LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10561
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Friday, 15 May 2015
The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
10562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10563
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
10564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10565
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE TSANG TAK-SING, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
10566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
BILLS
Committee Stage
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Good morning, Committee will continue to scrutinize the Schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2015. We now continue with the sixth debate.
Dr Kenneth CHAN, please speak.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2015
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Good morning, Chairman. Good morning, Hong Kong …
(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Kenneth CHAN, please hold on. Mr Albert CHAN, are you requesting a headcount?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, please summon Members back to the Chamber under Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I wish to remind Members once again that the time allocated to this debate is around nine and a half hours and yesterday, we already spent around four and a half hours on it. Will Members who intend to speak in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10567 this debate please indicate their wish as early as possible and wait for your turns. I will call upon the Members who have proposed amendments to deliver their final speeches later on.
Dr Kenneth CHAN, please speak.
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, good morning, Members. Good morning, parents in Hong Kong. Yesterday evening, I started to speak on the amendment I have proposed to deduct the salary of Secretary Eddie NG for the coming year amounting to $3.58 million in the Budget.
How well is Secretary Eddie NG versed in education? How is his performance? If we should make observations on his performance by listening to his words and observing his deeds, I believe as at today, both colleagues in the pan-democratic camp and the pro-establishment camp will know that Members are greatly dissatisfied with him if they have paid attention to him during meetings. This has nothing to do with politics or political views. This is a question of the personal charisma, efficiency or effectiveness demonstrated by him. In fact, let us take a look at the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong, and in the polls a very good question was asked: "Do you wish to vote for his reappointment?". This year, that is, in 2015, in the several rounds of opinion polls conducted most recently, the results have found that less than 18% of the public would wish to see him remain in office.
Regarding this Secretary for Education with a net popularity rating of negative 26%, this is a very interesting question. What kind of a person is he? What contributions has he made? What strengths does he have? Obviously, a conclusion that can be drawn from the past three years is that he quite likes visiting different countries and travelling around the world, as he was away for 87 days and conducted a total of 23 duty visits. Such on-the-job training is actually quite wasteful of public coffers. If we look at this more seriously and ask him what achievements have been made after these visits to overseas countries during which he lived in five-star hotels, flew in business class and brought along a deputation with him visiting here and there, we will see that he did not report much on his visit upon return and in fact, there was no report whatsoever to speak of. Therefore, this is also the problem that I particularly pointed out in the first place last night.
10568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
This trend of frequent overseas visits is indeed evinced most clearly during the tenure of Secretary Eddie NG. Many colleagues in the education sector take exception to his conduct. In fact, not only have I openly criticized him here, I have also tendered a piece of advice to him in private. I told him not to go too far. I said that all deeds of human can never escape God's eyes, and the people can see what he has done. He, therefore, said ― or perhaps according to the advice tendered to him by people around him, he said that he would think about a solution, and it turned out that the answer is to reduce the number of visits to overseas countries but increase that of visits to the Mainland.
In his past 23 duty visits I found that he actually visited the Mainland China on almost half of these occasions. This actually leads to the next question and that is, who exactly are the people in charge of the education system in Hong Kong? Of course, Members may immediately say that it is sheer common sense that under "one country, two systems" and the framework of the Basic Law, the education issues in Hong Kong should definitely be addressed by Hong Kong and should definitely be dealt with by the Secretary for Education of Hong Kong, so how can people outside Hong Kong make irresponsible remarks and issue instructions in the back seat? But this is not quite true in reality, and this is exactly the point we consider most worrying.
Over the past few years, especially after the furore over national education, there have been more and more voices claiming that the Secretary for Education of Hong Kong should accept more instructions and supervision from Beijing in order to effectively take forward national education or education on state affairs. We are worried about this. The Secretary for Education has frequently conducted duty visits, spending half of the time of these visits on various official or unofficial visits and exchanges in the Mainland. Added to this are gusts of chilling "northerly winds" blowing fiercely to Hong Kong, suggesting that the Secretary for Education must be subject to supervision of the Ministry of Education of the state. But as those education policies in the Mainland are not implemented in Hong Kong under "one country, two systems", how can we distinguish ourselves from them? The Secretary for Education, despite repeated efforts on explaining, still cannot give us a convincing answer. He only said that a lot of people in this world have given him various opinions which he would listen humbly. That would really be a big problem. Honestly, if he will listen to opinions humbly and since only 17.5% of the public think that he should remain in office as the Secretary for Education, I call on him to resign on his own LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10569 initiative if he will listen to opinions humbly, and I call on him to leave, rather than staying in office in shame and disgrace. But he has not done so. The situation is, therefore, getting worse and worse.
Recently, when we discussed exchange programmes in the Panel on Education, we noticed that in recent years, the Education Bureau seemed to have put much emphasis on exploring resources or identifying new resources for promoting sister schools programmes, exchange programmes, student exchange programmes or study trips relating to Mainland China. Hong Kong is an international metropolis. I hope that the Education Bureau can truly steer its work in the direction of "global mindset, local actions". This is the same as what the Secretary has done himself in visiting a great many countries, travelling around the world in 87 days and making 23 duty visits to different places. Come to think about this: He himself has travelled around Europe, America and Australia, and should we enable our primary, secondary and even university students in Hong Kong to do the same as he has done? Apart from giving students the chance to take part in exchanges and visits and gain experience in different provinces and municipalities on the Mainland, similarly, the Government should ― actually it is not the case that the Government does not have money for this ― give schools and students the same chance of choosing to participate in the same kinds of life experiencing, exchange and study programmes in places around the world or places outside Hong Kong and China. However, the policies have seemed to be very lopsided in recent years. With regard to this sister schools programme, even though it had been launched before Secretary Eddie NG took office, it seems that the programme has been carried out with ever increasing vigour. This programme costing $120,000 has been rolled out again recently and the Secretary has even acted as the salesman and assumed a steering role for it. But there seems to be a gap between this trend and public opinions. Hong Kong society is an international society. We hope that our students can have an international vision.
When I teach politics and international relations in university, I often told my students not to wait until they go to university to study international relations, for it is best to understand at a young age that this special international metropolis of Hong Kong has its historical origin and that it is imperative to maintain this identity as an international metropolis and it is also imperative to have this sense of identity and uphold this status. We must not allow us to be wrongly perceived to have become a coastal city or one of the coastal cities of Mainland China under the framework of "one country, two systems" for reasons unknown. 10570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
This is the last thing we would wish to see. Our edge precisely lies in this international identity or international position. On the education front, our policies certainly have to tie in with this identity and position. But judging from the work of Secretary Eddie NG in the last few years, apart from making duty visits everywhere, it seems that he has failed to inspire confidence in us.
The biggest problem is that judging from the developments in the last few months, especially during the sessions of the National People's Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) which have just concluded, I do not know whether it is really Secretary Eddie NG who can have say in the education aspect. Some officials who used to be in charge of education policies, including Fanny LAW, a Member of the Executive Council who is still a prominent figure in the political circle, or Prof Arthur LI who is also a Member of the Executive Council, had exerted great efforts to promote the education reforms. Take Fanny LAW as an example. During the NPC and CPPCC sessions, I wonder if it was because she had felt that kind of atmosphere or ambience when attending meetings in the Mainland that she had to fight for an avenue to say something. Through the media, she told officials in charge of education in Hong Kong, especially Secretary Eddie NG, that she saw a big problem in Hong Kong and in particular, the young generation knows little about the state affairs and they know little about the Motherland and so, it is necessary to more vigorously promote this area of work. What is included in this area of work? Teachers should be required to complete a semester of studies in the Mainland as part of their training; they have to overcome one hurdle after another; they have to take examinations; and they have to study in the Mainland. In respect of students, she said that efforts must be stepped up to organize more exchange and life experiencing programmes. This trend or inclination seems to be completely detached from the public opinions, and it seems to be completely detached from the long-established style and practices of our education policies. I have started to suspect whether some people in the political circle wish to attract the attention of their superiors and so, they made remarks which can please their superiors and which they fathom to be in conformity with the wish of their superiors, in order that most vigorous adjustments can be made to the education policies as a result of their pressure and remarks. This trend cannot be neglected.
This is precisely why, in our communities and among friends whom I know, we often see so much dissatisfaction, disagreement and unease with the education policies or system in Hong Kong. The reason is that these education LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10571 policies led by political policies are indeed most undesirable. Let us take a look at Fanny LAW's remarks. She said that teachers should be sent to the Mainland to take a course on state affairs before they can be allowed to practise teaching. These remarks are downright wrong. The education policies and the teaching profession must never include these political elements. If you have not gone through this brainwashing process or a process similar to brainwashing to reform your brain into one dedicated to serving the Motherland with selfless loyalty or to turn yourself into the likes of those who claim to be YUE Fei's descendants, if not calling yourself YUE Fei, you will not be allowed to engage in teaching. Why has this mentality gained so much popularity in Hong Kong? It is precisely because after the reunification, we have sometimes seen that officials in charge of the Education Bureau do not quite know what education is all about, or they do not quite understand how the core values and principles of education should serve Hong Kong under "one country, two systems". Rather, they have only looked in the North and swarmed to embrace the Mainland systems. This is not the healthiest thing to do.
After Mrs Fanny LAW made those remarks, the Education Bureau has only issued a weak statement to say in the softest tone that they had carried out work in this area to encourage teachers or students in Hong Kong to get to know more about China and take part in more exchanges. I think this is far from convincing to us. Do the Secretary for Education and responsible officials in charge of education policies actually understand the worries of the public? Our worries are that after the furore over national education, we think that these things like national education or "brainwashing" education will be reintroduced in separate parts and that national education will be pushed through with the Government's resources and taxpayers' money. That would be a policy on national education in the absence of a national education curriculum. The Education Bureau seemed to be under pressure and therefore cited statistics to prove that they had carried out work, telling us that as a matter of fact, since 2009, more and more university students, secondary students, primary students as well as teachers have participated in exchange programmes in the Mainland organized by the Education Bureau. For example, in 2013-2014, there were 5 800 tertiary students, nearly 30 000 secondary students, 18 000 primary students and 150 teachers, and their numbers have been increasing.
With regard to this trend, I wish to ask: Apart from these programmes, should the Education Bureau ― just as Secretary Eddie NG likes to travel around the world ― provide the same or more resources for schools to have one more 10572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 option of taking their students to the neighbouring Asian region and even to Europe and America or Australia to participate in life experiencing or exchange programmes and discussions? Only in this way can we ensure that our education system is not adversely affected by political interference or political interruption. But it seems that Secretary Eddie NG always failed to get this message when we had discussions with him in the Panel or on other occasions. What should we do? The lower his popularity rating is, the higher and farther he has flown, but when he returned to Hong Kong, he appeared to be unable to make comparisons or take local actions with a global mindset. Such a Secretary for Education is definitely incompetent for his job.
We are really gravely worried. Nowadays, under a situation led by state affairs, when we send our young children and teachers to take lessons in the Mainland, they will be unilaterally, one-sidedly introduced to some incomplete pictures, and they will be told how good China is, how strong and how successful it is, and how awesome it is, but all this is incomplete information. Why are they not taken to visit the petitioners' village and the slums, so that they can see the true faces of society and get to know China? In fact, to understand people from places all around the world, they should not only think about how the so-called wrong thinkings of we Hong Kong people can be corrected, and this starting point is wrong. Officials in Mainland China, Mrs Fanny LAW, Prof Arthur LI or Secretary Eddie NG always think that there are problems with Hong Kong people, that our vision is unclear, and that we are unfair in going about things and so, they have to exert great efforts to inject plenty of bright elements into us, and this is brainwashing national education or state affairs education. You people have continued to do this, and the more you do it, the more Hong Kong people will resist it and the stronger they will react against it.
Recently, even the person at the helm of the Communist Youth League of China has negotiated with the Hong Kong Government on ways to teach Chinese History and ways to step up efforts to encourage young people in Hong Kong to take part in exchange activities on the Mainland. This top-down approach solely orchestrated by the Communist Youth League of China seems to be caring for the situation in Hong Kong on the surface but is actually meant to carry out the political task of "brainwashing" and a propaganda tactic, and this is utterly unacceptable to Hong Kong society. But why is the Education Bureau so willing and active in providing support to them? Why is it that we do not have our own professional and unswerving ways to defend our core values? When has "one country, two systems" been overturned gradually in the education LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10573 policies? All of these are done on the fine-sounding pretext of getting to know the Motherland (The buzzer sounded) … they are actually meant to be "brainwashing education". I will talk about this further in the next part of this debate.
MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): Chairman, Mr WONG Yuk-man has proposed Amendment Nos 143 and 145, requesting that "Head 53 ― Government Secretariat: Home Affairs Bureau" be reduced by $54 million, approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the Funding Scheme for Youth Internship in the Mainland, and that the expenditure for the Home Affairs Bureau be reduced by $30.9 million, approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the Funding Scheme for Youth Exchange in the Mainland. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) opposes these amendments.
The attempt by Mr WONG Yuk-man to obstruct young people in Hong Kong in participating in internships and exchange programmes in the Mainland by reducing these resources will only impede their understanding of the country and alienate them from their Motherland, which will do nothing but harm to them. The Occupy Central incident last year has revealed to us that some young people in Hong Kong have wrongly interpreted the Basic Law, and that they have such a weak sentiment towards their country and nation. Also, some of them even have the idea of seeking independence of Hong Kong and separatist consciousness. This kind of deliberate acts to make young people identify only with Hong Kong or the local territory, to fully denigrate or even uglify the Mainland makes me feel gravely concerned that some young people might be infected by this virus to become more self-centred and secluded and hold a more insular outlook. This would be most regrettable.
Many young people hope to gain an understanding of the social development in the Mainland. This February, the Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre released an Occasional Paper on "How do Hong Kong's senior secondary school students perceive capitalizing on the opportunities in Mainland China?". It interviewed around 1 000 Secondary Six students to explore their perception on participating in Mainland exchange and internship programmes and pursuing development in the Mainland. As revealed by the findings, 60% of the secondary students interviewed are willing to participate in exchange 10574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 programmes with the main intention of gaining valuable cultural experiences in the Mainland, whereas for those who are unwilling to participate, public security, personal safety and food hygiene are pull factors. The interviewees state that more subsidies and diversified activities can encourage their participation in Mainland exchange tours. Interviewees who are willing to take part in Mainland internship programmes also indicate their greatest intention is to acquire job skills and experiences.
Another survey conducted by Bauhinia on "the Attitudes of Hong Kong Youth towards Seeking Employment in Mainland China" has revealed that deficiency in knowledge of the Mainland is the major factor that deters young people from pursuing development in the Mainland. Obviously, as long as they are given the opportunity to get first-hand experience and an understanding of the actual situation in the Mainland through exchange and internship programmes, their understanding and knowledge of the social situation and people will be enhanced, thereby enabling them to decide whether it is suitable for them to pursue development in the Mainland. If Members forcefully obstruct young people in Hong Kong from learning about their Motherland, it will only push them to a corner, thereby narrowing their vision and restricting their development opportunities.
In fact, it is a general trend to gain an understanding of the development and way of China. Let me cite an example to Members, which is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) led by China. Earlier on, China openly invited applications from other counties to become founding members. By the close of application, a total of 57 eligible countries have become founding members. Every country has considered whether they should join the AIIB, and the response is overwhelming. In fact, an obvious reason is that people understand and are aware of the development momentum of China. Given the enormous opportunities presented by China-led economic co-operation organizations in the future, the status as a founding member can pre-empt their becoming a loser or losing their say in the economic or other spheres.
Under economic globalization, enhancement of interconnection and mutual access with China and other countries is the best policy and a wise move. Those participating countries are also well aware of this. In fact, the State and the people also understand this principle, but some Members from the opposition camp have nonetheless attempted to reduce the resources for young people to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10575 participate in exchange programmes on the Mainland. Their thoughts just run counter to the global trend. I think they are thinking like a frog dwelling at the bottom of the well. If they obstruct young people from returning or reaching out to the Mainland, I will only say with mixed feelings that they are actually holding the young people back and making life difficult for them.
According to a number of Members from the opposition camp, Mainland exchange programmes serve the purpose of brainwashing. Earlier on, Dr Kenneth CHAN also indicated the presence of political motives, saying that the SAR Government should not just offer funding to Mainland exchange programmes. We often ask the Government to open its mind. But I ask all Members to open their mind, too. Why are Mainland exchange programmes regarded as brainwashing, while the overseas ones are considered a way to gain experiences? Now we all understand that the Chinese, Western and even other civilizations such as the Islamic civilizations are all flourishing. Both the Chinese and Western regimes of governance aim to explore how to properly govern one's own country. Hence, we should allow students to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of different developments, cultures and governance regimes with an open mind.
Frankly speaking, there is no perfect governance regime in the world, and a regime must offer solutions to the problems with a country itself. Hence, I hope Members will not say that Mainland exchange programmes are tantamount to brainwashing, and only the overseas ones are a way to gain experiences. In fact, such remarks have obviously reflected the strong resistance of these Members to China. Also, they do not agree that at present, different cultures in the world have their own characteristics, and that different governance regimes in the world are also looking for a path of development. Under "one country, two systems", it is reasonable for the SAR Government to offer subsidy to Hong Kong students participating in Mainland exchange programmes first, and allocate more resources to students participating in Mainland exchange programmes.
Chairman, another two amendments proposed by Mr WONG Yuk-man, that is, Amendment Nos 144 and 554, deal with the relevant costs of the promotion of national education and Basic Law education, respectively seeking to reduce "Head 53 ― Government Secretariat: Home Affairs Bureau" by $39.6 million, approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for 10576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 the promotion of national education, and "Head 156 ― Government Secretariat: Education Bureau" by some $4.9 million, approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the promotion of Basic Law education by the Education Bureau. The DAB opposes these amendments.
Chairman, for more than a decade since the return of Hong Kong to China, basically, the systems and mode of education adopted in the colonial era are still in place. It is naturally difficult for students to develop a national sentiment. Following the reunification, students are supposed to have a stronger and deeper understanding of the country and state of affairs through formal education, including the facilitated understanding of the basic conditions of its political, economic and social development. But in reality, this is not the case. The curricula of primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong do not cover education on state affairs, and national education was introduced untimely. As a result, Hong Kong students' understanding of state affairs is rather weak. This has actually been fully demonstrated by the statements of some students during Occupy Central.
Every country is obliged to promote national education among its people. I cannot think of any country which does not do so. On the contrary, the failure of a country to tell and educate its people about its own history, the characteristics of its governance regime and culture actually implies that it has not fulfilled its fundamental responsibilities. People should also learn about the history, course of development, cultural features, and characteristics of the economy, society and political system of their own country. If we have no understanding of all this, the consequences will actually be very serious as our national identity will easily be blurred. I am afraid if we do not promote national education and the Basic Law seriously, Hong Kong will actually see the emergence of such a crisis. Hence, it is necessary for the Government to inject appropriate resources into the promotion of national education and the Basic Law.
I wish to know how well Members understand the Basic Law. We all know that 4 April is the Children's Day, but I am not sure whether Members know that it is also a very important date to the Basic Law. On 4 April 1990, the Basic Law was promulgated at a meeting of the Seventh National People's Congress.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10577
From the establishment of the Basic Law Drafting Committee in 1985 to the completion of the drafting of the Basic Law, the whole process lasted four years and eight months. In the drafting process, many Hong Kong people participated in the consultations on the Basic Law, so that the drafting of the Basic Law could be completed. But regrettably, today, many people attempt to belittle the importance of the Basic Law, and even disapprove of any education or publicity campaigns related to the Basic Law. A youth group has even initiated an online signature campaign to request that the Education Bureau withdraw the latest Basic Law video teaching resource package. I wish to point out that disapproval and contempt of the Basic Law will only cause the community to value it less and even be confused about their own rights and obligations. It is actually a great pity.
For this reason, the DAB supports the Education Bureau and the Home Affairs Bureau to spare no effort in promoting the Basic Law, so as to instill a correct understanding of the Basic Law into the public and young people. The DAB has also put its belief into practice by producing 600 000 copies of pocket Basic Law to be distributed to schools for free. Apart from the original text of the Basic Law, this red booklet also carries extracts on the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on issues relating to Hong Kong and the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Hence, if Honourable colleagues or government officials present are interested in getting a copy of the Basic Law, we are more than willing to give it to them for free. This Basic Law booklet promoted by us is very popular in the community because it is a useful reference book good to be kept at home. At present, people in society and the media often mention certain provisions of the Basic Law. Members of the public should request a copy of the original Basic Law to see who are distorting the Basic Law, and who actually have no understanding of it.
Chairman, Dr Fernando CHEUNG has proposed Amendment No 567, requesting that the expenditure under "Head 156 ― Government Secretariat: Education Bureau" be reduced by some $5 million, approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the Education Bureau's pilot programme on providing career-related experiences for students with specific learning difficulties and non-Chinese speaking students in secondary schools. The DAB opposes this amendment.
10578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
The DAB supports the authorities to strongly promote life planning for students. Compared with ordinary students, students with specific learning difficulties and students of ethnic minorities require special arrangements and care in life planning. This pilot programme of the Government aims to commission non-governmental organizations to provide students with specific learning difficulties and students of ethnic minorities in secondary schools with work experiences in the coming three years, so that they can understand their strengths and learn about different jobs through real-life work exposure, thereby equipping them for future entry into the labour market. Given the great significance of this programme, the DAB supports it and absolutely oppose any reduction in the expenditure.
As shown by the surveys conducted by various social welfare organizations, the unemployment rate of ethnic minorities is higher, and their salary is also lower than the territory average. A survey conducted by the Hong Kong Christian Service in 2010 found that 24% of the South Asian men interviewed were currently unemployed. Another survey conducted by the Caritas Community Centre ― Kowloon in 2010 also pointed out that 70% of the South Asians interviewed had difficulties finding a job in Hong Kong. In fact, those who have met with grass-roots ethnic minorities during district visits know that given their competency in Chinese Language, for a long time, it has been harder for them to get opportunities of upward movement than local young people. Hence, if such expenditure is further reduced, basically it will not help resolve the issue. But I believe Members only wish to take the opportunity to express their views through proposing a reduction in expenditure. Members should not treat it lightly. If the amendment seeking a reduction in funding is really passed, such money will be lost. If Members truly hope to help the ethnic minorities as far as they can, this approach cannot serve their purpose.
As regards students with specific learning difficulties, according to the data of the Census and Statistics Department, from November 2014 to January 2015, the unemployment rate of young people aged 20 to 24 was 8.5%, numbering at about 23 000. Although we do not know how many of them are students with specific learning difficulties, we all understand the fact that it is harder for persons with disabilities to land jobs than ordinary youngsters. A survey conducted by The Hong Kong Society for Rehabilitation last year found that the overall unemployment rate of persons with disabilities interviewed was as high as 50%.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10579
Hence, in order to enhance the job search skills of young people and increase their employment opportunities, we must allocate resources and administer the right cure. The pilot programme currently proposed by the authorities aims to give these young people early exposure to the labour market in Hong Kong and assist them in adapting to the future work environment, thereby increasing their employment opportunities.
The total commitment for the whole pilot programme amounts to some $16 million. If the amendment proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG is really passed and that the expenditure of some $5 million is reduced this year, the integrity of the three-year programme will be ruined. For this reason, the DAB opposes the relevant amendment.
Chairman, I so submit.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak in opposition to the 86 amendments proposed under the scope of the sixth debate, as well as all the amendments debated during the first to sixth debates just now, for these amendments are all meaningless and proposed merely for the sake of filibustering.
The scope under discussion includes labour affairs, which include Amendment Nos 216 to 224 under head 90. We will definitely oppose these amendments.
Chairman, in the sixth debate as well as the five debates before it, Members have grasped the opportunity to blatantly besmirch, insult and attack the Hong Kong Federation of Trade unions (FTU) through this platform of filibuster. As a Member of the Legislative Council from the FTU, I am obliged to express my deepest regret for the remarks made by Members who have blatantly besmirched, attacked and slandered the FTU and to denounce those Members severely. I think they cannot get what they want through such besmirching, attacks and slander.
Chairman, the FTU has been serving the wage earners in Hong Kong for 67 years. Over the past 67 years, the FTU has persevered in serving workers, protecting labour rights and benefits of workers and striving for their welfare. We have experienced lots of setbacks, insults and discrimination. As an ancient 10580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 saying goes: A just cause enjoys abundant support and an unjust cause gains little. The FTU has exerted its utmost to serve wage earners in Hong Kong, and our sincerity is proven under the sun and the moon. Despite the many difficulties, twists and turns and besmirching, today, the FTU has united trade unions from close to 260 trades and industries comprising nearly 400 000 members. The FTU is now the largest trade union organization and labour organization in Hong Kong. These facts are evident that all malicious slander, besmirching, setbacks and remarks attacking the FTU are futile and their sinister purpose definitely cannot be served.
Chairman, regarding the amendments under the present scope and the previous amendments, I will take this opportunity to respond to them altogether. I did not speak in the previous debates for if I refuted their amendments one by one, it would be a waste of time and I would de facto engage in their filibuster. As we have come to the final debate session now, I would like to take this opportunity to give my final speech to …
(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, what is your point?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, Mr WONG Kwok-hing has spoken for three minutes and 40 seconds, but he has simply promoted and blown the trumpet for the FTU without pointing out which Members have made those remarks involving the FTU. Is this practice compliant with order?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, I note that in the previous debates, some Members mentioned the FTU, so Mr WONG Kwok-hing may respond to the criticisms and comments made by those Members about the FTU during the debate.
However, I would like to remind Mr WONG Kwok-hing that the arrangement of grouping the amendments under various sessions for debate is meaningful. In the current debate, Mr WONG may respond to the opinions expressed by other Members on the FTU, and for the opinions expressed by Mr WONG, I will also allow other Members to respond to them. Members LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10581 should have noticed that before the end of each debate, I will allow Members proposing the amendments to speak for the last time to respond to views expressed by other Members during the debate. If Members mention views expressed in earlier debates, which have already ended, in subsequent debates again, I cannot but allow Members who have expressed those views in earlier debates to respond in the current debate, otherwise, it will be unfair. Therefore, Members should speak on the various amendments within the scope of this debate session, or else, I will point out that the Member has strayed from the question.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please continue.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, the content of my speech is very clear. It is mainly about the scope of the sixth debate, but I have added a remark to express my position on the scope of earlier debates. I think this is definitely not a digression.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, you have already stated your position. Before you stopped speaking just now, you mentioned you would discuss the amendments covered in the previous debates, thus I ask you to focus your discussion on the amendments under the sixth debate. Please continue now.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): As I pointed out earlier, the 86 amendments involving the reduction of various expenditures under the sixth debate are all proposed for the sake of filibustering. These proposals on expenditure reduction, if passed, will paralyse the operation of the relevant government departments, and the provision of many livelihood services, particularly services concerning the rights and benefits of wage earners such as those provided by the Labour Department, has to be ceased. Therefore, regarding these reduction proposals made for the sake of filibustering, we must definitely voice denunciation and objection.
During the 11 days of filibuster, $29.59 million has been wasted if calculated on the basis of $26.9 million per day. Chairman, according to the arrangement you have set in advance, it is estimated that it will take 16 days to process all the amendments on expenditure reduction proposed by Members. If so the filibuster this time around will waste $43.04 million in total. As for the 10582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 filibusters carried out in the past four years, they cost a waste of $2,616.99 million in total. This sum of $2,616.99 million can be used for the provision of rent concession for public housing residents for two and a half months. If it is spent on the assistance for the disadvantaged, all recipients of the Old Age Living Allowance, "fruit grant", Disability Allowance and Comprehensive Social Security Assistance will receive another round of "double pay", which will be "quadruple pay". Regrettably, the sum has now been wasted on a meaningless cause. As such, I must oppose the 86 amendments under this scope. As for Members proposing these amendments and their action of filibuster, I must voice strong denunciation. They are wasting public money, the money the public sweated blood to earn. What they are doing is comparable to dumping the hard-earned money of the public into the sea.
Why do I have to oppose the meaningless reduction proposed under their 86 amendments? Apart from the point that these amendments will cause many livelihood services and work, as well as the public works of the Government, to come to a halt or unable to carry on, I oppose these amendments because they are affecting the meetings of the Legislative Council on Wednesdays. At the Council meeting, Members should be handling the many items of grave concern to the public and items which the public entrusted Members to discuss. But now, thanks to the filibuster, all of these items cannot be put forth for discussion as congestion of business at the Council meeting is brought forth by the filibuster. Members can see that if the filibuster continues till the end of this month, that is, 28 May, six meetings will be affected, which will involve a total of 36 oral questions. Members are supposed to raise six oral questions at each of these meetings, but now they cannot …
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, may I ask in what way is the content of his speech related to the sixth debate? I have been listening to him for seven minutes here and another three minutes up there. Chairman, please make a ruling.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10583
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please be seated …
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, you often criticize me for straying from the question, but if you allow him to speak this way, you should not blame me for straying from the question when I refute his remarks later on.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-hing is expressing his views on the amendments under this debate. You may disagree with his views, and you may consider all of his views wrong, but he did not stray from the question most of the time he was speaking just now. Mr WONG Kwok-hing has mentioned that …
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up and spoke loudly)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please sit down. I am speaking now.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am only raising a point of order …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please be seated. I am now giving a ruling on a point of order you have just raised.
The speech made by Mr WONG Kwok-hing just now has not strayed from the question most of the time. As for the part involving digression, I have already pointed it out to Mr WONG and requested him not to discuss other amendments beyond the scope of this debate in the remaining part of his speech. When Members speak, they should only express their views on the amendments under the present debate. No matter other Members agree or not, the decision of whether or not a Member has strayed from the question rests with me.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please continue.
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up again)
10584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I implore you to review to the seven-minute speech made just now. May I ask which item is related to the population policy, education, manpower and youth? The FTU and filibuster were mentioned in the speech, but the scope of this debate does not cover the FTU and the filibuster.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I have no intention to get involved in the debate of Members. Although Mr WONG Kwok-hing has not made specific comments on the policy content covered under the debate, he has expressed his views on the dozens of amendments proposed by Members.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please continue.
(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, what is your point?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I wish to seek an elucidation from Mr WONG Kwok-hing on the speech he made just now. He mentioned the 86 amendments proposed by various Members, will he veto all the amendments or will he only target on some of the amendments? Chairman, will you please ask him to clarify it later on?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you have made your request. Yet whether or not the Member will make a clarification as per your request, it will be left to the Member's decision.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please continue.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10585
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung have sniped at me and interrupted my speech repeatedly, and their intention is laid bare. However, this will only draw the public's attention to my speech …
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, point of order.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please pause for a while. Members should not interrupt arbitrarily when another Member is speaking.
Mr Albert CHAN, what is your point?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, he is deducing our motives. I hope you will rule whether or not his remark just now deduces our motives, for such act violates the Rules of Procedure.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): It is not stipulated in the Rules of Procedure that Members cannot deduce the motives of other Members, please read the Rules of Procedures carefully.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please continue.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, you had better familiarize yourself with the Rules of Procedure to avoid such embarrassment …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please speak on the amendments under this debate.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, thank you for the ruling. Regarding the various reduction proposals made under the 86 amendments, I have to reiterate that they will seriously affect people's livelihood. I have already 10586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 pointed out the loss incurred relating to people's livelihood. I have explained how the $2,616.99 million can be interpreted by other concepts and compared to other equivalent items, so I will not repeat them here. Just now, I was on the point that these amendments had caused congestion of business at Council meetings, but I was interrupted …
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, please do a headcount according to Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please continue.
(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, what is your point?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, thank you for your reminder earlier. Regarding the point of order, I have checked Rule 41(5) of the Rules of Procedure, and it is stipulated that, "A Member shall not impute improper motives to another Member". Earlier on, I asked you to rule on that for I felt Mr WONG Kwok-hing's criticism of me constituted an imputation that I have improper motives. I hope the Chairman can make a ruling.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, what is the improper motive you think Mr WONG Kwok-hing has imputed to you?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10587
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): I do not remember the exact wording of his criticism of me just now, but the Chairman may review the recording.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, the most severe criticism I have heard from Mr WONG Kwok-hing is of Members' filibuster. Mr CHAN, do you consider filibuster an improper motive?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, his speech is not only about filibuster, you can review that piece of recording. He considers I act with the intent of harming the legislature, society and other aspects, I thus consider his remark implying I have improper motives.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The speech made by Mr WONG Kwok-hing just now is about filibuster. As to whether the filibuster will bring about the consequence of causing harm to the legislature and society as Mr WONG said, different Members will have different views and this is irrelevant to the motives of Members.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please continue.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, just now I mentioned that the filibuster has impeded many businesses which should have been transacted by the legislature, including livelihood issues, monitoring the Government and urging the Government to govern according to law, and it has resulted in congestion of businesses in the legislature. In the six meetings in question, Members should have been able to put forth 12 Members' motions with no legislative effect, but Members cannot do so now …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, you are repeating your arguments.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Moreover, Members should have been able to ask oral questions …
10588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please focus on the amendments under the sixth debate.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): I am speaking on the 86 amendments under the sixth debate seeking to reduce the expenditure of the relevant governments for government officials, for these reduction proposals will harm the legislature and cause congestion of Council businesses, so I am definitely speaking to the question. I said that Members should have been able to put forth 36 oral questions, but they could not do so now. Business is affected, is it not? It has obviously been affected.
In view of Members' blatant abuse of their rights to engage in filibustering, we feel helpless and we can do nothing about it. We intend to amend the Rules of Procedure, yet we cannot get enough votes to effect the amendment. In the face of the rampant filibuster prevailing in the Legislative Council and the waste of public coffers, I cannot but urge all the people of Hong Kong to sign up to "stop filibustering and support universal suffrage". I urge those who have not yet signed up to put down their signatures before the end of this week …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, if you do not focus on the amendments under the sixth debate, I will ask you to stop speaking.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, I absolutely have not strayed from the question in the past 30 minutes. The opinions I expressed have not deviated from the 86 amendments under the sixth debate concerning the unreasonable reduction proposals. What I have said seeks to explain the reason for my opposition to the 86 amendments proposing to reduce the relevant expenditure. I have to draw Members' attention to head 90 in particular, which is related to the expenditure on labour affairs. If I were to read out the items one by one, the time required would have exceeded my 15-minute speaking time. Therefore, I decided not to read them out one by one, yet how can it be regarded as digression?
During my speech of just 10 minutes, I have been interrupted and heckled five times for different excuses. I feel extremely sorry about those people who have prevented me from delivering my speech smoothly. I must condemn them. Lastly, I would like to quote from a Tang poem ― as I have already said all I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10589 have got to say, I will not use all my 15 minutes lest I render support to the filibuster de facto. The two verses read to the effect that, "Yet monkeys are still calling on both banks behind me, to my boat these ten thousand mountains away ( 兩岸猿聲啼不住，輕舟已過萬重 山)". I urge all the people of Hong Kong to "stop the filibuster and support universal suffrage". All should come forward to sign in support of the campaign. We should not allow the Legislative Council to continue to waste public coffers and time in this way, for this has prevented it from handling livelihood issues it should address. Thank you, Chairman.
MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, first of all, I wish to speak on Amendment No 140 which is about deducting $121,824,000 in respect of head 53. This amount is approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the subvention for the Hong Kong Arts Development Council (ADC).
Chairman, I had been a member of the ADC for six years and so, I know the work of the ADC quite well. Established before the reunification, the ADC has been committed to providing support for arts development over the last two decades. It has carried out a lot of work, performing important functions and playing a crucial role. As the West Kowloon Cultural District is coming to fruition gradually, how the ADC can support the development of local cultural software and how it can achieve effective division of work and co-ordination with the Leisure and Cultural Services Department are issues worthy of discussion and study. In fact, I have all along advocated and demanded that the Government should review the local cultural policy and actively develop the local cultural, arts and creative industries and in this respect, the ADC can play an even more important role. Society can have diverse views on the work of the ADC but the proposal made hastily in the amendment of deducting the operational expenditure of the ADC for one year is incomprehensible and will seriously affect the operation of the ADC. I strongly oppose this proposal.
First of all, over the past two decades since its establishment, the ADC has been tasked with an important function of providing grants for local artists and arts groups. After transferring to the Home Affairs Bureau the funding responsibility for several major arts groups in 2007, the ADC has focused on the provision of support to local small and medium-sized arts groups by, among other things, implementing the One-Year/Two-Year/Three-Year Grant to support local small and medium-sized arts groups, and also the Multi-Project Grant, Project Grant, and so on, to support arts activities and cultural exchanges. If the 10590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 expenditure of the ADC for a full year is cut, these subvented small and medium-sized groups will be innocently implicated and affected, and they will be hard hit in terms of finance and operation. Without these grants for cultural and arts activities, the opportunities of participation in arts by the public would also be reduced indirectly.
On the other hand, the ADC has actively opened up space for the local cultural and arts industries and leased space to local artists and arts groups at concessionary rentals, such as the Jockey Club Creative Arts Centre in Shek Kip Mei which has been operating for many years, and the launch of ADC Artspace in an industrial building in Aberdeen recently. The ADC has also worked in collaboration with the Tai Po District Council to transform a vacant school premises in Tai Po into an arts centre mainly for the performing arts, providing space for creation, rehearsals and performance by local arts groups. Moreover, the ADC has launched a lot of initiatives in training talents in arts administration and also in respect of surveys and researches, promotion of cultural exchanges, and so on. A full deduction of the operational expenditure of the ADC would halt all of these initiatives.
In my view, the resources of the ADC should not be reduced and on the contrary, it should be provided with additional resources. During the several years when I was the Chairman of the ADC, the Government spent around $3 billion on promoting culture annually but the subvention received by the ADC was less than $100 million. Therefore, the ADC had all along operated with a tight budget. It was only until last year that the funding for the ADC was increased to around $130 million and yet, it is still inadequate for meeting the aspiration of the cultural and arts sectors for enhanced support for local small and medium-sized arts groups.
Over the years, the grants provided by the ADC have consistently fallen short of the demands. Every year, applications are submitted to the ADC by many groups and for many activities but due to the limited resources, quite a large part of these applications are not approved. If the ADC can have more abundant resources, it can provide support to more small and medium-sized groups and nurture a stronger arts force, thereby enabling the local cultural development to be more diversified and multifarious. Therefore, I oppose this amendment, and I all the more hope that the Government can further increase the provision of resources to the ADC in the future to enable the ADC to give play to its functions more effectively.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10591
Besides, Chairman, I also wish to speak on Amendment No 157, which seeks to deduct $14 million in respect of head 53. This amount is equivalent to the funding for the Operations Consultancy for the Multi-purpose Sports Complex (MPSC) at Kai Tak.
Chairman, I must point out that the development of a major sports venue at Kai Tak by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) is to honour a promise it made to the sports sector for over a decade. Now, the MPSC has entered a stage where works are gradually implemented as the advance works as well as the planning and design work have commenced one after other. If the estimated expenditure for the operations consultancy is deducted, the completion of the MPSC would definitely be delayed inevitably, and the local sports sector would be disappointed over and over again.
Reviewing history, the SAR Government proposed as early as in 1999 the development of a major multi-purpose sports facility in the reclaimed area in South East Kowloon on the site of the former Kai Tak airport. It was an undertaking made by the SAR Government in bidding for the right to host the Asian Games in 2006 at that time, and disregarding whether the bid would be successful or not, this facility would be developed for the promotion of sports development. As the bid was unsuccessful, the construction of the sports stadium thus became less urgent. Over the past decade or so, the MPSC has all along been making very slow progress. Feasibility studies were conducted and consultancy reports compiled one after another, and this proposal was once again raised in 2010 when the Government proposed to bid for the right to host the Asian Games in 2023 and yet, it remained all words but no action. After the current-term Government had taken over, it was even rumoured that the MPSC project would be shelved, which greatly shocked and enraged the sports sector. Fortunately, the proposal for shelving the MPSC project was ultimately shelved, and the Government eventually made a final decision on developing the MPSC while undertaking to complete the project in 2020-2021.
Some Members of this Council and some members of the public have questioned that the construction of a main stadium with a capacity for 50 000 spectators in the MPSC is excessively huge in scale, and there are also views that as Hong Kong does not have sufficient mega sports events, such a large sports venue would eventually become a "white elephant" project. On the scale of the sports stadium, we can find in many international cities large sports stadiums with a capacity for 50 000 spectators or more. For example, the National Stadium in 10592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
Singapore, which was completed last year, has a capacity for 55 000 spectators; the Aoti Main Stadium in Guangzhou has a capacity for 80 000 spectators; the Seoul World Cup Stadium has a capacity for 66 000 spectators; and in such cities as London, Lisboa, Barcelona, Melbourne and Vancouver, similar major sports facilities with a capacity for several tens of thousand spectators can also be found. Hong Kong has a population of over 7 million and proportionally speaking, the scale of this stadium at Kai Tak is not unreasonable at all.
As for the concern expressed by some people about the lack of sufficient mega sports events to be held in the main stadium, I think this is a chicken-and-egg question. The Cycling Association of Hong Kong will host for the first time the third and final rounds of the Track Cycling World Cup in January next year. Had there not been a new Velodrome, how could Hong Kong have a chance to host this world-class tournament in the cycling sector? In fact, when competing for the right to host international tournaments, Hong Kong has seen many opportunities slip through its fingers due to insufficient venues. For example, the International Woodball Federation once hoped to hold an international competition in Hong Kong and was even prepared to meet the costs. But due to the lack of suitable venues, the relevant organization in Hong Kong had to decline the offer helplessly.
Even our iconic sports event, namely, the Hong Kong Sevens, is held in an environment which is not at all satisfactory. In the stadium, the participating teams have to share the changing rooms, and the Hong Kong Rugby Football Union even has to borrow classrooms from nearby schools. There is also insufficient space for the players to rest or for media interviews and issuing press releases, and so on. Can we compete for the hosting of mega sports events with such hardware facilities?
The completion of the MPSC will greatly increase the chances of our success in bidding for the right to host mega sports events. The Sports Federation & Olympic Committee of Hong Kong, China (SF&OC) has stated that if the MPSC can be completed in 2021 as scheduled, it will bid for the right to host the Fourth Youth Olympic Games in 2022. Therefore, it is only with good sports venues that further development can be achieved for mega sports events.
Better still, sports venues can play an active role in promoting sports in the community, supporting elite sports and developing Hong Kong into a prime host for major international sports events. As I said earlier, the provision of major LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10593 sports venues will increase the chances of hosting mega sports events in Hong Kong. These events will help focus public attention on sports and arouse among the people an interest to participate in sports. Furthermore, the MPSC can address the problem of insufficient space for training local athletes. With the making of appropriate adjustments, elite athletes can effectively utilize the venue for training and this can allay the public concern about the MPSC becoming a "white elephant".
With regard to Ms Cyd HO's question about the MPSC being turned into tourism and commercial projects with the development of hotels, offices, shopping malls, and so on, in the MPSC, I must say that there is a need to develop these facilities from the perspectives of the sports sector and local sports development. The development of hotels is meant to provide accommodation which is comparatively less expensive and in the vicinity of the venue for organizations and athletes from other countries to facilitate their participation in mega sports events in Hong Kong. As for offices, I hope Members will understand that although the Olympic House currently provides offices for sports organizations, the demand is far greater than the supply. In particular, space is insufficient for sports organizations relating to some non-competitive, non-mainstream, non-elite sports and organizations providing support to retired elite athletes, while other supporting industries, such as sports equipment and goods, medical service, promotion, and so on, also wish to set up offices in the vicinity. In this connection, the sports sector hopes that the MPSC can provide some suitable office space at inexpensive rent for them to achieve stable development.
In respect of commercial space, the authorities hope that the MPSC can, on the one hand, provide space for the development of sports-related industries and on the other, provide commercial sports venues, such as an ice-skating rink and a bowling centre. Take the ice-skating rink as an example. There are five commercial ice-skating rinks in Hong Kong but none of them is a standard ice-skating rink and this has created obstacles for the training of elite athletes. Bowling centres in Hong Kong have also shown a shrinking trend. These types of sports venues have all along been excluded from the Government's planning on sports venues and they are not incorporated into the MPSC. In this connection, the authorities hope that these venues can be provided through the commercial space in the MPSC, in order to optimize the use of land in the MPSC to support the development of various sports items. The provision of facilities such as 10594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 catering and car parks in the MPSC can facilitate full utilization of the land while increasing the flow of people. This will give play to a complementary effect and enhance cost-effectiveness, and this is also an arrangement to prevent the MPSC from becoming a "white elephant".
Chairman, I believe Members will still remember the Hong Kong Football Team beating Japan and winning the gold medal in the East Asian Games in 2009. The excitement of the football players and the cheers shouted by the spectators have remained unforgettable even now. The local athletes have struggled hard in silence, working perseveringly for their goals and taking part in various international competitions to strive for good results. But I believe the athletes very much hope that they can win honours for Hong Kong in the place where they grow up and where they play as the home team and with the support and cheers of Hong Kong people. Could it be that Hong Kong athletes do not deserve a home venue, a stage where they can bring their talents into play?
In a television drama series there is this famous line: "How many 10 years are there in one's life?" But to athletes, Chairman, they may only have one golden "10 years" in a lifetime. It takes two decades from the inception of the MPSC to its actual completion, and many athletes would have retired before its completion. Could it be that our sports sector and athletes in Hong Kong should be made to keep on waiting endlessly?
Certainly, the local sports development requires the support of suitable hardware facilities and also the support of software. In fact, a comprehensive review and formulation of a sports policy in Hong Kong was last carried out more than a decade ago when the Report of the Sports Policy Review Team titled Towards a More Sporting Future was published. Last year, I moved a motion in the Legislative Council to urge the Government to expeditiously conduct a review on and formulate long-term sports policies and the motion was passed in this Council. I also hope that the Administration can expeditiously conduct a review while allaying the concerns of Members about sports software.
Chairman, this Council has become very politicized nowadays, and even issues that are slightly controversial may be magnified infinitely. The Budget under discussion now is inevitably affected by the filibustering, and some of the discussions of the Finance Committee and the Public Works Subcommittee are also affected. Recently, the pre-construction works for the MPSC was discussed LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10595 in the Finance Committee. While it was originally estimated that deliberations could be completed in one meeting, it eventually took three meetings for the proposal to be passed, and today, there are even calls for a deduction of the provisions made in the Budget for the MPSC operations consultancy. There is indeed no room for optimism for future discussions or funding applications relating to the MPSC in this Council. The progress of the development of the MPSC will inevitably be slowed down time and again. Therefore, here, I appeal to Members once again to stop filibustering, so that rationality can be restored in the work of this Council.
Chairman, I also wish to talk about Amendment No 148 which seeks to deduct $19,859,000 in respect of head 53, which is approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the subvention for the SF&OC. Chairman, the SF&OC is a crucial component of the local sports system. One of its duties is to promote sports and popularization of the sports culture. The SF&OC organizes the Hong Kong Sports Stars Awards and the Sports Education on Olympism Programme for the Community annually to enhance public understanding of and participation in sports.
The SF&OC is also responsible for organizing the participation of Hong Kong delegations in major international games and also provide support for retired athletes in education and career development by, among other things, implementing the Hong Kong Athletes Career and Education Programme to provide athletes with consultation services, scholarships, occupational training, language courses and employment arrangements. Moreover, the SF&OC is also responsible for the operation, management as well as maintenance of the Olympic House.
The SF&OC and its officers have all along made a lot of efforts for the local sports development. I understand that society has different expectations for the work of the SF&OC, and there are also views suggesting a split of the SF&OC, but it is necessary to carefully consider this view, analyse the pros and cons and forge a consensus. We hope that the SF&OC can further enhance its governance and transparency. In fact, the SF&OC introduced some time ago certain changes to its governance by imposing limits on the term of office and retirement age for its management, which is a step taken in response to the calls in society for enhanced governance. In the future, the SF&OC can make ongoing efforts to introduce more changes or improvement.
10596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
Having said that, a deduction of the annual estimated expenditure for the SF&OC will not only affect the SF&OC itself but will also cause a significant impact on the popularization of the sports culture, the participation by elite athletes in tournaments held overseas, the support for retired athletes and the operation of some national sports associations. I, therefore, will not support this amendment.
Thank you, Chairman.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am going to speak on Amendment No 561 and explain in detail my justification for proposing this amendment. It seeks to reduce the public expenditure under "Head 156 ― Government Secretariat: Education Bureau" by $1.79 million in respect of subhead 000, which is the estimated expenditure on the emoluments of Secretary for Education Eddie NG for six months.
Chairman, Article 136 of the Basic Law assures in explicit terms that "[o]n the basis of the previous educational system, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall, on its own, formulate policies on the development and improvement of education". However, during the tenure of Eddie NG as the Secretary for Education, not only did the education policies implemented by the SAR Government fail to bring any improvement, the development of education policies is often constrained by the opinions of the Beijing Government as well.
Wen Wei Po published an article on 13 May this year, which is entitled to the effect of "Can the Central Government supervise the education policies of the HKSAR under the principle of 'one country, two systems'?". The article criticized that an occupation movement took place in Hong Kong as a result of the problematic education system while the Beijing Government, which controls the delegation of authority, can supervise and intervene in the educational affairs of Hong Kong. The article even specifically mentioned the procedures of supervision which may be adopted by the Beijing Government. For example, the Central Authorities may authorize the competent authorities of the Ministry of Education to directly communicate with the Education Bureau of the SAR Government to convey the opinions of the Ministry of Education; and the relevant departments of the Central Government may publish a white paper on the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10597 education policies of China, the content of which may include the education policies of Hong Kong. It may even seek an interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress to remove the constraints imposed by Article 136 of the Basic Law and determine afresh what kind of education policies are regarded as "policies on the development and improvement of education".
There is another idea in the article which is closely related to the official position of Eddie NG, the Secretary for Education. It is pointed out in the article to the effect that "If any principal official wants to be accountable to the Chief Executive only and refuses to be accountable to or be supervised by the Central Authorities, the Central Government may require such a principal official to reform or even dismiss him from office in accordance with the relevant stipulations of the Basic Law".
Chairman, CHEN Zuoer, the Chairman of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, also made some similar remarks in January this year. He criticized the education system of Hong Kong for nurturing students whom he regarded as "poisonous beans" and considered that the Education Bureau should take into account national security and benefits of development when formulating any measure so as to "re-enlighten" young people in Hong Kong. CHEN Zuoer even believed that according to the Basic Law, the Secretary for Education is subject to supervision by the Beijing Government. When Secretary Eddie NG subsequently appeared on a programme of Radio Television Hong Kong, he responded that Secretaries under the accountability system are appointed by the Beijing Government and they should be faithful to the Basic Law. As the government official responsible for education policies, he would humbly listen to the opinions of other people on issues of education.
Chairman, although Secretary for Education Eddie NG claimed that we should be faithful to the Basic Law, he disregarded the provisions in Articles 136 and 137 of the Basic Law which protect the autonomy of the SAR Government in formulating education policies and the academic freedom enjoyed by educational institutions of all kinds. Secretary Eddie NG has turned himself from the Secretary for Education into the "Secretary for Political Education". His only objective is to accomplish the major political mission given by the Beijing Government during his tenure, which is implementing the brainwashing national education in Hong Kong. He tried to accomplish this political mission by fair means or foul.
10598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
Why did I say that? Although Eddie NG was forced to withdraw the proposal of introducing the brainwashing national education as an independent subject in 2012 due to strong public pressure, he still has to complete his political mission so as to keep his office. Therefore, the implementation of the brainwashing national education in Hong Kong has never ceased in the past three years, the elements of which are even broken up into smaller parts. In the written reply provided by Eddie NG at a Finance Committee meeting in respect of my questions on the Budget, he pointed out that "Curriculum elements of … national education, under the over-arching notion of values education, are incorporated in … subjects, relevant learning activities in and outside schools at primary and secondary levels … programmes for school heads and teachers … learning and teaching resources as well as provision of Mainland exchange opportunities … and so on." Therefore, in the past year, from the teaching materials on the Basic Law provided for teachers, exchange programmes for secondary and primary schools to the policy of subsidizing the pairing up of sister schools, all of these measures ― Chairman, each and every one of such measures ― are imbued with elements of the brainwashing national education by the Education Bureau.
On the 30th of last month, the Education Bureau published a new set of Basic Law video teaching resource package for junior secondary school teachers, the content of which is completely derived from the White Paper on "The Practice of the 'One Country, Two Systems' Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" (the White Paper). The teaching resource package was criticized by many members of the education sector for deliberately belittling the power of the SAR Government while emphasizing or even exaggerating and distorting the so-called superior-subordinate relationship between Beijing and Hong Kong as well as placing greater importance on "one country" while understating "two systems". The content about "civil disobedience", which was once incorporated into the teaching materials on the Basic Law, is even removed. The Education Bureau disregarded education on civil rights and turned the relevant teaching materials into teaching materials on "political education". Lessons which are supposed to help junior secondary school students learn about the Basic Law have become "political ideology lessons". It is de facto brainwashing national education.
Chairman, if we examine the new Basic Law teaching resource package in detail, what readily comes to our attention is its content often belittling the power of the SAR Government. For example, in Chapter 3 which talks about the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10599
"Relationship between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region", there is a diagram depicting the relationship between the authorities of China and Hong Kong. However, it is indicated that the Chief Executive and the SAR Government are directly under the Mainland's Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council. Such an idea has never appeared in the Basic Law but it is now included in the teaching materials for junior secondary school students. It completely follows the interpretation of the Basic Law as stated in the White Paper.
Many other parts of the new teaching resource package are also derived from the White Paper. For instance, with regard to the principle of separation of powers, it is actually stated to the effect that "[t]he executive authorities, the legislature and the judiciary shall exercise checks and balances on each other as well as co-operating with one another". Such a concept is a wanton distortion of the Basic Law.
Maintaining the principle of separation of powers in Hong Kong is the cornerstone for the successful implementation of "one country, two systems". However, the Education Bureau requires the junior secondary school teachers to bury their conscience and indoctrinate students with some concepts which distort the Basic Law and violate the core values of Hong Kong. Is it not blatantly obvious that such a policy is nothing but brainwashing education? It also further increases the workload of teachers.
Chairman, apart from the teaching materials on the Basic Law, the education policies formulated by Eddie NG are also tilted to the Mainland. For example, the Education Bureau implemented the policy of using Putonghua as the medium of instruction for teaching the Chinese Language Subject (PMIC), provided subsidies for students to participate in at least one Mainland exchange programme at primary and secondary level respectively and even subsidized Hong Kong schools to pair up with Mainland schools as sister schools. Eddie NG attempted to dovetail the education system of Hong Kong with that of the Mainland by implementing these various initiatives so as to achieve the ultimate objective of brainwashing Hong Kong students as well as restraining our next generation from identifying themselves with, and the development of, the local culture and nativism.
Chairman, according to the written reply provided by the Education Bureau at a Finance Committee meeting in respect of my questions on the Budget, the Education Bureau has expended over $180 million public money from the 10600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
Language Fund on implementing the "Scheme to Support Schools in using Putonghua to teach the Chinese Language Subject" since the 2009-2010 academic year. However, it is glaringly obvious that the academia and the education sector have been voicing doubts about the effectiveness of using Putonghua as the medium of instruction for teaching Chinese as it does not have sufficient theoretical basis and cannot help students improve their proficiency in Chinese. Instead, students will depart from the local culture in their learning or even gradually lose their interest in learning Chinese.
The Education Bureau has never attached any importance to Cantonese, the mother tongue of Hong Kong people who speak and use it every day. The Education Bureau even once positioned Cantonese as, to this effect, "a Chinese dialect which is not an official language" early last year, which proved that Eddie NG was trying to belittle the status of Cantonese in a subtle manner. The secondary and primary schools in Hong Kong do not give any lesson in the phonology or correct pronunciation of Cantonese currently. Therefore, many Hong Kong people sometimes use relaxed pronunciations or pronounce a character based on a certain syllable even if they have graduated from universities. On the contrary, Putonghua has long been introduced as an independent subject. Moreover, the Education Bureau blindly implemented the PMIC policy through administrative means with the crystal clear purpose of undermining Cantonese gradually, just like the tangerine in front of me which eventually dried out after being offered on an altar, and deliberately belittling the status of Cantonese in Hong Kong.
Chairman, apart from making frequent visits to the Mainland, Eddie NG also spared no effort in encouraging students to join Mainland exchange programmes and subsidized the secondary and primary schools in Hong Kong to pair up with Mainland schools as sister schools by using public money. Co-operation between sister schools covers different professional aspects of teaching, such as school management and lesson demonstration. Yet, the Education Bureau simply could not explain why the school management or teaching methods adopted by Mainland schools are considered to be so outstanding that it would be worthwhile for the SAR Government to spend a large amount of public money to subsidize Hong Kong schools visiting those Mainland schools and learning from them. It also failed to answer the question of whether school management adopted in the Mainland can suit the conditions in Hong Kong and whether this is fit for implementation in Hong Kong schools.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10601
In fact, the teaching methods or management adopted by Mainland schools exactly tally with the remarks made by CHEN Zuoer who said we should always take into account the so-called national security and benefits of development. Eddie NG's vigorous promotion of forming sister schools causes people to doubt whether the purpose of the Education Bureau, which is under the supervision of the Communist Party of China (CPC), to implement such a measure was to learn from the teaching methods of Mainland schools which take into full consideration the Mainland and the CPC, thereby ensuring that academic journals published by universities, the student press of secondary schools or even a composition written by a primary school student will be subject to monitoring and will not contain any content which is displeasing to the Beijing Government in future.
Chairman, the Research Office of the Legislative Council Secretariat published a research brief on this year's Budget in March 2015. According to the statistics in the report, the SAR Government's total public expenditure on education only recorded an average annual growth rate of 3.1% in the past 10 years, which is far lower than the average rate of 4.9%. It is even much lower than the 7.4% growth rate of public expenditure on infrastructure. Ever since Eddie NG has assumed office, procrastination has been seen in the implementation of free kindergarten education while the provision of places for subsidized undergraduate programmes remains inadequate long term. However, Eddie NG would rather allocate Hong Kong's education resources to the brainwashing national education which has been incorporated into different teaching elements, such as promoting the PMIC policy and subsidizing students to take part in Mainland exchange programmes, or even allocate 80% of the subsidized places for graduate schools to non-local students instead of allocating the limited education resources to initiatives which are truly beneficial to Hong Kong students. Chairman, although tens of thousands of students would meet the entrance requirements for universities every year, the number of subsidized undergraduate places remains inadequate. Is it not a problem? It is certainly a serious problem.
In the past five years, the Education Bureau has actually spent over $180 million of public money on implementing the PMIC policy which does not have any theoretical basis and is not verified by research findings. It implemented the brainwashing national education by using public expenditure on education and turned a blind eye to the true aspirations of the education sector. Therefore, the Neo Democrats considered that there is dereliction of duty on the part of Eddie NG as the Secretary for Education.
10602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
Chairman, it was recently disclosed by the media that Eddie NG had urged principals to support the constitutional reform package of the SAR Government at a meeting on education. He took the initiative to bring political issues into schools and exerted pressure on the education sector. But there has been a change in his attitude and he reneged on his previous remarks. Eddie NG once said that we should not bring political issues into schools but now he has demonstrated how to preach one thing but do quite another. Therefore, the Neo Democrats considered Eddie NG has genuinely turned into the "Secretary for Political Education" and thus he is ineligible to receive the emoluments of the Secretary for Education.
With these remarks, Chairman, I therefore propose deducting the estimated expenditure on the emoluments of the Secretary for Education for six months.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, regarding the response given by Mr MA Fung-kwok just now to the part concerning sports, I would like to thank him for his concern about the issue. Nevertheless, his response and WONG Kwok-hing's attitude, which are basically similar, fully demonstrate the bureaucratic and fossilized attitude of the pro-government Members in Hong Kong as well as their indifference to the significance of the issue. Blowing their own trumpet and making their monologues, they have failed entirely to respond to all the criticisms and problems pinpointed by various parties, right? Despite Mr MA Fung-kwok's mention of the problems concerning the Sports Federation & Olympic Committee of Hong Kong, China (SF&OC) in his response just now, the problems raised by me in my speech and over the past many years regarding the sports sector in Hong Kong, including the problems of ageing and the affluent second generation, as well as the phenomenon of insiders being led by outsiders, have never seen any amelioration in the past 10 to 20 years. Furthermore, the situation is worsening.
As a representative of the sports sector, he has continued to turn a blind eye to the problems. Moreover, his response is 90% similar to the replies given by the Government previously, thus adequately reflecting the corruption, collapse and imbalance of the relevant system. Being an elected Member representing this sector, he has failed to make promotion and improvement efforts to address the problems. As such, this system will definitely rot slowly and arouse dissatisfaction from the public and members of the sector. This explains why a Hong Kong Alliance of the Victims in Sports has been set up. Actually, there are quite many victims in every functional constituency in Hong Kong. In the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10603 wake of the Umbrella Movement, many members of the sector have recently set up their own groups to inherit the spirit and continue to fight. It is precisely because of the indifference of these "parasites" in the sector to the unfair and unreasonable social phenomenon, as well as their complete lack of awareness of responding to the weird phenomenon of the sector, that this corrupt system has led to the behaviour and awareness of resistance.
Concerning the final appeal made by Mr WONG Kwok-hing just now for Hong Kong people to sign in support of the constitutional reform package, I would like to ask this question: What has the support for the constitutional reform package, to do with the proposed amendments to the Budget? Chairman, he can be described as "totally irrelevant", right? Furthermore, we can see from his speech the laziness of the pro-government Members because today he is still repeating again and again the arguments advanced by him three years ago when the filibuster was launched. Furthermore, his arguments are entirely devoid of new ideas.
When we see the standard of the pro-government camp, we sometimes cannot help shake our heads and heave a deep sigh, right? Concerning the appeal made by Mr WONG for the public to sign in support of the constitutional reform package, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) should really feel ashamed. Why did the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government rely on Robert CHOW, a "nobody", instead of the FTU, to promote the constitutional reform package? He was even seen talking about having the pure pedigree, mobilizing the community, the position in the heart of the public, and so on. The FTU is definitely more experienced and more trusted than the group set up by Robert CHOW, right? If we refer to the numerous opinion polls conducted over the past years, we will find that the FTU was once ranked number one in popularity rating among the various political groups. However, it has betrayed the interest of workers again and again.
So, Mr WONG Kwok-kin is most candid for he once pointed out that there was no need for the FTU to refer to opinion polls since the constitutional reform package was supported by the Central Government. Simply put, so long as the Central Government supports the reform, the FTU would definitely continue to do the same. He also candidly admitted that the FTU was a communist organization, which meant that it would definitely execute the instructions of the Central Authorities. Chairman, regarding the appeal made by Mr WONG Kwok-hing for the public to sign in support of the constitutional reform package, I hope he will have the opportunity to explain the relationship between signing in 10604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 support of the package and the contents of the debate today as well as the amendments. Chairman, since you have specified that joint debates will be held on different groups of amendments with discussions subject to a time limit, filibustering actually serves no purpose. As we all know, the various amendments will be put to vote by the end of May. Now, the debate period has only been slightly extended, right? Chairman, under your great leadership, filibustering no longer serves any purpose.
Lastly, Chairman, I wish to say a few more words on the signature campaign because I want to get it off my chest. Chairman, if you refer to the opinion polls, you will find that when the 31 August constitutional reform package was unveiled by the "trio", public sentiments could be described as running high, with a gap of 10% or so between the number of supporters of the Government's package and that of opponents. But recently, the gap between the numbers of these two groups of people has become increasingly narrow. Moreover, a "fatal meeting point" is likely to appear. In other words, the higher number will fall and the lower number will rise gradually. When the two numbers finally meet, the lower number will continue to rise and the higher number will continue to fall. Once the "fatal meeting point" appears, there will be more opponents than supporters …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, I have allowed you to respond to the issue of signatures mentioned by Mr WONG Kwok-hing, but you should not spend too much time on this issue. You should still wish to express a lot of views on your proposed amendments.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I got your point. I only wish to spend one more minute discussing the "fatal meeting point" and the significance of the signature campaign because I believe the FTU will feel ashamed. Despite the FTU's support for the signature campaign, why do more and more people raise objection? The FTU should feel ashamed, right? These Members have no sense of shame for not only are they unaware of where the problem lies, but they have also failed to conduct reviews. Instead, they have merely continued to badmouth and attack other Members in this Chamber. Such attitudes and approaches, akin to what we saw during the Cultural Revolution, are absolutely not consistent with the core values of Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10605
Chairman, I would like to say a few words about my proposed amendments before exchanging views with Mr MA Fung-kwok on reductions in expenditure because the repeated occurrence of scandals involving the SF&OC and problematic incidents has caused public dissatisfaction. Nevertheless, I do not wish to discuss it in detail. For instance, although many rich and powerful people were invited earlier to attend the East Asian Games, the doctor of the team was not allowed to go with them. As a result, Hong Kong people had completely lost their faith in the SF&OC. However, I can see that Mr MA Fung-kwok has no intention to review these bad practices. Instead, he has continued to blow his own trumpet and allow the rich and powerful to manipulate the sports sector. Chairman, politics is above everything. Political manipulation matters most because the sports sector has votes in the Chief Executive Election and functional constituency elections. Owing to political needs, the level and significance of sports have been completely ignored.
Chairman, while the Secretary for Home Affairs is still here, I would like to say a few words on Amendment No 138 which seeks to reduce $149,968,000, which is equivalent to the Home Affairs Bureau's annual estimated expenditure on salaries under the item "Personal Emoluments". Chairman, in my opinion, the Home Affairs Bureau has committed four crimes, one of which is related to its poor monitoring of national sports associations. The remaining crimes are related to its attempt to "brainwash" the next generation, abuse of public money for stability preservation ― unfortunately the effort made has failed to yield satisfactory results. Not only is its motive incorrect, but the results are very poor ― the last crime is related to the transfer of benefits to the rich and powerful pro-government members and the relevant organizations.
Chairman, years ago, I criticized the Home Affairs Bureau for being a quasi-intelligence organization, under which the District Offices would collect information on people in the districts. Moreover, the staff of District Offices would report any events to take place in the districts to the Central Authorities and then collect information. It is thus evident that District Offices are intelligence organizations.
Secondly, since the Bureau is responsible for united front work, TSANG Tak-sing has been the Secretary for Home Affairs for years. Given his political background and relations, he is politically trustworthy. The Communist Party of China is not concerned about whether or not he is competent, but he must be politically reliable and trustworthy. I have often criticized him as an "autistic 10606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
Secretary". Of all the Bureau Directors, he has maintained a most distant relationship with the media, the public and the masses. Nevertheless, his strength is that he will never make wrong comments because he seldom speaks. An autistic person seldom speaks. When the Police recently took statements from a mentally ill person, he merely kept repeating the last two or three words of the questions he heard because he had problems with his receptive and analytical powers. I have absolutely no doubts about the intelligence quotient of the Secretary because he probably has a habit of talking less, though it might also be his "political illness" ― it is basically his modus operandi, too. Other crimes committed by him also include the abuse of public money for stability preservation, though the results are unsatisfactory. The responsibilities of the Bureau under Programme (2): Social Harmony and Civic Education are to promote the development of social enterprises to nurture a caring culture in society, provide more job opportunities for the socially disadvantaged, promote civic and national education, and promote social harmony and youth development. Chairman, the Umbrella Movement would not have taken place had the Secretary been able to complete all of these tasks. Its occurrence did prove that the Home Affairs Bureau had failed entirely in performing its tasks on this front. The Secretary's failure to get a full picture of intelligence and social links and promote education has led to the struggles staged by the public to express discontent with the Central Government, or even resistance to the concept of patriotism.
Secretary, it is pointless for you to continue with your promotion efforts forcibly ― Chairman, will you please tell the Secretary that it is totally pointless to do so ― the results are unsatisfactory despite the continued increase in expenditure. Of all the Programme areas, Programme (2) has seen the largest increase in expenditure, from $117 million in 2008 to $230 million in 2008, and a nearly two-fold increase to $360 million in 2014. Chairman, compared to 2008, the increase in expenditure has more than doubled. Despite the Secretary's frequent mention of "river crab (河 蟹)1" in society, a major rift has actually emerged in society.
(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
1 "河 蟹" in Putonghua is pronounced the same as "和 諧", meaning "harmony". LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10607
The emergence of the rift in Hong Kong is attributed to the existence of many internal conflicts. Years ago, WEN Jiabao already pointed out that Hong Kong's deep-rooted conflicts must be addressed. Can visits to the Mainland address these conflicts? Can deep-rooted conflicts be eased through evening galas, mid-Autumn arts performances or dance performances by "dama" (meaning middle-aged Chinese women) in the districts, thereby cultivating patriotism among the young people in Hong Kong? Can Secretary TSANG Tak-sing, who used to be a patriotic youth, give some thoughts to these questions: Why did he love the country back then? Why was he willing to sacrifice his own future for the sake of participating in patriotic campaigns? Given that patriotism should come from one's heart, will admiring the dance performances by "dama" cultivate patriotism among the young people to make them support the constitutional reform package? When they see the dance performances by "dama", they will only find Hong Kong being "communized" or turned into a place like the Mainland heart-rending. Hence, the rift in Hong Kong is attributed to the internal conflicts in society, political change and the setback suffered by the Central Authorities due to its policy towards Hong Kong after the reunification. Should the Home Affairs Bureau continue to address problems with the mindset of Hong Kong communists rather than learning from the bitter lesson and making adjustments to the realistic issues, I can only tell the Secretary that the rift and struggles will only escalate and intensify.
Deputy Chairman, as regards other crimes committed by the Secretary, I will analyse them in detail again when I have the opportunity to speak later on.
Deputy Chairman, the presence of only five Members in the Chamber is an insult to the Council. Deputy Chairman, please do a headcount according to Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Kenneth CHAN, please speak.
10608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, the debate has been most heated this morning. I am afraid the translators will have a hard job to do. When Honourable colleagues quarrelled with each other and their voices overlapped, the audience or listeners were unable to hear clearly what they were arguing about. In particular, the lousy "embedded marketing" on which Mr WONG Kwok-hing spent 12 minutes and 43 seconds just now was simply devoid of any standard or quality. It was a waste of our time.
However, here I must respond to the remarks made by Ms Starry LEE, the Chairman of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB). Earlier on, she advised us to look at China with an open mind. Her advice on looking at China with an open mind, I believe, was her response to part of my speech about my worry that nowadays, the education policy in Hong Kong is no longer under the control of the Secretary for Education of the Hong Kong Government. Instead, it has taken into account of more and more comments from different departments in Mainland China, deputies to the National People's Congress or members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, ruining the institution of "one country, two systems".
Should we treat the various types of situations in Mainland China with an open mind? This kind of remark is rather neutral. It is tantamount to saying nothing at all. It is similar to Ms Starry LEE's earlier remark: "We should look into the governance system of different places, including China." This is also a neutral statement, tantamount to saying nothing. Autocracy is autocracy. Democracy is democracy. Right? Nazis are Nazis. What is meant by the governance system? This is the education approach of "embedded brainwashing" adopted by the Communist Party of China (CPC). Today, when Mr LIU Xiaobo is still imprisoned in Mainland China, how can we talk about open-mindedness? Deputy Chairman, we need to guard against this kind of soft, tender and placid talk. In fact, saying these words to you is already a "brainwashing" process. No matter whether it is hard selling or soft selling, it is "brainwashing". To protect our brains and those of the next generation, we certainly need to stay alert. Some Members of the DAB have promoted their red pamphlet earlier. I wonder if it can be translated as the "Little Red Book" in English. If so, it is just like the Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung which people waved in their hands during the Cultural Revolution. What they have said is really appropriate and great. How politically correct they are!
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10609
In my school days, I already paid attention to the so-called governance model under "one party dictatorship" in the People's Republic of China with an open mind. When I was at school, I read books about Karl MARX, LENIN and DENG Xiaoping. I read many …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHAN, on which amendment are you speaking now?
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Right, Deputy Chairman, you have just taken the Chair. I need to remind you, since this morning … actually since last night, I have been talking about Amendment No 557 proposed by me with regard to Secretary Eddie NG's performance. Nevertheless, as the Chairman has said earlier, during the debate, we may respond as appropriate to the arguments between Members from different political parties and groupings. I have spoken for only two minutes and 47 seconds. Deputy Chairman, please be patient.
We are also concerned about all the faulty initiatives under the policy on this matter after the Government's failure to introduce national education as an independent subject. Secretary Eddie NG has to keep the gate for us. Recently, thanks to freedom of the press in Hong Kong, there was a remarkable news report in Ming Pao Daily News on 16 March 2015. If Ms Starry LEE or the other Members have not read it, they must read it. Its headline is: "Top man of Communist Youth League: Mainland and Hong Kong Government, negotiating about the teaching of Chinese history, will make great efforts to promote Mainland exchange programmes for Hong Kong youth". This top man of the Communist Youth League is Mr QIN Yizhi. Mr QIN pointed out that concerned with the situation in Hong Kong during the Occupy movement, the Communist Youth League had sent someone to Hong Kong to conduct on-site observations and investigations. The conclusion he reached was quite simple. He said, to this effect, "The Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China is further negotiating with the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government on the promotion of national education in Hong Kong." He added, again to this effect, "This year, various departments on the Mainland will make great efforts to organize exchange and internship programmes for Hong Kong young people to go to the Mainland and learn about the state affairs."
10610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
The education policy of the Hong Kong SAR Government has become increasingly "red", subject to instructions and criticisms from party cadres on the Mainland, that means cadres of the CPC. Mr Gary FAN has mentioned Mr CHEN Zuoer earlier. He is a retired party cadre, but this one is incumbent. What he said is even more straightforward, that is, they will work for the Hong Kong Government with greater vigour and engage in further negotiations on the teaching of Chinese history. So, when we promote Chinese history, we need to pay attention to the actual nature of the Chinese history that we are going to teach. According to the leaders in the Central Authorities, they will request ― the word is "request" ― to have the youth work enhanced in Hong Kong. Such circumstances will cause political impacts on the education system under "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong. This series of events can corroborate the situation which many Honourable colleagues as well as I have mentioned in our speeches. Recently, especially since LEUNG Chun-ying has assumed office, efforts have been repeatedly enhanced, with no slowdown, to conduct all kinds of sharing, exchange and placement programmes, not to mention that lately, the Federation of Hong Kong Guangxi Community Organizations Limited ― Honourable colleagues from the DAB who are its honorary presidents, as well as the Deputy Chairman, who also seems to be one of them, should really go back and take a look. When the piercingly cold north winds blow to Hong Kong, do we need to respond and do something to exhibit our ability? When everyone is eager to show their loyalty and devotion, where on earth is Secretary for Education Eddie NG? He has become invisible. When there was such a significant news report about the top man of the Communist Youth League talking about taking part in Hong Kong's education affairs, did he say anything? The answer is "No". In respect of such an important subject, if he does not even state his attitude clearly, does not have any view and cannot pacify and calm down Hong Kong's education sector, including the teaching force, schools, parents, students and me, how can we continue to entrust him with the education policy? I regard it as dereliction of duty on his part. He is a mediocre and inept official. If Members still object to my amendment which seeks to cut his annual salary of $3.58 million, that means Members are tolerating him. In Ms Starry LEE's words, is tolerance of this inept and mediocre official open-mindedness? He is completely incapable of saying anything for Hong Kong's education system. Under the framework of "one country, two systems", policy decisions in Hong Kong enjoy a "high degree of autonomy", but he did not say a word.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10611
This news report also asked the Education Bureau for its response. Fulfilling his responsibility, the reporter sought responses everywhere. What was the authorities' response? According to the news report (I quote to this effect), "We have enquired of the Education Bureau of the Hong Kong Government about the further negotiation which is under way between the Ministry of Education and the SAR Government. The Education Bureau did not give any direct response, but it pointed out that 'the Education Bureau has always maintained liaison with the State Ministry of Education for exchanges and interaction. The SAR Government has all along formulated its own policies on the development and enhancement of education according to the Basic Law." (End of quote) This can be taken as a policy position. Nevertheless, Secretary Eddie NG should proactively come forward to further explain, when this position has come under persistent attack with political impact from the Central Authorities in Mainland China, how he as the Secretary for Education can make Hong Kong people rest assured that Hong Kong's education system will not become more and more Mainlandized.
As I mentioned in the last two sessions, the Secretary for Education had made a lot of duty visits, half of which were conducted in Mainland China while the other half were conducted in other places around the world. Hence, I have repeatedly urged the Education Bureau to allocate additional resources to maintaining Hong Kong people's sense of identity and Hong Kong society's status as an international city in the international community through education.
Today, I happened to read Mr CHO Yan-chiu's article ― we all know this good writer ― he said something like, "Think globally, act locally." Secretary WONG Kam-sing, who is sitting opposite to me, certainly knows a line frequently quoted in environmental protection campaigns, which carries the same meaning: "Think globally, act locally." In fact, that is also the case for Government and International Studies taught in school. China certainly holds a place and a role in the international community. However, we cannot encourage the trend of learning about our Motherland or accepting national education, state affairs education and patriotic education hastily without any thinking. We should stay alert and review the matter to prevent the next generation from being "brainwashed".
10612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
Deputy Chairman, in my school days, I already organized the "Modern China Week". I also seriously studied the Cultural Revolution, the Tiananmen incident in 1979, and so on. I could do so because of Hong Kong's position and unique characteristics. How we can enable Hong Kong to continue to shine and flourish in this special and preferential position where freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts and freedom of education are under protection is very important. If Members who are present stop reading newspapers and give up independent and critical thinking owing to their political stand: being pro-communist or even afraid of communists, that means they have failed to fulfil their duty. They are not keeping the gate properly for Hong Kong's education policy.
Since Secretary Eddie NG knows nothing about education, he has made politics his basis, his guidelines and his priority. For this reason, Mr Gary FAN named him the "Secretary for Political Education" earlier. It sounds very unpleasant, but if we realize that the Secretary for Education has placed himself under politics, it is indeed worrying and frustrating. Why should we still keep him in office? Why do we not ask him to leave and find someone who has knowledge of education to properly work on the protection, inheritance and development of our core values, promote the so-called reform of our country and social development and enhance the quality of our civil society so that such important concepts as human rights, democracy and the rule of law can take root all over the world, including Mainland China? This is a very important mission.
However, if Members still remember, they may recall that in the heat of the national education furore, Secretary Eddie NG … at that time 400 000 members of the public, including primary and secondary students and parents, came out to voice their discontents. Hundreds of thousands of people, probably more than a million, objected to forcing national education on schools and students by way of "brainwashing". At that time, Secretary Eddie NG had already assumed office in July 2012. During an interview in an English television programme, he was asked whether he still thought the silent majority in society supported him even though so many people had come out to voice objection. He replied, "Yes."
(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10613
The Secretary for Education is ignorant about the public sentiments. When Hong Kong people are so concerned about the education system and core values protected by "one country, two systems", he is ignorant about it. When he was asked such a sharp question, he adopted the dumbest and the most foolish approach without first looking into the public concerns. This is absolutely not a blessing for Hong Kong. If we keep this Secretary for Education, Hong Kong people, including me, absolutely cannot but worry that the "brainwashing" type of national education will be introduced bit by bit. By hook or by crook, it will keep encroaching and degenerating through the resources of the CPC as well as infiltration and interference by some of the so-called community organizations like the Federation of Hong Kong Guangxi Community Organizations Limited. For this reason, we cannot support Mr Eddie NG to continue to hold office as Secretary for Education of the SAR Government. In fact, such a mediocre and inept official should go away as early as possible. We have already asked him to leave twice in the Legislative Council.
Secretary Eddie NG is unable to prove to students and colleagues in the tertiary sector that he understands what is meant by academic freedom and knows how to defend it. Suppose we ask him here, "Secretary Eddie NG, have you read the Lima Declaration? Do you know what the Lima Declaration is? Do you know that in the 1980s, scholars around the world held a conference together to discuss how to defend academic freedom, what is meant by academic freedom and academic communities, and how scholars, academic communities and universities have an obligation to speak out and pursue the fulfilment of economic, cultural, civil and political rights of the people? I believe he has never heard about it.
Even if he has not heard about these things, I would still like to ask if he knows who CAI Yuanpei was. Has he ever heard of the CAI Yuanpei spirit? Has he ever heard how this chancellor of Peking University defended academic freedom, how he kept his dignity, how he upheld the students' right to speak, and how he fostered patriotism in the university, turning it into the spiritual force and cultural value of the university? This is inheritance, right? This is vital.
We who conduct academic researches and engage in education at the universities are not ascetic monks. We will not hide ourselves, paying attention to nothing and writing articles behind closed doors. Upholding our mission of social justice, we are forced to come forward. Many people have spontaneously 10614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 come forward. Under such circumstances, we understand that our society is sick. Regarding these issues of academic freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of thoughts, the Secretary for Education and the SAR Government or the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration are ignorant to the extreme. In this situation, the authorities consider these social problems with the mindset of the CPC, thinking that education is actually a political tool rather than a direction or a means to promote freedom and enlightenment and liberate our whole nation. Such an approach is unacceptable, unwise and undesirable.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Thanks to your arrangement, this debate is drawing to a close, that is, we have come to the sixth debate. For this reason, I have to mention this each time I speak: The filibuster was guillotined by you long ago and this also gives all Members the opportunity to speak. However, it is a shame that it looks as though many people had taken dumbing pills.
In this part, what I wish to talk about is "Head 53 ― Government Secretariat： Home Affairs Bureau", to which I have proposed amendments and the other one is head 156. I wish to talk about them in two sessions. On "Head 53 ― Government Secretariat： Home Affairs Bureau", the relevant Secretary concerned is not present but the Secretary for the Environment is. Among the dozen principal officials and the 12 Policy Bureaux, the Home Affairs Bureau can be described as the one with the fewest achievements. If we look at its functions, we will find that a lot of matters are related to it. Moreover, while it has a direct bearing on the public it has performed few of its tasks well. I need only cite a few examples and that would suffice, Chairman. Private clubs, building management, recreation, culture, the performing arts and art development are all related to it, and even the clearance of street sleepers in Sham Shui Po is also related to it.
Talking about private clubs, in November 2013, the Audit Commission published a report which pointed out that the Home Affairs Bureau had not made adequate efforts in supervision. Not only did it fail to monitor the private clubs, it also failed to enforce the condition of using the sites for recreational purposes, as stipulated in the leases. It was also found that for more than a decade, no qualified groups had ever requested the authorities to assist them in using such club facilities. That means other people could not use those clubs but in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10615 leases, it is specified that they have to be open to the public. If you go to those cricket clubs or whatever clubs, you would know that the Government actually granted the sites at nil or nominal premium of $1, then these clubs became the clubs of the rich and powerful. There were many complaints over the years and the Audit Commission was talking about this from the value-for-money perspective. However, Chairman, no improvement whatsoever has been seen. I am talking about 2013 and it is now 2015. Various chaotic situations have arisen in relation to these clubs. Some of them operate restaurants without licence and even sublet berths to make profits.
In the papers submitted to the Panel on Home Affairs, the relevant Policy Bureau stated a number of times that the policy of leases had made contribution to the promotion of sport and the provision of recreational opportunities in Hong Kong, with the least bit of shame. A small bunch of people are enjoying those so-called golf clubs, hockey clubs and cricket clubs. These clubs are enjoyed by a small bunch of people but they are public resources. Yet, he can still tell lies unblinkingly, talking about promoting sports development in Hong Kong.
However, in the policy paper submitted by the Home Affairs Bureau to the Panel on Home Affairs of the Legislative Council in December last year and in October 2010, the private recreational leases were not mentioned in any way. That means private recreational leases have no bearing on the sports mentioned by him. However, in the papers responding to the Audit Commission and the Public Accounts Committee, he talked about their being complementary to sports development in Hong Kong, or making the same point in the papers submitted to the panel concerned. The Home Affairs Bureau also once said that these clubs helped to attract overseas executives and professionals to work in Hong Kong and maintain Hong Kong's status as an international metropolis. So this is the truth: Again, they are intended for the enjoyment of a small bunch of people.
That the sports and recreational facilities operated by the private sports clubs helped to significantly relieve the pressure on public facilities is again a claim made by the Home Affairs Bureau and again, it is a lie. How can they significantly relieve the pressure on public facilities? That means when public facilities are heavily used and these facilities have reached full capacity, if these private recreational venues are open to public use, they can help relieve the pressure on public venues and facilities, so is this not again a lie? No specific figures are available to support such a conclusion, Chairman. Moreover, 10616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 subsequently, the Audit Commission even made the revelation that it is actually very difficult for the public to use those private club facilities. On one occasion, I asked the Secretary in a public hearing of the Public Accounts Committee if I could take the street sleepers in Sham Shui Po to a cricket club for a swim. Buddy, in theory, if opening hours are available, this is possible. Do you think it is possible, Chairman? According to those so-called recreational leases, there are prescribed opening hours for the public.
The stance of the SAR Government in respect of its policy on private recreational leases is very simple, that is, to draw a conclusion first, then find arguments to support the conclusion. Ever since the colonial era, it has been like this and the policy on private clubs has been blatantly in favour of the rich and powerful, whereas the SAR Government uses the sports policy and economic grounds as the gloss. The same is true of the Hong Kong Jockey Club. There are many Voting Members in the Chamber but I have no idea if you are also one. Buddy, are those not also a small bunch of rich and powerful people? Full Members have to pay hundreds of thousand dollars and in the past, even instances of corruption occurred. As for gamblers, they can just go to the Public Enclosure, go into the racecourse to gamble like there is no tomorrow, until their families are broken, whereas the rich and powerful make appearances in front of cameras daily. A small privileged class, and it was already like this in the British colonial era, and this is just to continue with the British ways. You people in the pro-government camp always adopt double standards, do you not? What kind of a double standard is this? You always lambaste the colonial Government but now, you are enjoying the so-called privileges left behind by the colonial Government, so is this not a double standard?
Some private clubs have become brand names charging high admission fees and the speculation on memberships is common knowledge. This is an economic activity in a grey area but the Home Affairs Bureau just looked the other way. The reason is very simple: All these private clubs are the domains of the rich and powerful and there are many people in the Legislative Council to defend them. For this reason, on one occasion, at a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, I was very dissatisfied with the reply of the Secretary for Home Affairs, Mr TSANG Tak-sing, and had a row with him. He almost flew into a temper, thus showing his "gentility" completely and it was even comparable to yours.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10617
As at March 2013, the Home Affairs Bureau approved 32 leases in total involving 430 hectares of land. Now, we do not have enough land for the construction of public housing and you are eyeing the country parks. Just take back those sites for me! There are 430 hectares. Chairman, the Home Affairs Bureau also knows that in Singapore, Japan, Sydney ― its transliteration in Chinese should be "雪 梨" but I do not know why it is called "悉 尼" ― generally speaking, private clubs in New York and Toronto would not be allowed to use land or leased land at nil or nominal premium. Did the Government not say that it wants to search for land? However, it condones a small bunch of rich and powerful people in occupying this kind of land resources. The Home Affairs Bureau has given them a free rein and condoned them for many years, so is there any social justice to speak of, Chairman?
In January this year, it was reported that the preliminary review of private recreational leases by the Home Affairs Bureau was near completion and the authorities were considering wielding the axe at private clubs by charging private sports clubs operating in the form of clubs higher premiums or rents, then offer discounts having regard to their degrees of access and contribution to sports development. It is expected that the Home Affairs Bureau will brief the Legislative Council on the preliminary results of the policy review in the first half of this year. I did not join the Panel on Home Affairs and do not know if the Home Affairs Bureau has ever submitted the results to the Panel. I do not know and dare not say anything because I am not a member of the Panel. You say that it is necessary to conduct a review in this way, so this proves that the issues raised by various parties concerning these so-called private clubs, including what was raised in the reports of the Audit Commission or the Public Accounts Committee, are all true, that is, you were asked to make improvements but you did not and have only been dragging your feet. Now, you are talking about charging higher land premiums and requiring them to pay rents but how much should they pay? This is not known. It is said that they have to be accessible to the public and their degrees of access have to be reviewed, so how is the review going now? This is also not known. Can we really take the street sleepers in our community to these clubs for a swim? Even if we ask these questions, basically, he cannot answer any of them.
Members all know full well that the essence of these private sports clubs is class discrimination, a manifestation of the rich and powerful excluding the grassroots. Of course, in Hong Kong, there can be no helping it because the Communist Party of China (CPC) prescribes that Hong Kong shall practise the 10618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 capitalist system for 50 years without change and by that, it wants the rich and powerful to dominate the grassroots. The granting of land to these private sports clubs at nil or low premium is an evil measure that must be repealed. Chairman, Secretary TSANG Tak-sing has served as the Secretary for so many years but on this issue, frankly speaking, he has made no achievement whatsoever, nor can he show that kind of resolve. Buddy, in the past, for the sake of the proletariat revolution, he was almost put behind bars. Now that he is the Secretary, he is standing on the side of the privileged class to exploit the proletariat. He is really very ridiculous and his position determines how he thinks, does it not? In the post of the Secretary, he does things that are the opposite of what he did in the past, so is this not very laughable? Chairman, for good or for worse, he was once a revolutionary youth and now, he is the Secretary. Chairman, is it because the present Government is controlled by the CPC that he could become the Secretary and for this reason, because of the political stance, he has to defend the Government and exploit the grassroots, having abandoned his ideals back in those years? Alternatively, being in such a position, does he have the power to adjust those policies, so that the grassroots can benefit from them? Have the slightest thoughts about the grassroots ever crossed his mind? Has the slightest thought of how unfair the occupation of the land by the privileged class is to the grassroots ever crossed his mind? Has he ever thought about all this? No. I do not bother to talk about other people but TSANG Tak-sing is the younger brother of Jasper TSANG and they are communists, so he must defend the proletariat, the grassroots and the socially disadvantaged groups.
Speaking on and on, I have already spent 11 minutes on private clubs alone. I have yet to come to unlicensed guesthouses, building management, recreation and sports, culture, and so on. Such a practice or mode of governance and thinking really causes resentment. More often than not, the Government also adopts double standards. For example, over this matter, the private clubs under discussion fall within the policy area of the Home Affairs Bureau but as Members can all see, he tolerated and abetted evil as well as indulgence in carnal pleasures and wrongdoings. It has never occurred to him that he must revise these policies substantially and resume the sites. Even if the sites are not resumed, rents and land premiums have to be charged. Should this not be done? Alternatively, it should be required that they must enforce the requirement of opening up to the public in earnest. None of these has been done and nothing whatsoever has been done. Chairman, we are not blathering here. Rather, it is the Audit Commission that said so from the value-for-money perspective and the Public Accounts Committee that said so in the report submitted by it after public LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10619 hearings, rather than I saying all these on my own. There are at least several things that must be done, for example, to charge rents ― not just nominal rates ― charge land premiums, increase the hours for public access, and so on. You cannot do a proper job even with regard to the Fanling Golf Club. A membership is worth several million dollars and can be used for speculation. Even some people here also have it.
Of course, the legislature is a microcosm of various classes and here, it all depends on whose fists are bigger, does it not? We are the minority here and the only thing that the minority can do is to cause trouble, OK? Some people often accuse me of "just carrying out sabotage and never being constructive". I am really sorry but indeed, I just carry out sabotage but am never constructive. I am the one to cause sabotage and you are the one to be constructive. You have the power, so you should be the one to be constructive; whereas I do not have any power, so I carry out sabotage. By sabotage I mean I point out problems and you are the one to solve them. I raise problems but you never think about how to solve them, so this is your problem! You have power, I do not. I am elected by the people but you are not. I raise problems, so should you not be the one to solve them?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, since you still have many problems that you want to raise, you should just point them out direct.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman Jasper TSANG, it is because the Home Affairs Bureau is not working hard enough in monitoring private clubs that I have these laments, is it not? We do not have to say all this for the sake of filibustering because there are still many things that I want to say. Chairman, there is still one minute to go, so next, I will tell you a matter related to unlicensed guesthouses.
At the end of 2013, a No. 3 alarm fire that caused one death and 25 injuries broke out in a guesthouse in Continental Mansion in North Point, so public concern was aroused. There are about 1 700 licensed guesthouses providing 86 000 rooms in Hong Kong. Among them, about 280 of them with 2 200 rooms have violated Deeds of Mutual Covenant and the great majority of them are located in the Yau Tsim Mong District and Wan Chai District. This is the responsibility of the Home Affairs Bureau, is it not, Chairman? Last year, the 10620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
Home Affairs Bureau received over 1 600 complaints, more than double the fewer than 700 cases received in 2011. In the past, officers of District Offices disguised themselves as visitors to carry out covert operations but due to the difficulty in adducing evidence in many cases, it was difficult to secure any conviction. This incident reflected the fact that (The buzzer sounded) … prior to the fire, the Home Affairs Bureau just adopted a laissez-faire policy with regard to guesthouses.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount under Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, this is my second speech in the sixth debate. On "Head 156 ― Government Secretariat: Education Bureau", I have proposed nine amendments in total. I will continue to speak, focusing on Amendment No 556 which seeks to deduct the annual estimated expenditure for the salaries of Secretary of Education Eddie NG. The amount is $3.58 million.
Last time I talked about Eddie NG's crimes. Let me recap them briefly: firstly, he has brought politics to schools, exerting pressure on the principals of secondary schools, forcing them to support the "pocket-it-first" proposal for bogus universal suffrage; and secondly, he has revived national education and even reintroduced it in disguise. He has tried every means, including doing the relevant work outside the territory by transporting students back to the Mainland to receive the "brain-boosting national education". One of the items criticized by us is the Sister School Scheme. This scheme has aroused heated discussions in the Panel on Education. In the past, the Education Bureau only acted as an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10621 intermediary without making much intervention or providing much financial assistance during the process, but now it uses a mixture of carrot and stick, allocating $200 million to the implementation of the Sister School Scheme. Under the fine pretext of enhancing exchanges between students of the two places, it actually seeks to conduct national education and patriotic education outside the territory so that we will be unable to track the relevant situation, and thus it will be difficult for us to monitor or stop it.
In fact, on second thought, we found such an approach rather ridiculous because Mainland schools will establish a sister school relationship with numerous schools here, and they will only treat Hong Kong schools as one of their options. They will pair up with schools around the world. In other words, schools on Mainland China are going international. On the contrary, Hong Kong regards Mainland schools as the main target for pairing up. That is to say, Hong Kong is, on the contrary, geared towards Mainlandization. Compared with the Mainland which is going international, Hong Kong has been merely narrowing its outlook.
As a matter of fact, pairing up with sister schools is nothing but a concocted pretext. All along, there have been exchange activities, and they should not be considered from the geographical or political perspective. There are many schools that offer quality education around the world, and there are a lot of things which we can learn from them. Hence, we should decide whether or not to pair up with a school on basis of its merits and demerits. The authorities subsidize school tours to the Mainland every year. Is there anything from their students, teachers and management which can prove that these schools in Mainland China are better than others? Is there any pairing up with schools in Taiwan? Moreover, the education policy on the Mainland is far different from that in Hong Kong. What is there to learn in depth? Or does it confirm our reasonable doubts that it actually aims at hijacking schools and education with politics?
Another crime of Secretary Eddie NG is creating white terror in the education sector. Earlier on, the Secretary reminded teachers and students it was impossible that participation in the Occupy action was not unlawful. He considered that teachers should abide by the law. Their behaviour had to meet the requirements in the code of practice for the teaching profession, and once they were convicted, they would have to bear the legal liability. He also expressed his worry that as students were not mature mentally, they would be easily misled 10622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 and manipulated. After participating in the unlawful activities, they might be prosecuted, convicted and given a criminal record which would have a profound impact on their studies and employment in future. He appealed to the education sector and the parents to prevent students from being abetted to participate in the Occupy movement. By pointing out in an unusually high profile that occupation was illegal, the Secretary had applied political pressure, exerting administrative and political intervention in the education profession, thereby creating a chilling effect. The purpose was to bring enormous pressure to bear on teachers in teaching the relevant subject as they felt they were being surveillanced and checked everywhere. It would also hinder students' access to opportunities of gaining a comprehensive understanding of this Umbrella Movement triggered by the constitutional reform issue.
During the incident, the pro-Beijing Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers (HKFEW) stated that it did not support the Occupy action, considering that the Occupy movement should not make use of minors. School sponsoring bodies and the education sector had reached a consensus that they would not and should not let students participate in any illegal activity. It further stated that it had reminded the principals of 20 primary and secondary schools under the HKFEW to give guidance to their students. Fortunately, the HKFEW targeted only 20 schools. The Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union criticized Eddie NG's remark that teachers would have to bear the consequences on their career if they were convicted as a result of participation in the Occupy action as unnecessary and underpinned by a strange motive. It criticized Eddie NG's remark of apparently threatening teachers and causing discontent among many of them. It urged Eddie NG to withdraw his remark and reiterated that the existing code of practice and guidelines for the teaching profession were sufficient to let teachers and parents know the situations which might arise. As regards whether Eddie NG's remark was intimidation or a well-intentioned reminder, there are indeed divergent views. Outsiders may make their own judgment.
The relevant remark was criticized by the education sector as a superfluous, groundless warning which intervened in the education profession and created white terror. The Civil Service is supposed to strictly adhere to political neutrality and act with impartiality in a professional, rational and prudent manner. Yet Eddie NG intervened in his capacity as a Bureau Director under the accountability system, making the Education Bureau involved and affecting the civil servants in the Policy Bureau. It is really unacceptable.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10623
Besides, the Alpais LAM incident had aroused a furore in the community. Following LEUNG Chun-ying's instruction, the Secretary requested his subordinates to conduct an investigation into the incident to find out if there was any impact on the teaching force, quality of education as well as teenagers, and then submit a report to the Chief Executive. In imposing this request on the politically neutral civil servants to deal with a political issue and working for the Chief Executive's political operation, Eddie NG, being the Bureau Director, did not fulfil his duty.
On the other hand, the claim that Cantonese was not an official language was Secretary Eddie NG's another "achievement". Some time ago, an article in a special column on the website of the Education Bureau talked about the need for Hong Kong to develop biliteracy and trilingualism. The article pointed out that although the Basic Law provides that both Chinese and English are official languages in Hong Kong, nearly 97% of Hong Kong people use Cantonese as their everyday language in domestic life and social activities. However, it stated that Cantonese was a Chinese dialect, not an official language. The article went viral on the Internet, and it was accused of downgrading Cantonese. There was a view that the authorities' comment had violated the policy of biliteracy and trilingualism ― what is meant by "trilingualism"? Would the Secretary please go back and do some soul-searching in depth ― confusing the public. Eddie NG was requested to explain the matter and tender apologies in public.
After the matter was reported by the media, the Education Bureau, in a rare move, gave a response, admitting that there was "something ambiguous and imprecise" in the interpretation regarding Cantonese, and extending deep apologies for causing misunderstanding. It also deleted the original article in question and replaced it with another one entitled "Looking Straight at Bi-literacy and Tri-lingualism" (《兩文三語正面睇》). However, a typo was found in this article. The simplified character " 准 " was used in " 不精准 " (meaning imprecise). It was revealed that a technical hiccup had happened when the Chinese characters in the article were converted from simplified characters to traditional characters. There was suspicion that the writer of the article was a Mainlander rather than a Hongkonger. For this reason, the Education Bureau came under criticisms again.
Another problem concerns the use of Putonghua to teach the Chinese Language subject. As I have pointed out on different occasions, actually Hong Kong students do not have a good command of Cantonese. Objection to the use 10624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 of Putonghua to teach the Chinese Language subject does not stand for objection to students learning Putonghua. The number of hours of Putonghua lessons may also be increased, but it is absolutely inappropriate to introduce on a full scale the practice of using Putonghua to teach the Chinese Language subject in primary and secondary schools. We must defend our mother tongue: Cantonese. Please learn to acquire a good command of Cantonese.
Furthermore, after holding office for one year and a half, Eddie NG has already conducted 23 overseas duty visits in his capacity as a Bureau Director. We ridiculed him as the "Secretary for Travelling Around the World" who "travelled the world in 87 days", expending over $1.8 million of public coffers. The expenditure and frequency of his duty visits far exceeded the sum of those conducted by his predecessor Michael SUEN in his five-year tenure. Excluding all the annual leave, time-off and public holidays, his duration of absence from Hong Kong was more than a month. Compared with Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, who is adept at dealing with homeland relationship and is often out of town, he has indeed learnt from the bad example of his boss.
It has also been revealed by the media that earlier on, the Secretary learnt that a school sponsoring body would lead a study and exchange tour for students visiting Indonesia. Originally, it was simply an ordinary study and exchange tour held for students. Since Eddie NG requested to participate in it, in the end he visited Indonesia in his official capacity, allegedly abusing public coffers to enable himself to travel abroad.
Lastly, I have to particularly point out that efforts made by the Education Bureau or Secretary Eddie NG in promoting equal rights of both genders and working against sexual orientation discrimination in schools were far from adequate. There are two perspectives in the work against sexual orientation discrimination. One involves students and the other, teachers. Let me first talk about students. As a matter of fact, the problem of bullying in schools is rather serious, including discrimination against male students who look sissy or students who are known to have a different sexual orientation in schools, but most schools will cover up the problem instead of addressing it squarely. A group once wished to go into a school to conduct a questionnaire survey, but it was rejected because the school was afraid that the questionnaire survey would uncover many such cases on campus, and it would become an example of incompetence in eliminating discrimination. Actually we have had discussions in the subcommittee on domestic violence. We have asked social workers about this LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10625 matter through the Labour and Welfare Bureau. Some students or children were bullied at home. They were abused by parents after their sexual orientation was disclosed. When they sought counselling from social workers, the social workers did not provide assistance. Instead, they asked them to turn "straight".
In fact, such a situation also exists in schools. Has the Education Bureau faced up to this problem squarely? Some students do not dare seek assistance from teachers even if they are bullied by their classmates because some teachers do not aim at helping these students to solve their plight. Instead, they seek to get rid of their problem by telling them to turn "straight", considering that the problem will be solved and they will not be bullied by classmates again after they have become "straight". This approach is absolutely inappropriate.
During a visit to The Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd) some time ago, we mentioned our hope that teachers under training, that means students learning to become teachers, would also address this issue squarely. Stephen CHEUNG, the President of HKIEd, promised me that education in this aspect would be enhanced. But now the efforts made by the Education Bureau in facilitating serving teachers in eliminating sexual orientation discrimination in schools are also seriously inadequate.
The other perspective concerns discrimination against teachers. Regarding discrimination against teachers, I must cite an incident which took place last year, in which the International Christian School requested its teaching staff to sign a declaration entitled "Standards of Biblical Ethics and Integrity" to declare that they were not homosexual or transgender. Only then could they keep their jobs. Having learnt about it, we raised a question to the Education Bureau about its follow-up work and whether the school had the right to dismiss or refuse to employ teachers of alternate gender identity or different sexual orientations. At that time Eddie NG replied that the Policy Bureau had reminded the school to refer to the circular of the Education Bureau on the "Principle of Equal Opportunities" and the "Code of Practice against Discrimination in Employment on the Ground of Sexual Orientation". However, that code of practice does not carry any binding effect. Compliance by schools is entirely voluntary.
In February, the Education Bureau reminded the school that in formulating and reviewing its school policies, reference should be made to the principle of equal opportunities. However, in its reply to the media, the school stated that it 10626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 had the right to uphold its beliefs which included not allowing homosexuals or people of alternate gender identity to be teachers or other staff. Since then, the Education Bureau has not done any other follow-up. In our opinion, it should be criticized, since the Secretary said there is zero tolerance of discrimination in schools ― that is what he said ― it applies to discrimination against students. So does it to discrimination against teachers. Yet to date, the Education Bureau has done nothing. The school has stated that it will not change its policy, claiming it has the right to force teachers to sign the declaration to declare that they are not gay and they do not have an alternate gender identity ― that means transsexuals. This is unjustifiable anywhere in the world.
Our … I am not saying this … whether an anti-discrimination law should be enacted is still a question, but facing this issue, the education authorities must exert pressure on schools and state the Government's position clearly rather than citing the provisions briefly, then thinking they have already done their best in fulfilling their responsibility (The buzzer sounded) …
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, before all else, I would like to respond to the speech delivered by Ms Starry LEE in response to the amendment proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG. She said that she supported the allocation of funds for promoting education on "career and life planning" in special schools. I have to clarify that the amendments proposed by us in the Labour Party to the funding for special education are not aimed at opposing the contents of the scheme. As Members should recall, the relevant proposal should have been passed by the Finance Committee a long time ago. Here I would like to recap history for the record. Originally, the Finance Committee was prepared to endorse the funding for special education, only that the item was suddenly withdrawn by the Government. Since the Legislative Council was requested to scrutinize other government items first, this item had been sacrificed. Had this item been passed at that time … Chairman, it was not a controversial item. We made it very clear that we supported the funding for special education, but the item was unexpectedly withdrawn by the Government. Although we have proposed this amendment to the Budget, it does not imply that the Labour Party opposes the contents of the scheme. It merely implies that the Labour Party opposes the Government's move of circumventing the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council by including this item in the Budget. This is the point I have to clarify. So, I hope Members will not describe the Labour Party as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10627 suddenly opposing the funding for special education. If the Government had not withdrawn this item, the funding should have been endorsed a long time ago, and the special schools should be using the funds now. This is the first point.
Second, Chairman, I would like to speak on the several amendments proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN in relation to the Labour Department (LD), including Amendment No 216, which concerns the relevant expenditure on the provision of support for the Standard Working Hours Committee (SWHC); Amendment No 218 proposed by Mr Albert CHAN, which is related to the Supplementary Labour Scheme (SLS), or the importation of labour scheme; and Amendment No 221 proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, the contents of which are related to the expenditure for the Employment Agencies Administration of the LD.
Insofar as these amendments to reduce expenditure are concerned, in which civil servants are involved, we do not consider it necessary to reduce their salaries or slash civil service posts because such posts can be redeployed, but some of them … should the SWHC continue to drag its feet in this manner, it would be a waste of time to recruit civil servants to fill its posts. It would be better to transfer the civil servants to other departments.
Chairman, insofar as the several issues concerning standard working hours are concerned, I have mentioned repeatedly in particular that I think the Government is making use of the SWHC to procrastinate on enacting legislation for standard working hours, a point I have mentioned previously. This also means that the Secretary for Labour and Welfare should take the blame and resign, and his salary should be reduced, too. But today, I wish to respond to the issue raised by Mr WONG Kwok-hing earlier in connection with the stance of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU). I do not wish to use certain expressions to describe the FTU to prevent him from accusing us later of criticizing him for betraying workers' interests or being a "strikebreaker". Despite Members' strong reaction just now and my reluctance to use such descriptions, I still wish to state the facts in the hope that members of the public and wage earners can inquire with the FTU about its stance.
Firstly, concerning the SWHC mentioned by me just now, amendments have been proposed to the Budget in relation to it. Earlier, Members and I criticized it for simply seeking to "rip off", why? It is because the SWHC has 10628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 suddenly announced publicly that the implementation of standard working hours will be put on hold for the time being, saying that the current consensus is on the implementation of contractual working hours. I have repeatedly pointed out that contractual working hours are by no means standard working hours. Contractual working hours are meaningless because they are meant to exploit employees in a blatant manner. In other words, employees are being told that they will definitely be subject to exploitation. Apparently, they are requested to work for 12 or 14 hours without overtime compensation. What is more, it is stated in contracts that the employees will be exploited in this manner. Actually, there is basically no difference between stating this in contracts or verbally. Verbally telling employees that overtime compensation will not be made and stating the same thing in contracts are the same. Likewise, informing employees verbally of 12 working hours and stipulating 12 working hours in contracts are totally meaningless since they make no difference. The authorities concerned have failed to assist wage earners in reducing their working hours to enable them to strike a balance between family and work.
When it comes to the SWHC, according to the remarks made by Mr WONG Kwok-hing just now, the stance of the FTU is to fight for standard working hours. However, I would like to ask why after the conclusion of the meeting held by the SWHC that day, Stanley NG, president of the FTU, publicly stated that enacting legislation to regulate contractual working hours was a good basic consensus and it was OK to do so. What is Mr WONG's response to his comment? Not only did Miss CHAN Yuen-han accuse him of slipping in a straw argument, but she also scolded and parted company with him. Subsequently, CHENG Yiu-tong said that he could accept the SWHC's proposal on contractual working hours first. What do the three different versions given by the three officers of the FTU really mean? Nevertheless, Mr WONG Kwok-hing is not in attendance now and has failed to come back to the Chamber to give a response. I hope he can come back and respond to this, and I am now giving him an opportunity to respond to the question on his stance. Stanley NG, Miss CHAN Yuen-han and CHENG Yiu-tong have all come up with their own versions of the story.
My second point concerns another issue. Insofar as the SLS mentioned by Mr Albert CHAN is concerned, we have all along been opposing the current proposal for extending the importation of foreign workers. However, Members have all along maintained that a mechanism has already been put in place, saying LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10629 that the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) is responsible for the vetting and approval of the SLS and this mechanism should be maintained because it is proven. Certainly, the Government has made a lot of efforts and resorted to foul play, including its sudden announcement that the vetting and approval of applications for importation of foreign workers can be expedited in response to the large-scale projects of the MTR Corporation Limited. Despite the undertaking made by the employee representatives of the LAB that they will perform their gate-keeping roles, Stanley NG has courted trouble again. May I ask the FTU to account for this?
Of the 15 applications for importation of labour submitted in Hong Kong last year, two were approved, resulting in the importation of 180 foreign workers. The ratio between employer representatives and employee representatives on the LAB should be 6:6. This means that the applications would definitely not be passed should the six employee representatives raise objection unanimously. The question is: Which employee representative supported the applications? When Stanley NG was asked by a reporter whether he had voted in favour of the applications, he said that he could not answer why a specific case was approved. Then he explained that a pragmatic approach had to be adopted in the course of vetting and approval, and the specific details of the applications had to be taken into account. However, the details had to be kept confidential and could not be disclosed. I can only assume that he as an employee representative on the LAB had refused to disclose his personal stance in reply to the reporter because it was he who voted in favour of approving the applications.
I was told by Mr WONG Kwok-kin to ask Stanley NG when I raised this question in the Panel on Manpower of the Legislative Council on one occasion. I really did not understand what the stance of the FTU was. Even Mr WONG Kwok-kin appeared to be kept in the dark. In fact, insofar as the entire incident was concerned, an employee representative on the LAB had apparently cast a supportive vote. Stanley NG's refusal to reveal his vote cast caused others to reasonably suspect that he had cast a supportive vote. Should that be the case, why could he not publicly tell all wage earners in Hong Kong of the truth? Should he have reasons to do so, he should have told everyone he had cast a supportive vote. However, he is now acting secretively, claiming the details must be kept confidential, with all the blame being put on the confidentiality rules. Insofar as the entire SLS is concerned, how will the FTU reply? I think that it should give an explanation.
10630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
As regards the third major issue, I would also like to respond to Mr WONG Kwok-hing for he often yells in this Chamber to voice objection to filibustering and call for the preservation of universal suffrage. I really do not understand why he should link filibustering to universal suffrage. Are a number of pro-establishment Members not filibustering now? As a debate is going on among Members on the Budget, he should not describe the solemn amendments as filibusters. All in all, if someone in the Legislative Council makes a comment not to his liking, he will criticize him or her for filibustering. However, he does not regard himself as filibustering when he speaks here. Oddly enough, such Members can say anything freely, but others are not allowed to do so. If he were to speak with "one voice", he had better become a Deputy to the National People's Congress (NPC) who is not supposed to speak. Here is the Legislative Council, not the NPC. Members may propose amendments and engage in debates.
Chairman, Members who often describe filibustering as a waste of money to insult the Legislative Council are actually smearing this Council and the other Members. I think that they are irresponsible. What does filibustering mean? We are only delivering speeches to discuss a variety of issues. Chairman, you have stated clearly this time around how Members should engage in debates in different sessions. I am merely dissatisfied with the Government's refusal to give any response. Actually, it should respond to the numerous questions raised by Members just now, including those raised by the pro-establishment camp.
Hence, I find Mr WONG Kwok-hing's remarks very odd, for he has even linked everything to the preservation of universal suffrage. I have often criticized the FTU for betraying workers on this front and, what is more, basically betraying our universal franchise right from the beginning. Since the 1980s when workers were considered to prefer food coupons to ballots, workers' interests have all along been betrayed by the FTU. Today, Members of the FTU are still making the same remarks. In the past when there was not yet "one person, one vote", they said that an orderly and progressive approach had to be adopted. Although people are now entitled to vote in a one-person-one-vote manner, they do not have the right to make nominations. In other words, our right to make nominations has been stifled. Now Mr WONG is calling for "one person, one vote" again. He is harping the same tune as the Central Authorities do in dealing with everything without fighting for the interests of workers so far. Insofar as their interests are concerned, the political system is the workers' Achilles heel. It is absolutely clear that an imbalance in political powers will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10631 definitely lead to an imbalance in the financial interests of wage earners. I have finished my speech on this topic, but I have not yet finished speaking in the entire debate because I still have a lot of issues to discuss.
Chairman, another example of the interests of workers in Hong Kong being undermined by the FTU was the sudden proposal for the introduction of the national security law, also a proposal once put forward by Stanley NG. Why should the national security law be introduced? Are workers' strikes or petitions taking place in Hong Kong? If a national security law were to be enacted in Hong Kong in future, like the case in the Mainland, would public security officers be dispatched to disperse and suppress workers on strike whenever workers' strikes occur in Hong Kong? Would workers on strike in Hong Kong be suppressed on the pretext of upholding national security? Is there something wrong with the FTU's proposed introduction of the national security law? May I ask what sort of organization the FTU is? I will not label it as a certain organization but these questions need to be answered.
Chairman, I have to say that the move made by the FTU during the march on the Labour Day is most ridiculous, since it is an insult to all the workers in Hong Kong. During the march, Carrie LAM was allowed to make an appeal on the stage for the audience to "pocket it first". It turned out that the sole purpose of the march was to provide a venue for the Government to speak. Was there anything wrong with the FTU? The march on the Labour Day has always been a major event organized for campaigning for workers' interests. However, the FTU allowed the SAR Government which had betrayed workers by failing to enact legislation for standard working hours, abolish the offsetting of severance payments by Mandatory Provident Fund contributions, and provide universal retirement protection to take the stage and address the workers. It is absolutely untenable for an organization to allow the Government to take the stage to speak on such a solemn occasion.
Lastly, Chairman, I would like to discuss an amendment related to employment agencies because Members have apparently not discussed this issue. Members should recall that we have discussed issues related to employment agencies on numerous occasions in the Panel on Manpower. What is more, the incident involving Erwiana has made Hong Kong so infamous that it has been queried for having such an abusive employer. Certainly, although Members may say that it is just an isolated incident, it will become an institutional problem should we fail to prevent the occurrence of such isolated incidents. Why did 10632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 employment agencies allow such incidents to happen? Why did Indonesian domestic helpers have to borrow money to come to Hong Kong and then, upon their arrival, employment agencies would have to approach finance companies or loan sharks to lend money to them? Although these helpers are supposed to earn $3,000 or so a month, they will have only several hundred dollars left after the deduction of their wages, for the remaining money has to be used to repay their loans. Why has the Government apparently turned a blind eye to this situation and insisted that only 10% of the wages of domestic helpers can be deducted under the Employment Agency Regulations? This is, however, not the case in reality. These domestic helpers will actually be escorted to the finance companies to raise loans.
So, I have to ask the Government what efforts it has made in relation to this amendment. I think it will not respond to my question now, but then it will say that prosecutions will be instituted. For many years, however, the Government has only prosecuted four persons, what bite does it have? Members should recall an incident involving the collapse of a canopy in Causeway Bay in which an Indonesian domestic helper was crushed to death. Why was the helper killed? It turned out that she and dozens of other helpers were living in a small room there. But why did she have to live there? It turned out that she was in a transitional period, and so she could not commence work officially. As a result, her employment agency could not but allow her and other helpers to live there, hence eventually leading to her death.
Chairman, the LD is duty-bound to regulate employment agencies, but what have happened in the end? There were incident involving Erwiana and the other involving the death of an Indonesian domestic helper hit by a piece of rock. The employment agencies in Hong Kong are also found to have overcharged the employers. On the one hand, they charge exorbitant fees and, on the other, they exploit both the domestic helpers and employers. Nevertheless, no improvements have been made so far to the system of employment agencies as a whole. It is most ridiculous that, although the Government has undertaken to conduct reviews, it has been dragging its feet in conducting every review. Now, almost a year has passed, but it has yet to complete the review. This is the action taken by the LD and the Labour and Welfare Bureau. So, we must settle the score ― when will the review be completed to let us see a trustworthy regulatory system for employment agencies? Thank you, Chairman.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10633
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.
(Mr WONG Yuk-man rose and wanted to speak)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yuk-man, since Mr James TIEN has not made any speech so far, I have to let him speak first.
MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Thank you. Mr WONG Yuk-man, my speech is not long and I will not use all 15 minutes.
Chairman, this debate involves provisions for education and youth work. Honestly, these two areas are not the strengths of the Liberal Party all along. However, in the last few months, particularly since Occupy Central last year, a number of our comrades and many friends in the business and industrial sectors began to pay attention to the youth, that is, why so many young people have come forward to express their opinions, and we started to ponder if there is any problem with the education. Certainly, regarding the standpoints put forth by a number of Members from the pan-democratic camp, I think the Liberal Party and the business sector will consider them not at all agreeable.
If Hong Kong students need to understand more about the state affairs, particularly about the country today, but not the deeds and actions of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in the 1960s and 1970s … Naturally, the only point raised by the pan-democratic camp is that in terms of democracy and civil rights, the operation in the Mainland today is not as good as Hong Kong. This is true. On the other hand, many of the students participating in Occupy Central were born around 1997. I sometimes have the feeling that they do not know much about the concept we adopted in the discussions on the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1983 and the formulation of "one country, two systems" and "high degree of autonomy" at the time of reunification.
To many young people, they may think that since Hong Kong can issue its own passport and banknotes, the "high degree of autonomy" thus means that Hong Kong can decide everything on its own. This concept is somehow wrong. They think that all issues are under the concept of "two systems", yet they do not 10634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 have the concept of "one country". In that case, should our education system ensure that students are taught the definition of "one country, two systems" in their kindergarten, primary and secondary school years? This "one country, two systems" concept is found nowhere in the world. We have to strike a balance between the interest of the country and that of Hong Kong. More importantly, if consideration is to be made from the perspective of the development of the country and Hong Kong, then there is some difference from the perspective of democracy and human rights. The teaching of knowledge in these areas should not be interpreted as "brainwashing", for the purpose of such teaching is to enable them to recognize the differences existing between the Mainland and Hong Kong at present.
I am a bit worried about the position expressed by students before and after Occupy Central, for they are only concerned about Hong Kong and give no regard to the development of the Mainland. This will be disastrous if they continue to think this way. Why? These young people will become the masters of future Hong Kong in 10 to 20 years. If they all hold this mindset, the integration between the Mainland and Hong Kong will not be enhanced after 10 to 20 years, and the division and polarization between the two places will intensify.
Certainly, I am also concerned about the situation of some people who have participated in Occupy Central. Leave aside what they have done, should their access to Shenzhen be denied? I think they should not be denied access. For students who have participated in Occupy Central, irrespective of the role they played, they should not be denied access to Shenzhen if they have not been convicted under the legal system in Hong Kong, should they? If such a practice is adopted, how can our next generation gain a better understanding of the state affairs? In my view, people who are more familiar with the Mainland are those who have the opportunity to visit the Mainland to know more. They will definitely gain a better understanding than through reading alone. If these young people are not allowed to enter the Mainland, the understanding of our next generation of state affairs will be even worse. I definitely hope that they will be granted access to the Mainland, for if they cannot visit their Motherland, how can they gain a better understanding of the current development of the country? They cannot but rely on reading then.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10635
With regard to the understanding of state affairs, is it necessary to make national education a separate subject? It may not be necessary. I have not been involved in education issues for a long time, yet I have asked my children what they think about making their children study one more subject. They responded intuitively that it would be unacceptable. They consider the requirement of studying an additional subject but not the study of national education unacceptable. They think it will be tough to study one more subject. I think one of the solutions is to place national education under the current subject Liberal Studies. Yet if we simply ignore national education, I think it will not be in the interest of Hong Kong. Why?
In fact, we have noted how young people can enrich themselves in the future. In respect of economic development, if they do not seek development in the Mainland and confine themselves to Hong Kong, I think we will be placed in an unfavourable position. Certainly, they can pursue their career overseas, yet I note that the economic condition in Europe is not at all desirable this year. Though the condition in the United States is better, it is not easy to go there. As for Southeast Asia, the economic development of many countries is no better than that of Hong Kong. Is it the case that they could pursue development only in Hong Kong? For professionals, businessmen and those engaging in cultural and arts work, as well as singing, there are plenty of opportunities in the Mainland. Therefore, an understanding of the operation and state affairs of the country is conducive to the development of young people of Hong Kong.
For these reasons, I think that the communication between the State and Hong Kong is a cause of concern. Certainly, I do not agree that the education authorities of the State should instruct the Secretary on how the education system in Hong Kong should be implemented. The allocation of additional resources under the Budget to facilitate students in understanding all things Mainland, not necessarily being restricted to politics, but including the economic, professional and environmental aspects, is in my view beneficial to the future young people of Hong Kong. Unlike Members from the pan-democratic camp, I will not regard national education as a scourge, that will definitely do "brainwashing" among the next generation or cause them to forget Hong Kong. On the contrary, we should balance Hong Kong young people's understanding of state affairs under the "two systems".
Chairman, the second point is about the population issue mentioned by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan earlier, and I cannot help making some remarks about this. I will speak on one issue only and, that is, the present shortage of manpower in 10636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
Hong Kong. The most urgent problem remains the shortage of construction workers for the construction of public housing flats, Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats and infrastructure facilities. As for the other aspects, I think we should not over-elaborate the picture, and I should not get involved in the disputes between the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (CTU) and the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU). However, the construction of public housing flats, HOS flats and infrastructure will affect the living environment of many Hong Kong people, and the majority of them are grassroots. The FTU and the CTU both represent the interests of the grassroots, so from this perspective, it will be more desirable if they are allocated flats earlier.
At present, are construction workers facing the problem of under-provision of work? No. The Government says that there is a shortage of 10 000 to 15 000 workers. Yet this shortage does not include the demand of the business sector. If they need to build more commercial items such as offices, shopping malls or residential flats, the worker shortage will exceed the aforementioned figures. We think that if these projects cannot be completed as soon as possible, it will not only hinder the overall economic development of Hong Kong, but will cause further delays in addressing the urgent needs of the grassroots for housing, which will be unfavourable to them.
Regarding the importation of labour, according to the Labour Advisory Board, the vetting and approval of applications under the Supplementary Labour Scheme are really too slow at present. We have asked about this a number of times. Only dozens of workers are granted permission every year, and so far, only a few hundred workers have been granted permission at most. If this situation persists, how many years do we need to wait till the shortage of 10 000 to 15 000 workers can be met? If applications are not approved, it may not have any significant impact on the business sector, yet we think this will be unfavourable to society, for the manpower under application is for the construction of public housing and HOS flats. At present, many people are living in "sub-divided units" in industrial buildings. When we see the poor living conditions, we cannot help asking why better arrangements cannot be made for them. If so, why remain entangled in the concern that the importation of labour will enable consortia and real estate developers to make more money?
Thank you, Chairman.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10637
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will continue to comment on the part pertaining to the Home Affairs Bureau.
Just now, I talked about unlicensed guesthouses, including private clubs and guesthouses in buildings. On unlicensed guesthouses, as we all know, there are safety concerns. It was not until March this year that the Home Affairs Bureau proposed amendments to the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Ordinance and the proposals put forward had actually been discussed by Members for a long time, including the refusal to issue or renew a licence if the Deed of Mutual Covenant of the building concerned contains any express provision which prohibits the premises in question from being used as a hotel or guesthouse or for commercial purposes. Should this not have been done a long time ago? This can be done very easily.
In addition, the Government said that it wanted to set up an independent panel, such that in processing a new licence or renewal application, the Home Affairs Bureau has to take into account the views submitted by the residents living in the same building and make recommendations to the authorities in relation to an application. The amendment proposals also mentions empowering the Home Affairs Bureau to apply to the Court for a search warrant to allow enforcement officers to enter a suspected unlicensed guesthouse and the owners or agents have to assume criminal liability. Concerning the issue of penalty, this matter had been raised a number of times in the past and this time around, the Government proposed that the maximum fines for operating unlicensed guesthouses be increased from $200,000 to $500,000 and imprisonment from two years to three years. In fact, these proposals are quite ordinary and at the past meetings of the Panel on Home Affairs, many Members did actually raise them but it is only now, when this problem has become so very serious and persisted for so many years that the Government has woken up to it. I do not understand what the relevant officials in the Home Affairs Bureau have been doing during this long period in the past.
Chairman, another rather controversial issue that Members are all aware of is building management. At present, there are 18 000 buildings in Hong Kong with owners' corporations (OCs). In fact, often, in local districts ― Chairman, you are also a Member returned by a geographical constituency, are you not? Being Members, people often approach us about issues related to OCs but in recent years, I have refused to … not that I do not want to help them but I do not want to be caught in the controversies related to these OCs because if I assist 10638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 them in holding a general meeting, one party will secure enough proxies to outnumber the other side, will it not? In the end, if a new OC is set up after the old one has been toppled, little do we realize that after warding off the tiger at the front door, the wolf would enter by the back door because the problem lies in the legislation and the role of the Home Affairs Department (HAD). Moreover, the major controversy revolves around repairs and maintenance, so issues related to the so-called transfer of benefits are involved. However, the HAD just does not care about these and only tells the public to approach the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).
We have dealt with many such cases in the local communities and I remember that from 2008 onwards, when I began to serve as a Member, I dealt with many issues related to OCs and it can be said that I was kept constantly on the run. However, in the end, only one situation would arise, that is, while the tiger was warded off at the front door the wolf had entered by the back door, so the problems could not be solved. We still have to tackle the problem in terms of legislation and the Government really has to summon up its resolve to examine how best these problems related to building management can be resolved. Apart from the fact that 18 000 buildings have already formed OCs, as mentioned by me just now, another 2 000 buildings have other forms of residents' organizations and there are 4 000 buildings which, although devoid of any residents' organizations, are managed by property management companies hired by their owners. The remaining buildings are the so-called "three-nil" buildings that lack any organization or management, so it is necessary for the HAD to provide support to them in many ways.
The biggest controversies are related to bid-rigging in relation to building maintenance. This involves legal issues but often, no concrete evidence can be found after investigation. Often, minority owners would lodge complaints with us, saying that under persuasion and intimidation, they had no choice but pay large amounts of money for maintenance. Even in respect of the OCs of public housing blocks sold, there are also many problems because the number of units is large, is it not? If each unit is charged an additional $1,000, the amount of money is already very significant, so interests are at stake. The Government raised the Building Management Ordinance for discussion only after this is long overdue, so basically, it is not possible to solve many problems now. I came across some situations in Kowloon City ― the Chairman is perhaps also well aware of it ― there are many old buildings without any OC in that district. Some units are vacant and it is very difficult to acquire them because their owners LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10639 cannot be located or some elderly people have passed away. There is not even any lighting and there is no one to dispose of the refuse, so what can be done? Does the Government have the responsibility to deal with these problems?
On the several proposals made in the review of the Building Management Ordinance, we believe that we should deal with them with full vigour and urgency. They include the proposal that the quorum of a meeting in which a decision on large-scale maintenance projects is put to vote should be raised from 10% to 20% of the total number of owners but in fact, 20% is still too low, is it not? However, buddy, things can be done more easily if the percentage is 10%, is it not? It is only necessary to find 10% of the owners and offer them some benefits, is it not? Another proposal is that the required percentage of ownership shares for the passage of a resolution on large-scale maintenance projects be raised from 50% to 75% of the ownership shares at the meeting 75% but the problem is: The quorum is so low, so even if a resolution can be passed only with 75% of the ownership shares, this is not very meaningful, is it? This is because the quorum is so low, is it not? Buddy, the quorum here is 35 people and we also have to wait 15 minutes. If the quorum is changed from 10% to 20% and when voting is carried out, even if the percentage of ownership shares is changed from 50% to 75%, due to the small base and the low quorum, it will still be very easy to rig the voting.
If owners propose a certain subject for discussion at a general meeting but the Chairman of the OC is absent, the Vice-chairman should convene the general meeting in place of the Chairman; where the Vice-chairman is absent, one of its members should be appointed to convene the general meeting. In addition, such matters as the threshold for terminating the appointment of management companies to be lowered from 50% of the ownership shares in aggregate to 30% are now placed under the charge of the Home Affairs Bureau.
In some cases that we dealt with, we found in the course of discussion that owners were very indifferent about matters related to OCs and this is why opportunities for bid-rigging and profiteering have arisen. I do not mean that by raising the proportion by such a small rate, the problem of bid-rigging can be resolved. Moreover, in nine out of 10 cases, there was involvement of triads. In the face of gangs and criminal elements that know how to exploit loopholes in law and use veiled intimidation, the Home Affairs Bureau is very passive and has only proposed the legislative amendment. However, it is also necessary for the Police and the ICAC to have in place dedicated teams to combat this kind of 10640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 bid-rigging. Otherwise, it will be useless even if the legislation is amended as small owners will still encounter these criminal elements and have to pay even more maintenance fees. The key lies in the concerted actions that must be taken by the Police and the ICAC as it is basically meaningless for the Home Affairs Bureau to amend the legislation to raise the quorum and the proportion of ownership shares required for voting. I can only say that this is just better than nothing.
Another issue related to the Home Affairs Bureau is social enterprises. In April last year, the HAD was again criticized by the Audit Commission for the excessively long time taken to process the applications of social enterprises established by the so-called "non-governmental organizations", which could take as long as eight months. This dampened the enthusiasm of these organizations in launching their businesses, so the Audit Commission hoped that the processing of applications could be expedited because the Home Affairs Bureau has to assist them anyway.
In September last year, the Audit Commission found that among the 145 items approved by the HAD under the Enhancing Self-Reliance Through District Partnership Programme, 25 had wound up and the number of full-time and part-time vacancies in the social enterprises still in operation had fallen short of the targets by 40% and 22% respectively. The Home Affairs Bureau often makes a lot of fake, grandiose and empty claims and it makes extravagant claims in its reports but this is the reality. Running certain types of businesses is difficult ― it seems "Ah Kee" is also operating a café which is also a social enterprise. By the way ― he is not present ― apart from helping those non-governmental organizations, nowadays, social enterprises also help political parties. Similarly, that Employees Retraining Scheme also assists political parties.
Therefore, Chairman, whoever receives some favour sells his liberty, is that not so? Maybe you should just let people with no political affiliations undertake such tasks and should not let people with political affiliations do so. How should they vote? Hey, frankly speaking, there are conflicts of interests and I have made this point many times, have I not? Wow, Members can take a look at how large the training centre of the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL) in Sham Shui Po is. Those people, ongoing inside, can get money, buddy, can they not? That is his organization, so are those not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10641 votes? Therefore, do not just criticize others but never criticize oneself. He often criticizes the pro-establishment camp, saying that it enjoys this kind of benefits. Of course this is how it works. If there are benefits, why should one not take them? This is precisely because he is also doing it. That includes the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, the Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre and the ADPL. All of these political parties are doing that.
You can ask the League of Social Democrats if it has received such benefits or not. The answer is: Of course not. When I was still a member, it did not. During the time when I was in the League of Social Democrats, there was none. We just do not want them. Our role is the opposition and you cannot act as the opposition, saying aloud that other people are "reaping benefits at sea, on land and in air", when you have also received the VIP treatment of the Cathay Pacific Airways Limited on two occasions. Can one do even such a thing? Is this not a double standard? Is this not criticizing others but never criticizing oneself? One cannot do so.
The Government through various measures and policies transferred benefits to those political organizations on friendly terms with it. From the position of the Government, of course, it has to do so, does it not? Of course, we would raise queries. In fact, if Members look at those social enterprises, they will find the situation is very serious. There are many problems and many businesses overlap with those in the private sector.
In May last year, TSANG Tak-sing talked about how to improve the vetting procedure … he chose not to talk about these but said frequently that it was necessary to pursue multiple public causes, then he said that the figures indicated that the number of social enterprises in Hong Kong was increasing steadily. He has not addressed the problems, has he? Just now, I said that social enterprises in Hong Kong keep opening cafés but do not develop enterprises with potential and actual market demand, for example, personal emergency link service, post-natal care, household cleaning, and so on. These are also examples of success but they do not work on these areas, rather, they only operate cafés and compete with each other in opening cafés. The Home Affairs Bureau also plays a part in funding allocation and monitoring, and it is also responsible for vetting applications, so has it ever addressed these problems? Basically, it has not. Then, it publishes reports to paint a rosy picture.
10642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015
Certainly, when it comes to the Home Affairs Bureau, there are also many other matters. It advocates harmony in the community, so the HAD appoints District Officers to various districts but may I ask what kind of work do these District Officers do? They are also senior officials. Many senior officials nowadays also once served as District Officers in various districts, did they not? Well, for this reason, they came into contact most frequently with those local organizations, that is, the anchor organizations of the DAB. To put it more bluntly, what they do is also to help them in elections, right? What have they done in the local communities?
The Communist Party and the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR (LOCPG) have a Sub-office in the New Territories and in Kowloon, another in the Kowloon District and on Hong Kong Island, and another on Hong Kong Island. Then, there is a heap of those so-called periphery organizations. There are so many of them, so what need is there for the HAD to undertake such work? It really has to go deep into the local communities and do more in helping other people's community building. Be it in culture, commerce or other areas, buddy, it has to undertake work in this regard. However, it does not do so and instead, it only undertakes the same kind of work as the LOCPG, acting as an anchor organization of political parties in the pro-establishment camp. This is precisely to the liking of "689", moreover, it is even necessary to do so in an in-depth manner. I do not know what TSANG Tak-sing thinks. Many people actually know this and in the District Councils, the situation is also the same. When it comes to the District Councils, it is harder to say because it is returned by elections, so if you cannot compete with other people in terms of number, nothing can be done and all the benefits will only go to the political parties with a greater number of seats, so this cannot be helped, can it? In that case, it would do if you stand for elections and win more seats, would it not? However, you said that they offered seasonal delicacies as incentives, so the elections are not fair, so on, so forth.
The HAD and District Officers are not attending to their proper business, not doing what they should do. What makes me most furious is that several years ago, the HAD went so far as to drive street sleepers in Sham Shui Po into desperation, saying that someone had lodged complaints. Then, it assumed the role of co-ordinator ― "Ah Chu" was also present at that time ― at that time, we had a meeting with the new Sham Shui Po District Officer and officers of the Police and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) were also present, so all parties held a meeting together. For no apparent reason, the HAD LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2015 10643 put forward the proposal and asked the FEHD and the Police to clear the street sleepers in Sham Shui Po. Moreover, their valuables were taken away. Such is the good job done by the HAD. The Police said this had nothing to do with them, claiming it was the HAD which told them to go there and so they did. The FEHD also said the same thing, claiming that it was the HAD that co-ordinated this matter because someone had lodged complaints. Who lodged complaints? Members of the DAB in the representative councils.
Chairman, point of order. Will this part come to an end after the meeting ends at 1 pm? (The buzzer sounded)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yuk-man, your speaking time is up.
This debate will continue at the next meeting. Council will now resume.
Council then resumed.
NEXT MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11 am on Wednesday, 20 May 2015.
Adjourned accordingly at 12.55 pm.