, as well as other places, is faced with big challenges amid our fight against the epidemic. Therefore, in Hong Kong, and in other places as well, diversified sources are available in the supply of face masks, such as the reusable masks advocated by Mr CHUNG and other Members, thereby significantly reducing the use of disposable face masks. For that reason, it is not only a question that concerns the participation of government staff, but also relates to the trend in society. The Government has recently manufactured reusable masks for free distribution to all members of the public, with a view to providing the public with one more choice. I believe this is the common direction that the Government, the business sector and the public would like to pursue. I agree to the Member's view and we will enhance our publicity efforts in this regard. Of course, different people will use different face masks to cater for different situations. Therefore, the Government's initiative of distributing reusable face masks to all members of the public free of charge is a good starting point. I cherish the hope that we will not forget the need to protect the environment and reduce wastes when we stand united to fight the epidemic.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, while the Secretary has just said that reusable masks are available now for the public to choose, it is indisputable that the problem of having to dispose of a large quantity of disposable face masks still lingers. Just now the Secretary has said that lidded rubbish bins have been placed in all government buildings for the disposal of discarded face masks, but the problem is, all Hong Kong people need to wear face masks every day and they also need to discard the face masks after use. If the Administration seeks to solve the environmental pollution problem so created by solely relying on these lidded rubbish bins in government facilities to collect used face masks, it will come to avail. I hope that the Government will consider expeditiously placing mask collection and recycling facilities in all places across the territory. Only by doing so may the environmental pollution problem be solved. It is useless to place a handful of lidded rubbish bins on some government premises. How many face masks can the Government collect? Perhaps the Administration may inform me of the number of face masks that may be collected each day from the lidded rubbish bins placed on government premises. I believe they account for less than one in a million.

6832 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHUNG for his supplementary question. I think different people have different habits in using disposable face masks. It is because many people use disposable face masks in a very prudent manner. For example, some people use only one face mask a day. When will they discard their face masks? Perhaps some will discard the face masks at home after a day's work or after doing some shopping. Let us take a look at the main reply. Under these circumstances, with a couple of members in the family, several face masks may have to be discarded every day and such face masks would generally mingle with ordinary domestic wastes. As most domestic rubbish bins are lidded, with disposable rubbish bags inside the bins, a certain percentage of disposable face masks can be disposed of this way. Perhaps some people need to use a new face mask when they get back to their office, and the used face masks will then be disposed of in the office. Therefore, even if they wear face masks on their way to work, they will dispose of the face masks when they get back to the office, instead of disposing of the face masks on the street.

For that reason, as I have explained just now, various government departments, including the department in charge of public health and hygiene, encourage governmental, quasi-governmental and private organizations to adopt the Government's approach of placing lidded rubbish bins on their premises if they have a large number of staff members and likely to have a high percentage of face mask disposal on their premises. In addition, they should enhance the awareness of their cleaning staff and staff responsible for handling face masks and refuse, so that they will have a clear idea that discarded face masks must be disposed of properly. I believe that most scenarios can be properly dealt with in this way. Having said that, I have also explained that we have tried our very best to place lidded rubbish bins at appropriate locations or entrances in public areas on government premises, so as to facilitate the disposal of face masks by the public when such needs arise.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, the placing of face mask recycling bins is not rocket science, isn't it? I do not understand why the Secretary talks about the habits of individuals in using face masks. In particular, President, it is already summer time and one will easily get sweaty by walking on the street for half an hour. Face masks, which will easily be contaminated or moistened by sweat, have to be replaced or disposed of frequently. Therefore, I am only humbly asking the Government to provide LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6833 convenience to the public by installing these additional facilities, so that members of the public would not have to bring their face masks back to the office and put them in envelopes. Furthermore, more wastes are produced now because people have to wrap their face masks with facial tissue or put them in envelopes. Is it really that difficult to place a dedicated face mask recycling bin by the side of each rubbish bin in the territory? I really do not understand.

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I understand Member's views and analyses, and there are of course many different scenarios. Actually, since the supply of face masks is still rather tight, some people may only use one or two masks a day. Furthermore, the chance for them to dispose of the used face masks in office or at home is higher. For that reason, we need to look at the big picture as far as this matter is concerned. Certainly, if we talk about the original intent as Mr CHUNG has said, the general direction supported by all is encouraging people to reduce waste at source and use more reusable masks, regardless of the brands. Hopefully it will help us address many environmental concerns, including the quantity of wastes as well as the hygiene issue.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last oral question.

Quarantine facilities

6. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, while the Government has been searching for suitable premises for use as temporary quarantine facilities since the outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic in Hong Kong, it has encountered much difficulty. On the other hand, among the camps operated by non-governmental organizations ("NGOs"), only Po Leung Kuk Jockey Club Pak Tam Chung Holiday Camp was earlier on used as a temporary quarantine facility. Regarding the provision of quarantine facilities, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers of quarantine residential places provided by the previous and current quarantine facilities;

6834 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

(2) whether, since the current outbreak of the epidemic, the Government has discussed with the various NGOs the borrowing of the camps operated by them for use as temporary quarantine facilities; if so, of the details (including the party initiating the discussions); if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether, before the onset of the current outbreak of the epidemic, it had drawn up a standing list of the properties of the Government and NGOs which were suitable for use as temporary quarantine facilities, so that sufficient quarantine facilities might be provided expeditiously when there was an outbreak of an epidemic; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, Coronavirus Disease-2019 ("COVID-19") is an unprecedented virus which is highly contagious and fast-spreading, and the outbreak situation is evolving rapidly. To cope with the outbreak of COVID-19, the Government has been adopting a strategy of "containment" with specific measures to achieve the purposes of early identification, early isolation and early treatment, as well as a suite of measures to reduce population mobility and in-population social contact. Apart from admitting patients confirmed or suspected to be infected to hospitals for isolation and treatment, putting close contacts who may have been exposed to the risk of contracting COVID-19 (including close contacts of confirmed patients) under compulsory quarantine at quarantine centres is also a crucial element of the anti-epidemic work.

With a view to effectively responding to novel infectious diseases including COVID-19, the Government has formulated the Preparedness and Response Plan for Novel Infectious Disease of Public Health Significance, which clearly sets out the investigation and control measures under different response levels. The Department of Health ("DH") would get prepared in collaboration with the Leisure and Cultural Services Department to transform suitable holiday camps into quarantine centres as and when necessary.

The rapid development of the outbreak in Hong Kong and around the world since the end of January this year has led to a surge in the demand for quarantine facilities, including the successive occurrence of local infection cases, a surge in imported cases at one point, the increasing proportion of close contact persons LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6835 among confirmed cases, the need to bring back Hong Kong residents who were stranded in Hubei Province and those on the Diamond Princess cruise, as well as the immediate evacuation for the purpose of disease investigation of infection cases. In this connection, since suitable holiday camps could only provide a limited number of quarantine units, there has been a pressing need for the Government to provide a large number of quarantine facilities within a short period of time, and the Government has been looking for suitable sites in full steam since late January.

When searching for sites for setting up quarantine facilities, an inter-departmental team would conduct assessment on every possible site to thoroughly examine whether the facilities and location of the sites meet the requirements for use as quarantine centres. Among others, it is crucial for the facilities to be ready for use within a short period of time. Priority would go to premises under the ownership and management of the Government when it considers suitable sites. Indeed, we are very grateful to the suggestions offered by different sectors of society and non-governmental organizations ("NGOs") on possible sites for use as quarantine centres over the period, and have rented individual sites deemed suitable for such use after consideration. Nevertheless, the number of suitable sites meeting the aforesaid requirements is limited.

As at 19 May, the Government has set up quarantine centres at the following sites:

(1) Lady MacLehose Holiday Village, providing 45 units;

(2) Po Leung Kuk Jockey Club Pak Tam Chung Holiday Camp, providing 25 units;

(3) Lei Yue Mun Park and Holiday Village in Chai Wan (including the constructed units at its basketball court and football field), providing 379 units;

(4) Heritage Lodge of Jao Tsung-I Academy, providing 53 units;

(5) Junior Police Call Permanent Activity Centre in Pat Heung, providing 208 units; and

(6) Chun Yeung Estate, currently providing 3 121 units.

6836 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Among the above, two smaller quarantine facilities, namely Lady MacLehose Holiday Village and Po Leung Kuk Jockey Club Pak Tam Chung Holiday Camp, were no longer used for housing close contacts since early March to achieve better manpower deployment and utilization of facilities.

In light of the rapid and volatile development of COVID-19, it is difficult to accurately predict the demand for quarantine facilities. Therefore, we must plan ahead and continue to increase the provision of quarantine facilities as far as possible. The Government has also been setting up additional quarantine facilities through construction works at other sites. Construction works of providing 99 quarantine units at the Sai Kung Outdoor Recreation Centre has been completed. As to the government site at Penny's Bay, it is expected that the works would be completed by July, providing some 800 units. In addition, the Government will also construct quarantine units at the site reserved for future tourism development at Penny's Bay and is making preparations to kick start the works concerned. According to preliminary estimation, an additional 700 units could be provided by September.

Thanks to the concerted effort and support across different parties in the community, the Government has been able to increase thousands of quarantine units within a short period of time. In the long run, we consider it necessary to set up permanent quarantine facilities in Hong Kong in preparation for any possible outbreaks of disease in the future. We would review the overall situation after the current outbreak and assess the long term quarantine needs of Hong Kong, in order to make early preparations for other possible outbreaks of disease.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I am delighted to hear that the Secretary, in the last part of her main reply, mentioned the need to plan ahead.

As Members all know, speaking of such quarantine centres as Chun Yeung Estate and Jao Tsung-I Academy, nearby residents or those who are about to move in have expressed strong objection. The Government's hasty and haphazard site selection shows that it has not paid any heed to the recommendations of the report on the 2003 SARS outbreak.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6837

As already pointed out by the World Health Organization ("WHO"), COVID-19 may develop into an endemic disease, and even if vaccine becomes available, it may still be impossible to contain the virus. Under these circumstances, I would like to ask: Have the authorities considered the idea of setting up permanent isolation or quarantine centres dedicated to accommodating patients requiring quarantine or isolation treatment on sites that are far away from residential buildings? Just now, the Secretary said that the epidemic was volatile. We certainly do not hope that this is the case. And, it can also be said that Hong Kong is lucky. Anyway, if all this is materialized, we can better prepare ourselves even if Hong Kong is attacked again by any virus a few years later. Besides, the selection of remote sites can likewise avoid strong public resentment in the process. I would like to ask the Secretary: Has she considered the issue along this line?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I thank Dr Priscilla LEUNG for her supplementary question.

Actually, the Government has been considering the issue along this line. The Member may still remember that under the contingency plan drawn up after the SARS outbreak back in 2003, the authorities reserved certain holiday camps of a relatively small scale for use as quarantine facilities, such as the Lei Yue Mun Park and Holiday Village. True, the scale of the current outbreak differs from that of the then epidemic, but we have actually been considering the issue along this line. On this occasion, after understanding the overall situation and taking into full account the current epidemic, we consider it necessary to construct and we have constructed an array of new facilities, just as Dr LEUNG has said. For example, Chun Yeung Estate will be returned to the Housing Authority when appropriate.

Speaking of permanent facilities, in view of people's deepening knowledge of the virus, the opinion of WHO and other experts that this virus is likely to coexist with human beings, and also the uncertainty of whether other communicable diseases will emerge in the future, I will say that the provision of quarantine facilities is one of the very important means to cope with communicable diseases.

Regarding the construction of new facilities, especially facilities built on sites that are far away from residential buildings as asserted by Dr LEUNG, we will take into account the overall development of the epidemic in the days ahead 6838 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 in determining the specific needs of setting up permanent facilities. We will carefully examine and consider the number and locations of such facilities.

MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): President, Secretary, I would like to focus particularly on Chun Yeung Estate.

The epidemic was very acute during the initial outbreak. Prospective tenants vacated their units in Chun Yeung Estate for use as a quarantine centre. Despite their unwillingness to do so, they still believed that they should stand united in rescuing Hong Kong. But today, upon the subsidence of the epidemic, various restrictions and anti-epidemic measures are being relaxed gradually. The Secretary stated that Chun Yeung Estate would be returned to the Housing Authority when appropriate. I would like to ask the Secretary: Can she tell us categorically whether it is possible to announce, within this month, the exact time when Chun Yeung Estate will be returned to the Housing Authority?

There are a number of reasons behind my question. First, many prospective tenants of Chun Yeung Estate, with some of them currently residing in Kowloon West or even other districts, have been waiting to move into Chun Yeung Estate for more than a decade. There was a case in which the subject had waited for a public rental housing ("PRH") unit for 11 years before he was allocated a unit in Chun Yeung Estate. He is thinking about whether he should change schools for his children before the school year starts in September. In fact, I asked the Secretary this question two weeks ago. I would like to ask the Secretary to reply categorically: Is it possible to announce, within this month, the exact time when Chun Yeung Estate will be returned to the Housing Authority?

Besides, I would also like to give some information to the Government. There are many camps under the Government, including 24 subvented NGO camps and also 20 camps provided by NGOs. The Government should, in the first place, make effective use of these camps as they are either located on outlying islands or far away from residential buildings. The Government will then be able to return Chun Yeung Estate to the Housing Authority as soon as possible.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ms CHAN for her supplementary question.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6839

When the epidemic was at its peak in March, the Government received many cases every day. At that time, the occupancy rate of Chun Yeung Estate was likewise very high. With the passage of time, the authorities have already increased the provision of other units. As I said just now, some additional units may commence operation in July and September.

While Hong Kong's epidemic has slightly subsided by now, the development of the epidemic outside Hong Kong is hardly predictable amidst a global COVID-19 pandemic. At present, we must keep a close watch on the overall development of the epidemic and maintain a large number of quarantine facilities for accommodating the close contacts. Members may have noticed that some returnees from high-risk regions are required to undergo quarantine, such as those returning from Pakistan and India in recent days. Therefore, the time when Chun Yeung Estate will cease to be used as a quarantine centre depends on changes in the epidemic. The Government will continue to keep a watch on the development of the epidemic.

When appropriate, DH will vacate the relevant units in Chun Yeung Estate as early as possible and thoroughly disinfect the Estate. The Housing Department will also expeditiously complete the repair works concerned, so as to enable prospective tenants to move in as early as possible.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to take this opportunity to thank members in the healthcare sector for their immense help offered to Hong Kong people during the entire anti-epidemic initiative. I also think that the Government's policies have proved to be effective. Nevertheless, we have also noticed that the industrial, commercial and professional service sectors are facing many difficulties. Yesterday, The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce said that the outlook for enterprises was gloomy …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeffery LAM, please raise your supplementary question directly.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): My question actually pertains to cross-border quarantine arrangements.

6840 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

I earlier proposed to the Government that certain categories of returnees should be exempted from the 14-day quarantine requirement, followed by the Government's announcement that their quarantine requirement in Hong Kong be exempted. However, those people are still subject to the 14-day quarantine requirement after travelling to the Mainland and Macao. While the Chief Executive already brought up this matter, I have also relayed my views to the relevant parties. As the Chief Executive has said that she has communicated with the relevant parties on this matter, I would like to ask the Secretary: What is the latest progress? This exemption measure is undoubtedly conducive to Hong Kong's economic recovery. While the Government has already done a lot on this, I hold that expeditious adoption of relevant arrangements can really help Hong Kong a lot. The setting up of mutual recognition arrangements is also an important manifestation of the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Besides, we also note the development of the epidemic in the three places …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM, your question is totally irrelevant to the main question.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): The authorities need space for executing the quarantine measures applicable to people travelling between the two places, and one example is Chun Yeung Estate. In my view, if the 14-day quarantine requirement can be exempted, it may be conducive to reducing the demand for quarantine facilities in Hong Kong. Regarding the possible benefits that may be brought by specifying exemptions from the quarantine requirements implemented in both places or in Hong Kong proposed by me just now, as well as the time when both sides can reach a consensus, can the Secretary give a brief response to these two issues?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, let me briefly respond to Mr Jeffrey LAM's supplementary question.

Regarding certain cross-border quarantine arrangements, we had earlier amended the law to introduce two additional categories of exempted persons. As far as I know, the Policy Bureau concerned has, having regard to the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6841 exemption arrangement, drawn up plans to ensure smooth exchanges between the two places wherever necessary.

In the last legislative amendment exercise regarding Hong Kong's quarantine arrangements, the Director of Health is empowered to revoke the quarantine requirement for people arriving in Hong Kong if the arrivals have been issued quarantine certificates by the Mainland with negative virus test results upon their arrival in Hong Kong.

As mentioned by Mr LAM just now, we have been discussing with the Mainland under the Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism to examine how the respective quarantine and virus test arrangements adopted in the Guangdong Province, Hong Kong and Macao can be mutually recognized, as the arrangements currently applicable to goods vehicle drivers. The relevant discussions are still underway because, first, all relevant parties must formulate an arrangement that allows the relevant documents to be mutually recognized, and second, the quarantine arrangements and procedures adopted by the Guangdong Province, Hong Kong and Macao are different. For example, in the Guangdong Province, a health code is adopted. Therefore, it is necessary to design a procedure whereby the health code adopted in the Guangdong Province can be recognized by Hong Kong or Macao. Therefore, we are strenuously working with all parties with a view to working out a mutual recognition arrangement for the three places. Mr LAM, we have already stepped up our work in this respect.

MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): President, I would like to raise a supplementary question on the issue relating to Chun Yeung Estate and Regal Oriental Hotel.

Just now, a Member mentioned that owing to urgent needs back then, Chun Yeung Estate was initially used as a quarantine centre. The epidemic has come slightly under control, and I have also learnt from the relevant papers that the quarantine units in Penny's Bay will be completed very soon. At present, many people are waiting to move into Chun Yeung Estate, especially tenants of "subdivided units", who have been waiting for PRH units for many years. As the intake date has been delayed time and again, they very much hope that they can move into their units as soon as possible. Besides, the new school year will 6842 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 begin in September. Residents living in remote districts need to make schooling arrangements for their children. Therefore, they hope that the units in Chun Yeung Estate can be expeditiously vacated for intake by residents in need.

The same case applies to Regal Oriental Hotel. People living in the vicinity of Regal Oriental Hotel have all along maintained that the present arrangements are undesirable due to the hotel's proximity to residential buildings. I would like to ask the Secretary: Will the authorities use other hotels that are situated far away from residential buildings, so that Regal Oriental Hotel can be released?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr Vincent CHENG for his supplementary question.

First and foremost, we are certainly very concerned about the residents who are waiting to move into Chun Yeung Estate. We will do our utmost, and apart from keeping an eye on the epidemic, we also hope that Chun Yeung Estate can be released and returned to the Housing Authority as soon as possible. At present, some returnees from high-risk regions are still undergoing quarantine in Chun Yeung Estate. As I said just now, they include people returning from places such as Pakistan and India. As far as my understanding goes, some Hong Kong residents will return to Hong Kong one after another. We are constructing more quarantine facilities. When the relevant facilities can provide sufficient capacity to cope with the needs, we will definitely address the issue of Chun Yeung Estate in due course.

The second part of the supplementary question concerns the use of Regal Oriental Hotel as a holding centre for arrivals awaiting test results. While the hotel is not a quarantine centre as such, we also understand the problems and views put forth earlier by residents and shop operators near the hotel and also the relevant District Council. We will continue to address their queries as far as possible. The need to set up additional holding centres depends on the number of returnees.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Oral questions end here.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6843

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Land costs for subsidized sale flat projects

7. MR ANDREW WAN (in Chinese): President, at present, the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") has to pay the Government, for each subsidized sale flat ("SSF") project, 35% of the development cost of the flats sold as the land cost for the Government's provision of site formation and supporting infrastructure, with the development cost being the aggregate of the construction cost and overhead cost. Regarding the land costs for SSF projects, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) since when the Government has charged HA land costs for SSF projects, and of the justifications for setting the land cost at the level of 35% of the development cost;

(2) of the following details of each of the Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS") housing courts sold under each sale exercise since the resumption of the sale of HOS flats in 2014 (set out in Table 1):

(i) sale exercise,

(ii) district in which the housing court is located,

(iii) name of the housing court,

(iv) total number of flats in the housing court,

(v) average per-square-foot price of the flats (in saleable floor area),

(vi) (a) total amount and (b) average amount per flat, of the land cost,

(vii) (a) total amount and (b) average amount per square foot of saleable floor area, of the expenditure incurred by the Government on site formation and supporting infrastructure for the domestic element of the housing court, and

6844 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

(viii) (a) total amount and (b) average amount per square foot of saleable floor area, of the land value at full market value for the domestic element of the housing court;

Table 1 (vi) (vii) (viii) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b)

(3) of the following details of each of the Green Form Subsidized Home Ownership Scheme ("GSH") housing courts since the sale of GSH flats in 2016 (set out in Table 2):

(i) district in which the housing court is located,

(ii) name of the housing court,

(iii) total number of flats in the housing court,

(iv) average per-square-foot price of the flats,

(v) (a) total amount and (b) average amount per flat, of the land cost,

(vi) (a) total amount and (b) average amount per square foot of saleable floor area, of the expenditure incurred by the Government on site formation and supporting infrastructure for the domestic element of the housing court, and

(vii) (a) total amount and (b) average amount per square foot of saleable floor area, of the land value at full market value for the domestic element of the housing court; and

Table 2 (v) (vi) (vii) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6845

(4) whether it reviewed, in the past three years, the approach for setting the land cost; if so, of the details (including the date and outcome of the review, and whether a report was published); if not, the reasons for that; whether it has plans in the coming three years to adjust downward the level of the land cost (e.g. setting it at 25% of the development cost) so as to lower the prices of HOS and GSH flats?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my reply to the question raised by Mr Andrew WAN is as follows:

(1) and (4)

According to the record of the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA"), HA has, since 1980s, been paying the Government a project development cost of 35% for subsidized sale flats ("SSFs") (including Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS")) as contribution for the Government's provision of site formation and infrastructure. In addition, the Government provides land to HA for the development of SSFs at a nominal premium of $1,000. In the past three years, the Government and HA have not conducted review on the determination arrangement of the land development cost for SSFs. The Government has already contributed substantial subsidy to the land development of SSFs, and has no plan to initiate a review.

Pricing of SSFs is determined based on the affordability of the applicants, and is not linked to the land development cost. According to the prevailing pricing mechanism for SSFs, the price of the flats for sale is determined based on the affordability test which uses the median monthly household income of non-owner occupier households as benchmark, and the number of affordable flats is at least 75%.

(2) and (3)

Information of housing courts sold under each sale exercise of HOS since 2014 and information of housing courts sold under the Green Form Subsidized Home Ownership Scheme ("GSH") since 2016 is set out in Annex 1 and Annex 2 respectively.

6846 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

We are not able to provide the Government's expenditure on land development for the above projects since the boundaries of the government site formation works are usually not confined to the public housing sites alone. Expenditure of government site formation works is also affected by various factors, including site location, site condition, geology and proposed site formation levels, etc. In fact, consideration would also be given for the concerned works to provide public roads in the vicinity and supporting facilities on a district basis. The Government's infrastructure provisions might also be upgraded when appropriate to meet the overall expected development of the districts, the projected planning parameters, the estimated population and traffic growth in the district, etc.

Annex 1

Information of HOS projects

Average Land cost selling (35% of the project Land value price development cost) per Name Number Average Sale square District of of per square scheme feet Average development flats Total Total foot of (of per flat ($ million) ($ million) saleable saleable ($ million) floor area area) ($) ($) HOS Sha Tin Mei Ying 216 5,918 116.0 0.54 499 5,161 2014 Court Mei Pak 288 5,983 156.6 0.54 612 4,977 Court Tsuen Sheung Chui 962 6,113 405.0 0.42 2,879 6,752 Wan Court Tsing Yi Ching Chun 465 5,723 245.5 0.53 1,081 5,327 Court Yuen Wang Fu 229 5,593 213.4 0.93 190 1,905 Long Court LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6847

Average Land cost selling (35% of the project Land value price development cost) per Name Number Average Sale square District of of per square scheme feet Average development flats Total Total foot of (of per flat ($ million) ($ million) saleable saleable ($ million) floor area area) ($) ($) HOS Sha Tin Ka Shun 248 6,828 205.0 0.83 420 3,789 2016 Court Yuen Ping Yan 2 409 4,942 940.6 0.39 4,564 4,541 Long Court HOS Kwun Choi Hing 1 358 7,739 563.5 0.41 4,241 7,868 2017 Tong Court Lantau Ngan Wai 170 4,292 141.6 0.83 74 988 Island Court Ngan Ho 529 4,422 325.5 0.62 556 2,544 Court HOS Cheung Hoi Lok 2 522 9,234 1,128.4 0.45 9,946 8,915 2018 Sha Wan Court Kai Tak Kai Long 683 9,755 354.3 0.52 2,280 8,539 Court Tung Yu Tai 1 226 6,698 389.1 0.32 # # Chung Court HOS Ho Man Kwun Tak 603 8,551 509.1 0.84 2,428 7,775 2019 Tin Court Cheung Hoi Tak 814 7,783 290.5 0.36 # # Sha Wan Court Kwai Sheung Man 494 7,180 240.1 0.49 # # Chung Court Tseung Yung Ming 1 395 7,509 430.4 0.31 # # Kwan O Court Ma On Kam Fai 735 7,180 284.1 0.39 # # Shan Court Sha Tin Yuk Wo 830 6,961 280.9 0.34 # # Court

Note:

# Information of land value is not available as the housing court has not been completed.

6848 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Annex 2

Information of GSH projects

Average Land cost selling (35% of the project Land value price development cost) per Name Number Average square District of of per square feet Average developments flats Total Total foot of (of per flat ($ million) ($ million) saleable saleable ($ million) floor area area) ($) ($) San Po Kong King Tai 857 5,658 321.1 0.37 2,044 6,552 Court Cheung Sha Lai Tsui 2 545 6,243 783.6 0.31 8,565 9,472 Wan Court Chai Wan Dip Tsui 828 6,100 262.7 0.32 # # Court Tsing Yi Ching Fu 2 868 5,460 744.7 0.26 # # Court

Note:

# Information of land value is not available as the housing court has not been completed.

Promoting competition in the fuel market

8. MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Chinese): President, the Chairperson of the Competition Commission ("the Commission") attended on the 27th of last month, before her departure from office at the end of last month, a meeting of the Panel on Economic Development of this Council. At that meeting, she used the term "market failure" to describe Hong Kong's fuel market, and suggested that the Government should formulate policies to make the fuel market operate in a fairer manner, and confer on the Commission greater powers to gather evidence to facilitate its investigation into whether oil companies had engaged in collusive price-fixing. On promoting competition in the fuel market, will the Government inform this Council:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6849

(1) whether the Government requested, in the past two years, all domestic piped liquefied petroleum gas ("LPG") suppliers to publish price information; if so, whether the various suppliers published such information; if so, of the means through which such information was published and the details of such information;

(2) given that in the light of the Commission's recommendations, the authorities revised in August 2017 the arrangements for renewing contracts for the supply of centralized LPG to public housing estates, by dropping the past practice that contracts with existing LPG suppliers would be renewed if their performance was satisfactory and adopting a new practice that new contracts must be awarded through tendering, of the details of the tendering exercises which were/will be conducted in the past two years and within this year, including the names of the public housing estates involved, the numbers of suppliers submitting bids, whether the successful bidders were existing suppliers, and the validity periods of such contracts; and

(3) given that the Commission has no power to demand oil companies to provide information and documents during the stage of conducting market studies, whether the Government will consider amending the Competition Ordinance (Cap. 619) to confer such powers on the Commission; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, the consolidated replies of the Environment Bureau, Transport and Housing Bureau and Commerce and Economic Development Bureau to the above three questions are as follows:

(1) At present, two out of the three domestic piped liquefied petroleum gas ("LPG") suppliers (i.e. DSG Energy Limited and Sinopec (Hong Kong) Gas Company Limited) have already published the updated domestic piped LPG prices on their websites. The website addresses are as follows:

DSG:

6850 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Sinopec:

As for the other supplier (i.e. ExxonMobil Hong Kong Limited), it explains that it supplies domestic piped LPG and cylinder LPG through operators and distributors, instead of supplying to domestic users directly. As a wholesaler, based on company policy, it is unable to publish price information about its domestic piped LPG products.

The retail prices of domestic piped LPG in the past two years are set out in the table below:

DSG Sinopec Effective date (HK$/cu m) (HK$/cu m) End of Apr 2018 34.80 34.80 End of Jul 2018 37.68 37.68 End of Oct 2018 39.61 39.61 End of Jan 2019 33.35 33.35 End of Apr 2019 37.86 37.86 End of Jul 2019 34.38 34.38 End of Oct 2019 36.77 36.77 End of Jan 2020 38.94 38.94 End of Apr 2020 34.02 34.02

(2) At present, there are 15 public rental housing ("PRH") estates(1) under the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") that are installed with centralized LPG supply. With reference to the experience in private housing developments as well as the information gathered from LPG suppliers and the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, and taking into account public views and the Competition Commission's ("the Commission's") recommendations, the Commercial Properties Committee ("CPC") of HA decided in August 2017 that tenders should be invited for awarding new

(1) Butterfly Estate, Choi Yuen Estate, Kam Peng Estate, Kwong Fuk Estate, Lung Tin Estate, Ngan Wan Estate, Oi Man Estate, On Ting Estate, Sam Shing Estate, Shui Pin Wai Estate, Tai Yuen Estate, Wah Fu (II) Estate, Wu King Estate, Yau Oi Estate and Nga Ning Court. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6851 contracts for the supply of centralized LPG to PRH estates upon expiry of the existing contracts. CPC also decided to bundle, on a trial basis, the contracts for the supply of LPG to Wah Fu (II) Estate and Nga Ning Court for tendering. The concerned tender was issued in February 2018 and awarded in August of the same year. The details are as follows:

Whether the successful Name of Number of Term of LPG Supply tenderer is the PRH Estate Tenderers Contract incumbent supplier Wah Fu (II) 2 No 10 years commencing Estate from April 2019 Nga Ning Court 2 Yes 10 years commencing from April 2019

According to the opinion survey conducted by HA subsequently, residents were generally well satisfied with the handover process between the then incumbent supplier and the new supplier, the stability of LPG supply during the handover period, as well as the services and various benefits (including the provision of free annual inspection of gas appliances and the waiving of minimum charge, etc.) provided by the new supplier. Taking into account the experience gained from Wah Fu (II) Estate and Nga Ning Court and the views from various parties, CPC decided in November 2019 that tenders should continue to be invited for the award of new contracts for the supply of centralized LPG to other PRH estates upon expiry of the existing ones. CPC also decided that the tenders should continue to mandate suppliers to carry out Quantitative Risk Assessments and necessary improvement works and/or mitigation measures, and provide benefits to domestic users such as free inspection of gas appliances and waiving of monthly fee for the maintenance service plan, etc. In order to enhance the safety and energy saving performance of the LPG system, CPC also approved refinements to tender assessment criteria by adding new criteria for the relevant aspects.

6852 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

HA will take into consideration the expiry dates of centralized LPG supply contracts and the geographical location of individual PRH estates, as well as economies of scale, etc. and, where appropriate, continue to invite tenders with bundling arrangements for the LPG supply contracts for other PRH estates.

(3) There had been extensive public consultation and thorough discussions at the Legislative Council prior to the enactment of the Competition Ordinance (Cap. 619) ("the Ordinance"). The provisions of the Ordinance were drawn up by the Government having balanced different considerations and were passed by the Legislative Council.

According to the Ordinance, although the Commission has no power to obtain specified information or documents for conducting market studies, it may conduct an investigation if it has reasonable cause to suspect that a contravention of a competition rule has taken place, and require any person to produce specified information or documents, or to attend before the Commission, etc., in accordance with the Ordinance. The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau will continue its close liaison with the Commission on the implementation of the Ordinance.

Non-refoulement claims

9. MR DENNIS KWOK: President, the Immigration (Amendment) Ordinance 2012, which came into operation in December 2012, provides for a statutory process for making and determining non-refoulement claims. It also provides that a claimant who is aggrieved by the decision may lodge an appeal, which will be handled by a statutory Torture Claims Appeal Board ("TCAB"). The Government later introduced a unified screening mechanism ("USM"), which commenced operation in March 2014, to screen claims made by illegal immigrants refusing to be removed to another country on all applicable grounds (such as the risk of subjecting to torture or persecution). Besides, under the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115), the Director of Immigration ("the Director") may, on an application of a claimant who has a substantiated claim, permit the claimant to take employment. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6853

(1) of the respective numbers of claimants whose claims were substantiated under USM and by TCAB in each year since 2014;

(2) of the average time taken for handling each of the claims mentioned in (1);

(3) of the respective numbers of applications for taking employment received, granted and rejected by the Director in each year since 2014; if there were rejected applications, of the reasons for that;

(4) of the average handling time, and the conditions imposed on the claimants, in respect of each of the granted applications mentioned in (3);

(5) whether the Director has plans to shorten the time needed for processing applications for taking employment; if so, of the details (including the specific changes to be made and the timetable); if not, the reasons for that;

(6) of the number of claimants mentioned in (1) referred to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ("UNHCR") for resettlement in another country; among such claimants, the number of those subsequently resettled, and set out, in respect of each of the resettled persons, (i) the year in which the person left Hong Kong, and (ii) the time lapse from substantiation of claim to resettlement;

(7) of the policy on assisting the claimants referred to UNHCR in preparing for their living after resettlement; and

(8) of the date on which the Government last reviewed the humanitarian assistance programme for non-refoulement claimants, and whether it has plans to conduct a review shortly; if so, of the details and timetable?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: President, the Government implemented the Unified Screening Mechanism ("USM") in March 2014 to screen non-refoulement claims on all applicable grounds in one go. The United Nations' Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol have never applied to Hong Kong, and hence illegal immigrants seeking 6854 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 non-refoulement in Hong Kong will not be treated as "asylum seekers" or "refugees". The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government maintains a firm policy of not granting asylum and not determining or recognizing refugee status of any person. Regardless of the outcome of their torture/non-refoulement claims, claimants are not permitted to remain legally in Hong Kong. If their claims are rejected, the Immigration Department ("ImmD") will accordingly remove them to their countries of origin.

The Government's reply to the question raised by Mr Dennis KWOK is as follows:

(1) As at end April 2020, ImmD have determined 17 618 non-refoulement claims under USM, among which 179 claims were substantiated (including 97 claims substantiated by the Torture Claims Appeal Board ("TCAB") on appeal). The substantiation rate is about 1%, i.e. about 99% are unsubstantiated. The breakdown by year is tabulated below:

Year Substantiated non-refoulement claims* 2014 1 (0) 2015 17 (3) 2016 30 (2) 2017 38 (19) 2018 41 (26) 2019 38 (33) 2020 14 (14) (as at end April) Total 179 (97)

Note:

* Figures in ( ) are the numbers of non-refoulement claims substantiated by TCAB

(2) As regards the time for handling each claim, ImmD ensures that the screening procedures are highly efficient and achieve high standards of fairness through flexible staff deployment and optimized workflow. ImmD's handling time for each claim has been shortened from about 25 weeks on average at the early implementation of USM to the current average of about 10 weeks.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6855

(3) to (5)

Non-refoulement claimants are illegal immigrants, overstayers or persons who were refused entry upon arrival in Hong Kong. They do not have any legal status to remain in Hong Kong. Regardless of the outcome of their claims, they have no right to work in Hong Kong. In February 2014, the Court of Final Appeal upheld in GA & Ors v. Director of Immigration [(2014) 17 HKCFAR 60] that substantiated claimants and mandated refugees recognized by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ("UNHCR") have no constitutional or other legal rights to work in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, the Director of Immigration may exercise his discretion exceptionally to consider, on a case-by-case basis, an application for permission to take employment.

The numbers of applications made by the above mentioned persons for taking employment handled by ImmD since 2014 are tabulated below:

Applications Applications withdrawn or Applications approved on Applications Year no further received discretionary rejected action could basis be taken 2014 21 5 3 10 2015 10 2 2 9 2016 24 14 5 9 2017 36 19 0 10 2018 62 42 0 7 2019 69 84 0 8 2020 37 38 0 1 (as at end April) Total 259 204 10 54

Note:

Applications processed in a given year may not be those received in total in the same year. Applications approved, rejected, withdrawn or where no further action could be taken as listed above include those received by ImmD before 2014.

6856 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

All related applications will be handled by ImmD in accordance with the procedures. The time required to assess and decide on an application depends on the complexity of individual applications and whether applicants have submitted all the required information and supporting documents in a timely manner. Applicants will also be reminded by ImmD that any failure to submit the required information or supporting documents (such as job duties, salaries and working hours, etc.) clearly set out in ImmD's correspondences will lead to longer processing time. There were occasions where applications were eventually rejected as a result of applicants' failure or refusal to provide the required information.

It normally takes about three weeks for ImmD to complete the processing of an application upon receipt of all the required information and documents. If the employment application is approved, the applicants will be allowed to work for their employers in accordance with the jobs prescribed in the contracts within the specified period of time and in the specified venue.

(6) and (7)

If a person's claim is substantiated, ImmD will withhold his removal and regularly review the latest situation of his case. Once his claimed risks cease to exist, ImmD will initiate the removal procedures. While withholding removal, ImmD will in parallel refer the person whose non-refoulement claim has been substantiated under USM on grounds of persecution risk to UNHCR for consideration of recognition as "refugee" under its mandate and arrangement of resettlement to a third country.

As at end April 2020, there were 179 claimants whose claims had been substantiated under USM. Among them, according to ImmD's record, no follow-up is required for 26 cases where the claimants already left Hong Kong or because of other reasons (including four resettled in a third country as arranged by UNHCR, and some other claimants who had departed Hong Kong voluntarily). Of the remaining claimants who have been referred to UNHCR, 130 of them are pending consideration and arrangement of resettlement to a third country. ImmD is arranging referral of cases of another 10 claimants to UNHCR.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6857

It is the work of UNHCR to arrange for persons whose refugee status has been recognized under its mandate to resettle to a third country. The Government does not have the relevant statistics.

(8) Since 2006, the Government has been providing humanitarian assistance to non-refoulement claimants to meet their basic needs. At the same time, the Government has to ensure that such humanitarian assistance does not become an incentive which would create a magnet effect in attracting more illegal immigrants to seek unlawful entry into and remain illegally in Hong Kong, in order to avoid serious implications on the long-term sustainability of our current support systems and immigration control. The expenditure on humanitarian assistance to non-refoulement claimants since 2014-2015 is tabulated below:

Year Humanitarian assistance ($ million) 2014-2015 254 2015-2016 489 2016-2017 729 2017-2018 587 2018-2019 531 2019-2020 464 (revised estimate) 2020-2021 706 (estimate)

Such humanitarian assistance has always been provided to eligible claimants by a non-governmental organization ("NGO") commissioned by the Social Welfare Department ("SWD"). There is a cap imposed by the Government on the amount of assistance received by each claimant under each individual item. NGO concerned will review the circumstances of claimants every month and decide on the exact assistance items and level based on their actual needs. If individual cases involve special needs, NGO concerned will decide the amount of additional assistance according to claimants' specific needs and based on their justifications and supporting documents provided.

6858 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

The Government has been monitoring the operation of the assistance programme, as well as making reviews and improvements as appropriate, having regard to service needs and stakeholders' views. Examples include paying the rent deposit and property agent fee for claimants, and improving the disbursement arrangement for transport and utilities allowance since 2014; replacing the in-kind food assistance with food coupons in 2015; and introducing food electronic tokens in March 2017, etc. Through NGO, SWD will keep monitoring whether the level of assistance meets the needs of service users.

Redevelopment of factory estates

10. MR JIMMY NG (in Chinese): President, the Hong Kong Housing Authority is currently studying the feasibility of redeveloping its six factory estates for public housing (particularly public rental housing ("PRH")) use. At present, there are about 3 300 tenants in these factory estates and the occupancy rates of the units therein are as high as 98%. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the latest progress and anticipated completion date of the aforesaid study; whether it has drawn up a redevelopment timetable for the various factory estates; of the respective estimated numbers of PRH units that may be provided upon redevelopment of the various factory estates; the current number of vacant units in the factory estates which are no longer put up for leasing because such factory estates may be redeveloped;

(2) as the Government has indicated that the current study only focuses on the feasibility of redeveloping the factory estates for PRH use, whether this implies that the study does not include a review of (i) the demand of the light industries for units in the factory estates, and (ii) the impacts of the redevelopment of the factory estates on the development of the light industries and the rent levels of private industrial building units in Hong Kong; if so, of the reasons for that; whether it will consider including these topics in the scope of the study;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6859

(3) whether it has received, since October last year, concerns expressed and enquiries made by the tenants of the units in the factory estates about the redevelopment of such factory estates; if so, of the relevant numbers and details; and

(4) of the amount of ex-gratia allowance that may be granted to the tenants of the units in the factory estates who have been affected by the redevelopment plan and the calculation method for the allowance; whether it will arrange for the relocation of those tenants who wish to continue with their operation to other units in the factory estates?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my reply to the question raised by Mr Jimmy NG is as follows:

(1) and (2)

In response to the suggestion in the Chief Executive's 2019 Policy Address, the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") is exploring the feasibility of redeveloping individual factory estates under suitable conditions and arrangements for public housing use, particularly to increase the supply of public rental housing. HA anticipates that the study will be completed progressively in late 2020. HA will announce the results of the study and flat production in due course.

As all six factory estates are situated in industrial or industrial-office areas, we must carry out relevant technical assessments to ascertain whether these sites are suitable for residential use. Rezoning under the Town Planning Ordinance is also required to change the use of these sites for public housing development. The factory estates under HA provide about 8 200 units with a total internal floor area of about 202 000 sq m. The current occupancy rate is about 98% with about 3 300 tenants.

In view of the tight supply in housing land, the Government has been actively identifying suitable sites for public housing development in different parts of the territory. We will consider all suitable sites, regardless of their size, for public housing development so as to 6860 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

make the best use of the scarce land resource and optimize site potential. In the process, the principles of cost-effectiveness and sustainability will be adopted. Based on the above consideration of "efficient and optimal use of land", HA's study will focus on the feasibility of the various redevelopment options. It will not include a review of the demand of light industries for units in the factory estates, as well as the impact of the redevelopment of the factory estates on the development of light industries and the rent levels of private industrial building units. Currently, we have no plan to change the scope of the study.

(3) Since October last year, HA has received about 40 enquiries from tenants of the factory estates concerning the redevelopment, including the clearance schedule and arrangements for tenants affected by clearance, such as granting of removal and ex-gratia allowance and re-allocation of vacant units in other factory estates, etc.

(4) When HA cleared its factory estates in the past, an advance notice of 18 months would normally be given to the affected tenants to facilitate their early planning for vacating the premises. Rent increase would also be normally frozen until clearance, and an ex-gratia allowance would be paid to the concerned tenants to assist them to relocate or terminate their businesses. If HA finally decides to clear its existing factory estates, it will make reference to the previous practices mentioned above and the then circumstances in making appropriate arrangements.

Sites already rezoned for the purpose of public housing development

11. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, a site located at the junction of Sung Wong Toi Road and To Kwa Wan Road, where the Kowloon Animal Management Centre ("AMC(K)") of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department as well as the ex-quarters and vehicle workshop of the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department are housed, was rezoned in April 2016 for the purpose of public housing development. In a paper recently submitted to the Finance Committee of this Council, the Government indicates its LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6861 plan to relocate AMC(K) to another place and then complete the demolition work for the vacated AMC(K) in the second quarter of 2024. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that the site was rezoned for the aforesaid purpose in as early as 2016, of the reasons why the demolition work concerned will not be completed until 2024 (i.e. after a lapse of eight years); whether the Steering Committee on Land Supply ("the Steering Committee") has held discussions and taken follow-up actions in this regard; the anticipated works commencement date of the public housing development project concerned;

(2) of the number of housing projects on sites rezoned for the purpose of public housing development, since 2013, which could not commence as scheduled, and set out in a table the following details of such projects: (i) project names, (ii) site locations, (iii) number of public housing units, (iv) original commencement dates for the works, (v) causes for the works being unable to commence as scheduled, and (vi) latest works progress; and

(3) of the policy bureau or government department responsible for coordinating and supervising the relocation and demolition of government facilities on sites already rezoned for other purposes; the role played by the Steering Committee on the work concerned?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, having consulted the Transport and Housing Bureau we set out our response to various parts of the question below:

(1) In 2014, the Government proposed to rezone a site at the junction of Sung Wong Toi Road and To Kwa Wan Road for public housing development. Upon the completion of technical studies in early 2015, the relevant rezoning was gazetted in May 2015 and subsequently approved by the Chief Executive in Council in April 2016.

6862 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

To implement the public housing project, the existing Kowloon Animal Management Centre ("the Centre") has to be re-provisioned. Upon completion of studies by the relevant departments, it was decided that the Centre will be re-provisioned in the Kai Tak Development Area. The Government has also completed the technical studies for the new Centre and is seeking funding approval from the Legislative Council for the works associated with the re-provisioning. Subject to the funding approval, it is anticipated that the construction works for the new Centre would commence in the third quarter of 2020, with a view to completing said construction and demolition works by the second quarter of 2024. In addition, the Housing Department ("HD") has been working on the planning and design of the public housing project in parallel, with a view to commencing the construction works for the project as soon as possible when the existing Centre is relocated and demolished in 2024, and completing the public housing project in 2027-2028. In the process, HD has been maintaining close liaison with the relevant departments, including the Planning Department ("PlanD") and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, etc. to jointly take forward the project.

(2) Since 2013, a total of 81 sites have been rezoned for public housing development. The relevant details can be found at Annex. Among them, the public housing projects on 36 sites have been commenced or completed. For the remaining 45 public housing development sites, preparatory works including land resumption and clearance, as well as site formation and infrastructure design and works, etc. are being carried out in accordance with their development timetables. Upon completion of the relevant procedures, the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HKHA") or the Hong Kong Housing Society ("HKHS") will commence public housing construction works on sites as soon as possible.

(3) Generally speaking, where sites with existing government facilities are required for housing development or other uses, the departments responsible for the affected facilities would decide whether to permanently or temporarily re-provision the facilities within or outside the district according to their operational needs and the utilization of the facilities. They may request the relevant LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6863

departments (such as PlanD, the Lands Department, or the Government Property Agency) to identify land or premises for the purpose of re-provisioning, in order to meet the programme of the proposed use. If relevant departments could not agree on demolition/re-provisioning or timing of site delivery, the matter will be escalated to the relevant Policy Bureaux for handling and may, if necessary, be submitted to the Steering Committee on Land Supply for discussion.

Annex

Sites with Rezoning for Public Housing Purpose Completed since 2013 and Relevant Project Information

Expected/ Completed Location of Name of Flat Public Housing Public Housing Number Latest Progress Project Project (to the nearest hundred) 1. Kwun Tong Sau Sau Mau Ping 300 Public housing Ming Road Estate construction completed 2. Kwei Tei Street, Fo Chun Yeung 4 800 Public housing Tan, Sha Tin Estate construction completed 3. Wo Sheung Tun Choi Wo Court 800 Public housing Street, Fo Tan, Sha construction completed Tin 4. Choi Yuen Road, Po Shek Wu 1 100 Public housing Area 27, Fanling Estate construction completed 5. South of Yung Fai Ming Estate 1 000 Public housing Shing Court, construction completed Area 49, Fanling 6. Lai Chi Kok Lai Tsui Court 3 900 Public housing Road/Tonkin Street, construction completed Sham Shui Po 7. Shek Mun, Sha Tin Shek Mun Estate 3 000 Public housing construction completed 6864 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Expected/ Completed Location of Name of Flat Public Housing Public Housing Number Latest Progress Project Project (to the nearest hundred) 8. Ngan Kwong Wan Ngan Ho Court 500 Public housing Road West, Mui Wo construction completed 9. Cheung Sha Wan Hoi Ying Estate, 3 800 Public housing Wholesale Food Hoi Lok Court construction completed Market Sites 3 and 5 10. Area 2, Tuen Mun Terrace Concerto 300 Public housing (HKHS's Site) construction completed 11. Au Pui Wan Street, Yuk Wo Court 800 Public housing Area 16B, Fo Tan construction completed 12. Junction of Hang Kam Fai Court 700 Public housing Kin Street and Hang construction completed Ming Street, Area 90B, Ma On Shan 13. Choi Hing Road and Choi Hing Court 1 400 Public housing Choi Hing Lane, construction completed Ngau Tau Kok 14. Junction of Fat Fat Tseung Street 800 Public housing Tseung Street West West construction and Sham Mong commenced Road, Sham Shui Po 15. Ma On Shan Road Ma On Shan 2 100 Public housing (Northern and Road construction Southern Portions) commenced 16. Hang Tai Road, Hang Tai Road, 1 900 Public housing Area 86B, Ma On MOS Area 86B construction Shan Phase 1 and commenced Phase 2 17. Area 29 West, Tuen Tuen Mun 1 000 Public housing Mun Area 29 (West) construction commenced LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6865

Expected/ Completed Location of Name of Flat Public Housing Public Housing Number Latest Progress Project Project (to the nearest hundred) 18. Near Shan Ha, Tung Tung Chung 1 200 Public housing Chung Road, Area 27 construction Area 27, Tung commenced Chung 19. Area 9, Tai Po Tai Po Area 9 6 700 Public housing construction commenced 20. Chung Nga Road Chung Nga Road 700 Public housing East, Tai Po East, Tai Po construction commenced 21. Anderson Road Anderson Road 1 900 Public housing Quarry (site RS-1) Quarry Site RS-1 construction commenced 22. Queen's Hill, Lung Queen's Hill 12 100 Public housing Yeuk Tau Phases 1, 2, 3 and construction 5 commenced 23. Various public Tung Chung 32 200 Public housing housing sites within Areas 99 and 100 construction Tung Chung New commenced Town Extension Other public Works related to land housing sites resumption and/or within Tung clearance, and site Chung New formation works and/or Town Extension design of infrastructure works in progress 24. Junction of Tsing Yi Tsing Hung 2 900 Public housing Road and Tsing Road, Tsing Yi construction Hung Road, commenced Area 22B , Tsing Yi 25. Yan Wing Street, Lei Yue Mun 2 000 Public housing Yau Tong Phase 4 construction commenced 6866 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Expected/ Completed Location of Name of Flat Public Housing Public Housing Number Latest Progress Project Project (to the nearest hundred) 26. Java Road, North Java Road, North 200 Public housing Point Point construction commenced 27. Junction of Chai Chai Wan Road 800 Public housing Wan Road, Wing construction Ping Street and San commenced Ha Street, Chai Wan 28. Lee Kung Street, Lee Kung Street 300 Public housing Hung Hom (Senior Citizen construction (HKHS's Site) Residences commenced Scheme) 29. Kai Tak Area 2B Kai Tak Site 2B2 1 800 Public housing Site 2 construction commenced 30. On Muk Street, On Muk Street 500 Public housing Shek Mun, Sha Tin Phase 1 construction commenced 31. Shek Pai Wan Road, Shek Pai Wan 600 Public housing Aberdeen (HKHS's Road construction Site) commenced 32. Junction of Castle Long Bin Phase 1 2 800 Public housing Peak Road (Ping construction Shan Section) and commenced Long Tin Road, Yuen Long 33. Hin Fat Lane, Castle Hin Fat Lane, 1 000 Public housing Peak Road―Castle Tuen Mun construction Peak Bay, Area 39, commenced Tuen Mun 34. Tuen Mun Kau Hui Yip Wong Road 3 300 Public housing and Tin Hau Road, Phase 1 and 2 construction Tuen Mun commenced LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6867

Expected/ Completed Location of Name of Flat Public Housing Public Housing Number Latest Progress Project Project (to the nearest hundred) 35. Ko Shan Road, To Ko Shan Road 500 Public housing Kwa Wan construction commenced 36. Choi Wing Road, Choi Wing Road 1 100 Public housing Ngau Tau Kok construction commenced 37. South of Chiu Shun Chiu Shun Road, 600 Public housing Road, Tseung Kwan TKO construction is expected O to commence in July 2020 38. Hiu Ming Street, Hiu Ming Street 1 100 The site will be handed Kwun Tong over to HKHA for public housing development 39. Anderson Road Anderson Road 1 400 The site will be handed Quarry (site R2-2) Quarry Site R2-2 over to HKHS for (HKHS's Site) public housing development 40. Kai Tak Area 2B Kai Tak Area 2B1 1 800 The site will be handed Site 1 (HKHS's Site) over to HKHS for public housing development 41. Kai Tak Area 1E Kai Tak Area 1E1 2 100 The site will be handed Site 1 (HKHS's Site) over to HKHS for public housing development 42. Kai Tak Area 2B Kai Tak Site 2B3 1 500 The site will be handed Site 3 over to HKHA for public housing development 6868 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Expected/ Completed Location of Name of Flat Public Housing Public Housing Number Latest Progress Project Project (to the nearest hundred) 43. Kai Tak Area 2B Kai Tak Site 2B4 1 700 The site will be handed Site 4 over to HKHA for public housing development 44. Kai Tak Area 2B Kai Tak Site 2B5 1 700 The site will be handed Site 5 over to HKHA for public housing development 45. Kai Tak Area 2B Kai Tak Site 2B6 2 000 The site will be handed Site 6 over to HKHA for public housing development 46. Ting On Street, Ting On Street, 400 The site will be handed Ngau Tau Kok Ngau Tau Kok over to HKHS for (HKHS's Site) public housing development 47. Jockey Club Road, Jockey Club 600 The site will be handed Fanling (Former Road, Fanling over to HKHS for Fanling Magistracy, public housing Fanling) (HKHS's development Site) 48. Wang Chiu Road, Wang Chiu Road 4 100 The site will be handed Kowloon Bay Phase 1 & over to HKHA for Phase 2 public housing development 49. Anderson Road Anderson Road 1 400 Site formation works Quarry (site R2-8) Quarry Site R2-8 and/or infrastructure works in progress 50. Anderson Road Anderson Road 400 Site formation works Quarry (site R2-3) Quarry Site R2-3 and/or infrastructure (HKHS's Site) works in progress LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6869

Expected/ Completed Location of Name of Flat Public Housing Public Housing Number Latest Progress Project Project (to the nearest hundred) 51. Anderson Road Anderson Road 1 000 Site formation works Quarry (site R2-4) Quarry Site R2-4 and/or infrastructure (HKHS's Site) works in progress 52. Anderson Road Anderson Road 1 100 Site formation works Quarry (site R2-5) Quarry Site R2-5 and/or infrastructure works in progress 53. Anderson Road Anderson Road 1 000 Site formation works Quarry (site R2-6) Quarry Site R2-6 and/or infrastructure works in progress 54. Anderson Road Anderson Road 400 Site formation works Quarry (site R2-7) Quarry Site R2-7 and/or infrastructure works in progress 55. Hang Fu Street, Hang Fu Street, 500 Site formation works Area 16, Tuen Mun TM 16 and/or design of infrastructure works in progress 56. Wu Shan Wu Shan Road 2 900 Site formation works Recreational Park at and/or design of Wu Shan Road and infrastructure works in Lung Mun Road, progress Tuen Mun 57. Northwest of Ying Ying Yip Road 1 700 Site formation works Yip Road, Tseung and/or design of Kwan O infrastructure works in progress 58. Chung Nga Road Chung Nga Road 1 000 Site formation works West, Tai Po West, Tai Po and/or design of infrastructure works in progress 59. Tseng Tau Sheung Tuen Hing Road 2 700 Site formation works Tsuen South, Tuen and/or design of Mun infrastructure works in progress 6870 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Expected/ Completed Location of Name of Flat Public Housing Public Housing Number Latest Progress Project Project (to the nearest hundred) 60. Kam Sheung Road Kam Sheung 3 700 Site formation works Site 1, Kam Tin Road Site 1 and/or design of South Phase 1 and infrastructure works in Phase 2 progress 61. Kam Sheung Road Kam Sheung 1 600 Site formation works Site 6, Kam Tin Road Site 6 and/or design of South Phase 1 and infrastructure works in Phase 2 progress 62. Kam Sheung Road Kam Sheung 3 800 Site formation works Site 4A, Kam Tin Road Site 4A and/or design of South Phase 1 and infrastructure works in Phase 2 progress 63. Various public Various public 48 400 Works associated with housing sites within housing sites land resumption and/or Fanling North/Kwu within Fanling clearance, and site Tung North New North/Kwu Tung formation works and/or Development Areas North New design of infrastructure Development works in progress in Areas Phase 1 64. East of Movie City, Pak Shing Kok 3 100 Works associated with Pak Shing Kok Road land resumption and/or Road, Tseung Kwan clearance, and site O formation works and/or design of infrastructure works in progress 65. West of Yau Yue Yau Yue Wan 2 700 Works associated with Wan Village, Village Road land resumption and/or Tseung Kwan O clearance, and site formation works and/or design of infrastructure works in progress LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6871

Expected/ Completed Location of Name of Flat Public Housing Public Housing Number Latest Progress Project Project (to the nearest hundred) 66. Area 54 Site 5, Tuen Tuen Mun 700 Works associated with Mun Area 54 Site 5 land resumption and/or clearance in progress 67. Kei Lun Wei, Tuen Mun 1 000 Works associated with Area 54 Site 4A Area 54 Site 4A land resumption and/or (South), Tuen Mun (South) clearance in progress 68. Wang Chau Phase 1, Wang Chau 4 000 Works associated with Yuen Long Phase 1 land resumption and/or clearance in progress 69. Ex-Cha Kwo Ling Ex-Cha Kwo 1 100 Works associated with Kaolin Mine Ling Kaolin Mine land resumption and/or (Sites A and B) Site A and Site B clearance in progress 70. Wah King Street, Wah King Street 1 400 Works associated with Pok Fu Lam land resumption and/or clearance in progress 71. Wah Fu North, Pok Wah Fu North 1 900 Works associated with Fu Lam land resumption and/or clearance in progress 72. Kai Lung Wan Kai Lung Wan 5 300 Works associated with (North and South), North, Kai Lung land resumption and/or Pok Fu Lam Wan South clearance in progress 73. Wah Lok Path, Pok Wah Lok Path, 400 Works associated with Fu Lam Pok Fu Lam land resumption and/or clearance in progress 74. Junction of Castle Long Bin Phase 2 8 900 Works associated with Peak Road (Ping land resumption and/or Shan Section) and clearance in progress Long Tin Road, Yuen Long 75. Near Tan Kwai Near Tan Kwai 7 400 Works associated with Tsuen (Southern Tsuen (South) land resumption and/or Portion), Yuen Long clearance in progress 6872 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Expected/ Completed Location of Name of Flat Public Housing Public Housing Number Latest Progress Project Project (to the nearest hundred) 76. Various public Various public 31 200 Seeking funding housing sites within housing sites approval from the Hung Shui Kiu New within Hung Shui Legislative Council to Development Area Kiu New carry out site formation Development and/or infrastructure Area works 77. Junction of Ko Chiu Pik Wan Road 900 Seeking funding Road and Pik Wan Site B approval from the Road, Yau Tong Legislative Council to carry out site formation and/or infrastructure works 78. Area 48, Fanling Area 48 4 000 Public consultation for Fanling/Sheung roadworks gazettal in Shui progress 79. To Kwa Wan To Kwa Wan 600 Re-provisioning of Road/Sung Wong Road government facilities in Toi Road, Ma Tau progress (Kowloon Kok Animal Management Centre under Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department) 80. Fanling/Sheung Sheung Shui 3 500 Detailed design and Shui Areas 4 and 30 Areas 4 & 30 technical study in (Sites 1 and 2) near Site 1 Phase 1 and progress Po Shek Wu Road Phase 2; Sheung Shui Areas 4 and 30 Site 2 Phase 2 81. Po Shek Wu Road, Po Shek Wu 1 800 Detailed design and Fanling Road technical study in progress

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6873

Justifications for offering special subsidies to exchange participants and SFC licensees

12. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, the Government presented a paper to the Finance Committee ("FC") of this Council in the middle of last month to seek funding approval for the implementation of the second round of relief measures. The relief measures include the offering of special subsidies to exchange participants of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong ("SEHK") and Hong Kong Futures Exchange and to Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC") licensees: exchange participants belonging to Categories B and C ("Categories B and C brokerages") will each be disbursed $50,000, and each SFC licensee will be disbursed $2,000. The justification for the proposal set out in the paper is as follows: "[d]ue to the COVID-19 outbreak, the business opportunities and hence income of small and medium-sized intermediaries and licensed individuals of SFC (i.e. brokerage firms and their responsible officers/representatives) have been adversely affected. Small and medium-sized intermediaries serving primarily retail clients are particularly hard-hit by the [current] adverse business environment. The reduced face-to-face contact and the recent market volatility have impeded the businesses of these small and medium-sized intermediaries, notwithstanding the recent surge in market turnover." Recently, some members of the industry have queried that the aforesaid justification is factually incorrect, and hence the aforesaid paper has allegedly misled FC. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as SEHK's information has indicated that the average daily turnover of the Hong Kong stock market increased to almost $112.7 billion in the first quarter of this year, representing a quarter-on-quarter increase of 54.5%, and the turnovers involving Categories B and C brokerages increased by 58.4% and 48.1% respectively, whether the Government knows if the incomes and profits of such brokerages increased correspondingly in the said period, and of the basis on which it stated that their businesses had been "seriously affected by the pandemic";

(2) as the Government claimed that "the reduced face-to-face contact" had impeded the businesses of Categories B and C brokerages, but the outcome of a survey conducted in June last year by the Investor and Financial Education Council showed that among the retail investors being surveyed, 65%, 16% and 1% of them most often 6874 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

traded stocks through online platforms, calling brokers and being physically present at the brokerage firms respectively, whether the Government can illustrate, with statistical data, the actual extent to which the businesses of Categories B and C brokerages were affected by "the reduced face-to-face contact" with their clients; and

(3) of the ranks of the government officers involved in the write-up of the aforesaid FC paper, and the highest rank of the officers who endorsed the paper; whether there were other officers who verified if the aforesaid justification was factually correct and supported by statistical data; if so, of the post titles and number of the verifying officers?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President, the securities sector has long been reflecting to the Government the difficulties of its business operations. Brokerage commission rate has been declining in recent years while operating cost is on the rise. In 2019, the overall total income and net profit of participants of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited ("SEHK Participants") both recorded a decline. Net securities commission income (i.e. income which is directly affected by turnover) represented about 20% to 30% of the total income of SEHK Participants, while other income arising from interests, personalized sales, financing, management and proprietary trading accounted for about 70% to 80% of their total income. Historical data showed that even when the daily turnover of the stock market in Hong Kong increased, it would not necessarily lead to proportionate increase in the total income and net profit of SEHK Participants. For example, when the average daily turnover of stock market in Hong Kong in 2018 recorded a 22% year-on-year increase, the net securities commission income and the total income of Category C brokerage firms only recorded a 2.5% and 0.5% year-on-year increase respectively; and their net profit even recorded a drop by 32.3%. In 2017 and 2019 when the average daily turnover of the stock market in Hong Kong during the respective year were broadly the same, the net profit of Category C brokerage firms recorded a cumulative drop of 64% from 2017 to 2019. The above examples underline the fact that, from the perspective of the business environment of brokerage firms, the average daily turnover of stock market in Hong Kong is just one of the many factors affecting their income and net profit and that the impact on different categories of brokerage firms would differ. My response to the three parts of the question is as follows:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6875

(1) and (2)

As we have stated clearly in the Legislative Council Finance Committee paper on the second round of Anti-Epidemic Fund, we recognized that there was a surge in turnover of the stock market in Hong Kong in early 2020. However, due to the COVID-19 outbreak, coupled with market volatility, the businesses of small and medium-sized intermediaries serving primarily retail clients have been adversely affected. As far as commission income is concerned, the market share of Category B and Category C brokers respectively decreased from 33.92% and 7.73% in December 2019 to 32.57% and 6.29% in March this year. Furthermore, since commission income, which is directly relevant to turnover, only accounts for about 20% to 30% of the total income of the brokerage firms, the overall business environment of small and medium-sized brokerage firms (i.e. including their other businesses such as interests, sales, services and financing) and their total income and profit were hit by the epidemic notwithstanding the recent surge in turnover of stock market in Hong Kong. In addition, since securities brokers faced relatively more challenges in having face-to-face contact with their clients amidst the epidemic, their business opportunities (including attracting new clients, conducting client on-boarding, providing personalized sales activities to existing clients, etc.) were also affected. In light of this, the Government will provide cash subsidy to Category B and Category C exchange participants and Securities and Futures Commission Licensees under the second round of the Anti-Epidemic Fund in order to help reduce the financial burden of the small and medium-sized securities firms and brokers. The relevant proposal is formulated by the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau having considered the feedback received from the sector.

(3) As mentioned above, the Government has clearly pointed out in the relevant Legislative Council Finance Committee paper that there was a recent surge in market turnover. As a matter of fact, the total turnover and net profit of exchange participants are not only affected by market turnover and there is a declining trend in the total income and net profit of small and medium-sized brokerage firms amidst the 6876 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

epidemic. As such, we do not agree that the justifications provided by the Government are at variance with the facts. The above mentioned Finance Committee paper was prepared by officers of the Financial Services Branch of the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau and was verified and endorsed by directorate officers of the Branch.

Concentration of ozone in air

13. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, for several consecutive days in April this year, the Air Quality Health Indexes recorded by the general and roadside air quality monitoring stations in various districts reached 8 or above (i.e. "Very High" or "Serious" health risk), with the 1-hour concentrations 3 of ozone ("O3") in some districts even exceeding 200 µg/m . Under the prevailing Air Quality Objectives ("AQOs"), the 8-hour average concentration 3 3 limit of O3 in air is 160 µg/m , which is less stringent than that of 100 µg/m as recommended by the World Health Organization. However, in the latest review of AQOs, the Government did not propose to tighten the AQO for O3 on the grounds that the regional background O3 level was relatively high and the various emission reduction measures would further reduce the emission of nitric oxide in the urban areas, thereby reducing the consumption of O3 in the urban areas. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the measures in place at the present stage to lower the

background O3 level in Hong Kong, and reduce the O3 produced

locally and O3 which originated from the Mainland; the effectiveness of such measures; and

(2) as the authorities indicated at the end of 2019 that the Guangdong and Hong Kong sides had jointly launched in 2018 the Study on Post-2020 Regional Air Pollutant Emission Reduction Targets and Concentration Levels, of the latest progress of the Study; whether it

will formulate emission reduction targets for O3 precursors; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6877

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President,

(1) The overall air quality in Hong Kong has shown a discernible improvement in recent years. According to the data recorded at the air quality monitoring stations of the Environmental Protection Department, the annual average concentrations of respirable suspended particles ("PM10"), fine suspended particles ("PM2.5"), nitrogen dioxide ("NO2") and sulphur dioxide ("SO2") in the ambient air and at roadside have dropped by about 30% to 60% between 2013 and 2019 (relevant data is set out in Annex 1). The above monitoring results reflect the effectiveness of the emission reduction measures implemented by the Government in recent years. However, the ozone concentration in the ambient air is still on a rise.

Ozone is a complicated air pollution issue as well as a regional issue. It is not directly emitted from pollution sources but formed by the photochemical reaction between nitrogen oxides ("NOx") and volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") in the presence of sunlight.

As the Tap Mun air quality monitoring station is distant from the local emission sources, its monitoring results can reflect the regional background air pollution level. Between 2013 and 2019, the annual average concentration of ozone recorded at the Tap Mun station increased from 75 μg/sq m in 2013 to 80 μg/sq m in 2019, with a rise of 7% (relevant data is set out in Annex 2). During the same period, the average annual ozone concentrations recorded at the general and roadside monitoring stations increased respectively from 43 μg/sq m and 14 μg/sq m in 2013 to 60 μg/sq m and 32 μg/sq m in 2019, with a rise of 40% and 129% respectively.

Ozone can be scavenged by some pollutants (such as nitric oxide ("NO")) in the ambient air via chemical reactions. The main reason for the higher rise of ozone concentrations in Hong Kong than the background level is attributed to the reduction in local NOx emissions from vehicles, resulting in less NO to react with and titrate ozone and hence more ozone remaining in the atmosphere and a larger increase in ozone concentrations measured. Nevertheless, since NOx and VOCs are the ozone precursors, reducing NOx 6878 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

emissions will not only reduce the local NO2 levels but also help reduce the overall ozone levels and its exceedances in the region and Hong Kong in the long run.

The Environment Bureau has implemented a wide range of control measures focusing on local NOx and VOCs emission sources in recent years, including phasing out some 80 000 pre-Euro IV diesel commercial vehicles ("DCVs"); strengthening the control of emissions of liquefied petroleum gas ("LPG") and petrol vehicles; tightening the vehicle emission standards and progressively tightening the emission caps of power plants, etc. Meanwhile, Guangdong and Hong Kong have been strengthening collaboration, including launching a number of emission reduction plans covering power plants, vehicles, vessels and industries under the framework of the "Pearl River Delta Regional Air Quality Management Plan", to deal with the regional air pollution. These measures to reduce NOx and VOCs emissions will help improve the ozone problem in the region in the long run.

In addition to the above policies being implemented, the SAR Government will continue to launch a number of new measures in the short to medium term to further reduce the local NOx and VOC emissions, including reducing vehicle emissions, promoting the use of electric vehicles and tightening the control of emissions from power plants (as detailed in Annex 3).

(2) In order to continuously improve the regional air quality, the Hong Kong and Guangdong Governments established a science team in 2018 to jointly conduct a study on "Post-2020 regional air pollutant emission reduction targets and concentration levels". The two Governments held a meeting every six months to discuss the compilation of emission inventories of air pollutants, formulate practical air quality improvement measures beyond 2020 for the two places, and conduct air quality modelling to predict the air quality in the region upon implementation of the measures.

The study will formulate the emission reduction targets for five major air pollutants up to 2030, including SO2, NOx, PM10, PM2.5 and VOCs. Among these pollutants, NOx and VOCs are the ozone LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6879

precursors, hence reducing their emissions will help alleviate the ozone pollution problem. The two Governments are now taking forward the work in accordance with the timetable of the study agreed by both parties. The results of the study are expected to be announced in 2022.

In addition, the Governments of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao will launch a three-year joint study from 2020 to 2023 on "Characterization of photochemical ozone formation, regional and super-regional transportation in the Greater Bay Area", in order to better apprehend the origins of ozone precursors, the formation mechanism of ozone and characteristics of its regional and super-regional transportation in the Greater Bay Area. The Hong Kong and Guangdong Governments are also adding the real-time VOCs monitoring in the regional air quality monitoring network by stages. These studies and enhanced monitoring will strengthen the understanding of the formation mechanism and sources of ozone in the region, and help further devise policies to tackle ozone pollution.

Annex 1

Annual average concentrations of major air pollutants at general and roadside monitoring stations from 2013 to 2019

Annual average concentrations Pollutant (µg/cu m) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Respirable suspended General 47 43 39 34 35 33 32 particulates Roadside 57 50 45 38 39 39 38 Fine suspended General 31 29 25 22 22 20 19 particulates Roadside 37 32 30 26 26 25 25 Nitrogen dioxide General 54 49 49 47 40 39 38 Roadside 120 102 99 82 86 82 80 Sulphur dioxide General 13 11 10 9 8 6 5 Roadside 11 9 8 7 7 7 5 Ozone General 43 46 42 39 51 52 60 Roadside 14 21 19 19 23 24 32

6880 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Annex 2

Annual average concentrations of ozone at Tap Mun monitoring station from 2013 to 2019

Year Annual average concentration (μg/cu m) 2013 75 2014 72 2015 73* 2016 66* 2017 74 2018 72 2019 80

Note:

* Owing to re-roofing of the Tap Mun monitoring station between 30 November 2015 and 25 February 2016, there were insufficient valid data in 2015 and 2016 and hence their values are for reference only.

Annex 3

Local NOx and VOCs emission reduction measures implemented in recent years

- progressively tightening the emission caps of power plants;

- controlling the VOCs limits of regulated products (e.g. paints, adhesives, sealants, consumer products and printing inks, etc.);

- phasing out some 80 000 pre-Euro IV DCVs since 1 March 2014;

- strengthening the control of emissions of petrol and LPG vehicles by remote sensing technology since September 2014;

- tightening the vehicle emission standards for first registered vehicles to Euro VI in phases by vehicle types starting from 1 July 2017;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6881

- tightening the emission standards for non-road vehicles to Euro VI in phases starting from 1 January 2019; and

- requiring franchised bus companies to deploy low emission buses meeting Euro V or above emissions standards to routes running through the franchised bus low emission zones at Causeway Bay, Central and Mong Kok starting from 31 December 2019.

Short-to-medium term air quality improvement measures

- progressively phasing out about 40 000 Euro IV DCVs;

- preparing to launch a $2 billion pilot scheme in the second half of 2020 to subsidize the installation of electric vehicle charging-enabling infrastructure in car parks of existing private residential buildings;

- tightening the emission standards for first registered motor cycles to Euro IV and first registered light buses with a design weight of more than 3.5 tonnes and buses with a design weight of not more than 9 tonnes to Euro VI in phases starting from 1 October 2020;

- timely review of the Technical Memorandum for Allocation of Emission Allowances in Respect of Specified Licences with a view to further tightening the emission caps of power plants; and

- reviewing the feasibility to further tighten the VOCs limits of architectural paints.

For details, please refer to the papers dated 16 December 2019 and 22 January 2020 submitted by the Environment Bureau to the Legislative Council Panel on Environmental Affairs:

6882 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Guarding students from being corrupted by incorrect or biased teaching contents

14. MS ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, recently, complaints have been lodged against a university lecturer about his making misrepresented and hatred-inciting comments in public, and a teacher for the subject of General Studies ("GS subject") for primary education distorted historical facts when teaching the history of Opium War to students. Furthermore, some textbooks for GS subject for primary education and teaching materials for the subject of Liberal Studies ("LS subject") for senior secondary education are alleged to have biased contents, e.g. overemphasizing negative examples when mentioning the situation on the Mainland and deliberately exaggerating the conflicts between the Mainland and Hong Kong. With regard to guarding students from being corrupted by incorrect or biased teaching contents, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of complaints about teachers' professional conduct received by the authorities since June last year, with a breakdown by nature of complaints and type of schools in which the teachers were teaching; the criteria adopted by the authorities for handling such complaints; the number of cases under investigation; the number of cases the investigation of which has been completed and, among such cases, the respective numbers of those in which the complaints were found:

(i) substantiated; the number of complainees against whom follow-up actions have been taken, with a breakdown by type of such actions (e.g. issue of reprimand letters, warning letters and advisory letters, and interdiction); and

(ii) unsubstantiated, and the justifications for that;

(2) whether it has assessed if university lecturers' making misrepresented and hatred-inciting comments in public is within the scope of application of Article 137 of the Basic Law (which provides that educational institutions may retain their autonomy and academic freedom); if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the justifications for that; if the assessment outcome is in the negative, how the Education Bureau ("EDB") will follow up on the relevant complaints;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6883

(3) given that EDB has indicated that in March this year, EDB's professional team offered professional feedback and suggestions on the contents of textbooks of LS subject to the relevant publishers, of the details of such feedback and suggestions, the progress of revising the textbooks, and whether the revised textbooks can be published in time before the commencement of the next school year;

(4) given that whether or not the contents taught in GS subject for primary education and LS subject for senior secondary education are accurate and fair is primarily monitored by schools at present, whether EDB will strengthen its monitoring role (e.g. vetting the contents of teaching materials) so as to guard students from being corrupted by incorrect or biased teaching contents; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(5) given the absence of selection standards and outlines for teaching materials for LS subject, some parents of students have suggested that in order to guard students from being corrupted by the biased teaching materials selected by teachers with radical thinking, EDB should (i) change LS subject from a compulsory subject to an elective one, (ii) compile standard teaching materials for LS subject, and (iii) request universities to remove LS subject from the list of subjects for which minimum entrance requirements have been set, whether EDB will adopt such suggestions; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(6) whether, in order to address the problem of some teachers of LS subject instilling radical political ideas and negative values into students, EDB will review the mechanism for sanctioning such teachers, and step up teachers' training in respect of moral education and awareness of abiding by law; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(7) whether EDB will require all schools in Hong Kong to use a set of standardized textbooks for Chinese History subject so as to ensure that the contents of teaching materials are accurate in terms of historical facts, and make this subject compulsory for all levels of primary and secondary schools; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

6884 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, in secondary and primary schools, there are a wide range of learning and teaching resources for different curricula and subjects with diversified sources. In addition to textbooks, teachers would, based on teaching needs, develop and prepare supplementary materials on their own to enrich teaching, which is considered part of the routine teaching tasks. However, schools should perform a gatekeeper role by duly setting up well-defined school-based guidelines/criteria for the selection of learning and teaching materials and devising a review/monitoring mechanism for school-based learning and teaching resources. The Education Bureau has been reminding schools, through various channels such as circular memorandum and school visits, that when developing school-based learning and teaching materials, the school management has the responsibility to monitor and ensure that the learning and teaching materials of various subjects (including senior secondary Liberal Studies ("LS")) are in line with the aims and objectives of the central curriculum. The contents and information of the materials should be correct, complete, objective and impartial. Through effective teaching strategies, teachers should enable students to acquire relevant knowledge and skills, and nurture students' positive values and attitudes.

Our reply to the questions raised by Ms Elizabeth QUAT is as follows:

(1) From June 2019 to the end of March 2020, the Education Bureau received 192 complaints about possible professional misconduct of teachers related to social incidents. We have substantially completed the investigation of 144 cases, of which 51 were found unsubstantiated. Roughly speaking, the majority of these 192 cases are related to teachers making inappropriate messages, such as hate or malicious messages, while the rest are about the use of extremely indecent or abusive language; use of inappropriate teaching materials; suspected engagement in illegal activities, etc. Most teachers involved are serving in secondary and primary schools, while a few of them are serving in kindergartens and other schools such as tutorial centres and evening schools.

Among these 144 cases, the Education Bureau has taken follow-up actions on 54 of them in which investigation were completed, including issuing reprimand letters to 14 teachers and warning letters to another eight. The Education Bureau may consider cancelling LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6885

these teachers' registration pursuant to the Education Ordinance if they misconduct themselves again. We have also issued advisory letters to 17 teachers and verbal reminders to another 15, reminding them to refrain from activity that is detrimental to the image of the teaching profession and to show respect for the behavioural norms acceptable to society. For the remaining 39 cases, our initial view is that they are likely to be substantiated. In accordance with the established procedures, we are currently waiting for or considering the responses from the teachers concerned with a view to determining the appropriate follow-up actions.

We have adopted a prudent approach in handling every complaint involving professional misconduct of teachers. We carefully consider and scrutinize the available information and evidence as well as the school's investigation report and representation from the teacher concerned before deciding on whether a complaint is substantiated. Before deciding on the actions to be taken for each case, full consideration will be given to the facts and circumstances of every case, including the background of the case, the incident that led to the complaint, the impact of the incident on the education sector and students as well as past precedents, in accordance with the Education Ordinance and from the perspective of education professionalism. In other words, the decision on every case is made only after comprehensive and thorough considerations. Of the 51 unsubstantiated cases, allegations involved in some cases were confirmed to be unfounded upon investigation, while some were not substantiated due to insufficient evidence. Besides, a few cases are not related to professional conduct of teachers.

(2) The Government and universities are committed to safeguarding the institutional autonomy and academic freedom as protected by the Basic Law, but it has to be pointed out that the teachers and students of universities should not abuse academic freedom by making remarks that are inaccurate, incite hatred or advocate inappropriate behaviour. The Education Bureau expects university staff to uphold professional conduct and carry out teaching with an objective and impartial standard.

6886 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Every university is an independent and autonomous institution. It has autonomy in the management of its internal affairs (including the employment and conduct of staff), and responsibility for properly handling the community's expectations for universities, ensuring that its operations are in the overall interests of students and society. If a complaint is received against a university staff member making remarks that are inaccurate, incite hatred or advocate inappropriate behaviour, the Education Bureau will request the university to handle it in accordance with its established policies and mechanism. The Education Bureau will also continue to maintain communication with universities to ensure that they uphold good governance with public accountability, so that the universities can operate effectively in accordance with their missions and roles, and in the best interests of society.

(3) and (5)

LS under the senior secondary curriculum aims at helping students enhance their awareness of personal, social, national and global developments, as well as scientific and technological advancement; broaden their knowledge base; connect knowledge acquired from different subjects; and consider issues from multiple perspectives. It also seeks to develop students' positive values and attitudes towards life so that they can become informed and responsible citizens.

The so-called "textbooks" for senior secondary LS available on the market have not been reviewed by the Education Bureau. The recent social incidents in Hong Kong have caused people's concerns that the teaching materials for senior secondary LS are not comprehensive, objective or impartial enough, and may cause negative impacts on students. The Education Bureau is fully aware of such public concerns. To safeguard the well-being of students, we introduced a special measure to provide a one-off professional consultancy service for publishers of senior secondary LS "textbooks" in September 2019 with a view to enhancing the quality of LS "textbooks" already published.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6887

As at May 2020, personnel responsible for rendering the professional consultancy service have finished reviewing the "textbooks" received in a professional manner in accordance with the aims and objectives of the senior secondary LS curriculum. The Education Bureau has met with the publishers concerned and provided them with professional feedback for improving the quality of the senior secondary LS "textbooks". Publishers that participated in the professional consultancy service undertook to duly follow up the amendments suggested by the Education Bureau and are now revising their "textbooks". It is expected that the publishers will complete the revision as early as possible so that the revised "textbooks" can be ready for schools' adoption in the coming school year. The advice given to the publishers will not be disclosed under a confidentiality agreement reached between the Education Bureau and publishers.

The list of LS "textbooks" and the relevant volumes which have undergone the professional consultancy service will be published on the Education Bureau's web page in due course for schools' and public's information. Upon completing the revision, publishers have to duly upload the revised contents to their websites so that the teachers and students using the relevant "textbooks" are informed. Taking into account the experience of the professional consultancy service, the Education Bureau will consider the quality assurance measures for the subject, including the feasibility of submitting LS "textbooks" for review.

Since the abilities and learning needs of students in different schools vary, teachers should, in the light of the curriculum aims and objectives of LS, exercise their professional judgment in selecting appropriate information for the development of teaching materials that can best suit students' needs. With a view to supporting the learning and teaching of LS, the Education Bureau has developed different types of resources, such as the LS Curriculum Resources Booklet Series covering all the modules of the curriculum, and the LS Web-based Resource Platform with a broad diversity of contents, for use by schools.

6888 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

The Education Bureau has implemented the senior secondary curriculum under the New Academic Structure since 2009 with Chinese Language, English Language, Mathematics and LS as core subjects. However, as the school curriculum renewal is an ongoing process, the Task Force on Review of School Curriculum is reviewing the primary and secondary curricula (including LS) and will submit its report to the Education Bureau this year. We will carefully consider all recommendations by then.

In general, local post-secondary institutions adopt the Level of "3322" in the four core subjects as the General Entrance Requirements for admission to undergraduate programmes (i.e. Level 3 in Chinese Language and English Language, and Level 2 in Mathematics and LS in the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education ("HKDSE") Examination). While upholding the principles of fairness and merit-based selection, these institutions enjoy autonomy in the selection of students and they are accountable for their decisions in the matter.

(4) The Education Bureau has been explaining the requirements and criteria for selecting learning and teaching resources (including textbooks and school-based teaching materials) to schools through various channels such as circular memorandum, seminars for teachers and school visits, etc., emphasizing that teachers of various subjects are required to select the teaching resources in a professional and prudent manner. Meanwhile, the Education Bureau has put in place a rigorous and effective textbook review mechanism to provide quality teaching materials for schools. For school-based teaching materials, we will continue to enhance the awareness of school management and professional accountability under the existing quality assurance mechanism for schools, while strengthening the professional training of teachers and enhancing the quality of school-based teaching materials. Apart from the Education Bureau, school management should assume the monitoring responsibility to ensure that its teachers have professional knowledge in selecting teaching materials that are in line with the curriculum aims and objectives. Besides, accuracy of information adopted, completeness of contents as well as objectivity and impartiality should be ensured. Through effective teaching LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6889

strategies, students should be equipped with relevant and proper knowledge and skills, while developing positive values and attitudes at the same time. Upon receiving a complaint, the Education Bureau would review if the school's school-based materials are arranged in a professional manner with full justifications, and follow up on the school's monitoring mechanism as well as the teacher's professional conduct. In case negligence is found on the part of the school as regards its management and monitoring of learning and teaching, or if the school has not fulfilled its professional duty properly, the Education Bureau will seriously follow up the case.

(6) Teachers play a vital role in passing on knowledge and nurturing students' character. Not only should they possess solid professional knowledge, but also high standards of morality. When selecting teaching materials and conducting lessons, teachers should thoroughly consider whether the teaching materials are suitable, and assist students in making analyses from multiple perspectives as well as expressing their opinions in an unbiased and rational manner. Teachers should definitely not allow their personal political stance to affect their teaching, or even mislead students and instill negative values into them.

Upon receiving complaints alleging teachers to have violated the professional conduct, the Education Bureau conducts investigation according to the established procedures. Each decision is made after thoroughly considering the facts, evidence and representations from teacher. If any allegation is found substantiated, the Education Bureau will take appropriate follow-up actions having regard to the gravity of each case. These include issuing an advisory, warning or reprimand letter to remind the teacher concerned of the need to uphold professional conduct for meeting the expectations of parents and the general public for teachers. For serious misconduct cases, we may consider cancelling the registration of the teacher concerned pursuant to the Education Ordinance.

The Education Bureau has been committed to maintaining a teaching profession of high quality and with professional conduct in Hong Kong. To encourage teachers and school leaders to demonstrate the 6890 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

professional roles and conduct expected of them, we have embedded the elements of Professional Standards for Principals and Professional Standards for Teachers of Hong Kong (T-standard+) in teacher training programmes as appropriate (including training programmes for aspiring principals and newly-appointed principals, as well as serving teachers and newly-joined teachers). Meanwhile, among the professional misconduct cases of teachers handled by the Education Bureau, some can be adopted for reflection by teachers. In this connection, we will consolidate the contents of some cases to design teaching materials for reflection with the aim of enhancing the ethical standards of teachers.

(7) Over the years, publishers have written textbooks (including Chinese History textbooks) for schools. The Education Bureau has established the textbook review mechanism and is playing a gate-keeping role in ensuring textbooks' quality so that the content of textbooks is appropriate for the learning needs of students, in line with the curriculum aims and objectives of the relevant subjects, as well as meeting the needs of students in terms of learning, teaching and assessment. In the process of writing textbooks, publishers are required to make reference to the Subject Curriculum Guides, developed by the Curriculum Development Council, the latest guidelines on textbook printing and review issued by the Education Bureau, as well as the Textbook Writing Guidelines for each subject. Upon the completion of the textbook review by the Education Bureau, publishers should undertake to duly follow up the suggestions for improvement in the textbook review reports to ensure that the content of the textbooks is accurate and does not deviate from the curriculum aims and learning goals.

The existing textbook review mechanism allows publishers and authors to develop textbooks which are varied in terms of levels of difficulty in content, ways of presentation, teaching strategies, and supplementary learning and teaching materials, for teachers' selection, as long as they align with the curriculum aims and objectives. This practice helps ensure the quality of textbooks, maintains the competitiveness of the market and is also conducive to the development of quality textbooks. Moreover, since different textbooks are available to schools, teachers can, based on their LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6891

students' abilities and learning needs, select the most suitable textbooks to enhance learning and teaching effectiveness. As the Education Bureau is of the view that the existing textbook review mechanism can satisfy the needs of various stakeholders and has been operating smoothly for many years since its implementation, requiring all schools in Hong Kong to use a standardized Chinese History textbook may not be the best way to meet the local needs.

To strengthen the Chinese history education, the Education Bureau has implemented Chinese History as an independent compulsory subject at the junior secondary level since the 2018-2019 school year. The revised curriculum of Junior Secondary Chinese History will be implemented progressively starting from Secondary One in the 2020-2021 school year, so as to enable students to learn Chinese history and culture holistically and systematically. The work associated with the vetting of textbooks for the revised Chinese History curriculum has also been completed. As for primary education, the General Studies subject contains a strand titled "National Identity and Chinese Culture". Through the learning of important dynasties and their chronological sequence in Chinese history, and some major historical events that have had significant impacts on society today, all primary students can enhance their understanding of Chinese history and the nation as well as its culture and development, and enrich their knowledge of the country and strengthen their sense of belonging through enquiry learning.

The reusable CuMask

15. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, in February this year, the Innovation and Technology Bureau was allocated $800 million under the Anti-epidemic Fund to subsidize the research and development ("R&D") as well as the production of reusable masks ("masks") for use by members of the public. In early May, the Government announced that it had earlier commissioned the Hong Kong Research Institute of Textiles and Apparel ("HKRITA") to coordinate the production of the masks. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

6892 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

(1) of the details of the R&D and intellectual property rights ("IPR") of the masks, including (i) the expenditure initially incurred by HKRITA on developing the relevant technology, and how much of that amount was funded by public money, (ii) the names of the holders of the relevant IPR as well as the dates and places of application for the various patents, their inventors and details of the relevant technology, (iii) whether the IPR holders have sold the relevant IPR, and (iv) apart from the aforesaid development costs, whether the Government paid any fees to HKRITA or the IPR owners or their agencies for using the relevant technology to produce the masks; if so, of the amount of the fees;

(2) of the following information on the manufacturers undertaking the various production processes of the masks: (i) their names, (ii) the locations of their production lines, (iii) the processes undertaken, and (iv) the expenditures (if any) on acquiring production machinery and equipment for undertaking the relevant processes, as well as the manpower employed and the expenditures incurred for such purpose; given that the Government did not conduct any open tender exercise for the production of the masks, of the criteria adopted by the Government for selecting those manufacturers;

(3) as it has been reported that the manufacturing and transportation costs involved in producing 9 million masks have reached $360 million, of the details of a breakdown of such costs;

(4) of the schedule for the production processes of the masks (including the dates of finalizing the technology to be used in the production of the masks, completing the various R&D projects and commissioning manufacturers to undertake the production work); as the Secretary for Innovation and Technology ("the Secretary") has advised that the Government decided in February this year to directly award the contract for production of the masks to Crystal International Group Limited, of the reasons why the Government did not disclose the relevant details when responding to the questions raised by some Members at the relevant meetings of the Finance Committee of this Council;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6893

(5) of the amount of expenditure incurred so far in respect of the R&D and production of the masks and the estimated total expenditure;

(6) as the website set up by the Government for the masks indicates that the design of the mask was awarded a Gold Medal at the International Exhibition of Inventions of Geneva 2018, and the website of HKRITA indicates that the award-winning technology "embed[s] a magnetic field in a facemask in order to provide effective filtration … by changing the direction of movement of nature-charged PMs and micro-organisms", whether this technology has been used in the masks distributed by the Government;

(7) given that a testing report (No. TXB2386/2016/SP) issued by SGS Taiwan Ltd. in 2016 was originally provided on the website of the masks, of the reasons why subsequently another testing report (No. TXB1688/2018/SP) issued by the said company in 2018 is instead provided on the website, and how these two reports explain the functions of the masks respectively;

(8) whether the testing data published by the Government represent the results of tests conducted separately on the six layers of functional materials and on the copper filter of the masks; whether it has conducted tests on how the fact that the masks comprising six layers of materials has affected the functions of the masks in terms of pressure resistance and physical/magnetic filtration capability; if so, of the details; given the Secretary's remarks that "the CuMask is an improved version of the award-winning design", of the details of the technical improvements made to the masks;

(9) as the Government has claimed that the masks, after 60 washes and uses, can still meet ASTM F2100 Level 1 protective standard, but some parts of the testing reports published on the aforesaid website have been redacted, whether the Government will release more information on the tests concerned or citing the data of other tests (e.g. the AATCC TM 100 tests conducted in the United States), so as to address the doubts of members of the public;

6894 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

(10) of the name(s) of the supplier(s) of the mask filters and the unit cost of the filters; whether members of the public will be provided with replacement filters by the Government free of charge in future, or need to purchase the filters on their own; and

(11) as paragraph 4 under "Purpose of information collection" on the registration webpage for the masks indicates that "[f]or the purposes stated in paragraph 1 above, or with your consent, or where disclosure is authorised or required by the law, personal data in this registration may be disclosed to the relevant government bureaux/departments/organisations", of a list of the government bureaux/departments/organisations involved?

SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Chinese): President, the Government is handing out the CuMask+™ to Hong Kong residents for free, using local research and development results to help the community fight against the epidemic.

Having consulted the Hong Kong Research Institute of Textiles and Apparel ("HKRITA"), our reply to the different parts of the question is set out below:

(1) HKRITA was granted funding under the Innovation and Technology Fund ("ITF") in 2017 to conduct research on washable and reusable masks. The project commenced in March 2017 and was completed in January 2019. The total project cost was $1.5 million, of which around $1.28 million was funded under ITF and the remainder was sponsored by the industry. Apart from the above mentioned research expenditure, the Government has not made any payment to HKRITA or its agents for the use of the relevant technologies for production of masks.

HKRITA applied for patents in China and the United States in January 2018. The inventors are Dr YAO Lei, Dr LIAO Xiao, Dr WANG Yongli and Ms LIN Siyu. They were the employees of HKRITA during the conduct of the research project. HKRITA owns the intellectual property and the relevant patented technology is "Method and facemask for decreasing the microorganism to be inhaled and the use and manufacturing method of the same".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6895

HKRITA subsequently improved the technologies adopted for the mask, and applied for a United States patent in respect of the technology of CuMask+™ in March 2020. The relevant patented technology is ''Washable and reusable anti-microbial face mask''. The inventors are the Chief Executive Officer of HKRITA, Prof Edwin KEH, and the Director, Research and Development of HKRITA, Dr Ray CHEUNG. HKRITA has not sold any of the above-mentioned intellectual properties.

(2) The Innovation and Technology Commission ("ITC") under the Innovation and Technology Bureau commissioned HKRITA to coordinate the CuMask+™ project, with HKRITA responsible for sourcing raw materials as well as coordinating production, sterilization and packaging processes, etc.

The Government's Stores and Procurement Regulations allow direct purchase to be made under extreme urgency. The whole procurement process was conducted in accordance with the Government's procurement regulations and procedures, and the approval of the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau had been obtained. ITC has also sought legal advice, and confirmed that the conditions under the Agreement on Government Procurement of the World Trade Organization could be met.

HKRITA is responsible for sourcing suitable raw material suppliers and making production arrangements. Based on the information provided by HKRITA, the raw material suppliers are Action Nonwovens Company Limited, Argaman Technologies Limited, Esquel Enterprises Limited, and Y and K Textiles Limited.

The masks were produced in Hong Kong and Vietnam, with the Crystal International Group Limited responsible for the major part of production; the Novetex Textiles Limited providing venue for setting up clean room for sterilizations; The Mills and the TAL Apparel Limited lending premises to set up workshops for sample development, improvement and testing, studying the production flow, staff training, using the right material pattern to reduce raw material consumption, and small batch production; the Kerry Logistics and Hongkong Post responsible for logistics and delivery.

6896 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

(3) and (5)

According to the latest estimate, taking into account the costs of raw materials, production, packaging, freight, logistics, manpower and delivery, etc., the cost of each mask is around $40. As the production, logistics and delivery work, etc., has not yet been completed, we do not have the final expenditure figure at the moment.

We have requested HKRITA to submit to the Government a report and audited accounts for the entire project. We anticipate that we can make public the report and audited accounts this August. The amount payable to HKRITA would be based on the actual expenditure where excess amount that has been paid to HKRITA would be returned to the Government.

(4) Since late January this year, COVID-19 has started to spread rapidly. At that time, different places started to experience an acute shortage of disposable masks in the market. To help the public fight against the epidemic, the Innovation and Technology Bureau started to contact various suppliers of reusable masks at that time so as to assess the feasibility of procuring reusable masks. However, most reverted that they had either stopped production, did not have enough stock, were unable to export materials due to export control or unable to provide testing certification, etc.

At that time, the Innovation and Technology Bureau had reviewed the reusable mask developed by HKRITA earlier, and considered that there were testing certifications proving its compliance with relevant international standards. The Innovation and Technology Bureau therefore studied the feasibility of arranging direct manufacturing of sufficient reusable masks that would be up to standard for use by the community at the same time.

By mid-February, HKRITA was able to obtain raw materials for making a certain quantity of reusable masks, and was proactively looking for local production line. However, HKRITA did not have the cash flow to purchase the materials. ITC therefore made use of the internal resources of the Government to commission HKRITA to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6897

coordinate the production of 2 million adult masks through direct engagement, so as to enable HKRITA to procure the relevant materials from the market in time.

Given the acute shortage in the supply of raw materials at that time, coupled with export controls imposed by many places, HKRITA could not secure sufficient raw materials. The Innovation and Technology Bureau therefore continued to identify other manufacturers in the market which could supply reusable masks. At the same time, in the paper approved by the Legislative Council Finance Committee seeking funding approval of the Anti-epidemic Fund on 21 February, it was stated clearly that the $800 million reserved thereunder is for consideration of different technology applications relating to reusable masks, such as the production of reusable masks, etc.

As all raw materials had to be imported into Hong Kong from other places, we have not disclosed the names of the raw material suppliers of HKRITA at that time for fear that the raw materials might be subject to sudden export controls or aggressive procurement actions from other buyers at high prices.

Until April, as HKRITA had secured raw materials that were sufficient for the manufacturing of at least 9 million masks and the production line in Vietnam had started mass production, the Innovation and Technology Bureau confirmed to ask HKRITA to coordinate the production of all reusable masks.

(6) and (8)

The mask which won a gold medal in the International Exhibition of Inventions of Geneva 2018 adopted a six-layer design with anti-bacterial materials containing micro-copper, filtration layer, supportive layer and the application of magnetic field. Afterwards, HKRITA continued the research, and considered that the function of the magnetic field was not sustainable and the mask was only effective for 20 washes. Instead, the use of functional materials in the filtration layer and supportive layer could not only offer protection but also withstand multiple washes. Therefore, the CuMask+™ adopts an improved design and has not applied 6898 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

magnetic field, whilst continuing to use the six-layer structure and ergonomic design and improving the use of materials to achieve the result of being effective for 60 washes. The organizer of the International Exhibition of Inventions of Geneva also wrote to congratulate HKRITA on commercialization of the award-winning design to help Hong Kong people fight against the epidemic.

We have released the testing results of the CuMask+™ under the conditions of pre-wash, after 40 washes and after 60 washes, and the anti-microbial testing results of the anti-bacterial layer containing copper. The Differential Pressure of the mask is shown in the test reports, while the filtration performance is reflected by Particle Filtration Efficiency and Bacterial Filtration Efficiency. These functions have attained ASTM F2100 Level 1 standard. There is a slight decline in the performances of Particle Filtration Efficiency and Differential Pressure after 60 washes, and the filter should then be changed.

(7) The two anti-viral test reports uploaded onto the Government's CuMask+™ website were conducted by a laboratory at the commission of HKRITA in 2016 and 2018 for the ITF-funded project of "Development of a Reusable and Comfort Facemask as a Barrier to Microorganisms" as mentioned in part (1) and its preliminary work.

The materials tested in the reports were provided by the same supplier adopting the same technology, and are similar to the anti-bacterial layer used in the CuMask+™ filter. The two anti-viral test reports can be used as the reference for the anti-bacterial layer of the CuMask+™. HKRITA indicated that they had tried to approach a number of laboratories in February to April to conduct anti-viral tests on the CuMask+™ but all laboratories had suspended tests related to viruses because of the epidemic.

On the other hand, we have also uploaded the anti-bacterial reports of the materials containing copper used in the CuMask+™. Both materials passed the test.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6899

(9) The information masked is the names of the raw material suppliers and commodity numbers. The original intention was to respect the will of individual suppliers, protect the supply of raw materials and avoid promoting any particular commodity. To address public concerns, HKRITA has subsequently made public the names of the suppliers.

(10) Depending on the development of the epidemic and the supply of raw materials, the Government may consider distributing replacement filters to the public. In future, if the Government distributes anti-epidemic items again under the reusable mask project, including filters, the Government will make the procurement through open tender.

(11) As regards protection of personal data, relevant departments have been complying with the regulations under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, and have consulted of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data. The Government will not use the information provided by citizens in obtaining the masks for purposes irrelevant to the distribution of masks. The Government will also ensure that the retention period of the personal data is not longer than the time required for the purposes for which the data is used.

The Government will disclose the personal data collected in the registration to departments or organizations related to the distribution of mask, only with the consent of the data subject, or where disclosure is authorized or required by the law. These departments or organizations include ITC, which is responsible for coordinating production and distribution and handling complaints; the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, which is responsible for developing the registration system and conducting procedures related to the system; the Efficiency Office, which is responsible for handling public enquiries; as well as Kerry Logistics and Hongkong Post, which are responsible for logistics and delivery, etc.

6900 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Arrangements for class resumption

16. MS ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, in view of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, classes of all schools in Hong Kong have been suspended since the end of January this year. As the epidemic has subsided, the Education Bureau ("EDB") has announced that classes of primary and secondary schools will resume in three phases starting from 27 May. Regarding the arrangements for class resumption, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that while EDB has stipulated that there should be no less than 190 school days in a school year for primary and secondary schools, classes of various schools have now been suspended for nearly four months, whether EDB will issue clear guidelines to schools in respect of the number of school days for this school year; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) given that due to the limited sizes of classrooms, it is generally difficult for schools to space out students' seats at intervals of 1.8 metres to reduce the risk of infection, of the measures put in place by EDB to help schools resolve this problem, including whether EDB will suggest schools to implement the arrangement under which students of each of the two halves of a class taking turn to go to school on alternate days; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) given that upon class resumption for Primary Four to Primary Six students on 8 June, there will be only about one month's time left for various schools to teach their Primary Five students face to face to prepare them for internal school examinations (and schools are required to submit the relevant results to EDB by the end of July at the latest), and they also have to help their Primary Six students to get ready for the Pre-Secondary One Hong Kong Attainment Test scheduled for 14 July, whether EDB will consider cancelling the Test of this year to alleviate teachers' work pressure; and

(4) whether EDB will (i) follow the practice of the Macao Government as follows: recommending kindergartens, primary schools and secondary schools to let all their students promote to the next grade LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6901

upon the end of this school year, and then adjust the teaching schedule and progress in the next school year, and (ii) request schools to advance the commencement of the next school year, shorten the school holidays and reduce outside school exchange activities, so as to increase the number of school days, thereby catching up with the teaching progress delayed by the epidemic; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, my reply to Ms Elizabeth QUAT's question is as follows:

(1) and (4)

As stipulated in the Education Bureau Circular No. 7/2005 "School Holiday List and Student Learning Time", when schools draw up the school calendar, under normal circumstances, the total number of school days for whole-day schools should not be less than 190 school days in accordance with the recommendation of the Curriculum Council stated in the Basic Education Curriculum Guide. However, in view of the special circumstances caused by the epidemic, schools can, taking into account their school-based requirements, flexibly adjust their school days in accordance with the learning hours and progress of students before class resumption as well as the supplementary classes arrangement after class resumption (if applicable), in order to cater for the learning needs of students and operational circumstances of schools.

In light of the outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") and to safeguard the health of students, all schools have deferred the resumption of classes since the Chinese New Year holidays. Nevertheless, during the class suspension period, schools have been adopting diversified modes of learning in order to achieve "suspending classes without suspending learning". Upon class resumption, schools will suitably adjust their teaching and learning arrangements to assist students in keeping up their learning progress, such as rescheduling school activities as well as arranging supplementary lessons for individual students before summer 6902 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

holiday according to their school-based circumstances and needs of parents and students. Besides, the curriculum guides for all subjects of secondary schools and primary schools are formulated by learning stages across different levels. Thus, schools can review and flexibly adapt their curriculum in accordance with the progress of their own students, for example, arranging part of its curriculum to be taught in the next school year on a need basis to facilitate the transition between different levels or learning stages.

In fact, as stated in the "Guidelines to Schools on Class Resumption" issued by the Education Bureau on 13 May, schools can flexibly arrange supplementary lessons in accordance with their school-based circumstances. Schools should act according to the best interest of students with sufficient justifications, consult representatives of teachers and parents, and inform parents of the revised summer holidays schedule and arrangement for supplementary lessons (if applicable) after obtaining approval from the Incorporated Management Committee/School Management Committee. Hence, the Education Bureau will not provide separate guidelines on the number of school days.

According to the School Administration Guide, a student should be promoted to the next level upon the end of each school year. The decision to ask a student to repeat for a particular level should only be made under special circumstances. Schools, have all along been exercising their professional judgments to decide whether a particular student need to repeat the current level, taking into account the circumstances of individual students and their learning needs. The Education Bureau will provide appropriate support and professional advice to schools whenever necessary.

(2) To ensure students can learn in a healthy and safe environment, schools should put in place various measures, including maintaining appropriate social distances, frequent cleaning and disinfection of school premises, and reminding students to maintain personal hygiene, so as to properly observe health protection in a multi-pronged manner. In terms of maintaining appropriate social distances, students should keep at least 1 m apart from one another LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6903

when they are staying in classrooms as well as queuing up in toilets and at tuck shops. According to the actual circumstances of individual schools, various special lesson arrangements could be adopted, such as arranging students to sit in a single row with a "face-to-back" setting and requiring them to wear masks, arranging teachers to teach students who are facing one direction, and avoiding group discussion activities. Schools can make the best use of space in classrooms and different environments to maximize physical distancing and minimize close contacts among students.

(3) Under the prevailing Secondary School Places Allocation ("SSPA") System, samples of the Pre-Secondary One Hong Kong Attainment Test ("Pre-S1 HKAT") results are collected by the Education Bureau biennially and the average of the two most recently sampled results is used as the scaling tool in the SSPA System. All secondary schools offering local curriculum in Hong Kong are required to arrange their S1 entrants to participate in the Pre-S1 HKAT in the sampling year; whereas in the non-sampling year, secondary schools may choose whether to conduct the Test or not. The test results can serve as reference for schools in formulating appropriate learning support plans. The Education Bureau originally plans to implement the relevant sampling arrangements in 2020.

In light of the outbreak of COVID-19, schools have suspended classes for a few months and the upper levels of primary schools will resume classes on 8 June. After consultation with the school sector, the Education Bureau has decided to cancel the sampling arrangement for the Pre-S1 HKAT this year with a view to allowing more flexibility for schools to deal with matters relating to class resumption, as well as helping students adapt to class resumption in schools. The Education Bureau will continue to use the average of the sampled results of the Pre-S1 HKATs in 2016 and 2018 as the scaling tool in the SSPA System for the 2021 and 2022 cycles. Since no sampling arrangement will be made this year, secondary schools can choose whether to conduct the Pre-S1 HKAT on 14 July or not according to the established practice.

6904 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Provision of services by part-time and agency nurses

17. PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Chinese): President, at present, the Hospital Authority ("HA") recruits part-time nurses through its Locum Recruitment Website and other channels, and it also hires the services provided by nurses employed by agencies ("agency nurses"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:

(1) the respective numbers of (i) part-time nurses recruited through the Locum Recruitment Website ("locum nurses"), (ii) part-time nurses recruited through other channels ("other part-time nurses") and (iii) agency nurses, whose services were hired by HA during the two periods of (a) the whole of last year and (b) January to May this year, as well as the respective monthly expenses involved; set out a tabulated breakdown of such figures by hospital cluster;

(2) the respective numbers of (i) locum nurses, (ii) other part-time nurses and (iii) agency nurses, whose services will be hired by each hospital cluster in the latter half of this year as envisaged by HA, and the respective expenses involved (set out in a table); and

(3) whether, during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, HA has provided the two aforesaid types of part-time nurses with sufficient protective equipment and support; if so, of the details, if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the Hospital Authority ("HA"), I provide the following reply to the various parts of the question raised by Prof Joseph LEE.

(1) The total salary expenditure of locum nurses, part-time nurses and agency nurses incurred by HA in 2019-2020, as well as the numbers of locum nurses and part-time nurses as at 31 March 2020 are set out in the table below. As agency nurses are employed on an hourly basis, HA is unable to provide information on the number of these nurses.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6905

2019-2020 Total salary Number of nurses expenditure (as at 31 March ($ million) 2020) (i) Locum nurses 50 425 (ii) Part-time nurses 463 4 253 (excluding locum nurses) (iii) Agency nurses 83 Not available

Notes:

(1) Since the establishment of the Locum Office in end 2018, HA has recruited 560 locum nurses, of which 425 were deployed to provide services for patients in public hospitals in March 2020.

(2) Total salary expenditure of locum nurses includes basic salary and Mandatory Provident Fund.

(3) Total salary expenditure of part-time nurses (excluding locum nurses) includes basic salary, allowance, gratuity and other on-cost such as provision of home loan interest subsidy benefit.

(4) The salary expenditure above are unaudited figures. Actual figures will only be available after completion of the Annual Financial Statements.

(5) The manpower figures of HA and relevant salary expenditure are recorded on a financial-year basis. Information on the monthly salary expenditure of locum nurses, part-time nurses and agency nurses is not readily available.

(6) The manpower figures above are calculated on a headcount basis.

(2) As it is expected that the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic will last for some time, HA will resume services in phases, and will continue to cope with the demand for public health care services in the enduring fight against the epidemic which has become a new norm. Also, there will be new arrangements for medical consultation. For instance, HA will enhance the Public-Private Partnership Programmes to divert some suitable patients from public hospitals for treatment in private hospitals.

HA will progressively implement its plan to resume services in light of the epidemic development, and is currently unable to provide information on the estimated numbers of locum nurses, part-time 6906 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

nurses and agency nurses to be employed by various hospital clusters in the latter half of 2020.

(3) HA has formulated guidelines on wearing personal protective equipment ("PPE") in carrying out procedures at different levels of risk. The guidelines are applicable to all HA health care staff under different terms of employment. Health care staff are required to take suitable precautionary measures and wear appropriate PPE when working in high-risk areas or conducting high-risk procedures. Isolation facilities in hospitals and work arrangements for taking samples from patients also meet the infection control requirements. The infection control teams of individual hospitals will strengthen training for frontline staff on how to put on and take off PPE properly. HA will continue to keep in view the supply of PPE and ensure that frontline staff are provided with sufficient PPE when taking care of patients.

Two-tiered profits tax rates regime

18. MR JEFFREY LAM (in Chinese): President, the Government proposed amendments to the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) at the end of 2017 to implement a two-tiered profits tax rates regime ("the two-tiered regime"), so that the profits tax rates applicable to the first $2 million of assessable profits for corporations and unincorporated businesses could be reduced by 50%. The Government's proposed legislative amendments aimed to reduce the tax burden on enterprises (especially small and medium enterprises and startups), foster a favourable business environment, drive economic growth, create job opportunities and enhance Hong Kong's competitiveness. The Government projected at that time that the tax revenue would be reduced by about $5.8 billion per year as a result of the implementation of the two-tiered regime. The two-tiered regime has come into operation and is applicable to any year of assessment commencing on or after 1 April 2018. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the amount of profits tax revenue forgone resulting from the implementation of the two-tiered regime and the percentage of such amount in the total tax revenue, in each of the past two financial years;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6907

(2) whether it has assessed the effectiveness and the relevant data of the two-tiered regime, including a comparison of (i) the amounts of profits tax payable by companies of different sizes, (ii) the numbers of local and non-local enterprises and (iii) the scales of enterprises' investments in Hong Kong, before and after the implementation of the two-tiered regime; and

(3) whether, since the implementation of the two-tiered regime, the Government has gained an understanding of the views and suggestions of various stakeholders in respect of the regime; whether it will conduct a review of the two-tiered regime in the light of the social changes, the successive implementation of a number of tax measures, as well as the recommendations and requirements put forth by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in respect of global taxation matters, in recent years?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President, my reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

The Government amended the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) in early 2018 to implement the two-tiered profits tax rates regime ("the two-tiered regime"), under which the profits tax rates for the first $2 million assessable profits of corporations and unincorporated businesses are lowered to 8.25% and 7.5% respectively while the remaining profits will continue to be subject to the respective rates of 16.5% and 15%. The two-tiered regime has been implemented from the year of assessment ("YA") 2018-2019.

The impact of the two-tiered regime on government revenue was first reflected in the financial year of 2019-2020. According to the information of the Inland Revenue Department, the profits tax revenue for YA 2018-2019 was about $156 billion. Amongst some 146 000 profits tax payers, around 89 000 had their tax assessed at the two-tiered tax rates, accounting for about 61% of the total. The Government's profits tax revenue forgone arising from the two-tiered regime in the financial year of 2019-2020 amounted to about $6 billion, or around 4% of the total profits tax revenue. This is comparable to our earlier estimation of the profits tax revenue forgone arising from the implementation of the two-tiered regime.

6908 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Before the implementation of the two-tiered regime, we briefed professional bodies and chambers of commerce on the new initiative. The business sector generally welcomed the initiative and considered that it could help reduce the tax burden on enterprises and foster a favourable business environment. As the two-tiered regime has just been implemented for two years and the profits tax assessment for YA 2019-2020 is still underway, we will continue to closely monitor its implementation and currently have no plan to review it.

Relief measures amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic

19. MS STARRY LEE (in Chinese): President, Hong Kong's economy and people's livelihood are badly hit by the Coronavirus Disease 2019. As revealed by the findings of a survey conducted in April this year by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, 64.9% of the respondents indicated that their income had dropped due to the epidemic, and 67.5% of the respondents were worried that they or their family members would lose their jobs. Although the Government has earlier launched two rounds of relief measures under the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF"), some operators and practitioners in a number of trades still indicate that they have not benefited from the measures. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that the unemployment support scheme implemented under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance framework has been criticized for its stringent eligibility requirements and complicated application procedure, whether the Government will relax the eligibility requirements so that applicants are required only to produce proof of unemployment but not to pass the assets tests; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) whether it will launch a new round of relief measures expeditiously to disburse subsidies to employees aged above 65, long-term casual workers as well as self-employed persons who have not made any Mandatory Provident Fund contributions; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6909

(3) whether it will provide tax concessions to landlords of retail shops who have granted rent cuts to their tenants, so as to encourage landlords to cut rents; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(4) whether it will set up a dedicated website for AEF to enhance the arrangements for disseminating information, and step up the relevant publicity work; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, having consulted the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments, my consolidated response to the Member's question is set out below:

(1) There are currently no mechanisms/systems in place to disburse unemployment assistance fund promptly in Hong Kong. These mechanisms/systems include: (1) a pay-as-you-go income tax system; (2) a contributory social insurance system; or (3) a central provident fund system. It will take time if we were to establish such mechanisms/systems, and imminent needs cannot be relieved expeditiously. As an expedient measure, the Government will launch a time-limited unemployment support scheme (from 1 June to 30 November 2020 for a period of six months) through the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance system. The asset limits for able-bodied applicants will be temporarily increased by 100% and the value of an owner-occupied residential property of able-bodied households will be disregarded according to the established arrangement with a view to providing immediate financial assistance for those unemployed who are most in need. In addition, employees are qualified for severance payment or long service payment if they satisfy the conditions stipulated in the Employment Ordinance. Meanwhile, under the Love Upgrading Special Scheme of the Employees Retraining Board, the existing maximum amount of monthly allowance during the training period is $4,000 per eligible trainee (who are unemployed or underemployed). The amount is expected to be increased to $5,800 with effect from 25 May 2020 subject to the completion of the legislative amendment.

6910 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

(2) The Government announced on 12 May adjustments to the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS"), including the extension of coverage of ESS to around 60 000 employees aged 65 or above whose employers have made voluntary contributions for them under the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes. Employers may apply for wage subsidies for these employees with a view to encouraging employers to retain mature employees.

Apart from the 60 000 employees aged 65 or above covered by ESS, together with around 40 000 employees aged 65 or above under the various sector schemes covering land transportation (i.e. taxi, Red minibuses, Green minibuses and local ferries), laundry, catering and construction sectors which have been, or will be launched under the two rounds of Anti-epidemic Fund, as well as around 10 000 employees aged 65 or above employed by government outsourced contracts whose wages are not affected by the epidemic, the various measures as referred above will altogether cover more than 110 000 employees aged 65 or above.

(3) To relieve the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on various sectors, the Government has reduced rental for eligible businesses or organizations renting government premises. The rental reduction for eligible tenants has been increased from 50% to 75% for the period between April and September this year, with its scope also expanded to cover more businesses or organizations. Tenants who are required to cease operation due to the Government's implementation of anti-epidemic measures will receive full rental waiver during the closure period. The Government urges public bodies to follow suit and appeals to landlords in the private sector to reduce rental and ride out the difficult times with their tenants.

According to the latest rental indices compiled by the Rating and Valuation Department, private retail rents decreased by about 7% in March 2020 over a year earlier, indicating a downtrend in the market rentals. Under the circumstances, it would be undesirable to offer tax concessions with public money as an incentive for landlords to reduce rents. Besides, tax concessions will have to be effected through amendments to the Inland Revenue Ordinance and hence could not alleviate the rental pressure of businesses in the near term.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6911

(4) The Government revamped the anti-epidemic thematic page in the Centre for Health Protection's website in February to strengthen dissemination of information. The revamped website "COVID-19 Thematic Website" integrates information from related government bureaux and departments, and serves as a one-stop platform for broadcasting the latest updates on COVID-19 as well as public health education information, figures relating to the epidemic, measures by bureaux and departments, and clarifications, etc.

A web page of the Anti-epidemic Fund has been added under the "Important" session of the website to list in details the related government bureaux and departments/organizations responsible for implementing the measures. The booklet on "Series of measures to support individuals and businesses affected by the novel coronavirus epidemic" has also been uploaded to the web page for easy reference by members of the public. The web page is updated from time to time with the uploading of related press releases and information of the implementing departments/organizations.

The website of ESS was launched on 19 May, providing detailed information about the Scheme.

The Government will continue to disseminate information of the Fund through press releases, online platforms and social media.

Allocation of PRH units to non-elderly one-person applicants

20. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Chinese): President, the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") has implemented a Quota and Points System ("QPS") applicable to non-elderly one-person applicants since 2005. Some members of the public have relayed that in recent years, while the number of such applicants has remained on the high side, the number of public rental housing ("PRH") units available for allocation to them has been on the low side, resulting in their average waiting time for PRH rising continuously. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

6912 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

(1) of the respective numbers of Type A units (i.e. units for accommodating one to two persons) and one-person units which are currently rented to one-person tenants and, among such units, the respective numbers of those units the tenants of which are elderly and non-elderly persons; the respective numbers of these two types of units which are available for allocation in this financial year and, among such units, the respective numbers of those which have and have not been allocated at present;

(2) of the number of non-elderly one-person applicants and the quota of PRH units for allocation to such applicants in each of the past ten years;

(3) of the respective numbers, in each of the past five and the coming five financial years, (i) of the total number of units which were/may be available for allocation to one-person applicants, and (ii) of such units which were/will be allocated to non-elderly one-person applicants, and set out the details in the table below;

(i) Newly completed Refurbished Financial Quota for Quota for Total (ii) year non-elderly non-elderly number Number Number one-person one-person applicants applicants

(4) of HA's target number of Type A units to be built in each of the coming five financial years; given that the percentage of this type of units in the total number of units built in a year fluctuated significantly in the past five financial years, whether HA has adopted any objective criteria for setting the relevant targets and percentages; if so, of the details;

(5) as the Government indicated at the end of last year that where technically feasible, a further increase of the domestic plot ratio for PRH sites would be allowed in order to increase public housing supply, whether it has studied increasing concurrently the proportion of the number of Type A units in the total number of newly built units; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6913

(6) whether HA will consider (i) abolishing QPS so that non-elderly one-person applicants can enjoy the same treatment as general applicants, and (ii) increasing the number of Type A units to be built, in order to shorten the waiting time of these applicants?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, our consolidated reply to the question raised by Mr WU Chi-wai is as follows:

The objective of the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") is to provide public rental housing ("PRH") to people who cannot afford private rental accommodation. Given the limited PRH resources and the continued strong demand for PRH, it is necessary to rationalize the allocation of the PRH resources. It is HA's policy to accord priority on allocation of the PRH units to those with more pressing housing needs, i.e. general applicants (i.e. family and elderly one-person ("1P") applicants), with the target of providing the first flat offer at around three years on average. This target is not applicable to non-elderly 1P applicants under the Quota and Points System ("QPS").

HA introduced QPS in September 2005 for rationalizing and re-prioritizing the allocation of PRH to non-elderly 1P applicants. Unlike general applicants, priority of flat allocation to QPS applicants is determined by the total points accumulated by individual applicants under the points system. The points are based on the applicants' age, their waiting time and whether they are already residing in PRH. In October 2014, HA endorsed refining QPS. Such refinements included increasing the age points per year of age increase at the time of application from 3 to 9 points to reduce the incentive for early registration; and awarding a one-off bonus of 60 points to applicants when they have reached the age of 45 to accord them with higher priority over other younger applicants. In addition, HA endorsed that starting from 2015-2016, the annual allocation quota for QPS would be increased from 8% to 10% of the total number of units to be allocated to general applicants and QPS applicants, subject to a cap to be increased from 2 000 to 2 200 units. HA currently has no plan to abolish QPS.

In the past 10 years, the cumulative number of non-elderly 1P applications and the estimated quota and actual number of units allocated to non-elderly 1P applicants are set out in Annex 1. The number of units allocated to non-elderly 1P applicants and general applicants from 2014-2015 to 2018-2019 are set out in Annex 2.

6914 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

The Government approved in 2018 that the development density of the public housing sites in selected Density Zones of the Main Urban Areas and New Towns could be increased, where technically feasible, in order to increase the supply of public housing. HA will continue to strive to increase the PRH supply, so as to allocate the PRH units to applicants of different household sizes as soon as possible.

When planning the unit mix of the PRH units, HA has been taking into account factors such as the distribution of household size among the PRH applicants, projection of domestic household formation, etc. According to HA's Housing Construction Programme as at March 2020, it is estimated that about 72 700 PRH/Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme ("GSH") units will be completed from 2019-2020 to 2023-2024. Such units include Type A units (for one to two persons), Type B units (for two to three persons), Type C units (for three to four persons), and Type D units (for four to five persons) to meet the needs of different household sizes. According to the forecasts as at March 2020, the estimated number of Type A units amongst the PRH/GSH units to be completed by HA in the coming five years (i.e. from 2019-2020 to 2023-2024) is set out in Annex 3.

HA takes into account various factors when determining the types of units in the PRH construction. In view of the overall shortage of the PRH supply, increasing the number of a specific type of units significantly will reduce the supply of units of other types, which will result in longer waiting time for the PRH applicants of other unit types. Hence, we need to balance the overall supply and demand, and cannot adjust the proportion of unit types of newly built PRH units lightly.

Over the years, many different types of the PRH units with varied designs and sizes have been completed at different times, HA has not compiled the number of the PRH units with breakdown by unit type. For reference, as at end March 2020, HA had about 152 600 1P PRH tenants, which included about 106 100 elderly households(1) and about 46 500 non-elderly households.

(1) For 1P PRH tenants, elderly households refer to tenants aged 60 or above. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6915

Annex 1

The cumulative number of non-elderly 1P applications, the estimated quota and actual number of units allocated to non-elderly 1P applicants in the past 10 years

Non-elderly 1P applicants Year Cumulated number Actual number of Estimated quota of applications unit allocations 2009-2010 51 300 1 960 1 948 2010-2011 63 400 1 760 1 746 2011-2012 87 800 1 850 1 847 2012-2013 111 500 1 690 1 690 2013-2014 126 200 1 920 1 920 2014-2015 140 600 1 360 1 266 2015-2016* 134 300 2 200 1 623 2016-2017 128 600 2 200 2 145 2017-2018 119 000 1 803 1 409 2018-2019 108 300 2 200 2 190

Note:

* The Subsidised Housing Committee of HA decided to increase the annual allocation quota for QPS from the past 8% to 10% of the total number of units to be allocated to the PRH applicants, subject to a cap increased from 2 000 to 2 200 starting from 2015-2016.

Annex 2

The number of units allocated to non-elderly 1P applicants and general applicants from 2014-2015 to 2018-2019

Number of units allocated to Number of units allocated to non-elderly 1P applicants general applicants Year (including families and New units Refurbished units Total elderly 1P applicants) 2014-2015 537 729 1 266 12 125 2015-2016 860 763 1 623 12 659 2016-2017 1 324 821 2 145 24 373 2017-2018 691 718 1 409 14 135 2018-2019 1 519 671 2 190 24 699

6916 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Annex 3

The estimated number of type A units to be completed by HA from 2019-2020 to 2023-2024

Year Number of units* 2019-2020 1 700 2020-2021 900 2021-2022 3 600 2022-2023 2 100 2023-2024 2 700

Note:

* The number of units is rounded to the nearest hundred.

Child Assessment Service

21. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Chinese): President, the Child Assessment Service under the Department of Health ("DH") provides professional assessments for and follow-up services needed by children who are under 12 years of age with developmental disorders or behavioural problems. Seven Child Assessment Centres ("CACs") under DH provide such services. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the (i) number of new cases, (ii) attendance, and (iii) average, longest and shortest waiting time of new cases in respect of each CAC in each of the past five years;

(2) of the (i) services provided and (ii) average daily number of cases under each service handled last year by each CAC; and

(3) whether the services provided by the various CACs have been affected by the recent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (commonly known as "the Wuhan pneumonia") epidemic; if so, of the details (including the numbers of children and cases affected); whether DH has assessed the impacts of the delay in receiving assessments on the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6917

affected children in terms of their living and learning; whether DH will expedite handling the backlog of cases, upon the full resumption of services at various CACs, by allocating additional resources, extending the service hours at CACs and deploying additional manpower; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President,

(1) and (2)

In consultation with the Department of Health ("DH"), reply of various parts of the question is as follows:

The Child Assessment Service ("CAS") under DH, which has seven Child Assessment Centres ("CACs"), provides comprehensive assessments and diagnosis to children under 12 years of age who are suspected to have developmental problems. After assessment, follow-up plans will be formulated according to the individual needs of children. Children will be referred to other appropriate service providers identified for training and education support. Pending assessment and rehabilitation services, CAS will provide interim support to the children's parents, with a view to support the development and growth of the children. All CACs provide similar service.

The number of newly referred cases received by CAS in the past five years are as follows: Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Number of new cases 9 872 10 188 10 438 10 466 9 799

The attendance at the seven CACs under CAS in the past five years is as follows: Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 CAC Central Kowloon CAC 6 476 5 666 5 489 5 632 5 492 Ha Kwai Chung CAC 7 033 7 373 7 209 6 413 5 827 6918 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 CAC Pamela Youde CAC 7 243 7 120 7 187 7 315 6 577 (Kwun Tong) Pamela Youde CAC (Sha 7 152 7 933 8 262 8 493 7 535 Tin) Fanling CAC 4 055 3 882 3 892 4 182 4 875 Tuen Mun CAC 5 465 5 194 5 384 5 610 5 186 Ngau Tau Kok CAC* 0 0 0 1 682 2 513 Total: 37 424 37 168 37 423 39 327 38 005

Note:

* Ngau Tau Kok CAC commenced operation from January 2018.

CAS has adopted a triage system to ensure that children with urgent and more serious conditions are accorded with higher priority in assessment with a view to enhancing service efficiency. The actual waiting time depends on the complexity and conditions of individual cases. DH does not maintain statistics on the average, the longest or the shortest waiting time for assessment of new cases as well as the average daily caseload of individual centre.

(3) Noting the increasing demands for the services provided by CAS, during the COVID-19 pandemic, with effective infection control measures put in place, CAS has all along maintained assessment service in order to provide timely assessment to the children with suspected developmental problems, so as to facilitate them to obtain support service like training and education support at the earliest possible time. To reduce client flow and minimize social contact, CAS has suspended interim support to parents, such as seminars, workshops and practical training, etc., since February 2020. When the pandemic is eased, CAS will consider gradually resuming relevant activities after assessing the risk and infection control measures.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6919

MEMBERS' MOTIONS ON SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION

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

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

First motion: To extend the period for amending the Employees Retraining Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 4) Notice 2020, which was laid on the table of this Council on 22 April 2020.

I call upon Mr LUK Chung-hung to speak and move the motion.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR AMENDING SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION (L.N. 29 OF 2020)

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee, I move the motion standing in my name as printed on the Agenda.

At the special meeting of the House Committee on 8 May 2020, Members agreed to form a subcommittee to study the Employees Retraining Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 4) Notice 2020 which was laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 22 April 2020. To give the Subcommittee sufficient time to deliberate on the subsidiary legislation concerned, members agreed that I move a motion to extend the scrutiny period of the subsidiary legislation to the Legislative Council meeting on 10 June 2020.

President, I urge Members to support this motion.

Mr LUK Chung-hung moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that in relation to the Employees Retraining Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 4) Notice 2020, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 29 of 2020, and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 22 April 2020, the period for amending 6920 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 10 June 2020."

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

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I am thinking whether we should support this proposed resolution to extend the period for amending the Employees Retraining Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 4) Notice 2020 ("the Notice"). In fact, we need to consider a number of factors to decide whether to support the extension of the period for amending this piece of subsidiary legislation. First, the meeting arrangements of this Council … As we all know, when deciding whether to support the extension of the period for amending this piece of subsidiary legislation, we have to consider the number of persons affected by the amendment, and whether the extension will have any effect on the amendment.

This Notice seeks to amend Schedule 4 to the Employees Retraining Ordinance ("the Ordinance"), and we therefore have to examine the contents of Schedule 4. Over these years, has the Employees Retraining Board ("ERB") helped job seekers―or those who become unemployed due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (commonly known as "Wuhan pneumonia")―get a job according to the Ordinance? This is one of my considerations in deciding whether to support the extension of the period for amending this piece of subsidiary legislation.

As announced by the Government yesterday, the latest unemployment rate has climbed to 5.2% while the underemployment rate has exceeded 3%. We request that the Government should provide adequate training courses through the Labour and Welfare Bureau, the Labour Department and other public organizations to help these unemployed or underemployed people.

When examining this Notice, we need to consider what will result from the extension of the amendment period concerned, and whether it will be of help to many of those currently facing such problems as unemployment and underemployment. It is very difficult to decide whether to support the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6921 extension. If it is likely that the extension will enable those people to get greater help, we will certainly be more than happy to support it. Contrarily, if the extension is not of any help to those attending or waiting for their turn to attend the retraining courses, the unemployed, and the underemployed, we will need to think about the necessity of extending the amendment period. This is an important point.

It is important that we should re-examine the contents of this Notice and its effect. We are well aware that there are several issues to be dealt with at the moment. This Notice concerns Schedule 4 which ERB has the power to amend by notice in the Gazette.

Honestly, I am a little worried whether the Government can help the unemployed, the non-engaged and the underemployed and provide them with additional support by amending this Schedule. Let me cite an example. The Government spent $81 billion on helping workers, but then this funding was not given to workers but employers instead. When Members asked the Government what assistance would be made available to the underemployed and the unemployed, the Government―Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong―replied that there was nothing at all, not a penny.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I remind you that the scope of this subject under debate is narrow. Members should state whether they support extending the period for amending the Employees Retraining Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 4) Notice 2020 which was laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 22 April 2020. Please return to the subject of this debate.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I got it. I will return to the subject matter. I am discussing my considerations on whether to support extending the amendment period concerned. I must take these into account.

If we are satisfied that ERB is able to resolve problems by virtue of the Ordinance (including this amended Schedule 4), I will certainly agree to the extension of the amendment period. But, President, as I mentioned just now, my observation is that the past performance of the Government, the Labour and Welfare Bureau, the Labour Department, or ERB which was established by the Government is far from satisfactory in many areas. Therefore, while deciding 6922 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 whether to allow the amendment period to be extended, we, as Members, will naturally consider what additional power will be endowed to ERB by the amendment to Schedule 4 to this Ordinance to help the unemployed and those who need to switch to other trades. After all, helping these people is the very aim of our examination of Schedule 4 to this Ordinance this time round.

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

Let me give an example. We all know that we should not rely solely on Mainland visitors to support Hong Kong's economy, and this is why it is necessary to consider … With the amendment to Schedule 4 to this Ordinance, will ERB become more capable of equipping those unemployed and displaced with new working skills to re-enter the job market? This is something that warrants our consideration. If the new Schedule will give ERB the new power to formulate brand new retraining plans and objectives to enable those people to be re-employed and get back what they should have: dignity, wages and career prospect, I think it is beyond reproach for Members to support the extension of the amendment period, and, accordingly, it becomes unavoidable that we should examine what new functions ERB would be given under the amended Schedule 4 when we decide whether to support the extension. To be frank, amending Schedule 4 does not mean making a change, but rather serving as a way to increase the existing power of ERB under the Ordinance. Regarding this … Over the years, I have been examining the performance of ERB and the Labour and Welfare Bureau. I think they have failed to achieve the objective of helping workers who need retraining.

I do not want myself to be rash in deciding whether to support extending the period for amending this piece of subsidiary legislation. I urge more Members to consider whether the extension of the amendment period will enable workers in need of retraining to get assistance while making the decision concerned. We have repeated many times that workers who are underemployed, displaced, or unable to get nourished from the "milk and honey" of the Mainland need to acquire new skills in order to be self-reliant. Why is this so important? We all know that they will be doomed if they only rely on the Government without learning new skills for re-employment through courses of ERB. These underemployed and unemployed workers may simply get nothing from the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6923

$81 billion Employment Support Scheme introduced by the Government. This is so clear that we need not say much about it and there is no way that Members representing the labour sector are unaware of it.

Now, the Government is unsympathetic and unrighteous, leaving the unemployed workers out in the cold. They are forced to … Without many choices, they can only consider attending courses of ERB. So, let us look at how the Ordinance or the Notice can help these workers. When trying to make the decision concerning this proposed resolution, I had this question in mind: Is it necessary for me to consult these unemployed workers for their views? It is actually necessary, because they are the very ones who know whether the amendment to Schedule 4 of this Ordinance will put them in a better position to make choices and plans for their future.

To me, there are some difficulties in consulting these workers within such a short time. In fact, we all know the underlying reason. With the present social gathering restriction, we may probably be arrested by the "dirty cops" when we go out to meet the workers. All we can do is to follow the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation in order to meet more workers, otherwise … If we want to meet more than eight workers―for example, I go to an industrial area―we may be arrested by the "dirty cops" and get fined $2,000 each before we can start any interview, and those underemployed or probably unemployed workers will also be fined $2,000 by the Police. I just cannot let this happen. So, I must come up with a better way to consult the workers who are facing unemployment to see if they think I need to support extending the period for amending the Notice.

I once thought of using online channels to interview the workers if we could not meet them physically. In this connection, I have consulted other people like Mr Charles Peter MOK. We have found the problem that some software programmes actually … Take Zoom as an example. People are actually worried that some information will be sent to Mainland China. So, how can I gain the trust of those workers? This is where the problem lies. Those workers stated that they would worry about being arrested and fined $2,000 if they met with me to discuss the matter in Hong Kong now. For this reason, they did not dare to meet with me. Then, how about using some software programmes for communication? They said others would learn about the contents of the communication when the software programme Zoom was used. 6924 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

They were worried that it was spyware. Thus, I had to think about what I should do in order to know whether they wanted me to support or oppose the passage of this proposed resolution.

I racked my brain and eventually came up with a solution: those workers would be invited to enrol online first, and my colleagues would split them into groups of seven in which they would be asked to tell us that regarding the entire Ordinance or this … I would try my best to explain to them the amendment to Schedule 4 and then ask them … First, I had to ensure that they understood what the Ordinance was; second, I had to tell them the amended contents of Schedule 4; and third, I had to ensure that they understood my explanation before I asked my colleagues to split them into groups of seven. Well, this was very important―Do not violate the social gathering restriction, whatever you do―because the Police might be waiting for the pro-democracy camp to do something. If they got wind of our intention to consult some workers about their views on the amendment to Schedule 4 to the Ordinance, they might take actions against us by claiming that our gathering consisted of more than eight persons. Actually, we were a little afraid even if it was just a gathering of seven persons. Why? Because gatherings of two, three or four persons could still lead to police arrests these days. We all saw what happened in some shopping malls. The Police could allege that two persons were walking together with another two … and when the number added up to eight, the Police would put them under arrest. When four persons walked together with another four, they would also be arrested despite being strangers to each other.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I remind you that you have digressed from the subject. Please return to the subject and indicate whether you support extending the period for amending the subsidiary legislation concerned.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I am coming back to the subject of the debate. You have to understand that I am giving serious consideration to whether I should support extending the amendment period concerned. I took it so seriously that I was worried whether the workers whom I consulted might be made unemployed, and I did whatever I could to get hold of people who became out of job or underemployed because of "Wuhan pneumonia". Though the social gathering restriction limited the opportunities for them to meet with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6925

Members, I tried my best to resolve this problem. Racking my brain, I came up with the idea of interviewing them in groups of seven, but even so, difficulties still arose because the groups might be accused of comprising eight persons each. It was unfeasible to have groups of six either, because I noted from press reports that gathering in groups of two, three, four, five or six persons might also lead to arrests.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you have clearly stated the point about your difficulty in deciding whether to support extending the amendment period as a result of the social gathering restriction which affected your consultation with the relevant stakeholders. Please raise another argument.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Now, I will go to my next point. Well, how did I collect workers' views on the amendment to Schedule 4 then? I stopped bothering myself with the social gathering restriction, and would let the Police arrest me if they so wished. Anyway, I have the responsibility to collect workers' views and learn about whether they support the Notice, and whether they agree with Mr LUK Chung-hung … Well, they did not think that he could speak on behalf of the labour sector and suggested that it would be better for me to do it instead. I explained to them that it was impossible because I was unable to do so, and they should respect Mr LUK Chung-hung even if they might be averse to having him as their representative. This is the only thing I can do in this Council which comes under oppression. This is my difficulty.

Notwithstanding the great difficulty I have, I am not deterred from going out to tell workers that we must present our demand to the Government at all events. This time round, the Government shuts its eyes to their unemployment, underemployment and financial straits. They are left with no choice: either to receive retraining or to remain unattended by the Government until they are starved to death. I must tell the Government that this is not acceptable. We also need to have a discussion over the Notice as it will ultimately affect all workers no matter whether its amendment period can be extended.

However corrupt the Government is, we Members must not give up our roles and should fight for the rights and interests of workers. I so submit.

6926 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Yes, Deputy President. I am going to speak purely about the consequence if the period for amending the subsidiary legislation is not extended. But actually the resolution itself has already stated the consequence.

Since the Employees Retraining Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 4) Notice 2020, which was laid on the table of this Council on 22 April 2020, has already been gazetted, if the proposed resolution under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance in relation to the extension of the period for amending the Notice is negatived, it means that the item of subsidiary legislation under negative vetting procedure will come into operation immediately. Nevertheless, does it mean that we can examine this subsidiary legislation in a usual manner after the extension is approved? The answer is not exactly, as the period for amending the subsidiary legislation is only extended until 10 June.

If we look at the date, we should bear in mind that today is 20 May, and given the Government has stated that regardless of objection, it will proceed with the resumption of the Second Reading Debate of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") next week, I believe after the resumption of the Second Reading Debate begins, it is very unlikely that the Bill can be passed within a week or two. For that reason, after making reference to the Rules of Procedure, we have found that since the Bill is a completely new one, its priority is higher than the subsidiary legislation under discussion. It also means that as long as the examination of the Bill is not completed, the Legislative Council will not be able to (further extend the period) … If someone asks if the period for amending this subsidiary legislation can be further extended, theoretically, yes, but practically, no. Therefore, the outcome has already been decided as to whether or not the period for amending the subsidiary legislation is extended. Of course, if we decide not to extend the period for amending the subsidiary legislation today, we should put it to vote today and therefore we still have a formal chance of debating the subsidiary legislation. On the contrary, if we ignore that or let the period for amending it be extended to 10 June, I consider that the period is quite unlikely to be further extended on or before that day. I cannot see even the slimmest chance at all, unless my understanding or perception is wrong, and I welcome the Deputy President to point out the mistake I have made, if any.

For that reason, everyone knows that if we do not have this opportunity, the Government or the pro-Administration alike, or the pro-establishment―the authentic "mutual destruction camp" in my opinion, will try to push through the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6927

Bill for the purpose of "mutual destruction"; they will not hesitate to plunge Hong Kong into another round of serious confrontations. The reason is that the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in HKSAR and the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council are instructing them to go ahead with that and they cannot say no. Under the circumstance, actually everyone can foresee that even if the period is extended to 10 June, the fact is that we are still examining the Bill on 10 June. In other words, the period for amending this subsidiary legislation cannot be further extended and it will lapse by then, the subsidiary legislation will come into effect automatically.

Actually this will completely deprive Members of their chances of making political commentaries or engage in debates in this Chamber. Besides, even though the only item is to amend the maximum amount of retraining allowance in the Schedule from $4,000 to $5,800, the Notice will be effective on 25 May once it is gazetted. That is the reason why we have to decide if the period should be extended or not. Just now I have also explained that if we decide not to extend the period, it means that we still have the opportunity to discuss the Employees Retraining Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 4) Notice 2020 as set out in Appendix 3 regarding the adjustment of the maximum amount of retraining allowance from $4,000 to $5,800.

Many people consider that since it is about adjusting the allowance upward to $5,800, the allowance will be adjusted to $5,800 automatically if the period is not extended, and that will be a happy ending for all as the people concerned will get more allowance. Nevertheless, perhaps some Members consider that it should not be $4,000 or $5,800 because they may consider the allowance should be increased by a bigger amount. But it turns out that there will not be a debate. As I have explained just now, even if we extend the period to 10 June and the Bill will be passed, Members should have read the letter issued by the Chief Secretary for Administration which has listed a number of Bills to be tabled in the Council. Just now I have also explained that under the Rules of Procedure, new legislation shall enjoy higher priority than any subsidiary legislation because the status of new legislation is higher than that of subsidiary legislation. For that reason, if we set the subsidiary legislation aside, we will not be able to debate on the proposal for the upward adjustment of the retraining allowance from $4,000 to $5,800, let alone the fact that I consider the amount should be increased by a bigger amount, right?

6928 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

I believe that Members present in this Chamber may consider that the allowance should be further increased in view of the impact of the "Wuhan pneumonia" epidemic, or Members may even ponder on the effectiveness of the handling of the allowance by the Employees Retraining Board in the past and consider if we should continue to support it. However, as I explained just now, the debate is actually a false proposition. It is because after today, I very much believe that we will no longer be able to discuss this subsidiary legislation in the meetings of the Legislative Council. Actually, under the Basic Law, in our capacity as Members of the Legislative Council, we are tasked with several major duties: Besides examining and approving the budget, we should enact, amend and repeal laws. Apparently, these are the duties of Members of the Legislative Council. However, if we pass the motion to extend the period for amendment, it is very unlikely―I dare not say for sure―for us to discuss the subsidiary legislation at meetings on or before the 10 June. For that reason, I thereby urge Members to consider voting down the proposed resolution.

Moreover, another reason why I oppose to this resolution is that we consider that as the saying goes, "an invalid name makes something unjustified", the House Committee has elected its Chairman in an illegitimate and unjustifiable way, and they thought that the matter was over. In short, if they do not want a particular Member to take the chair, they simply have another one to replace him. I consider that the motion that we are discussing is the result of an unjust process arising from an illegitimate procedure of the House Committee, thus we should not support its passage. For that reason, what I have explained just now is―regardless of the first or the second reason―even if the motion to extend the period for amendment is passed, objectively speaking, we may not be able to discuss it; or the second reason, as far as its legitimacy or pertinence is concerned, we consider that we are discussing a motion arising from an unjustifiable or illegitimate House Committee procedure. That is to say, this motion to extend the period for amendment after the House Committee has given its decision on the extension, should not warrant our endorsement, otherwise, we will make the scrutiny by the House Committee a seemingly legitimate action.

Therefore, I hereby beg Members to consider casting an opposing vote so that we may have a chance to discuss it directly in this Chamber. Actually, in so doing, we are discharging our duties as Members of the Legislative Council. Other than this subsidiary legislation, there are several resolutions to follow, in particular the resolutions proposed under Cap. 599, and they certainly warrant our discussion. Certainly, I do not want to jump to the next motion which seeks to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6929 extend the period for amendment, because we should focus our discussion on the proposed resolution in relation to the extension of the period for amending the Employees Retraining Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 4) Notice 2020, which was laid on the table of this Council on 22 April 2020.

Finally, I hope that Members will support the idea of vetoing it first―I have to make it clear that―it does not mean that we are vetoing the motion in relation to the subsidiary legislation. They are two different things. Vetoing the motion to extend the period for amendment does not mean that we are vetoing the relevant motion in relation to the subsidiary legislation. As I have explained just now, there is still room for discussion of the motion because we are going to debate if it is appropriate to increase the allowance from $4,000 to $5,800. Perhaps Members may consider that it is worth supporting or the amount should be further increased, we still have room for discussion. Nevertheless, if we are not going to vote down the motion, we will lose the chance of discussion. Therefore, I hope that Members will take this into consideration when they cast their votes later. The public who are listening or watching the live broadcast of this meeting should understand the reason why we oppose this motion, because we only oppose the proposal of extending the period for amendment to a later date, and after the extension, we actually will not have chance to discuss it any more.

Just now I have also explained that as the Bill awaits for our scrutiny, we may not be able to attend any other business because we have to discuss this new legislation first. At the same time, this will make the extension of the period for amendment meaningless, as a result, this subsidiary legislation under negative vetting procedure will directly come into operation and we will lose the chance of debating it. For that reason, I hope that Members will oppose it―but we only oppose the extension, because I believe that many of our friends support the subsidiary legislation. We Members of the Civic Party also consider that as far as the allowance is concerned, the more, the better. I hope Members will support my argument and oppose this motion which seeks to extend the period for amendment. I so submit.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, I have to say clearly in the first stance that I will not recognize your present position of presiding over the Council meeting in the capacity of the new Chairman of the House Committee. We have stated very clearly that the whole incident involved 6930 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 the abuse of power, and Mr Andrew LEUNG has also abused the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council. He is not vested with the power by Rule 92 of the Rules of Procedure to designate Mr CHAN Kin-por to chair the election of the Chairman of the House Committee, and you were elected under our protest. This is totally in breach of the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council and our tradition. According to the tradition of the Legislative Council, the President cannot designate a person in this way. This is bound by rules and regulations.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, I have to point out that pursuant to the provisions in the Rules of Procedure, I am assisting the President of the Legislative Council in presiding over the Legislative Council meeting in the capacity of the Chairman of the House Committee.

The President of Legislative Council issued a written ruling earlier on the election of the Chairman of the House Committee and explained in detail the basis of the decision concerned. If any Member is not satisfied with the ruling, please follow up through other channels and do not express his personal dissatisfaction with the decision concerned in this meeting today.

Dr CHEUNG, please focus on the current issue and state whether you support extending the period for amending the subsidiary legislation concerned.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, this is the first time that you sit in this position on this occasion today. I must express my dissatisfaction and this has to be put on record.

I speak in relation to the proposed resolution introduced by Mr LUK Chung-hung. His proposed resolution seeks to extend the period for amending the Employees Retraining Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 4) Notice 2020 ("the Notice") which was laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 22 April 2020. The content of the Notice is very simple, which mainly concerns the adjustment of the amount of retraining allowance. Eligible trainees may, pursuant to sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Employees Retraining Ordinance (Cap. 423), apply to the Employees Retraining Board ("ERB") for retraining allowance for their participation in certain retraining courses provided by training bodies or training providers in accordance with Cap. 423. Through the courses, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6931 it is hoped that trainees can master some new occupational skills or enhance their occupational skills so that they can be reemployed. If they are able to participate in these courses, each trainee will be given allowance by ERB. At present, the maximum amount is $4,000 per trainee per month, which will be increased to $5,800 after amendment.

To be eligible for the allowance, certain conditions have to be met. First of all, the courses must be some designated courses but not any courses provided by ERB or its training bodies. For the designated courses, they are full-time courses or mainly day-time courses, while evening classes may sometimes need to be attended. Besides, the attendance rate attained has to be at least 80%. Trainees who have met the requirements can apply for the allowance.

Since the adjustment in July 1995, the amount of $4,000 has not been adjusted, and the authorities have basically not considered at all whether the amount is sufficient. This is exactly what I have to express here. In regard to the proposed resolution of Mr LUK Chung-hung, should we oppose it or support it? If we wish that the amount can be quickly adjusted from $4,000 to $5,800 with a seemingly high rate of increase, and also wish that the allowance can be disbursed earlier to the persons who have received retraining, we may need to vote against it. Because if the period for amending the subsidiary legislation does not need to be extended, the subsidiary legislation will not be subject to further discussion in the Legislative Council or have any new amendments, and theoretically, the disbursement can be expedited.

However, on the other hand, I also feel that practically speaking, the amount of allowance has not been adjusted for many years. Under the present severe condition when the epidemic is prevailing, many workers are unemployed. Is the $5,800 allowance sufficient to them? In my view, we should fight for some room for discussion and adjustment.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, I shall remind you that you have already spoken for nearly six minutes. I hope that you will not make use of this occasion today to directly discuss the content of the subsidiary legislation, but should explain whether you agree with the extension of the period for amending it. You may now continue to speak.

6932 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I am exactly discussing the extension of the amendment period itself. If this proposed resolution to extend the amendment period is carried, the effect we will achieve is that we can have a chance to discuss the content of the Notice and propose amendments to it. This precisely is my dilemma in making a decision today. Should I support Mr LUK Chung-hung's proposed resolution to extend the amendment period so that Members have a chance to propose amendments, or should I not support the extension of the amendment period so that the Notice will come into effect automatically? This is the issue that we have to discuss now.

I am personally being caught in a dilemma. If I do not support the extension of the amendment period, meaning that I am against Mr LUK Chung-hung's proposed resolution, certainly many trainees participating in the retraining courses may be benefited, as the Notice can come into force very soon. Nevertheless, in my view, if I agree to extend the amendment period, there is also a chance that we can speak in this Council on behalf of the citizens in need, because they are really in dire straits today. I believe Ms Starry LEE is also aware that the extension of the amendment period itself will have a direct impact on the Love Upgrading Special Scheme. This Scheme was launched in October last year and will be directly affected by the adjustment to the amount of allowance. In the Budget that we just endorsed, $2.5 billion has been earmarked for this Scheme. It is anticipated that after the adjustment from $4,000 to $5,800 is agreed today, the difference will precisely be paid from that $2.5 billion.

Deputy President … I should not have addressed you as Deputy President, but can only address you as Ms Starry LEE, because I will not recognize you as the Deputy President of this Council meeting today. Ms Starry LEE, this proposed resolution to extend the amendment period has really put me in a dilemma, because we also understand that the existing level of $4,000 is far from adequate in assisting these unemployed people, but is the level of $5,800 able to help? It is because no matter $5,800 or $4,000, this is actually only the cap of the allowance, and the actual amounts of allowance disbursed for many retraining courses basically do not reach that level. In many retraining courses participated by trainees, such as the Certificate in Health Worker Training Course under the occupational skills programme, a trainee is required to attend a total of 78 sessions in 39 full working days. After deducting the number of public holidays, he needs to spend two whole months before graduation. A trainee is required to attend classes for at least 30 days before he can receive an allowance of $5,998.2 in total. This is merely an amount of $5,900-odd for two months, meaning only less than $3,000 per month on average.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6933

Even after the ceiling of allowance is adjusted this time, frankly speaking, when the allowance of that course is only $3,000-odd per month, will this subsidy be enough to the trainee? This proposed resolution suggests adjusting the ceiling of the allowance to $5,800. Do we intend not to give an opportunity for Members to propose amendments in this Council but allow the proposed resolution to be directly passed? Will this be fair to those who are unemployed today due to the epidemic, and can this allowance genuinely help them?

Besides, the assistance from the Love Upgrading Special Scheme is practically quite limited. At present, it only covers 66 courses, accounting for less than 10% of ERB courses. In other words, only less than 10% of the retraining courses can provide cash allowance to trainees, who may not easily receive the maximum allowance level of $5,800. Do Members think that this arrangement is already able to assist the unemployed? The epidemic is still serious today. As the Government announced yesterday, the unemployment rate has already risen to 5.2%, while there are over 200 000 people unemployed, hitting a new record high in this decade. Our underemployment rate has also risen from 2.1% to 3.1%. While this growth rate is rather high and is the highest over these 15 years, it is still on the rise, Ms Starry LEE.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, I shall remind you that you have already started discussing the content of the subsidiary legislation. Please return to the subject of this debate and state whether you are in support of extending the period for amending the subsidiary legislation concerned.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I understand, but the epidemic today is really serious. Should the period for amending this subsidiary legislation be extended?

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please wait for a moment. Dr KWOK Ka-ki, what is your point of order?

6934 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): A point of order. Ms Starry LEE, as Dr Fernando CHEUNG has just said, your position is unjustifiably and unrighteously acquired. Basically, the election of the Chairman of the House Committee was very controversial and was only supported by the legal advice of individual lawyers. In fact, the lawyers employed by the democratic camp have also given advice to all Members, including you, highlighting that the explanation from those two lawyers at the outset was questionable. But President Andrew LEUNG has yet to make a response, and this is the first point.

Secondly, as also pointed out in many legal opinions, your victory in the election of the Chairman of the House Committee or your sitting in that position as Deputy President may actually give rise to more severe problems. Hence, I now need to raise a point of order. If you were not legitimately elected in the entire election of the Chairman of the House Committee or if some people challenge that your position today is illegitimate, all the items in this Legislative Council meeting today are being illegally deliberated by us. Then how can we go on with our discussion? In other words, after you have taken this position, some people, including me, say that you position here is highly questionable, because the election of the Chairman of the House Committee was not fair, the election procedure was controversial, and the legal advice concerned was also in lack of representativeness. Then all the items that we are now dealing with may be subject to legal challenge. This will include our present deliberation of the proposed resolution to extend the amendment period, which will also be challenged. Then what should we do? Will it be better if you do not preside over this meeting anymore?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, you have already clearly raised your point of order. I will respond to your question. Please sit down.

As I pointed out earlier, no matter whether as the newly elected or the incumbent Chairman of the House Committee, I am also presiding over the Legislative Council meeting in accordance with the stipulations in the Rules of Procedure. In regard to the interpretation of the Rules of Procedure, if a Member has different legal point of view, he can express his dissatisfaction and can also follow up through different channels. As the Chairman of the House Committee, I will continue to assist, in my capacity as the Chairman of the House Committee, the President of the Legislative Council in presiding over the Council meeting as Deputy President of the Legislative Council. If someone puts up a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6935 challenge (including judicial challenge), I believe this Council will deal with it in a proper manner. We shall now continue with the meeting and Members please speak in respect of the subject.

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

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

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I raise this question in good faith. If you illegitimately carry out the duties of President in the capacity of Deputy President, and we have to deal with a lot of bills and motions, including the proposed resolutions to extend the period for amending subsidiary legislation, this is a rather serious matter and can be regarded as unprecedented, because no Chairman of the House Committee has ever been elected in such an illegal way. What you are doing will put this Council in an unrighteous position …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I have already clearly pointed out that I am the Chairman of the House Committee and am not illegitimate. Please sit down. I reckon that I have already dealt with your point of order. Please sit down.

As I highlighted just now, in regard to the interpretation of the Rules of Procedure, if a Member has different legal point of view, he can seek a ruling (including a court ruling). As long as I am the Chairman of the House Committee, I will preside over meetings, including Legislative Council meetings, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Please sit down.

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

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

6936 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Not only are you illegitimate in presiding over this meeting today, but you are also virtually breaching the law and regulations. I have to make it clear that I definitely will not acknowledge your eligibility in sitting in this position today. You were elected in an illegal meeting and you were escorted to this position by the security staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat through the use of violence and force. Hong Kong people will not recognize …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please stop speaking. This is not a point of order. Please sit down.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG, have you finished your speech yet?

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, I have not finished my speech yet.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please continue with your speech.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): As I highlighted earlier, I do not acknowledge your present position. However, I have to continue with my speech here because I need to fulfil my duty as a Legislative Council Member.

A moment ago, I was talking about whether this proposed resolution to extend the amendment period should be supported. I think I am caught in a dilemma, but I am not going to repeat the details of this dilemma. Nonetheless, another issue that we have to consider is precisely the present epidemic. Under the epidemic, in fact, the retraining courses are basically suspended and many training bodies are facing great difficulties. Of course, the allowance adjustment in this exercise is not directly related to their financial conditions, but a limited number of courses have indeed been switched to online courses. In case there are any changes to the epidemic, how much impact will this extension of the period for amending the Notice bring to the courses? At present, most courses have not been switched to online teaching. But in fact, given the experience or what we can call a lesson brought by the epidemic, should ERB and the training LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6937 bodies switch some of the existing retraining courses to online courses as far as possible, so that the allowance can be disbursed to the trainees who have received online education? I am not sure whether this extension of the period for amending the Notice or otherwise will have any impact on them. But no matter what the voting result of the Legislative Council on the extension of the amendment period is, I think the Government and the training bodies should have some scope to consider this approach so that some trainees can have a chance to obtain the allowance under the epidemic. Basically, a full suspension of all courses can happen anytime.

Admittedly, we notice that these courses are gradually resumed and I also hope that the amount of this allowance can be increased from $4,000 to $5,800 earlier. Therefore, should we eventually not support Mr LUK Chung-hung's proposed resolution, or should we have a discussion on the content of the Notice? I am still struggling about that. However, I really want to highlight that this amount of allowance is actually not enough. Hence, this allowance cannot replace unemployment assistance.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon Mr LUK Chung-hung to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Employees Retraining Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 4) Notice 2020 ("the Notice"), as many Members just mentioned, is mainly about increasing the maximum amount of retraining allowance from $4,000 to $5,800.

In fact, we often hope that all bills can be passed expeditiously. If Members refrain from filibustering and Council meetings can proceed smoothly, members of the public will be able to benefit much sooner. If the Council can provide some room for discussion to allow us, representatives of the labour sector, to express our views, I think it will be a good thing for wage earners. This Notice concerns the amendment to Schedule 4 of the Employees Retraining 6938 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Ordinance which actually covers a very narrow scope. Just now, I was quite puzzled as to why Dr KWOK Ka-ki seemed to have not much idea about the contents of Schedule 4. He repeatedly mentioned Schedule 4 without saying a word about its contents. I wonder if he has failed to do his homework.

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, please hold on. Dr KWOK Ka-ki, what is your point of order?

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I request that Mr LUK Chung-hung withdraw his remark. He was speculating about what I thought. I am clear about the contents of this Notice. I request him to withdraw his remark.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I do not think that Mr LUK Chung-hung was speculating about what you thought …

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): He stated that I did not have a clear idea about the contents.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If you think that he has misunderstood what you previously said …

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): So I ask him to withdraw his remarks!

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will let you make an elucidation after Mr LUK has replied. Please sit down.

Mr LUK Chung-hung, please continue with your speech.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6939

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): I just wish to point out the fact that just now Dr KWOK Ka-ki kept mentioning Schedule 4 but failed to say a word about its contents. I am not sure if he knows about the contents of Schedule 4―maybe he does, maybe not, or maybe he just pretends he does―I have simply raised a question. Audience in front of the television may find this very interesting … Perhaps it has touched a raw nerve.

Moreover, Mr Jeremy TAM stated that if we agreed to extend the period for amending the Notice, the opportunity for this Council to discuss the Notice would be stifled. This point just baffles me. The very reason for Members to propose setting up a Bills Committee is that we need the Council to provide us with some room for discussion, so that we can fully express our views on various aspects, including the amount … As the chairman of the Bills Committee, I have taken quite a lax approach to chairing the meetings, in the hope that members can voice the aspirations of wage earners in respect of the work of Employees Retraining Board ("ERB") in various aspects.

In fact, under the current epidemic situation, retraining plays a fairly important role. Realistically, one of the reasons is that the trainees attending retraining courses will get retraining allowance. To me, this allowance, now proposed to be raised to $5,800, can never substitute unemployment assistance, but it can be regarded as timely assistance during difficult times and unemployment. Certainly, with economic restructuring, "black violence" and "mutual destruction", many wage earners have lost their jobs and been forced to switch to other trades. For example, vandalism suffered by the restaurants where they worked plus the difficult business environment for the catering industry have probably made it necessary for them to seek jobs in other trades and hence their need to receive retraining. This is their practical need. During the discussions of the Bills Committee, many members were concerned with the kinds of courses available, the contents of various courses and suchlike. We, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU"), have all along maintained good communication channels with workers in the labour sector and have kept collecting their views. Meanwhile, many Members―including FTU and non-FTU Members―also wish to have discussions in the Bills Committee. I believe discussions of the Bills Committee will not excessively delay the commencement date of this Notice, because the amendment period concerned will only be extended to 10 June, and we seek to submit the Notice to the Legislative Council for resumption of Second Reading and Third Reading by 6940 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 then, so that wage earners will benefit from the passage of the Notice as soon as possible. The extension of the amendment period will allow room for discussion in this Council, which is contrary to Mr Jeremy TAM's claim that there will be no more room for discussion if the amendment period is extended. Well, I do not know what he actually meant to say. I am simply perplexed and full of doubts. I hope Members can see the situation in the correct light.

In addition, some Members have made mention of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill"). While I think this is irrelevant to the subject matter, I am not sure whether they actually tried to forewarn about the impossibility of discussing this Notice on 10 June when endless trouble will be stirred up at the tabling of the Bill to this Council―I am not sure if anyone is trying to give such a forewarning―and the occurrence of more radical actions then. In fact, we all know that it is our constitutional responsibility to implement the Law of the People's Republic of China on National Anthem ("National Anthem Law") locally. As the National Anthem Law has been listed in Annex III to the Basic Law, the SAR Government is required to enact local legislation for this piece of national law. Originally, with extensive consultation on the Bill having been conducted and the completion of the Bills Committee's scrutiny, the legislation should have been enacted last year. But, as Members are aware, the Legislative Council Complex was vandalized by the "black-clad rioters" in opposition to the proposed legislative amendments, thus causing the Council unable to scrutinize the Bill. It is really frustrating.

I hope Members will stop confusing the situation. This is a matter concerning workers and people's livelihood. Simply put, the amendment is about increasing the maximum amount of retraining allowance from $4,000 to $5,800. Of course, if the amendment period is extended, during the discussions of the Bills Committee, members can discuss … An extension means―the audience in front of the television may have no idea about the Rules of Procedures―that we … If the period for amending this Notice is not extended, this Notice will take effect automatically; otherwise, we will have room for discussion. Maybe we will then be able to bargain for more allowance. Even if we do not manage to do so, we will still be able to fully express the views of this Council and those of the wage earners to the Government during the course of discussion, thus enabling it to take on board these views when considering the relevant work of ERB again in the future.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6941

As the chairman of the Bills Committee, I hope Members will support this proposed resolution, so that we have sufficient time to examine the relevant subsidiary legislation.

Thank you, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you …

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki indicated his wish to speak)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, do you wish to elucidate the part of your speech which has been misunderstood?

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I certainly wish to request an elucidation from him. First, I request Mr LUK Chung-hung to make an elucidation. If he dislikes the "black-clad rioters" so much, will he please kick away John LEE and Carrie LAM? She is the Mother of Mutual Destruction. Second …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please directly point out the part of your speech which has been misunderstood. Otherwise, I will ask you to stop speaking.

(Some Members shouted aloud)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please directly point out the part of your speech which you considered to have been misunderstood just now.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung just made an irresponsible remark that we did not know the contents of the Notice. We all know that FTU only pretends to fight for workers' rights. In fact, it supports whatever the Government says. He just put on an act here, and yet he criticized other people.

6942 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I think you have digressed from the subject. Please stop speaking.

(Some Members were speaking in their seats)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you have finished your speech.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Dr KWOK Ka-ki rose to claim a division.

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

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

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6943

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted for the motion.

Dr CHENG Chung-tai voted against the motion.

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 27 were present, 26 were in favour of the motion; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 25 were present, 24 were in favour of the motion and 1 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, she therefore declared that the motion was passed.

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

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

6944 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I reiterate that since your current chairmanship is a misnomer, your words carry no weight. By the same token, the relevant election was illegitimate. If you go on chairing the meeting like this, legislation enacted by this Council will end up being challenged …

(Some Members spoke in their seats)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I have clearly responded to your point of order. Please stop speaking.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second motion: To extend the period for amending three items of subsidiary legislation made under the Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance, which were laid on the table of this Council on 22 April 2020.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, what is your point of order?

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Starry LEE, it never crossed my mind that you would take advantage of the emptiness during this lunch time to sneak into the President's seat by yourself. Do you know what is meant by "unauthorized"?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, I do not consider this a point of order.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Do you know how to write "unauthorized" as in "unauthorized building works"?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6945

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please stop speaking.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick spoke loudly in his seat)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, I have made it clear to you that I am the House Committee Chairman legitimately elected with the majority support of House Committee members. Therefore, I am presiding over the Council meeting in my capacity as Deputy President in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick, if you continue to yell in your seat, I will give you a warning. Please stop speaking.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick continued to speak loudly in his seat)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please stop speaking.

(Mr HUI Chi-fung and Ms Claudia MO indicated their wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, what is your point of order?

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): You are an illegitimate chair illegally elected in an unlawful assembly. Please leave the Chamber.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please stop speaking. This is not a point of order. I have explained multiple times …

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick spoke loudly in his seat again)

6946 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, this is your first warning. You should not yell in your seat.

(A number of Members spoke in their seats and Mr HUI Chi-fung indicated again his wish to raise a point of order)

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

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): My question is: are you shameless? You were illegally elected. You came out on top only under the escort of security officers. Please leave the Chamber. You are not qualified to chair this meeting.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, if you want to insult me, I urge you, please, to withdraw your remarks. Please stop speaking and sit down.

I call upon Ms CHAN Hoi-yan to speak and move the motion.

(A number of Members spoke loudly in their seats)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have very clearly responded to Members' queries. As I have pointed out multiple times, Members who have different legal views or varied opinions on the Rules of Procedure may seek a ruling. I understand that there are a variety of views. I also know that every Member and every member of the public has the right to seek a ruling, including the Court's ruling.

Ms CHAN Hoi-yan, please speak and move the motion.

MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President …

(Mr Jeremy TAM indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6947

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms CHAN Hoi-yan, please stop for a while. Mr Jeremy TAM, what is your point of order?

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, we unanimously disagree with the election procedure for the House Committee this time, and we have explained our position. If you want to continue with the meeting and sit in the President's seat, then each of us Members will raise this issue whenever we stand up. Will you consider not sitting in the President's seat during this period?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, in my view, the question you raised is not a point of order. That said, I will respond to you. I have made it very clear just now that I am the House Committee Chairman legitimately elected in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, with the majority support of House Committee members, so I will continue to preside over House Committee meetings and assist the Legislative Council President in presiding over part of the Council meetings. This is my decision. Members are welcome to raise their dissatisfaction, if any, to me on other occasions but they should not debate it here.

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you have raised points of order many times.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

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

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Point of order. Deputy President, now … Ms Starry LEE, you now claim to be Deputy President and standing in for President Andrew LEUNG to deal with six proposed resolutions to extend the amendment periods. Before the voting, you said that since you were the immediate past Chairman of the House Committee, you had the power to preside 6948 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 over the meeting in which I was attacked by Mr KWOK Wai-keung. The proposed resolutions stemmed from there. Is this the truth? Yes, it is. However, if you deal with these matters in the capacity of the former House Committee Chairman, why do you not deal with the motion of no confidence in you? In fact, there was still a motion of no confidence in you in the last session that you had yet to deal with, and you were sitting in that position to "give birth" to the subcommittees on these six items of subsidiary legislation. So, Ms Starry LEE, were you out of order?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what you are saying is not the truth. I was the incumbent Chairman of the House Committee at the time, so I was very clear that I was using the power vested in me by the Rules of Procedure to consult Members before deciding whether to form Bills Committees. The motion of no confidence was proposed at a House Committee meeting in the last session.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen spoke loudly in his seat)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am not here today to debate these details with you. Please stop speaking. I have already made the decision and I understand Members' dissatisfaction. If any Members are dissatisfied with me, they are welcome to have discussion with me on other occasions.

(A Member spoke loudly in his seat)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If any Members are dissatisfied … I hope Members know that you have the right to seek a ruling, including the Court's ruling, but you should not disrupt the meeting, otherwise I, as Deputy President, must enforce the Rules of Procedure to keep the meeting in order.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick spoke loudly in his seat)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please stop speaking.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick continued to speak loudly in his seat)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6949

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please stop speaking.

(Mr Charles Peter MOK indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, do you have a point of order?

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick still spoke loudly in his seat)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, I am giving you your second warning. Please stop speaking.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick continued to speak loudly in his seat)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please stop speaking.

Mr Charles Peter MOK, do you have a point of order?

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): I have no idea if you are the presiding chair, Deputy President or Ms Starry LEE? You are none of them. Ms Starry LEE, since so many Honourable colleagues have doubts about the capacity in which you are sitting on the President's podium, I think you have a conflict of interest now and, therefore, should not rule on this matter. Could you please suspend the meeting and invite the President back to deal with this problem?

(Some Members said: "No need.")

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): It is not unnecessary. There is an obvious conflict of interest because she is going to make a ruling on herself. This is unacceptable.

6950 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, please stop speaking. I will respond to your question. As to whether I should continue to preside over the meeting, I have just made a decision. If you are not satisfied with my decision, you are welcome to raise your dissatisfaction with me on other occasions. My decision is very clear and I am the legitimate Chairman of the House Committee.

(A number of Members spoke in their seats)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please stop speaking.

(Mr Charles Peter MOK spoke in his seat)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, I have already made the decision. If you are dissatisfied with anything, I welcome you to discuss it with me on other occasions.

Ms CHAN Hoi-yan, please start speaking.

MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President …

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick spoke loudly in his seat)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please stop speaking.

Ms CHAN Hoi-yan, please continue with your speech.

MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): Yes.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick continued to speak loudly in his seat)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6951

MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, please make a ruling on whether a Member is behaving in such a disorderly manner that affects my speech.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, I have reminded you twice that if you continue to yell aloud in your seat, I will have no choice but to deal with your behaviour. I do not want to deprive Members of the opportunity to speak at this meeting, so I am giving you your final warning. Please sit down, stop speaking and keep quiet. I am duty-bound to keep the meeting in order.

Ms CHAN Hoi-yan, please continue with your speech.

MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President …

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick continued to speak loudly in his seat)

MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, please rule that Mr CHU Hoi-dick is behaving in a disorderly manner.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, I have warned you many times. If you do not stop speaking, I will have no alternative but to ask you to leave the Chamber. You must not disrupt the meeting. As Deputy President, I must keep the meeting in order.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick, I am warning you for the last time. Will you stop speaking immediately? If you do not stop, I must ask you to leave the Chamber.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick still spoke loudly in his seat)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please leave the Chamber.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick did not follow the Deputy President's order and continued to speak loudly. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Ms Claudia MO and Dr Fernando CHEUNG walked up to Mr CHU. Security officers moved forward to help Mr CHU leave the Chamber)

6952 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The meeting is now suspended pending the execution of Deputy President's order by security officers.

2:32 pm

Meeting suspended.

2:50 pm

Council then resumed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The meeting now resumes.

This Council continues to deal with the second motion: To extend the period for amending three items of subsidiary legislation made under the Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance, which were laid on the table of this Council on 22 April 2020.

I call upon Ms CHAN Hoi-yan to speak and move the motion.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR AMENDING SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION (L.N. 31 TO L.N. 33 OF 2020)

MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President …

(Mr Jeremy TAM indicated to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms CHAN Hoi-yan, please wait a minute. Mr Jeremy TAM, what is your point of order?

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, just now when you were taking a break, had you considered the suggestion by Mr Charles Peter MOK? That is, the meeting should be chaired by the President? Will you explain that? Have you considered that point?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6953

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, I have made the decision and nothing has been changed. If Members do not agree with my decision or have a different view on that, I welcome you to discuss with me on some other occasions. Members' discussion should adhere to the Agenda of the meeting of the Legislative Council.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, may I ask if you have discussed that issue with the President?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, I have answered your question. Please sit down.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Have you or have you not?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please sit down.

Ms CHAN Hoi-yan, please continue with your speech.

MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): Actually it is not necessary to discuss that. Are they just realizing that the President of the Legislative Council has already invoked Rule 92 of the Rules of Procedure? Besides, just now when we discussed Mr LUK Chung-hung's proposed resolution to extend the period for amendment, they have cast their votes already. Deputy President, I wish to proceed with the discussion on the extension of the period for amending the relevant subsidiary legislation.

(Some Members spoke aloud in their seats)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms CHAN Hoi-yan, please continue with your speech.

6954 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in my capacity as the Chairman of the Subcommittee, I move the motion standing in my name as printed on the Agenda …

(Mr Charles Peter MOK indicated to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms CHAN Hoi-yan, please wait a minute. Mr Charles Peter MOK, what is your point of order?

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, I beg you to consider that as the President has adopted that practice in the past. That is, such as appointing Mr CHAN Kin-por or the very senior and respectable Mr Abraham SHEK, or the not so senior but very ferocious Ms CHAN Hoi-yan to take the chair and as a matter of fact, the outcome is the same. In that case, why should we not adopt that practice? Why are you chosen? This is the question we want to ask now. Why have you not asked the President to come out? I still address him as the President because he is genuinely elected at the first Council meeting. Even though I do not like him, I will address him as the President, but your position …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, please stop speaking. I have clearly explained my decision to Members and the public. I am the Chairman of the House Committee elected according to the House Rules and Rules of Procedure, I will keep on chairing …

(Mr Charles Peter MOK spoke aloud in his seat)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, please listen to my decision once again, please do not interrupt my speech. I will keep on chairing the meetings, including the meetings of the House Committee. I will also assist the President of the Legislative Council in chairing part of the Legislative Council meetings. If Members are not satisfied with my decision, they may express their views to the President later on when the President resumes his chair.

(Mr Charles Peter MOK kept on speaking aloud in his seat)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6955

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The President of the Legislative Council agrees that I should assist him in chairing the meetings of the Legislative Council. As soon as the House Committee concluded the election procedure for its Chairman, he had circulated a notice to all Members. I hope Members will read the relevant notice once again.

Ms CHAN Hoi-yan, please continue with your speech.

MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee, I move the motion standing in my name as printed on the Agenda.

Members formed a Subcommittee in the House Committee meeting on 8 May 2020 Subcommittee to study 11 items of subsidiary legislation in relation to the prevention and control of disease, including the Prevention and Control of Disease (Requirements and Directions) (Business and Premises) Regulation, Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation, and Prevention and Control of Disease (Requirements and Directions) (Business and Premises) (Amendment) Regulation 2020, which were laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 22 April 2020.

In order to allow the Subcommittee to have sufficient time to scrutinize the above three items of subsidiary legislation, members agreed that a motion should be moved by me to extend the scrutiny period of the three items of subsidiary legislation to the Legislative Council on 10 June 2020.

Deputy President, I urge Members to support this motion.

Ms CHAN Hoi-yan moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that in relation to the―

(a) Prevention and Control of Disease (Requirements and Directions) (Business and Premises) Regulation, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 31 of 2020;

(b) Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 32 of 2020; and

6956 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

(c) Prevention and Control of Disease (Requirements and Directions) (Business and Premises) (Amendment) Regulation 2020, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 33 of 2020,

and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 22 April 2020, the period for amending subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 10 June 2020."

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms CHAN Hoi-yan be passed.

Mr HUI Chi-fung, please speak.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Starry LEE, the phoney Chair. I am really ashamed of you. Even though knowing full well that you are not qualified to chair the meeting, you are still sitting there …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, I consider this sentence of yours offensive …

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Which sentence?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): … Please do not make such a remark again, or I will ask you to withdraw it. Now, please continue with your speech.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Alright. You know full well that you are not qualified to sit here. You were only escorted up there by a bunch of security officers …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6957

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, I have already made it very clear that I am the Chairman of the House Committee …

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Now the floor is mine, is it not?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please continue with your speech and return to the subject under debate.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I am returning to the subject under debate …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please continue with your speech.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I am returning to the subject under debate, but I also need to work out how to address you. You are the phoney Chair. You were only escorted up there by a bunch of security officers and elected after Members of the democratic camp were expelled by force and violence. It is really nonsensical.

Turning to the current social gathering restrictions, I speak against the proposed resolution to extend the period for amending the social gathering restrictions, because this extension is not only an extension of the amendment period, but also has the objective effect of helping the Government extend the whole package of social gathering restrictions. In other words, the Government is given carte blanche to extend them to an unknown date. On the contrary, I have proposed a resolution to repeal the social gathering restrictions altogether, which will be dealt with in the upcoming proceedings. Let us repeal them today. Let us vote on my proposed resolution today. Therefore, I call on Members to vote against the current proposed resolution for extending the amendment period and support my proposed resolution against the extension of social gathering restrictions. Let us vote on it today.

6958 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Why is it necessary to repeal the social gathering restrictions? Actually, it is very simple. We have seen that, over their course of development up to the present, the social gathering restrictions have undergone a change in nature from truly serving to maintain social distance and thus prevent the public from being infected with the epidemic, as originally claimed, to persisting solely for political reasons today. In other words, they serve to suppress civil rights, the freedom of assembly and all opposition voices, leaving behind nothing but a purely political decision. It is evident from a figure that, to this day, social gathering restrictions have become irrelevant to the fight against the epidemic and been repurposed just to suppress us.

As of mid-May, six departments involved in law enforcement in this respect, such as the Department of Health and the Housing Department, had never issued any penalty tickets in relation to social gathering restrictions. That being the case, by which department were the tickets issued? All the 547 tickets were issued by the Police Force, standing in a league of its own. What does that mean? It means that these tickets were issued at all public meetings, processions and anti-government protests. In actuality, social gathering restrictions have an objective effect … Looking back on the public procession applications in recent months, we find that all legally submitted applications have been rejected on the grounds of social gathering restrictions, including that for the Labour Day procession, which took place in the past. Therefore, we can imagine that for the Vindication of 4 June procession and the 4 June candlelight vigil in Victoria Park, which are upcoming annual events, as well as the first anniversaries of the "9 June" and "12 June" incidents and the 1 July procession, all the applications will be rejected on the grounds of social gathering restrictions. It is fully foreseeable that the Police will definitely disapprove the applications, ban the events and oppress us by force. Therefore, we are well aware that the residual value of social gathering restrictions is that they can be used to oppress the public for political reasons. For a government that fears the people, social gathering restrictions have become tools for crushing the people.

Let us take a look at the social gathering restrictions again. Is it scientific to say that they serve the purpose of epidemic prevention?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please return to the subject under debate and indicate whether you support the extension of the period for amending subsidiary legislation. Please do not directly discuss the content of subsidiary legislation.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6959

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): You should listen clearly first. You are pretending to be the Chair … I am exactly calling on Members to oppose this motion and support the resolution I propose today to repeal the social gathering restrictions. That is why I have to talk about what disadvantages the social gathering restrictions have that justify the repeal. Are these not directly related to the extension? Could you, the phoney Chair, please give some patience?

(Mr Paul TSE indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

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

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): What is his game here?

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): I do not see the need for Deputy President to tolerate such an insult, which is unacceptable. What Deputy President should safeguard is not your own dignity, but the dignity of this position.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): She has no dignity. How would a person like her have dignity?

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): There is only a "phoney Member" here, no "phoney Chair".

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Phoney Chair, alright, I go on with my speech.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please continue with your speech.

6960 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Alright, let us see if she has any dignity.

If the social gathering restrictions are described as serving to fight the epidemic, is there any scientific research basis? It turns out that there is not any. The well-known Dr CHUANG Shuk-kwan of the Centre for Health Protection said quite frankly at the press conference on 4 May that the limit of four or eight people under the social gathering restrictions is, in fact, not based on scientific reasons. The social gathering restrictions are fundamentally a spirit that calls on the public not to congregate.

However, now that the epidemic has slowed down, the Government explicitly allows religious gatherings and schools to resume, but it selectively bans public processions and meetings. Even Dr LEUNG Chi-chiu of the Advisory Committee on Communicable Diseases at The Hong Kong Medical Association said on the radio this morning that, from a public health point of view, relaxation on gatherings and resumption of classes should go in tandem with the easing of social gathering restrictions. He admitted being too ignorant to understand why the Government's policies are so inconsistent.

We all remember the day when a cluster of infections cases broke out at a Buddhist temple. The Government now says that religious gatherings are exempt from social gathering restrictions. Looking back on the period since January this year, among so many processions and demonstrations, have we found any one where group gatherings occurred leading to infections? The Government says that as public processions and meetings are highly risky, the restrictions continue to apply. At the end of the day, the Government's fight against the epidemic is fake and the very truth is that it does not allow public processions and meetings.

Most important of all, the reasons why the social gathering restrictions should be repealed today are police brutality, indiscriminate prosecution and arbitrary arrest. The social gathering restrictions have become excuses for the Police's forcible pursuit, indiscriminate prosecution and arbitrary arrest of members of the public. They have been turned into cheap, easy and low-cost law enforcement tools for the Police to fight unarmed citizens. What have the Police done? Over the past few months, I have often been on the front lines amid the social gathering restrictions, witnessing with my own eyes that even if someone is alone, the Police will arrest them for violation of social gathering LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6961 restrictions. Just on 1 May, a lone person going about his own business in New Town Plaza, Sha Tin, was issued with two penalty tickets. He stressed that he was alone, yet the Government wronged him by saying that he was with others.

What else? The Police would corral the public into groups of four against a wall for pat-downs, including all those originally standing apart from each other, and then ticket them for allegedly standing together in violation of social gathering restrictions. After forcibly herding people into groups, the Police charged them for violating social gathering restrictions. This was what happened on the dates of the anniversary of the "31 August" incident. It was also what I witnessed with my own eyes.

What other cases of indiscriminate prosecution and arbitrary arrest are there? The Bill …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, would you please point out how the content of your current speech is relevant to the question of supporting or opposing the extension of the period for amending subsidiary legislation? I know you are going to move a resolution to repeal the social gathering restrictions but I remind you that this Council will decide only later whether to proceed with that resolution. At this moment, Members should not discuss whether to repeal the social gathering restrictions, but should concentrate instead on the reasons for supporting or opposing the extension of the period for amending the relevant subsidiary legislation.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Ms LEE, this phoney Chair, for your logic. But your words do not have any logic indeed, because actually …

(Mr Paul TSE indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

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

6962 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): There is no "phoney Chair" here.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Have you called upon him to speak?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, have you referred to me as the "phoney Chair"? Please clarify. If you have, I think it is an offensive expression. I will ask the President for a ruling.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): It does not matter. I have said it almost 10 times, and it is not until the tenth time that you have raised …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please make it clear by saying once again …

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I have pointed out to you …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): … Will you withdraw your remark?

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): … Are you listening to me?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am the House Committee Chairman elected in accordance with the Rules of Procedure …

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Let me speak first, could you? You asked me for clarification. Ms Starry LEE, if you think yourself to be the Chair, then you are the Chair, okay? Is that alright? You have a heart of glass …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am Chairman of the House Committee. Please return to the subject …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6963

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Is that any different from a phoney? Ridiculous.

(Mr Paul TSE spoke loudly in his seat)

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE has been speaking from his seat to disturb me …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please stop speaking.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Why do you not warn him? You have expelled Mr CHU Hoi-dick. Why do you not expel Mr Paul TSE?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, are you going to continue with your speech? If not, I will stop your speech.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I wish to ask you for a ruling. Mr Paul TSE kept interrupting my speech just now.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already asked Members to keep quiet.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Have you warned him?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already asked Members to keep quiet …

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): But you expelled Mr CHU Hoi-dick. Why is it that for those in your camp …

6964 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, if you do not focus your speech on the subject, I will ask you to stop speaking.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): … you give no warnings just because they are your "pig-like teammates"? That is nonsensical. Thank you, Ms LEE, the self-proclaimed Chair. I will go on. Let me explain to you that the unfair law enforcement practices, indiscriminate prosecutions and arbitrary arrests by the Police are one of the very important reasons to immediately repeal the social gathering restrictions. Cancellation of the social gathering restrictions is contingent on whether we decide later in this debate to extend the amendment period, so I have not digressed at all. Is it that you, the self-proclaimed Chair, do not allow me to speak on police brutality?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, I consider your expression "you, the self-proclaimed Chair" offensive. I will ask the President for a ruling.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Offensive again?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting.

3:05pm

Meeting suspended.

3:45 pm

Council then resumed.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the chair)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6965

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, I reiterate that as provided for in the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), Ms Starry LEE, as Chairman of the House Committee ("HC"), assists me to preside over the Legislative Council meetings in her capacity as the President's deputy.

Mr HUI Chi-fung, you have referred to Deputy President Ms Starry LEE as "phoney President" and "self-proclaimed President" just now. I consider such remarks offensive and insulting. Please take back your remarks, or else, I will regard your such conduct as grossly disorderly, and, in accordance with RoP, order you to withdraw from the Council immediately.

Should any Member use such offensive or insulting language again at the meeting, I will order the Member to withdraw from the Council direct without further warning.

As Members know, I have already issued in writing my ruling on matters relating to the election of the HC Chairman together with a detailed explanation on the basis for my decision. The legal advice sought from outside counsel is also attached for your reference. I will not discuss with Members at the Council meeting the ruling I have already made, and those matters are irrelevant to the agenda item now being dealt with by the Council. If Members are dissatisfied with the ruling in question, please follow up through other channels and do not disrupt the proceedings in the Council.

Mr HUI, will you take back your remarks?

(Mr Dennis KWOK indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Some Member wishes to raise a point of order. Should you not address it first?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am addressing the point of order now in question. Will you take back your remarks?

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): No problem.

6966 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will you take back your remarks?

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Yes, President. I take them back. May I continue with my speech then?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, what is your point of order?

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): I want to know―a Member is entitled to making political comments in the Chamber on whether a person has the right to assume chairmanship, but why would that be regarded as offensive then? Does every person also have got a "heart of glass"? If you do have one, you should not stay in your chair on the rostrum, should you? Is it rather offensive if someone challenges my capacity as a Member of the Council? I do not think the criterion should be applied in such a broad sense.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, I have already made a ruling. If you think a particular Member is ineligible, you may challenge his eligibility through other channels or meet with me. I can explain to you.

As I have said just now, I have officially made a ruling on the election of HC Chairman and provided the justification together with the outside legal advice for Members' reference. Should Members have any objection, you may challenge my decision through different channels.

I hope that Members will not use insulting language at the meeting. Of course, you may say something like "you are not the Chairman", but you cannot insult the Deputy President by using expressions such as "phoney Chairman" or "self-proclaimed Chairman".

(Ms Claudia MO indicated her wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, what is your point of order?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6967

MS CLAUDIA MO: I need some clarification. What if I consider what happened on Monday―an illegal meeting and an illegal election―is a matter of opinion, right? Why is it offensive in anyway?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The election of HC Chairman on Monday was conducted in accordance with my ruling. Members who are dissatisfied may challenge my ruling through other channels.

MS CLAUDIA MO: I know. But then I can still express that opinion, it is a matter of opinion, isn't it?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not an agenda item now being dealt with at this Council meeting. You may bring up the issue through other channels instead of discussing it while the Council is processing the motion on extending the period for amending the relevant subsidiary legislation. Moreover, Members should not use offensive language.

MS CLAUDIA MO: What if I say you are now exercising your self-proclaimed authority?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, I have already answered your question. You may challenge me through other channels if you are still not satisfied.

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

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

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Just now, President, Ms Starry LEE took the chair during your absence from the Chamber, and we raised a very specific question which was rather practical then, that is, given that she assumed the so-called chairmanship through illegitimate election procedures, the proceedings (such as the debates on and voting of all the motions, including the resolution on 6968 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 extending the period for amending the subsidiary legislation) in the Council today shall be deemed unlawful. This being a crucial matter, why can we not discuss it? Well, if you say that it should be brought up on other occasions, but the Council meeting is the most appropriate occasion. Is there any other occasion which is more appropriate than the Council meeting for bringing up this constitutional issue, may I ask?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Constitutionally speaking, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, there are other channels for Members to challenge me if I have committed any unconstitutional acts or acts non-compliant with the rules as the President of the Council, and the ultimate decision on whether I have committed any unconstitutional acts or acts non-compliant with the rules must rest with the court rather than the Council itself. My decision can be challenged and I have prepared for that. There are other channels for you to challenge my decision if you are dissatisfied.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The agenda item now being dealt with by the Council is about the resolution to extend the period for amending the subsidiary legislation. It is meaningless for you to harp on about this matter, Dr KWOK. Will you please …

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, what I have raised is a specific issue. Well, it is also possible to wait until the court has reached a decision because the hearing of whether your ruling and even the election itself are lawful will take place in the court on Friday. Yet, our specific task here today is to pass motions and laws after all. In my opinion, it was inappropriate for you to allow Ms Starry LEE to take the chair amid controversies earlier on. I will regard you as the appropriate one if you, my good lord, can remain sitting here without letting someone else to take the chair for you. However, if you fail to fulfil your responsibility …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6969

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please sit down, Dr KWOK Ka-ki. I reiterate that as provided for in RoP, Ms Starry LEE, as the HC Chairman, assists me to preside over Council meetings in her capacity as the President's deputy. Hence, I consider that this is constitutional and compliant with the rules. If my decision is deemed problematic by any Member, he may, as you have said just now, challenge it. I will take the legal challenge and send my legal representative to attend the court hearing. Therefore, you may challenge my decision in the court should you have any queries, just like what someone has done.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I am only asking about the arrangements concerned, that is, will you still allow Ms Starry LEE, whose capacity is disputable, to take the chair as the President's deputy for the rest of today's meeting and the continuation of meeting tomorrow as well?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already told Members that as provided for in RoP, Ms Starry LEE, as the HC Chairman, assists me to preside over the Legislative Council meetings in her capacity as the President's deputy.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Does that mean absolute authority overrides truth?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It is not absolute authority. I have dealt with the issue in accordance with RoP. You may challenge my decision if you are dissatisfied. Will Members please stop harping on about the RoP issue since I have already explained in great detail regarding this.

Now comes your turn to speak, Dr KWOK Ka-ki.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung has not finished delivering his speech yet.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please continue with your speech.

6970 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Do wake up now. Actually, it is utterly unnecessary for her to take offence at the way I addressed her if she was elected the HC Chairman fair and square in a legitimate manner. She ought to be self-confident, right? Now she is told off and has left the Chamber …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, I will ask you to sit down if you do not deliver you speech.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Am I not delivering my speech now? And so, even if I stop addressing her this way, there are still many other ways to address her―"Chairman unlawfully elected", "Chairman whom the people are uncertain of her Chairmanship" …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have ruled such expressions to be insulting language.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Alright, let me revert to the question now under debate …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If you ever say again the expression "unlawfully elected" …

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): This proposed resolution is about extending the period for amending the relevant subsidiary legislation. Why would I support …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I demand that you take back the expression "unlawfully elected" now. You may challenge the election in the court by judicial review if you think it is unlawful. Never use this kind of expressions in the Chamber. If you do not take it back, I will consider you …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6971

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): OK …

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

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

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): You have said just now that the phrase "Chairman unlawfully elected" is insulting and thus asked Mr HUI Chi-fung to take it back. Nevertheless, President, it is difficult for me to concur with your opinion that this expression is insulting. It is a representation of an opinion but does not mean to insult anyone. In Mr HUI Chi-fung's opinion, Ms Starry LEE was unlawfully elected, whereas you do not think so. Members can discuss this in the Chamber and every Member just states what he or she thinks …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, you may propose a motion on this issue for discussion at the Council meeting, but since the Council is now discussing the motion on extending the period for amending the relevant subsidiary legislation, please stop harping on about this issue.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): No problem. Well, you might say he has digressed, but his remarks were not insulting …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already made a ruling and the President's ruling is final. Please sit down.

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

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Although your ruling is final, it should be based on reasonability.

6972 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If you think that my ruling has contravened RoP, you may challenge it through other channels. I am just being reasonable …

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Really, his remarks were not insulting indeed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please sit down. I have already made a ruling.

Mr HUI Chi-fung, will you take back the expression?

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Fine, I take it back.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good, please continue with your speech.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): OK, but I will refer to Ms Starry LEE as a "Chairman unduly elected".

(Some Members tapped the bench)

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Let us see how many rulings you are able to make! I still got a lot "in stock"!

(Mr LUK Chung-hung indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, what is your point of order?

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): I wonder if Mr HUI Chi-fung wants to call it a day earlier and rest by constantly challenging you and using offensive expressions to describe Ms Starry LEE (Deputy President/HC Chairman). I hope the President will execute your ruling because Mr HUI Chi-fung has used insulting language time and again, which is insulting not only to Ms Starry LEE but also the Council. I hope the President will make a ruling accordingly and enforce it.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6973

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung pointed out that Mr HUI Chi-fung's remarks were insulting and I agree with Mr LUK. Mr HUI Chi-fung, you have made insulting remarks time and again. Please take them back, or else, I will order you to leave the Chamber immediately.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): OK, I take them back as well. However, I still got a lot "in stock" …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If you ever say something insulting again, I will immediately order you to …

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Buddy, how do I know which expression you may find insulting? Am I right? I am continuing with my speech anyway as I do have freedom of speech. I am free to speak in this Chamber. So, can I continue with my speech then? "Heart of glass".

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please continue with your speech.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Can I? Alright then. I am to continue with my speech since the "Chairman whom the people are uncertain of her Chairmanship" has already left the Chamber at the moment.

As to the social gathering restrictions, I have talked about just now why they should be repealed immediately and Members should not support extending the period for amending the relevant subsidiary legislation. It is precisely because the Police indiscriminately made arrests, brought charges against people and abused the social gathering restrictions. As I have just said before the meeting was suspended, they would make arrests and bring up charges even when only one single person was present by forcibly corralling different people intercepted in order to search them and then charge them with breaching the social gathering restrictions. Even those who distribute supplies like hand cleansers and face masks for fighting the virus will be charged with breaching those restrictions―which is something that did have taken place on the footbridge of Admiralty Centre on 6 May. Regardless that it is stipulated in the 6974 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 legislation that a group gathering for the purpose of fighting the virus is exempted, the Police simply ignores this. I suspect that they know nothing about the contents of the regulation.

In addition, the Police's enforcement standards vary from party to party. On 23 April, the pro-democratic Members who presented a petition letter to the Government at the Civic Square were accused of breaching the social gathering restrictions. Yet, when the pro-establishment Members presented a letter in the afternoon on the same day, the Police said that it was OK for them to do so as they would leave shortly. Although Dr Junius HO was also present on that occasion, he would not be included in the number of people taking part in that very group gathering according to the Police since Dr Junius HO was a guest. So that is how the Police enforce the law for the time being. It all depends on the parties' needs as well as political needs. And thanks to the social gathering restrictions, the Police is allowed to fool the public in this way.

More importantly, as anyone who has studied law before knows, bringing charges against the offenders by issuing penalty ticket―which is adopted for enforcing the social gathering restrictions―is meant for handling minor offences only, right? However, in contrast to other minor offences for which penalty tickets shall be issued, will the police officers also wear full sets of anti-riot gears (with helmet and armor) and carry weapons in enforcing relevant legislation? Will the police officers point their rifles and pepper spray pellet guns at reporters as well as the general public inside the shopping mall when enforcing the law? Have Members ever seen any law enforcement department do so when issuing a penalty ticket? Will police officers press a person on the ground and spray him with pepper spray when charging him with the offence of littering? Is the Police supposed to do so in issuing a penalty ticket to a person for breaching traffic rules when crossing the road? No way …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung …

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): What is the matter? Well, "heart of glass" comes into play once again.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6975

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The scope of the question under debate is actually rather narrow …

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Would you please pause the timer first before you speak?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members should speak on whether they support the extension of the period for amending the relevant subsidiary legislation and not debate the substantive contents of the subsidiary legislation.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Well, I just wanted to remind you once again that the way in which the Police enforced the law would be a direct factor in our considering whether the social gathering restrictions should be lifted and how Members will vote on the motion moved to extend the period for amending the subsidiary legislation some time later. As such, this is logical. Andrew LEUNG―Mr Andrew LEUNG and not the President―will I be allowed to explain the logic thereof?

And so, on seeing that the amount of force used in law enforcement by the Police is utterly asymmetrical and disproportionate to the crimes in question, people realized that the Police have made arbitrary arrests and abused its powers. My argument here is that the Police have been manipulating the social gathering restrictions to suppress members of the public. Are Members aware that there is a punchline among local people? And that is, the social gathering restrictions have become the cause of people being charged with offences. It is because you do have committed an offence if the Police says so.

From another perspective, we may question why the effective period of the social gathering restrictions should be repealed rather than extended. What kind of impacts will those restrictions have on the economy and businesses? I do not mean that the social gathering restrictions are useless in fighting against the virus, but the pandemic did not break out today and the right timing was gone. How many shopping malls and restaurants are patronized by members of the public who have just regained confidence and those who want to show support for the "yellow shops"? How many of the "yellow shops" have been harassed by Police under the social gathering restrictions, where a few dozens of police officers 6976 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 raided the premises, spending an hour or two measuring the distance between dining tables? The market is affected just because the Police enforce the law in this way.

Furthermore, I have to point out that a lot of people visit shopping malls to hang out there at present. This does not contravene the social gathering restrictions of course and is thus perfectly fine. After all, they just sing there―"sing with you"―entirely at peace, while shops remain open for business. However, it is precisely the Police that attend the scene every time to prohibit people from singing, with police officers dashing into the shopping malls indiscriminately to stir up chaos. But then, they claimed it was necessary to use force in the removal operation against people taking part in the unlawful assembly at the scene―they had been administering pepper spray inside IFC mall in Central (i.e. the most expensive high-end shopping mall in Hong Kong), using loudspeakers indiscriminately and beating people randomly there. All these are the side-effects brought about by the social gathering restrictions that show exactly how the Police had indiscriminately made arrests, brought charges against people and bullied members of the public.

As a matter of fact, many countries have also implemented social gathering restrictions, which were of some value and could serve the purpose of preventing the spread of virus at that time. Yet, when we said that the social gathering restrictions are only a kind of spirit that calls on members of the public to observe social distancing―in fact, up to the present, people are highly self-conscious of the need to maintain a safe distance from one another and try their best not to take part in group gatherings, and no one has been found not wearing a face mask in the street. As at present, schools have resumed classes and religious gatherings are allowed, whereas the 4 June march, 1 July march, "4 June Candlelight vigil", and the event commemorating "12 June" incident are prohibited. The public can see clearly from this what the Government is doing right now.

Therefore, I call upon Members to vote against the motion which will result in the extension of the effective period of the social gathering restrictions and support instead the motion to be moved later by me to repeal the social gathering restrictions. I so submit. Thank you, Mr LEUNG.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6977

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): What on earth is happening here? This Council is full of fallacious reasoning. The election is ambiguous. The Chairman is elected in an ambiguous manner who will chair what used to be a solemn Council meeting. The Government uses the excuse of controlling the new Coronavirus, or the Wuhan pneumonia, as a tool for political suppression. Hong Kong people could have seriously fought against the epidemic together. They could have dealt with the problem smoothly, given that they have gone through the painful experience of the SARS outbreak and they know that hiding the state of the epidemic and the inaction of the Government can lead to serious casualties and property loss and ruin the economy. But I could never imagine 17 years later, the aforesaid situation would appear again, including the Government hiding the state of the epidemic. It did nothing in the beginning and then took piecemeal actions against the epidemic, causing massive losses to society. Although the epidemic has only claimed four lives so far, Hong Kong and even the world …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I have repeatedly reminded Members that the scope of the debate of this subject is very narrow …

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I know, President. I am explaining whether I support extending the period for amending …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): … Members should explain whether they support extending the period for amending the subsidiary legislation. Please come back to the subject of the debate.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Okay, thank you. I am saying whether the period for amending the subsidiary legislation should be extended. For instance, Legal Notice No. 31 empowers enforcement officers to inspect specified premises … This affects catering outlets and small trades the most … The officers may make unfounded accusations against these operators or suppress their business in the name of the epidemic.

6978 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

A handy example shows the double standards of the bad cops and Food and Environmental Hygiene Department officers in their joint enforcement actions. In a live broadcast, a police officer who entered a restaurant told the restaurant staff not to take his body temperature. However, according to the law, all persons entering any catering premises are required to have their body temperatures taken. But this police officer refused to let the staff take his body temperature. He entered and left the restaurant on his own liking. We can see from this simple example that the Police stay above the law. They know the law but break the law. They want to have privileges on matters as trivial as taking body temperature, not to mention the privilege to erect unauthorized structures …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I remind you once again that you have digressed from the subject.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): No, I have not. I am discussing the subject matter. I am saying something about the Legal Notice Nos. 31 and 32, and I am talking about the specified premises prescribed in Legal Notice No. 31 now. These premises include catering premises which I have repeatedly mentioned. Actually, there are many types of catering premises, such as the "yellow restaurants" which are very popular among Hongkongers. And there are the "blue restaurants" operated by large consortia and people who support the "extradition to China bill" …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, this is my second warning to you. You have digressed from the subject.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): No, I have not. I am talking about whether the period for amending the subsidiary legislation should be extended. You should not muscle in …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please return to the subject of the debate and tell us why you support or oppose extending the period for amending the subsidiary legislation.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6979

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I am precisely saying whether I am going to support extending the period for amending the subsidiary legislation. And in my consideration, I need to take into account a number of factors. I will talk about Legal Notice No. 31 first. The Legal Notice clearly provides against obstructing the inspectors. A person must not delay, obstruct, hinder or molest an inspector who is performing a function under this Part. This is where the controversy lies.

In other words, this allows a police officer to do anything after entering a catering premise. No one knows whether the officer is enforcing the law or not. The officer can use this as an excuse to create troubles for the catering staff. We all know that the famous "yellow restaurant" run by LAI Chee-ying's son was troubled by the Police. All the innocent customers were forbidden to leave but sat there like being detained at a police station. They were also questioned individually in great detail. The police officers were obviously playing tricks on them. The subsidiary legislation is not supposed to let the Police play tricks on the public or be used as a tool for political suppression.

It is thus evident that enforcement officers have double standard and they enforce the law in an unfair manner. They play tricks on you if they think that you are their enemy or the owner of a "yellow shop". However, the shops which have posted written messages supporting the "777" Carrie LAM or publicly expressed support for the actions of the bad cops to enforce the law have a completely different treatment. These shops will be blessed with benefits and good luck. Even if police officers inspect these shops, they will not point out their problems. Even if people report problems with "blue shops", the Police will ignore them.

The regulation pertaining to Legal Notice No. 31 is meant for epidemic prevention. The Police enforce the law with this reason. Although they consciously break the law, they will enforce the law in accordance with Legal Notice Nos. 31 and 32. This is their "imperial sword". Should enforcement officers abide by the law? They should. But based on what we have seen, in their pre-operation dining gatherings, a large number of police officers have, out of their liking, gathered together …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, this is my last warning to you.

6980 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): You want to warn me again? I am talking about extending the period for amending …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have digressed from the subject. This Council is not debating the implementation of the law. We are now debating why Members support or oppose extending the period for amending the subsidiary legislation.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I am talking about whether or not the period for amending the Regulations should be extended. My logic is whether the extension can assist Hong Kong in fighting against the epidemic. Supporting the extension should, theoretically speaking, enable us to summon representatives from the Food and Health Bureau, Security Bureau, Police Force, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Home Affairs Department, Leisure and Cultural Services Department, etc., to attend meetings during the scrutiny of the Regulations, so that they can tell us whether the law can be effectively enforced after Legal Notice No. 31 takes effect. If I decide to support the extension, I assume that we can achieve this purpose.

However, if the extension is actually a waste of effort, and that the Government is unwilling to attend meetings of the subcommittee on the subsidiary legislation or it does not answer questions at the Legislative Council meeting, or it behaves like Secretary John LEE today who talked double Dutch as if being possessed when he was asked to explain the responsibilities and duties of the inspectors mentioned in Legal Notice No. 31 … President, I mean if the extension is passed and we have an opportunity to discuss the criteria of an inspector … For example, whether inspectors are required to display a warrant card, which is a valid question to ask; and whether they are required to display their operational call signs, which is also a valid question to ask. After passing the extension and during the continued scrutiny of the Regulations, if we manage to invite the police officers under "P K TANG" to come and tell us that they are very concerned about this matter and thus they will definitely display their warrant cards and operational call signs in their enforcement actions and that they will not deliberately break the law, then it is worthwhile to support the extension; otherwise, passing the extension will only give the Government another opportunity to express its fallacious reasoning. If that is the case, I would rather not waste time.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6981

So, in considering whether or not to support the extension, we must examine how Legal Notice No. 31 serves to fight against the epidemic. For example, is there any specific evidence to support that maintaining at 1.5 m apart is an effective epidemic-prevention distance for people gathering inside the premises stipulated in Legal Notice No. 31? Let us not forget that we are dealing with a very strange task here. I totally agree that the Government should lift some of the restrictions, including the restriction on religious premises. However, at the same time, the Government prohibits group gatherings of more than eight persons. This obviously is double standard, not to mention the fact that the prohibition will remain in force on 4 June. The Government is obviously playing some small tricks here.

Why are we so concerned about extending the period for amending Legal Notice Nos. 32 and 31? I do not oppose the motion, but we are concerned whether supporting the extension will serve any actual function. If it will not, we have no reason to support an extension that cannot achieve its purpose because the extension will not help serve the purpose that Legal Notice Nos. 31 and 32 seek to serve.

Section 3 of Legal Notice No. 32 seeks to prohibit group gatherings during the specified period. It is an offence to do so. Section 6 clearly provides that a person who participates in or organizes a prohibited group gathering or owns, controls or operates the place in which the gathering takes place and knowingly allows the taking place of the gathering is liable on conviction to a fine and imprisonment. Buddies, these restrictions are outrageous and should best be applied on the bad cops. Hence, we must consider who is going to enforce the law before deciding whether or not to support extending the prohibition on group gatherings. If the law enforcement officers are well disciplined and abide by the law, and that they are not bad cops, we certainly want to continue the discussion on this subject.

Extending the period for amending the subsidiary legislation is very important. It is because the extension can give all the people who are concerned about this matter an opportunity to speak before the formal passage of the subsidiary legislation and before the implementation or termination of the prohibition on group gathering. If the extension is passed, I truly want to invite the owners of "yellow shops" to the Legislative Council and let them tell us how they have been suppressed by bad cops, and invite those who have been fined $2,000 for gathering in a group of two but were unreasonably grouped together 6982 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 with strangers by the Police into a group of more than eight persons, and let them tell us why the Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance has become a suppression tool of the Police.

Certainly, I will be very happy if the extension can achieve this effect, but I am a little worried because the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Subsidiary Legislation Relating to the Prevention and Control of Disease is Ms CHAN Hoi-yan and the Subcommittee is dominated by the pro-establishment camp. After the extension is passed, if the Government says that it will only come and attend discussion on matters which it likes to discuss but not those concerning police officers who have broken the regulation, or if the Chairman of the Subcommittee refuses to allow sufficient time for members to discuss the matter but allows police officers to come and speak on whatever they like, if this is the case, I wonder why we have to pass the extension.

Hence, I will be extremely careful. In considering whether or not to extend the period for amending the legislation, I must see if there is any way to improve Legal Notice No. 32. For instance, section 6 mentions the people who own, control or operate the places in which a prohibited group gathering takes place. These people are poor. They only run a shop. These operators may be prosecuted if some "blue-ribbon supporters" suddenly rush into the shop. They will be held responsible if the operators do not stop them from gathering in their shops. There can be false incrimination. Can you imagine how horrifying is this? Or, if I own a car, and the Police let eight persons get into my car, the Police may then charge me for allowing them to get into the car for a group gathering of eight persons.

This is the horrifying thing of the subsidiary legislation. Speaking from the positive side, disease prevention and control, or fighting against the Wuhan pneumonia, are the right things to do. However, speaking from the negative side, supporting the extension is taking the side of the evildoer and helping the government department to suppress the people. Hence, in deciding whether or not to support the extension, we truly need to see who are going to enforce the law. With due respect, I truly have no faith in Ms CHAN Hoi-yan, the Chairman of the Subcommittee. Will she allow us to invite people whom she finds not agreeable to come and express their views and say how police officers have behaved badly? If she challenges me, she should realize that if the extension is passed, we will invite the victims to come here and tell us their bitter experience because of the implementation of Legal Notice Nos. 31 and 32.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6983

Helping the vulnerable is something the Legislative Council should do. It is a reasonable request. We all know the strong and the weak sides. Carrie LAM is backed by a 30 000-strength Police Force, the Central Authority and the Communist Party, but the "yellow shop" operators have none. If the vulnerable young people are incriminated for being black-clad, it is hard to clear their charge indeed. Hence, deciding whether or not to support the extension is indeed a kind of philosophy. Today, we will go on speaking whether or not to support the extension. It is a question of to be or not to be. This has reached the deepest and most important level, and that is how much we trust this system, and whether the Legislative Council has performed its function. Look at who is sitting on the President's seat. Look at who have elected the President. And look at whether he is authorized by the people. And then you should know the answer. If that person is returned by a zero vote and if he focuses only on riding roughshod over people, then what is the purpose of extending the period for amending the legislation? They will only continue to use their power to suppress the truth after the extension.

However, President, it does not matter. You should not think that we are afraid of you. We are not afraid because we know Hong Kong people are on our side. They agree with us that it is never easy to fight for justice in any legislature. Suppression from all sides has now escalated into physical suppression. A dozen security officers who have assaulted Members claimed that they were hurt and accused Members of assaulting them. Society has reached such a ridiculous state that no other society can compare. Police officers who assaulted members of the public accused them of attacking the Police. They slapped you on the face and then accused you of hitting them with a loud speaker. Not only do they have a glass heart which is easily provoked, but also a glass body because they can be killed by sound waves. But when they bashed people badly with their batons, they took the matter lightly. I so submit. (The buzzer sounded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, stop immediately please.

MS CLAUDIA MO: Now, we are talking about a proposed resolution to extend the period for amending three items of subsidiary legislation made under the Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). This is an essentially self-proclaimed resolution, basically. In life, there are so many self-proclamations―who sits where, and who has what authority. It is all a matter of opinion, please.

6984 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Now, to come back to this proposed extension of time. I fail to see what purpose that will be served because this entire "social distancing" order is now clearly seen by many, probably the majority of Hong Kong people, as really using the name of fighting this "Wuhan coronavirus" panic―"Well, we go against this virus spread". It is in name only or basically. It is really meant for rounding up our young people, meant for shutting down our protests.

I am not making this up. I just got a call from a Portuguese news agency correspondent, who asked, "What do you think? The new extension now covers 4 June. It is very convenient, is it not? It is so politically convenient." He said all that before I could reply …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, you are talking about another piece of subsidiary legislation. Please return to the topic and discuss this motion on extending the period for amending the relevant pieces of subsidiary legislation.

MS CLAUDIA MO: I understand. It says: "… to extend the period for amending three items", specifically, "three items of subsidiary legislation". I perfectly understand what it …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Right. But these three pieces of subsidiary legislation do not include the one that will be extended to June as mentioned by the Secretary yesterday. Please return to this debate topic.

MS CLAUDIA MO: I know. I will come back to all these three items.

What is really wrong with the items in question? It is the fact that they contain quite a bit of absurdity. You are not allowed to gather en masse out there unless you keep a certain distance, they limit the number of people gathering, et cetera. I know that there are many, many exemptions available. The exemptions will include all public places, basically, all modes of public transport, weddings and funerals, and if you are holding health seminars and discussions, you will also be exempted. These, all the exempted rules, are in the what they call addendum.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6985

A legal friend of mine tells me that she is trying to put fun in it, that is, "let us play by the rules". Suppose a boat sinks, and more than eight people try to swim to the shore. This is not allowed because the beach is considered a public open space. But if you swim towards the beach using a plank, then it is allowed because the plank can be considered a means of public transport. If anyone just declared that they were getting married, then this is also allowed because weddings are exempted. If somebody gets killed by a shark on the way, it is still alright because it will now be a funeral. Come on! You are not making laws very clear. The joke I just talked about is not made up by me. It is from a legal friend, a person in a legal sector.

What we are now facing is that the Police have been abusing this law quite so arbitrarily and liberally. We have filmed on tape proving that the Police would just gather up four perfect strangers together and claim that they now breached the "social distancing" order, so they needed to be fined, they should be issued with a ticket, and so on. I did ask the police chief, and I wrote to him. I said, "Please, can you explain this? What is this about?" And, of course, I have not heard from him. Instead, I kept getting phone calls from the Police Force asking if I could provide more details as they were incapable of watching what had been going on online.

Another incident occurred on 1 May, which marks the "Labour Day". A member of the District Council got two such tickets, fine tickets, for being alone inside a shopping mall in Sha Tin. I think it was Shatin New Town Plaza. Now, if this law is quite so ludicrous in itself, what is the purpose of extending it? One more thing that is really scary is that no one is allowed to obstruct any officers from carrying out his duties. This "obstruction of business" is very vague. It is almost philosophical. How do you define it? How can you define "obstruction"? I was talking to you? I was standing in front of you? I was in your way? No. But the Police, in particular, simply have every single power as they wish. I am talking about section 13.

Another point is that all officers can just claim that they are on patrol and just going about their job, and that they do not need any "reasonable reason"―in Chinese, we say that they do not need to give you any "reasonable reason", but in law, they use "probable cause"―to just enter any private premises. Is it not scary? It should not have been scary originally if it were really meant for what it was. But police brutality has become so rampant, so blatant, and so transparent 6986 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 in this city that people are scared, people are uncomfortable, and people are jittery. So, extend it? What for? "Oh, so that we can look at those three particular items more closely." Come on! This is really nonsense.

One major point explaining why I am against this extension is this business or this sort of announcement, if not some actual interpretation of the law by the Police, that if you have a common purpose, and if you amount to more than four people, then regardless of the distance between all of you―it does not matter if it is 1.5 m or not―you are flouting the law. Excuse me? This explains why the Police have been performing all those "police farces" at shopping malls lately. I go to a shopping mall, and he goes to a shopping mall. I do not know him, and he does not know me. But then, we do have a common purpose, that is, shopping. Otherwise, we are perfect strangers to each other. But according to the Police, as long as there are four people there, they can disperse them, and they can do anything―firing tear gas, bullets or whatever―to disperse them. If they really want to disperse you, this should also be fine because my police friends, here and abroad, used to tell me that if a gathering or protest was getting out of control, then the prime duty of the Police Force on site was to disperse the crowds. But, in Hong Kong, we have seen examples in which the Police do just the opposite. That is really scary. They disperse you from behind; then, they stop you in the front; and, they round you up and claim that you have broken the law. The idea is to round you up, not to disperse you. That is what is really terrifying.

When it comes to common purpose, unless the Government can really, really tell Hong Kong people what they mean by it … I mean, we are here doing our different duties. We have security staff, we have Secretariat people, and we have legislators. We are all doing different things. But we are here to serve a common purpose, that is, serving the people of Hong Kong, supposedly. But no. According to the Police, because we have this common purpose, they can come in if they want to, practically, by law.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, I have already reminded Members many times that the scope of this debate topic is very narrow, and they should explain their support or otherwise for extending the period for amending the relevant pieces of subsidiary legislation …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6987

MS CLAUDIA MO: Yeah, I see your point. I know. I do not support it.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): … rather than discussing the details of those pieces of subsidiary legislation under the Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance. Please return to this debate topic.

MS CLAUDIA MO: Yeah, thanks for your patience. You have been very nice to me. Thank you.

Now, I will come back to this proposed resolution to extend the period for amending blah blah blah. I honestly do not see the point, and I disagree.

Another reason why I disagree is this provision: "For subsection (1)(b), if the distance between any participant of a gathering in a public place and any participant of another"―another―"gathering in the place is less than 1.5 m, and the total number of participants of the gatherings is more than 4, then each of the gatherings is a dispersable gathering."

Now, I need to quote David WEBB, who is a "KOL", in my opinion. On the question of extension or no extension, Mr WEBB's argument is that this whole thing―the subsidiary legislation of the Ordinance―is meant for public health and containing this "Wuhan coronavirus". It is not for the Police to disperse meetings as such. What about such modes of public transport which are exempted as buses, MTR, and so on? It just does not work. This is what I am trying to say. If the purpose or original spirit of a law is being twisted as such, and if you say "let us do the extension and let us focus on this extension proposal", this is almost ludicrous. This just does not apply.

Another fact is that what the Government is now saying is it will spread it on and allow it to go on a bit―very conveniently, to include 4 June. It will be the very first time ever that Hong Kong does not have this massive candlelight vigil for the anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre back in 1989. But then, they have all the explanations, of course. They will say, "If you disagree, you can go and take it to the Court. Only the Court can decide what is right and what is wrong." Now, my logic is that any extensions are completely 6988 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 meaningless. This whole thing should be scrapped because the maximum penalty is quite scary. The maximum fine can be up to $25,000 and six months behind bars. It is a political weapon now.

Thank you.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in opposition to extending the amendment period for the three pieces of subsidiary legislation made on the pretext of preventing the epidemic. In particular, I notice that Mr HUI Chi-fung has proposed a resolution on repealing the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation ("the Regulation"). But according to the President's instruction, if Ms CHAN Hoi-yan's resolution on extending the amendment period for the three pieces of subsidiary legislation is passed with Members' support, then Mr HUI Chi-fung may not propose his resolution. President, I therefore cannot support the resolution on extending the amendment period for the three pieces of subsidiary legislation to 10 June, or else Mr HUI Chi-fung must withdraw his resolution and may not present his resolution again until 10 June when the extension expires.

President, I must focus my discussion on the necessity to repeal the Regulation. Mr HUI Chi-fung has not proposed any resolution concerning the other two pieces of subsidiary legislation (namely the Prevention and Control of Disease (Requirements and Directions) (Business and Premises) Regulation and also the Prevention and Control of Disease (Requirements and Directions) (Business and Premises) (Amendment) Regulation 2020). But since the handling of the proposed extension of the amendment period for the three pieces of subsidiary resolution is bundled together under the present resolution, we cannot but cast an opposition vote to all of them.

President, the key point is that at present, people have strong views on the Regulation (commonly known as "social gathering restriction"). President, the social gathering restriction was designed and put forward because of the rampant "Wuhan pneumonia". Therefore, the authorities hoped that people could pay attention to their distance in social gatherings and reduce social contact as a means to prevent the spread of the epidemic. This is the original intent of the three pieces of subsidiary legislation. We understand the reason why those pieces of subsidiary legislation were proposed at the time when the epidemic was LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6989 relatively acute. But actually, we already raised our queries at the time. We understand the necessity to impose restrictions on premises such as restaurants, bars and beauty parlours, and we do not wish to see any group gatherings of over four people―this has been amended to eight people later on. But we are likewise concerned about any abuse in the course of enforcing the Regulation. As far as we can see, the effective period of the social gathering restriction has been extended yet and again, and this has given people the feeling, as we have rightly foretold, that it is intended as a means to restrict and suppress civil rights on the pretext of preventing the epidemic.

Yesterday, Members might have heard the announcement made by the Secretary for Food and Health on extending the effective period of the social gathering restriction to 4 June. Upon hearing this date of 4 June, people immediately feel that the main purpose of the Government is to bar any public assembly in Victoria Park on the night of 4 June. A stupid government is precisely this stupid. If it had not chosen this date, people would not have been so skeptical. The authorities' choice of the night of 4 June as the time when the extension will expire is actually tantamount to telling people that it does not want to see any public assembly at Victoria Park.

Carrie LAM has denied the assertion that the extension of the social gathering restriction is to bar people from attending any candlelight vigil on the 4 June incident in Victoria Park, and the Government has kept arguing that this decision is not based on any political considerations. But the problem is that after all, the Government has failed to convince people that this is true …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, when Ms Claudia MO spoke just now, I already reminded her that the extension to June concerned another piece of subsidiary legislation rather than any item of subsidiary legislation under this motion. The relevant pieces of subsidiary legislation now under discussion will not be extended to June. Please return to this debate topic and explain your support or otherwise for extending the amendment period for the relevant pieces of subsidiary legislation.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, please allow me to discuss it as well because I am discussing whether a law enacted on the pretext of preventing the epidemic will affect people's right to voice their aspirations through public gatherings―whether in the form of processions or protests.

6990 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

At present, the Police are empowered to issue fixed penalty tickets. But as far as we have noticed, many instances of abuse did happen in the course of enforcing the law. Officers who have been empowered to enforce the law actually include those from six departments, such as the Department of Health and the Housing Department. But according to the reports of Apple Daily, as at mid-May, no tickets were issued by those departments, whereas the Police already issued a total of 547 fixed penalty tickets and pressed charges in 15 cases.

President, why do I have so many views on measures such as the social gathering restriction? The reason is that as we can see, the Government (especially the Police) has enforced the law arbitrarily without good grounds at places with mass gatherings. It has even gone so far as to set people up.

On 31 March, many people went to pay floral tribute outside Prince Edward Station. I was also there at the scene. In the process, a Community Officer of Southern District called CHAN Po-ming from the Democratic Party ran up to me from the opposite side of the street and complained to me, saying that earlier on, certain police officers grabbed hold of him without offering any reason on the other side of the street and asked him to remain standing among certain people whom he did not know. Having rounded up five people as a group, they accused them of breaching the social gathering restriction and issued a ticket to each of them. But the truth is that he did not know the other four people next to him at all. On the pretext of preventing the epidemic, the Police rounded up more than four people and issued a ticket to each of them for violating the social gathering restriction.

The original intent of this anti-epidemic law is to urge people to keep a certain distance in social contact as a means of protecting them and containing the spread of the epidemic. But the Police have nonetheless used this law against people on the streets and set them up. They have turned the Regulation into a pretext for their arbitrary issuance of tickets to people. All such instances were already discussed by Ms Claudia MO a moment ago. Even if people are merely at a peaceful activity (such as "Sing with You") or shopping in shopping arcades, the Police will invariably issue tickets to those on-site. There has even been an instance where an individual present alone in a shopping arcade without knowing the other people there was ticketed by the Police all the same on the ground that they had a common purpose. In people's view, the social gathering restriction and also the various pieces of subsidiary legislation made under the Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance have gradually undergone morbid changes and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6991 have been turned from an ordinary law initially into a tool for suppressing public processions and assemblies. Worse still, people may be ticketed anytime even if they merely shop around the streets without participating in any processions and assemblies. Many people who have been ticketed tell me that they will not pay the fine because the payment of fine will be a de facto recognition that the Police have such power or admission of fault on their part. But the truth is that they were merely pulled aside inexplicably by the Police. They say that they intend to speak in self-defence in Court.

President, we have seen many instances, including those on Labour Day on 1 May. Initially, certain workers wished to come out that day to express their views on labour rights and interests, and such processions have been held every year. But now, the Police will not issue any Letter of No Objection. While the workers' union concerned proposed that it might conduct the procession in groups of four people with a banner in their hands, the Police nonetheless forbade their gathering and procession. Another organization applied to hold an anti-legislative amendment procession on 10 May, but the Police rejected its application on the ground of the social gathering restriction.

The problem is: is the measure concerned meant for preventing the epidemic now? "Prevention of epidemic" has gradually evolved into a pretext. A law which was initially very simple will become a tool for suppressing people if it is enforced by the Police. All this has precisely shown us how this authoritarian Government has sought to abuse the power conferred on it by an ordinary law and turned the law into a draconian law. For this reason, Mr HUI Chi-fung and the Democratic Party have demanded the revocation of the Regulation to prevent human rights infringement and the deprivation of civil and political right protection.

Of course, there have been many cases involving "yellow shops". Such shops are likewise subject to harassment. In the course of enforcing the law, the Police pick on a few "yellow restaurants". They conduct inspection several times a day and harass them on many occasions. In the case of "blue shops", however, they are not the target of the Police's harassment. This is precisely double standards in enforcing the order. As a result, people do not think that the Regulation is aimed at preventing the epidemic at all. But they instead think that it is solely targeted at "yellow shops", with the intention of striking down their business. All this is a play with politics rather than a move to prevent the epidemic.

6992 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

It is honestly ironic to see that the proposal on extending the amendment period for the three pieces of subsidiary legislation is put forth by Ms CHAN Hoi-yan. I say so because the slogan she chanted when standing in the by-election for a vacant Legislative Council seat was "Livelihood takes the top priority; politics go aside". Now, the Government tries to deceive people by using the protection of public health and prevention of the epidemic as the pretext for enacting the Regulation. But in reality, it manipulates the Regulation to suit its political purpose of suppressing processions and assemblies and striking down the business of "yellow shops". Pushing an individual into four complete strangers to him for no good reason, asking them to stand together, and then accusing them of breaching the social gathering restriction is precisely a play with politics rather than a move to prevent the epidemic.

President, I think that the Regulation should be repealed as soon as possible because people have lost all their confidence in the Police's enforcement. And indeed, many frontline police officers have begun to show signs of psychological imbalance. They detest those who come out to participate in processions, protests and assemblies. Therefore, they beat them up, pepper-spray them, and ticket them arbitrarily on the pretext that they have breached the social gathering restriction, in an attempt to deter them from taking part in any processions and assemblies. Our society is gradually moving towards dictatorial and authoritarian rule.

Prevention of epidemic initially commanded our support. But as the Regulation has gradually undergone morbid changes and turned into a political tool for suppressing people, we must demand the revocation of the Regulation. With a view to achieving the revocation of the Regulation, the Democratic Party will not support an extension of the amendment period for the three pieces of subsidiary legislation today.

I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please speak.

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6993

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

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, a quorum is lacking in the Chamber.

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 speak.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): We are debating today the proposed resolutions to extend the periods for amending six items of subsidiary legislation. Issues involved in these proposed resolution, which actually cover more than six items of subsidiary legislation, are in fact quite complicated and we are now holding the second debate.

As this may involve some legal issues in the future, let me first make a statement concerning two very important points before I go on to talk about whether or not I will support extending the scrutiny period. When Ms Starry LEE took the chair as the President's Deputy, she made it clear that if we were dissatisfied with or did not accept her capacity and status, we could seek to pursue the matter through other means, implying that we could bring the matter to court. Since someone has submitted applications for a judicial review of the case and similar applications may be made in the future, I would like to first make a statement concerning two points.

The decisions to move these proposed resolutions to extend the scrutiny periods were all made in the afternoon of 8 May at the so-called special meeting of the House Committee convened and chaired by Ms Starry LEE in Conference Room 1. Since we the democrats do not accept that Ms Starry LEE had the power and could legally convene that special meeting, and it was a meeting 6994 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 chaired by her before she was made the Chairman of the House Committee without a vote, we therefore have not joined the subcommittees formed to study the relevant items of subsidiary legislation.

Secondly, we want to challenge the validity of Ms CHAN Hoi-yan as the Chairman of the Subcommittee, who has moved the proposed resolution under discussion in that capacity. Ms CHAN Hoi-yan pointed out just now that we had voted in favour of the first proposed resolution moved to extend the scrutiny period in respect of …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen …

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, please do not stop me from speaking, and I will finish soon. Ms CHAN Hoi-yan has just now said that I …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If there is any statement you wish to make, you may choose to meet with reporters outside the Chamber later. It is now the meeting time of this Council, so please return to the subject of this debate.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, my statement is relevant to the proposed resolution to extend the scrutiny period. We have just now voted in favour of the proposed resolution concerning the Employees Retraining Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 4) Notice 2020 because I have always been strongly dissatisfied with the approach adopted by the Government to make legislative amendments through the negative vetting procedure. Superficially, the adoption of the negative vetting procedure can help enhance the operational flexibility of the Government, but this has often weakened the Legislative Council of the opportunity to scrutinize the subsidiary legislation introduced, especially when there is a packed agenda of the Council and the priority for handling subsidiary legislation …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6995

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I am now explaining why I do not support the proposed resolution.

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

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Please let me finish first and be patient, and I have actually started speaking on the subject. With regard to amendments introduced by the Government to subsidiary legislation under the negative vetting procedure, we have a scrutiny period of only 28 days, but with the passage of a proposed resolution to extend the period for amending subsidiary legislation, we will be given three additional weeks to scrutinize these amendments and the scrutiny period will be extended to a total of 49 days. However, with the introduction of more items of subsidiary legislation by the Government, such as those we have to handle now in the second debate, the agenda of the Council will be packed with too many items, and even though an extended date has been specified for scrutinizing the proposed legislative amendments, it may still not be possible to have them processed at the meeting concerned due to a packed agenda.

When a Member proposes to allow more time for scrutiny by extending the period for amending the subsidiary legislation, it should be a logical move to support rather than oppose the proposal because with regard to subsidiary legislation in general, opposing the extension of the scrutiny period will be tantamount to an instant surrender. The subsidiary legislation introduced by the Government will become effective without amendment or deliberation, or remain in force in accordance with the Government's instructions.

The proposed resolution under discussion seeks to extend the period for amending Legal Notice Nos. 31 to 33, and although these three items of subsidiary legislation share a common objective to implement anti-epidemic measures, they are of a totally different nature. The three items of subsidiary legislation are: the Prevention and Control of Disease (Requirements and Directions) (Business and Premises) Regulation, the Prevention and Control of Disease (Requirements and Directions) (Business and Premises) (Amendment) Regulation 2020, and the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation (commonly known as the "social gathering 6996 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 restrictions"). If the proposal to extend the period for amending the social gathering restrictions is negatived, the other two items of subsidiary legislation will remain in force without amendment or deliberation by this Council.

As pointed out by some Members in their speeches just now, since the Government has bundled the three items of subsidiary legislation mentioned above together, we will vote against the proposed resolution to extend their scrutiny period, and fight a quick battle to finish handling the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation today with the proposed resolution to be moved by Mr HUI Chi-fung to repeal the social gathering restrictions. Members need not worry too much because after we have voted against the proposal to extend the scrutiny period for the two other items of subsidiary legislation concerning business and premises, although we can neither amend nor discuss them, the existing requirements are actually poles apart from those originally proposed by the Government at the outset. Moreover, the Government is still free to introduce similar legislative amendments again at any time under the negative vetting procedure.

If the proposed resolution to extend the scrutiny period is passed today, Mr HUI Chi-fung will have to withdraw his proposed resolution to repeal the social gathering restrictions, and we therefore must make it clear that we oppose the former one. Although we will then not be able to amend or repeal the two other regulations, I have already offered an explanation in this respect, and it is my hope that these proposed resolutions to extend the period for amending subsidiary legislation will be processed separately in the future. For subsidiary legislation introduced to the Legislative Council for deliberation, each Member can only speak for 15 minutes in the debate on each proposed resolution, which may cover more than one item of subsidiary legislation. As different items of subsidiary legislation are of a different nature, it will not be possible for Members to present their arguments in respect of each item included in a resolution, even if a large number of amendments have been proposed.

With the extension of the period for amending the three Regulations under discussion, we have to hold a debate on these Regulations at the Council meeting to be held on 10 June if we wish to move amendments to them. If these cannot be processed at the meeting to be held on 10 and 11 June, the efforts made to extend the scrutiny period of the Regulations will be rendered meaningless. We are now trying our very best to process many proposed resolutions to extend the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6997 period for amending subsidiary legislation, but what results can we get? Objectively speaking, can the subsidiary legislation concerned be processed at a Council meeting after the completion of our deliberation?

Matthew CHEUNG has already written to Mr Andrew LEUNG, stating that there are 10 Government bills pending resumption of Second Reading debate at Legislative Council meetings starting from next week, and as a matter of fact, the resumption of Second Reading debate applies to bills only. During the last debate on another proposed resolution, Mr LUK Chung-hung claimed himself the Chairman of the relevant subcommittee but said that the subsidiary legislation should be presented to the Council for Second and Third Reading. However, subsidiary legislation does not go through the Second and Third Reading process, which will take effect if no amendment is proposed. If there are proposals from Members to move resolutions or repeal the subsidiary legislation concerned, they must be processed at a Council meeting held on or before the specified day, and things are just blatantly clear.

Hence, with regard to the three Regulations under discussion, even if the passage of the proposed resolution to extend the period for amending them can be secured, there is objectively speaking a greater than 90% or even 100% chance that they will not be presented to the Legislative Council for deliberation. The National Anthem Bill alone will take us at least two weeks to process, and I myself have proposed 20 amendments to the Bill, although I do not know how many of them will be ruled admissible by the President. Yet, even though the President is an expert in "cutting the filibuster" and setting a time limit for debates held in this Council, and we were required to complete the debate on the legislative amendments concerning the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance within two or three weeks, it will still not be possible for us to complete the debate on the National Anthem Bill at one Council meeting, is that right? It will take us two days to process even an adjournment motion moved at the Second Reading stage. Therefore, although we have processed a number of proposed resolutions to extend the period for amending subsidiary legislation, including the one under discussion, they can only achieve a superficial effect of allowing the subcommittees concerned to continue with their work, so that Members may keep on discussing the relevant legislative amendments and expressing their views. Although I have not joined the subcommittee formed to study the three Regulations, I do not rule out the possibility of participating in the deliberation of the relevant subcommittee and putting my questions to public officers attending its meetings.

6998 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

As we all know, after the social gathering restrictions have come into effect, the relevant law enforcement work has been full of problems. I have repeatedly voiced my concerns in this respect to Secretary Prof Sophia CHAN at special meetings of the Panel on Health Services, and I have also requested the law enforcement agencies to send their representatives to Panel meetings to clearly explain their law enforcement process. When Prof Sophia CHAN was first asked about the matter, she came to a sudden realization that there were cases in which law enforcement actions had been taken in an unfair, partial and indiscriminate manner, and arrest had been made when there was only one person at the scene.

This is in fact not the only problem. According to the requirements under the subsidiary legislation in question, there was a time when only group gatherings of four persons were allowed. It so happened that there was a group of people taking shelter from the rain in a pavilion, and having noticed that, some police officers tried to disperse the crowd and made arrests on the grounds that they had violated the social gathering restrictions. These people were simply not allowed to take shelter from the rain there and were driven away from the pavilion. We all know that there was an urgency back then to impose the restrictions, and there were also justifications to do so for the purpose of avoiding social gathering during the epidemic. However, the Legislative Council should never compromise its functions to monitor the work of the Government, especially the introduction of subsidiary legislation under the negative vetting procedure.

This is not a political issue, but a matter concerning the power or mechanism of the Legislative Council. I believe that fellow Members also have the same experience that on some past occasions, they did intend to propose amendments to subsidiary legislation introduced under the negative vetting procedure, but the relevant resolution could not be placed on the Agenda of the Council due to various reasons. The "restriction on powdered formula" is a case which has left me with the deepest impression. When I requested a headcount back then, it was not a deliberate attempt to "kill off" the item but unexpectedly, the meeting was aborted due to a lack of quorum, making it not possible for Members to amend the "restriction on powdered formula". Hence, no amendment was made to the relevant subsidiary legislation, which has then remained in force until now.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 6999

Therefore, we are now given an opportunity when a Member has proposed a resolution to repeal the social gathering restrictions, and I think we should give it a try and let the legislature have a debate on the proposed resolution at a Council meeting. Even when we are debating now the question of whether we should extend the period for amending subsidiary legislation, the President has kept reminding us that we should not discuss in depth whether or not the relevant legislation should be repealed. However, these issues are actually intertwined. If the scrutiny period is extended, the Government will continue to have control of the Regulations and will be free to issue a notice to have them remained in force. If the proposed resolution to extend the scrutiny period is negatived, we can at least have a debate on the resolution proposed by Mr HUI Chi-fung at the Council meeting today.

Of course, some people may judge from a political point of view and query whether the Government is doing this to impose restrictions on the gathering held to commemorate the 4 June incident, but I do not wish to raise the issue to such a level, and just want to point out that the subsidiary legislation concerned has not restricted the power of law enforcement officers. This is supposedly a well-intentioned legislative exercise, but as reflected from what we see now, we suspect that there is an abuse of the legislation. Worse still, it can hardly be regarded as a suspicion because we can borrow the words of Carrie LAM and assert that there are already ironclad proofs about this. Many people are troubled by the social gathering restrictions, and they may have to pay fines or defend themselves in court in the future, but throughout the entire process, the Legislative Council has never discussed the restrictions imposed. After extension of the scrutiny period, Members may continue their discussions in the Subcommittee, but the subsidiary legislation can no longer be presented for deliberation at a Council meeting, and there will be no need for public officers to listen to Members' views and answer questions from Members here in this Chamber. This is the reason why they have become emboldened and fearless.

I therefore hope that Members will oppose the proposed resolution, so that we can discuss the resolution proposed by Mr HUI Chi-fung to repeal the resolution. It will be fine for Members to refuse to give support to the suggested approach, and explain their reasons for supporting the social gathering restrictions, but they should at least ensure that the subsidiary legislation concerned will be scrutinized by this Council under the established mechanism, instead of being completely neglected and remaining in force with no amendment introduced because the item concerned cannot be placed on the Agenda of the Council.

7000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, a quorum is not present at the meeting now.

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): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please speak.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I now rise to speak on the proposed resolution put forth by Ms CHAN Hoi-yan.

This proposed resolution covers three Legal Notices, and they are basically related to disease prevention and control measures. Such measures involve the business of public establishments, and they cover the arrangements for the business and premises of karaoke establishments, clubs, nightclubs, massage establishments, mahjong centres, amusement game centres, bathhouses, fitness centres, places of public entertainment, the catering industries, and so on. Legal Notice No. 32 actually concerns the regulation on prohibiting group gatherings, or the social gathering restriction as we call it.

I speak in opposition to Ms CHAN Hoi-yan's proposed resolution, and my opposition is mainly centred on the social gathering restriction. I have learnt that Mr HUI Chi-fung will likewise put forth a proposed resolution later on, and the contents of his motion are mainly about the revocation of the social gathering restriction. If Ms CHAN Hoi-yan's proposed resolution is passed, then Mr HUI Chi-fung may not put forth his proposed resolution. Therefore, I must hereby explain my basic views on the social gathering restriction.

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 7001

Ms Starry LEE, you have just taken the Chair. I must declare once again that I do not accept your capacity as Deputy President. I will continue with my speech and put forth my stance on Ms CHAN Hoi-yan's proposed resolution. Should I support her proposal on extending the amendment period? I do not support it mainly due to my view that the social gathering restriction itself has already lost its value, and it has become completely pointless by now.

To begin with, I wish to show Members a photograph. This photograph in my hand was taken by Sing Tao Daily on 8 May, and it captures the Lan Kwai Fong some time around that evening or that night. I can only use "packed with people" to describe the area. Actually, I need not explain anything because as Members can see clearly for themselves, many public establishments, whether speaking of places of entertainment, restaurants or various modes of public transport, are invariably packed with people. This can be seen very often.

According to the Government, this regulation on prohibiting group gatherings seeks to ensure minimal social contact and prevent mass gatherings. This is of course due to the epidemic. The intention is to make it less easy for the virus to spread around through reducing gathering and contact of people as much as possible. But even under these circumstances, isn't it a bit absurd to propose the social gathering restriction forbidding the gathering of over eight people with a common purpose? When we go out every day―I wonder what modes of transport Ms Starry LEE will use, and I for one will take MTR―we can simply see lots of people, and train compartments are crowded with people during commute hours. This is also the case with buses.

Won't we see gatherings of over eight people on various modes of public transport? Don't they have a common purpose? Don't they have the same common purpose of commuting to work or returning home after work? Those political "used batteries" started a campaign called "Hong Kong sets sail again", and they distributed face masks on the streets. How many people queued up? Didn't they have a common purpose? Wasn't it a group gathering as such? In the face of this, the Government still says that the social gathering restriction must be implemented to forbid any gatherings of over eight people. How can it possibly enforce the order?

Just now, Mr HUI Chi-fung said very clearly. Who issued the several hundred tickets concerned? All of them were issued by the Police. Have the Department of Health, the Food and Health Bureau and also the Food and 7002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

Environmental Hygiene Department enforced the order? Why were all those tickets issued by the Police? The Police earn a high salary. But why are they tasked to enforce the social gathering restriction and issue tickets charging a $2,000 fine? What were those establishments where they issued those tickets? Why didn't they issue the ticket at Lan Kwai Fong?

Soon after the social gathering restriction came into force, the TANGs of Lung Yeuk Tau held a wedding banquet, and it involved a gathering of over 100 people at the venue. Police officers arriving at the venue did not ticket anyone on-site. At a meeting of the Yuen Long District Council, Commissioner of Police "P K TANG" showed up to offer explanation and attend the meeting. Even though 10-odd people from a pro-police group assembled at the meeting venue, they were not subject to any consequence. What is the use of the social gathering restriction, may I ask? Ten-odd people assembled and held up flags and banners. Didn't they have a common purpose? Of course yes. But nobody enforced the order. Why?

On a recent Sunday, 26 April, Rev YUEN Tin-yau went to Citiplaza. Outside the shopping arcade, he already noticed that the Police looked as though they were about to take on a powerful enemy. During the several minutes after he entered the shopping arcade, he did not hear any chanting of slogans or see any physical movements. But anti-riot police already hastened to charge into the shopping arcade and disperse the crowds, and he was among the people there. He told the Police that he lived in Taikoo Shing, and he was merely taking a stroll in the shopping arcade without participating in any activities. He went on to ask them whether all this was forbidden. What did the Police say? They said that he had breached the social gathering restriction. He asked the Police how he could have possibly breached the social gathering restriction when he was on his own. The Police replied that he had breached the order if the Police said so …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, you have already spoken for over six minutes. Please do not discuss directly your support or otherwise for the social gathering restriction. You should return to this debate topic and explain whether you support an extension of the amendment period for the relevant pieces of subsidiary legislation. Now, please continue.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 7003

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, whether I support an extension of the amendment period is clearly related to the contents of the social gathering restriction. I cannot skip an elaboration on my stance because Ms CHAN Hoi-yan's proposed resolution will produce the effect of extending the social gathering restriction to 10 June without any changes. It is 20 May today, and there are some 20 days to go. I do not wish to see the continued implementation of the social gathering restriction, so I will cast an opposition vote. I do not support an extension of the amendment period, and I hope that Mr HUI Chi-fung's proposed resolution can be given an opportunity for debate at a Council meeting, so that we can stand a chance of repealing the social gathering restriction as early as possible. My argument is very clear, and I am not the only Member who says something like this.

Actually, Ms Starry LEE, you should be familiar with the World Economic Forum as you are a professional accountant. Recently, it issued a report on the United Nations ("UN"). This report is up to date, and it was issued just in May. UN's Secretary-General described this COVID-19 epidemic as "[a] human crisis that is fast becoming a human rights crisis". As UN pointed out, certain countries resorted to anti-terrorism legislation or security measures, but such measures or laws are an utter infringement of human rights. It went on to say that such an abuse of power would only create certain conditions that could breed more terrorism. This is pointed out in the report on UN.

As a matter of fact, many organizations have expressed concern about this entire COVID-19 disaster. I am talking about international human rights organizations. One such organization is concerned whether a certain country will take advantage of this epidemic to suppress human rights or restrict people's freedom of expression with the use of such laws as the social gathering restriction. This is a matter of my greatest concern, so I do not want to see an extension of the amendment period to 10 June. I do not want to see the continued implementation of the social gathering restriction because we have so much evidence pointing to its utterly unfair enforcement.

As I said just now, the Police should not be the only department that enforces the order. But as a matter of fact, the social gathering restriction is precisely enforced by the Police, and the target of their enforcement action is usually those who express their views, many of whom―the majority of whom, I believe―are even people expressing their views peacefully. One example is the banning of processions on 1 May, the International Workers' Day. The social 7004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 gathering restriction was used to restrict freedom of expression, and people were not allowed to strive for workers' rights and interests, celebrate or make any gesture of expression. When workers' unions set up street posts, the Police approached them and interfered with them by using the social gathering restriction again.

We could see that on the night of 1 May, some netizens initiated a "Sing with You" activity in Shatin New Town Plaza. "Philip TSANG the Domineering" alone was besieged by dozens of police officers, and he was charged for breaching the social gathering restriction. As the Police moved up to arrest him, he told them he was on his own. But the Police said that he had breached the social gathering restriction. After he had been charged and searched, and after the particulars on his identity card had been taken down, a police officer returned his identity card to him. But another police officer took it away and refused to return it to him. That police officer even told him, "Either you leave now, or you will be charged." Then, another police officer whispered in his ear, saying: "We precisely want to mess you about. What can you do to us?" This is how the Government enforces the social gathering restriction and uses it to suppress "yellow shops", dissenting workers' unions and groups, and even peaceful protesters.

In contrast, we can see that police supporters are not subject to any consequence. If one's relative or friend is from DAB or bears the surname "TANG", then he will be fine, irrespective of how many people there are together with him at a feast or wedding banquet. The enforcement of the order is utterly unfair, and in my view, the social gathering restriction has turned pointless. Once we are out on the streets, we can see gatherings of a hundred or dozens of people anytime on many occasions or in various situations―probably in public transport, shopping arcades or restaurants. This is very common in our daily life. But the Government nonetheless uses the social gathering restriction against those activities where people resort to their freedom of expression to voice their views.

Ms Starry LEE, do you think I have clearly put forth my stance on an extension of the social gathering restriction? Of course, I do not accept an extension of the social gathering restriction. In theory, we may discuss and revise it after the amendment period has been extended. I do not know what Ms CHAN Hoi-yan intends to do next. But to me, it already imposes too much restriction on human rights, and it is stripped of any public health considerations or scientific basis at all.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 7005

If the authorities had adopted a scientific attitude and agreed to a genuine necessity for social distancing and also the view that any gatherings of over four people―this was the number at the beginning, and it has been changed to eight now―would pose threats to public health and significantly heighten the risk, they should have taken a more thorough step, the step of even restricting people's movement out into the streets and stipulating the maximum number of people going out, as in the case of other countries. But the reality is not like this. We are based on double standards. Particularly, the Government has put politics before all else, and it determines whether the social gathering restriction should be implemented based on standards involving political considerations. This is the main reason for my absolute opposition to a further extension of the social gathering restriction this time around.

Deputy President, I urge that all Members, all those Members who want to safeguard human rights, must oppose an extension of the social gathering restriction.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I remind Members once again that this Council is now discussing the support or otherwise for extending the amendment period for the relevant pieces of subsidiary legislation. As for the specific contents of those pieces of subsidiary legislation, Members may hold discussions and put forth their views at the Subcommittee concerned. Members should not expound on their opinions about them at this moment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, please speak.

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

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

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): A quorum is not present in the Chamber.

7006 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(The summoning bell stopped after ringing for 15 minutes)

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please count the number of Members present in the Chamber.

ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As the summoning bell has rung for 15 minutes but a quorum is still not present in the Chamber, I now adjourn the meeting according to Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

Adjourned accordingly at 5:59 pm.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 May 2020 A1

Appendix I

WRITTEN ANSWER

Written answer by the Secretary for Security to Mr LUK Chung-hung's supplementary question to Question 4

Between June 2019 to March 2020, around 1 880 electronic audible traffic signals in Hong Kong had been vandalized, 610 of which have been repaired. It is anticipated that the repair works for electronic audible traffic signals being vandalized during the abovementioned period will be completed by end of June this year.