LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11963
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 28 May 2015
The Council met at a quarter past 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 JAMES TO KUN-SUN
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.
11964 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, 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.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.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 MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11965
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
11966 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11967
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE MRS CARRIE LAM CHENG YUET-NGOR, G.B.S., J.P. THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
THE HONOURABLE JOHN TSANG CHUN-WAH, G.B.M., J.P. THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE RIMSKY YUEN KWOK-KEUNG, S.C., J.P. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
MR YAU SHING-MU, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING
MS FLORENCE HUI HIU-FAI, S.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE
PROF THE HONOURABLE K C CHAN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY
THE HONOURABLE GREGORY SO KAM-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND TAM CHI-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS
THE HONOURABLE LAI TUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
THE HONOURABLE EDDIE NG HAK-KIM, S.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TANG KWOK-WAI, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE
11968 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
DR THE HONOURABLE KO WING-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH
THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, M.H., J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT
MR SHIU SIN-POR, S.B.S., J.P. HEAD, CENTRAL POLICY UNIT
MR GODFREY LEUNG KING-KWOK, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CLERK IN ATTENDANCE:
MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL UNDER RULE 8 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND TO ANSWER QUESTIONS PUT BY MEMBERS.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11969
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members will please remain standing while the Chief Executive enters the Chamber.
(While the Chief Executive was entering the Chamber and walking towards the rostrum, some Members entered the Chamber, shouting loudly as they walked on)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members entering the Chamber please stop making a hubbub?
(Mr Albert CHAN held up an umbrella and a placard while standing)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please sit down.
(Mr Albert CHAN remained standing up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, if you do not observe the Rules of Procedure, I will order you to leave the Chamber. Please observe the Rules of Procedure.
(A number of Members entered the Chamber)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members entering the Chamber will please return to their seats quickly.
(A number of Members took their seats after entering the Chamber)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Chief Executive will first address the Council.
(Dr LAM Tai-fai signalled in his seat)
11970 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): President, the colleague sitting next to me keeps fidgeting with his umbrella, and I believe this may pose a threat to personal safety. I hope you could ask him to put away his umbrella; otherwise, I will be sitting here in fear.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please put away your umbrella.
(Mr Albert CHAN put away the umbrella after giving a defence)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please do not impede the conduct of the meeting again. Chief Executive, please speak.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, Honourable Members and fellow Hong Kong citizens, I am very pleased to come and speak to the Legislative Council again and answer the questions Members put to me.
The current-term Government has three major tasks, namely, to promote economic development, to improve people's livelihood and to take forward constitutional development. If we want to improve people's livelihood, economic prosperity is a must.
The current economic situation of Hong Kong is relatively good: unemployment rate is extremely low, inflation is mild and the Government enjoys a fiscal surplus. As at the end of last month, the total number of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance caseload has been declining for four consecutive years.
About eight hours ago at two o'clock in the early morning today, the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in Lausanne released the World Competitiveness Yearbook 2015. The Yearbook names Hong Kong as the most competitive economy in Asia. We also move up from last year's fourth place in the global ranking and come second only to the United States this year. This shows that despite the considerable challenges and difficulties that we face, our general competitiveness still ranks among the best in the world and is constantly improving, as a result of the efforts put in by the general public and the industrial and business sectors. In this year's rating, Hong Kong moves up two places in the global ranking from that of 2014 (that is, last year). However, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11971 we have to alert that as the world economic recovery remains unstable and Hong Kong is a highly externally oriented economy, we have slightly dropped two places in ranking in terms of economic performance.
Although the economic situation is relatively good, we must remain vigilant even in times of safety as we are at risk of a competitive setback vis-à-vis the other cities. The good economic situation at present should not be taken for granted. We must oppose anything, whether it is done intentionally or unintentionally, that directly or indirectly undermines Hong Kong's economy, hinders our economic development, tarnishes our image, and possibly leads us to miss valuable opportunities and provides ammunition for our competitors. If economic development is undercut, millions of wage earners are going to have their incomes shrunk, young people who are hunting for their first jobs will become even more anxious and a huge number of small business proprietors are going to operate with difficulties. When economic growth slackens, the Government receives less revenue and hence cannot further its efforts in alleviating poverty and supporting the disadvantaged, or issue tax rebates to the middle class. Therefore, I cannot agree with comments that dismiss the importance of economic development.
We must keep on adding fuel to Hong Kong's economy. The pillar industries, namely, financial services, trading, logistics, professional services, and tourism, should not rest on their laurels but seek innovation and further development. Besides, we must support the development of new industries, such as dispute resolution service, cultural and creative industries, intellectual property management, innovation and technology industries, and so on, with a view to creating more diversified investment and employment opportunities.
During the last few months, I have come to appreciate the economic potential of Hong Kong through frequent overseas visits and reception activities of foreign government and business leaders in Hong Kong. Mainland China, Europe, the United States and member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations all attach great importance to Hong Kong's function. Opportunities brought about by the development of the country, in particular, are rare and precious to us. Further to the commencement of the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect on 27 November last year, we announced the Mutual Recognition of Funds last week, while the Shenzhen-HK Stock Connect will hopefully be rolled out in the latter half of this year. Three huge engines will then be added to Hong Kong's financial sector in one single year.
11972 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
The country's major strategy of "One Belt One Road" and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank that it initiated are going to let Hong Kong further actualize the double advantage of "One Country" and "Two Systems". Hong Kong should act on the opportune moment all the more and promptly turn the opportunity into impetus for growth.
In addition to being an extremely promising industry, the innovation and technology sector can help to strengthen the competitiveness of other industries as well. The SAR Government has, for the third time, submitted to the Legislative Council the proposal for setting up the Innovation and Technology Bureau. I hope that those Members who are filibustering can stop their act and those who are tolerating filibustering can cease the toleration.
The housing problem has long been a source of concern for the Hong Kong people and it can trace its roots to the inadequate supply of land. Ever since its inauguration, the current-term Government has been increasing the supply through a multi-pronged approach.
In 2013-2014, the Government abolished the land sale by application mechanism and took full lead in putting up government sites for sale. About 13 000 private residential units could be provided at the government residential sites sold during that year, representing a new height in 13 years. In 2014-2015, with the residential sites sold under the Government's Land Sale Programme, together with the railway property development projects, urban renewal projects, private development and redevelopment projects, an estimated 21 200 private residential units can be built. The volume amounts to a new height since the introduction of the private housing land supply target in 2010.
On the sites put up for sale by the current-term Government during its first year of inauguration, residential properties are being completed one after another. It is expected that an approximate 20 140 private residential units will be completed next year (2016). The quantity is a new height in 10 years, and is 72% higher than the annual average completion volume during the decade, 52% more than the expected completion volume this year (2015) and 28% more than the completion volume last year (2014). The completion of a large number of new units will in turn lead to an increase in the supply of second-hand units. In terms of public housing, this is also a year of bumper harvest in which an estimated 23 300 public rental housing units are expected to be completed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11973
Poverty alleviation is also an important livelihood project of the current-term Government. Two years ago, we broke new ground in Hong Kong with the setting of a poverty line and subsequently rolled out the Old Age Living Allowance, benefiting close to 420 000 elderly persons as at end-March this year.
The $2 Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities has been extended to green minibuses, bringing benefits to a daily average of about 880 000 people. Furthermore, we are planning to introduce the Low Income Working Family Allowance in the second quarter next year. It is expected that the scheme will provide assistance to 710 000 people, including 170 000 eligible children, from over 200 000 low income families.
The work on poverty alleviation has produced some initial effects. The poverty rate has dropped from 15.2% in 2012 to 14.5% in 2013. The poor population has, for the first time, fallen below 1 million to 970 000.
Provided that economic development is maintained at better shape and that the Government's financial capacity is not dwarfed by a deceleration of economic growth, we will continue rolling out initiatives to improve people's livelihood.
The constitutional reform has now reached a critical moment. If the package put forward by the Government is endorsed by a two-thirds majority of all the Members of the Legislative Council, about 5 million eligible voters in Hong Kong will be able to exercise their voting rights to elect the next Chief Executive for the first time on a "one person, one vote" basis.
At this critical juncture in time, the Central Authorities, the SAR Government and the Legislative Council all have their roles and responsibilities to take forward Hong Kong's constitutional development. The SAR Government considers it desirable for the Central Authorities and all Members of the Legislative Council to communicate directly before the Council votes on the Government's motion to amend Annex I to the Basic Law concerning the method for the selection of the Chief Executive. Hence, after seeking agreement from the Central Authorities, we have invited the Central officials with portfolio responsibilities for the SAR's constitutional development and all Members of the Council to meet three days later in Shenzhen. WANG Guangya, Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, LI Fei, Chairman of the Basic Law Committee, and ZHANG Xiaoming, Director of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR, are going to 11974 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 exchange views with all Members of the Council on the constitutional reform. I hope that all Honourable Members can cherish this opportunity.
Recently, a number of opinion surveys show that about 50% to 60% of citizens hope the Legislative Council can support the passage of the constitutional reform package. I hope that those Members who expressly oppose the package can respect the wishes of the people, support the package and let 5 million Hong Kong people exercise their election rights to elect the next Chief Executive on the basis of "one person, one vote" in 2017.
The disputes arising from constitutional development has persisted for a period of time, during which the SAR Government, the Legislative Council, political parties and our society as a whole have all paid an enormous amount of energy and time. I hope our contributions will not be wasted and Hong Kong can take its first step in electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. I reiterate my determination in implementing universal suffrage. If the universal suffrage package gains passage successfully in the Legislative Council, we will do our best in enacting the local legislation. If the package is vetoed, I hope our society can, in the next few years, cease the dispute about constitutional reform. No matter how the voting result is, Hong Kong society cannot afford to incessantly argue over the constitutional reform. Laying right in front of us are plenty of opportunities for economic development and social development, and the conditions of Hong Kong are outstanding. In the pursuit of economic development and improvement of people's livelihood, we must make up for the time lost.
Over the last two weeks, three incidents have aroused people's concerns. First, the creation of disturbance in the awards presentation ceremony of an inter-school debating competition; second, the storming of a primary school; and third, an online …
(Mr LEE Cheuk-yan stood up and yelled)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, leave the Chamber immediately.
(Mr LEE Cheuk-yan continued to yell)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11975
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, leave the Chamber immediately.
(With the assistance of the security personnel, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan left the Chamber)
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, someone has made a deer with paper and written the word "horse" on it. Well, it is important to rip the antler off of the deer you have caught and now is the time to rip the antler.
Over the last two weeks, three incidents have aroused people's concerns. First, the creation of disturbance in the awards presentation ceremony of an inter-school debating competition; second, the storming of a primary school; and third, an online threat being posed against personal safety. I demand the relevant government departments to enforce the law impartially, regardless of the political stance of the people involved.
Thank you, President. Members are welcomed to raise questions.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, while the Government is now saying that arrangements will be made for fellow Members to visit Shenzhen in a few days to meet some officials there, Mr ZHANG Rongshun, the Vice-Chairperson of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, has claimed last week that people from the opposition camp are not allowed to become Chief Executive candidates, and that this remark is not only reasonable but also justifiable in history.
I want to ask Mr LEUNG if he agrees with such a remark. Could he tell the public if there is any place that implements genuine universal suffrage and at the same time denies members of the opposition camp of their right to candidacy? I hope he would not give North Korea or Iran as an answer. Would he revise the existing constitutional reform package proposed by the Government so that the Hong Kong people can really have a choice?
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): The Government has already put forward the constitutional reform package and the crux of the matter now is whether we can secure its passage with a two-thirds or larger majority of votes in the 11976 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
Legislative Council. The crucial point is, more specifically, whether the pan-democratic Members are willing to vote for the passage of the constitutional reform package submitted by the Government, so as to enable the Hong Kong public to select the next Chief Executive on a "one person, one vote" basis for the first time. This "one person, one vote" election method is surely better than the practice of selecting the Chief Executive by the Election Committee comprising 1 200 members, which denies 5 million Hong Kong people of the right to cast their votes at the ballot stations, and thereby leaves them no choice but to stay home and watch via television broadcast the 1 200 members taking the votes.
Regarding the remark made by Vice-Chairperson ZHANG Rongshun, I cannot explain on behalf of him. The constitutional reform package put forward by the SAR Government is in strict compliance with the relevant requirements under the Basic Law and the related Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), and is agreed and supported by most of the members of society. If Mr James TO or other legislators are interested in the Central Authorities' view about the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, they should join the meeting to be held in Shenzhen three days later.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, I would like to ask Mr LEUNG whether he will take the blame and resign if the constitutional reform package put forward by the Government is not passed.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, under the Basic Law, the Chief Executive is one of the three parties vested with the power to decide whether and how the method for selecting the Chief Executive should be amended. According to the Basic Law, any amendment to the method for selecting the Chief Executive has to gain passage in the Legislative Council with the support of a two-thirds majority of the Council Members, secure the consent of the Chief Executive, as well as obtain the approval from the NPCSC. If the amendment is not passed by the Legislative Council Members, will anyone ask the legislators whether they will resign for that? If no approval is given by the NPCSC, will anyone ask members of the NPCSC whether they will resign for that?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11977
MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, Chief Executive, good morning. For more than a century ago since Hong Kong was still a colony, Hong Kong people have been aspiring for selecting their own Chief Executive on a "one person, one vote" basis. The constitutional reform package put forward by the current term Government for selecting the Chief Executive through "one person, one vote" has indeed fulfilled Hong Kong people's aspiration. However, there exists a group of Members from the bogus democratic camp who dream of becoming the Chief Executive on the one hand, and betray the interests of the Hong Kong people while endangering national security on the other. How can they be candidates in the Chief Executive Election? They always believe that genuine universal suffrage can only be achieved when they can run in the election. Chief Executive, I want to ask …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHUNG, Please raise your question, and do not make lengthy comments.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): … yes, I am just about to raise my question. Chief Executive, here is my question. What can the Government do in the event that these Members from the bogus democratic camp vote down the constitutional reform package against the interests of the Hong Kong people and thereby cause the democratic development of Hong Kong to come to a standstill, and even organize Occupy Central for the second time? How will the Government respond if Occupy Central is staged for the second time?
Lastly, I want to ask the Chief Executive whether this group of Members from the bogus democratic camp have to resign collectively if the constitutional reform package is negatived.
(Some Members spoke loudly in their seats)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members, please be quiet.
11978 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, the Basic Law states clearly the requirements for amending the method for selecting the Chief Executive. And our generation of people have witnessed and participated in the drafting and consultation processes of this Basic Law. We totally understand the background of time when the Basic Law was drafted, and the original intention in promulgating the method for selecting the Chief Executive and amending the method for selecting the Chief Executive. Therefore, the SAR Government will act with strict adherence to the Basic Law in doing our work, regardless of whether it is about the tasks we are in hand today, the enactment of the local legislation after the passage of the SAR Government's constitutional reform package, or, after the package is negatived, the re-initiation of the amendment of the method for selecting the Chief Executive in a future time not yet known to us now. If any proposals from members of society violate the Basic Law, including those proposed by pro-democratic Members of the Legislative Council, the SAR Government cannot turn them into something in compliance with the Basic Law. If anyone should attempt to express their aspirations in respect of constitutional reform by illegal means, the SAR Government would, as always, firmly take enforcement action in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chief Executive, I want to ask this question: If this is the case, is there any way for you to cause these stubborn Members from the opposition camp to change their minds?
(Some Members made a hubbub in their seats)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members, please do not make a hubbub in your seats.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, it is an imperative for me to explain to the Hong Kong society here that, according to the requirement of the Basic Law, we need to secure the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of the Members of the Legislative Council, the consent of the Chief Executive, as well as the approval from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) before we can amend the method for selecting the Chief Executive by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11979 replacing the existing method of having the Chief Executive elected through the votes of the 1 200 Election Committee members into a "one person, one vote" election. This is the requirement of the Basic Law. In respect of the constitutional reform conducted this time or in future, we will not be able to achieve universal suffrage or amend the method for selecting the Chief Executive without the endorsement, consent or approval of any one of the above three parties. The requirement of the Basic Law is this clear, or we can say, is this simple.
Therefore, the task before us is not only about the 70 Members of the Legislative Council, the Chief Executive, or the NPCSC, but is also about whether we decide to take this step forward with the 7.2 million citizens in Hong Kong, including 5 million eligible voters. All of us here, including myself and the 70 Members of the Legislative Council, have to be responsible to society as a whole, as well as to history. Numerous opinions have been raised over the past period of time, and whether members of the public give their support or not …
(Mr WONG Kwok-kin signalled in his seat)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Chief Executive, please hold for a while.
MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN always yells in his seat all of a sudden, which has not only scared me but also interrupted the meeting.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please sit down. I will not allow anymore interruption of meeting progress by Members' conducts in violation of the Rules of Procedure. This is my last warning. If Members do not keep quiet but yell when others are speaking, I will immediately order them to leave the Chamber. Members please respect yourselves.
Chief Executive, please go on.
11980 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, over the past period of time, different institutions have employed various means to find out Hong Kong people's views on the constitutional reform package, such as, whether or not they support the package, or whether or not they consider that Members of the Legislative Council should endorse the proposal. I believe these surveys are meaningful, as we ultimately have to be accountable to our society as a whole. However, I think there is one more question worth asking. I have studied the results of these opinion polls. If Members of the Legislative Council, especially fellow Members from the pan-democratic camp, have not studied these results before, and by this I mean surveys conducted throughout the period instead of only one or two particular surveys, then I suggest them engaging opinion survey agencies to ask this question: If the constitutional reform package put forward by the Government is negatived by the Legislative Council, who should bear most of the responsibility? I believe this question is indeed worth asking.
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, Chief Executive, the problem of insufficient doctors has always been a cause of great concern to the Liberal Party. The problem has seriously affected our healthcare services, particularly those provided by public hospitals. Even fellow Members of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) have said that the healthcare vouchers cannot be used for ophthalmologist consultation simply because there are insufficient ophthalmologists to meet the demand. One way to tackle this situation is to encourage the Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong people who have received medical training abroad to come back to practice. In fact, my daughter and son-in-law are among such doctors and that is why I need to declare an interest.
Earlier on, when having lunch with you and me, the Vice-Chancellor of The Chinese University of Hong Kong Professor Joseph SUNG mentioned that the Faculties of Medicine of the University of Hong Kong and The Chinese University of Hong Kong raised no objection to this approach. Nevertheless, we all know that the main culprit is the Medical Council of Hong Kong (MCHK), particularly those representing the private medical practitioners. A licensing examination is put in place for non-local medical graduates. The annual passing rate of this examination is very low, and the annual passing rate of the part on professional knowledge is even lower, standing at 25% only. Even if they pass the licensing examination, their specialist qualifications acquired LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11981 abroad are not necessarily recognized. Secretary Dr KO Wing-man said he had made an effort in this respect, as the licensing examination would now be held twice a year instead of only once a year. What has such an effort achieved?
Chief Executive, the MCHK has set a very high threshold to protect the interests of its private medical practitioners. Hence, it is just pointless for the authorities to welcome the Hong Kong people educated overseas or their next generation to come back to Hong Kong.
Chief Executive, I wonder if you have heard of private medical practitioners being called "man of the moon" and "man of the star"? They are dubbed "man of the moon" because the word "moon" (月 球)in Cantonese is a pun on a colloquial term meaning $1 million a month, thus referring to their monthly income reaching as much as $1 million. But this is already a bygone fact. Nowadays, they are dubbed "man of the star" because the star (星) can mean a planet or a week in Cantonese, meaning that they can earn $1 million in a week. It is possible that they will soon be called "man of a day" …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, please raise your question.
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): … meaning that they can earn $1 million in a day.
President, I will soon come to my question. I now ask the Chief Executive whether the authorities will consider reforming the MCHK. In fact, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan of the FTU has strong opinion against the Veterinary Surgeon Board setting the ratio of veterinary surgeon to non-veterinary surgeon members at 2:1. She holds that the ratio should be 1:1. In fact, the present ratio in the Hospital Authority (HA) is 6:1, that is, six medical staff or doctors to one non- …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, please raise your question immediately.
11982 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): … in order to avoid doctors covering each other's back, the threshold should be lowered to relax the restriction on overseas talents coming back to Hong Kong. May I ask the Chief Executive whether an exercise will be conducted to reform the MCHK, and whether consideration will be given to the approach adopted by Singapore in attracting overseas medical practitioners to practice in the country?
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, the current term Government attaches great importance to healthcare services, whether public or private, in Hong Kong. Thus, I have pledged in my manifesto, as well as put into practice in my present work, that a review will be conducted on HA's services. In future, we still have a lot to do on the healthcare front.
The problem of how to make good use of overseas talents, as mentioned by Mr Tommy CHEUNG just now, is also a matter of concern to the Government. Mr Tommy CHEUNG mentioned that Secretary Dr KO Wing-man had undertaken to increase the number of licensing examination to be held from once a year to twice a year. Other than that, we are also considering appropriately relaxing the arrangement of internship, so as to encourage eligible overseas doctors to practice in Hong Kong.
I view the issue of overseas doctors practicing in Hong Kong from two angles. First, we are concerned whether the current practice is fair and reasonable to them. At the same time, however, we cannot hope to solve the problem of insufficient doctors in Hong Kong just by relaxing the restriction against overseas doctors practicing in Hong Kong. Even if the restriction is increasingly relaxed, the number of overseas doctors who have come back to practice here is still relatively small compared to the existing number of registered medical practitioners in Hong Kong. In 2014, we had over 13 000 registered medical practitioners. Hence, the question of how many overseas doctors can be attracted to come back hinges not only on their qualifications but also Hong Kong's general working environment, emolument offers, living conditions, and so on. Hence, we attach importance to this task, but we cannot assume that by progressively relaxing the restriction alone can solve the problem of insufficient healthcare personnel, including doctors, in Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11983
Talking about this issue, I believe this point is also worth raising to members of the public. We often come across some statistical analyses stating that Hong Kong's population has reached 7.2 million and the number of doctors is of a certain number and thus the doctor to resident ratio stands at a certain percentage, and that this ratio is slightly lower than that in other places. However, a point we need to know is that apart from the 13 000 registered Western medicine practitioners, some 6 900 registered Chinese medicine practitioners and 2 700 listed Chinese medicine practitioners are also practising in Hong Kong. They also provide healthcare services to the public. We need to value the services provided by the Chinese medicine practitioners as well, and they are also included in our consideration.
All in all, my answer to Mr Tommy CHEUNG's question on the sufficiency of healthcare manpower and how we deploy such manpower … There is another point we should consider. The present problem involves not only the return of overseas doctors, as pointed out by Mr Tommy CHEUNG, but also the deployment of doctors in the public healthcare system for better performance. This is another point we need to consider.
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Chief Executive has not answered either of my questions, and I will pick one to follow up with him, which is about Singapore. The Chief Executive's reply just now seems to say that there are sufficient doctors, but everyone knows and Members of this Council are aware that we do not have enough doctors. Further still, what exactly is the Singaporean approach that I mentioned? Actually, not all doctors are allowed to practice in Singapore, only those graduated from specific medical schools or those who have practiced in specific hospitals are chosen …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, please do not make lengthy comments.
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Even though this approach cannot completely solve the problem, may I ask the Chief Executive whether he will consider adopting this approach which can at least expeditiously stop the problem from worsening?
11984 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, different societies have different policies on professional qualifications and requirements for professional licensing. These different policies are often attributable to their local systems and historical backgrounds. In respect of medical practice, the requirements in Hong Kong are more stringent than those in Singapore. This is a fact. As for other professional sectors, such as the legal sector, our requirements for overseas lawyers to practice in Hong Kong are also more stringent than those laid down in other countries. Hence, this involves not only a few professional sectors, but the entire professional system and framework.
Let me now answer Mr Tommy CHEUNG's last question directly. I am willing to follow up this matter and explore, under the premise that Hong Kong's professional system and level of healthcare manpower will not be affected, the possibility of further enhancing the licensing examination for medical practitioners.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I hope the Chief Executive will speak honestly here. Officials present in the Chamber should know clearly that this constitutional reform package does not offer a real choice as 1 200 people will choose before the voters, and the successful candidate will first thank those 1 200 people for their votes. Just as what our Chief Executive did, upon winning the election, the successful candidate will first visit officials at the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government to thank them for their vote canvassing. The picture will be the same. So, let us be more honest. We will veto a universal suffrage which is not genuine. This is our duty, we will explain to the voters …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, please raise your question.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): … the voters can drive us out in the next term through their votes directly. We will face the voters but the high officials and the Chief Executive who are present here do not have to. President, the ultimate goal of democracy and politics is to improve people's livelihood. The Chief Executive said there were three very important instances in the past, but I did not hear him mention that he learned of the recently revealed case of collective mistreatment of elderly residents in a nursing home in Tai Po. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11985
The carers give the elderly residents showeres outdoor, and many kaifongs said the situation has been going on for more than a decade, in summer and in winter alike. President, as far as I understand, collective showering of elderly residents is no individual case, it is very common in private nursing homes …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please raise your question.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): … furthermore, the elderly residents are fed in a hurry, even when the food is still boiling hot. It is basic fact that no one changes their paper diapers or give them showers or clean them …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, please raise your question right away.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): … over the past years, cases of mistreatment of elderly residents have repeatedly occurred in the nursing homes in Hong Kong, and this has blemished the territory's image. I would like to ask the Chief Executive: In his position, what would he do to fundamentally revamp this system? This is neither an isolated case, nor the problem of individual homes or staff. It has to do with the entire system. The authorities have been lax in their monitoring …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, please refrain from making comments.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): … in order to make profits, the private sector has ignored the well-being of the elderly people. I would like to ask the Chief Executive what he would do.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, you have asked your question, please let the Chief Executive reply.
11986 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, with regard to what has happened in the nursing home in Tai Po, every member of the Hong Kong public, including government officials, are heart-wrenched. In this connection, I have held a meeting with the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux. We will definitely take strict follow-up actions. Actually, the Government has constantly conducted surprise inspections of nursing homes to check out on site their service level and attitude. Before I ran for the Chief Executive, I was the convenor of the Executive Council, and I always shared experience in this regard with the colleagues in the Government during meetings. Whenever I could afford the time, I would take a look at the nursing homes. Sometimes, I would call the chauffeur to take me there. I would spend five or 10 minutes to inspect nursing homes operating on the second or third floor of composite buildings, which were similar to this nursing home in Tai Po. I walked up the stairs and pushed the door open. They recognized me and knew that I was not an imposter. They asked what they could do to help, and I just said that I would like to look around.
The service quality of nursing homes in Hong Kong really varies. Yesterday, I told colleagues that I was deeply saddened after reading the report. Some scenes are indeed unbearable, especially those relating to space. Due to high rentals and property prices, most of the nursing homes can at best offer to each elderly resident who can still move around freely a single bed, a bedside table and a sofa; at the end of the bed is a row of closets, then another bed, bedside table and sofa next to them. Apart from their personal private space, the elderly residents have no extra space for activities. With poor ventilation inside the room, some nursing homes very often give out body smell or smell of human waste.
We pay much attention to this problem. Therefore, in respect of elderly services, regardless of whether the elderly persons are residents of nursing homes or not, the Government has made great efforts to make improvements. Every Member of the Legislative Council present will know that addressing all problems stemming from an ageing society is one of the four priorities of this SAR Government. If we can have some breakthrough in the land issue, I believe the overall services of residential care homes for the elderly (RCHEs) in Hong Kong can see a silver lining. If we can provide more land for some non-profit making organizations to run more RCHEs, and if elements of rent, land price and property price can be removed from the fees, I believe the elderly and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11987 their children can afford better services, and elderly residents can also have more space for activities in the nursing homes.
Nonetheless, we know that the Government very often encounters resistance when making changes to land planning. Over the past three years, the SAR Government has persisted with its efforts to address the land problem, and has mobilized forces from various fronts, including land and money donated by some enthusiatic people in society. Of course, the other issue that needs to be tackled is manpower. I am aware that whenever caregivers of RCHEs are mentioned, some Members who are present will be more sensitive. At present, unemployment rate in Hong Kong is very low, making it very difficult for the RCHEs to recruit staff members. The salary they can offer also very often poses a problem. We are very concerned about this situation. If Dr Fernando CHEUNG has any proper concrete solutions for the Government, the Legislative Council and the entire society to provide better services to our elderly, I am very happy to sit down and discuss with Dr Fernando CHEUNG.
As regards the constitutional reform issue which Dr Fernando CHEUNG mentioned before discussing the services of the RCHEs, he said as the Chief Executive, I did not have to face the voters of Hong Kong. This was the system then, and it remains to be so up till now. If Dr Fernando CHEUNG wants to change this, the best thing is to pass the constitutional reform package proposed by the Government. Then, in 2017, unlike what he said, the Chief Executive will have to face all the voters of Hong Kong as he will be elected by the territory's 5 million voters.
What is meant by genuine universal suffrage? The selection of the Chief Executive in accordance with the Basic Law and the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress is genuine universal suffrage. Now, the consensus of the 27 pan-democratic Members boils down to only three words: "genuine universal suffrage". I believe it will be very difficult for these 27 pan-democratic Members to turn these three words into a specific proposal of 300 words. Can they put forward a specific proposal in 300 words? The pan-democratic Members only account for a little more than one-third of the seats in the Legislative Council. If they can unveil a specific proposal, will the other two-thirds of the Members of the Legislative Council approve of it? Do the pan-democratic Members think that even if the 27 of them can come to a 11988 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 consensus on the specifics of a genuine universal suffrage, the other two-thirds of the Members will also vote in favour, thus fulfilling the two-thirds majority required by the Basic Law? Dr Fernando CHEUNG, this is a mare's nest.
What we have got now is the deer in front of us. This deer has antlers which can be removed immediately. In 2017, 5 million Hong Kong citizens can elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote".
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Land is to be blamed for everything. Since the Chief Executive said he knew very well what it was like in the nursing homes, and he also knew that the existing composition of the Legislative Council fell short of a genuine democratic setup, why did he not revamp the Legislative Council in this constitutional reform package? Why is the next term of the Legislative Council left intact?
President, the Chief Executive has not answered the question which I raised earlier. I asked him what he would do. He did not answer but asked me to come up with a specific proposal instead. Eleven years ago, the community had formally implemented an accreditation system for the RCHEs. This system is recognized internationally but the Social Welfare Department and the Labour and Welfare Bureau have totally ignored it …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, please do not make lengthy comments again.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Here is my question: Would he tighten Hong Kong's Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Ordinance to raise the requirements and require all nursing homes to be accredited?
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): We will continue to pay attention to the services provided by the different types of RCHEs. What was proposed 11 years ago formed part of the "Healthy ageing" policy. As the Government, we have to strive to let the elderly residents of the nursing home enjoy systematic LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11989 ancillary arrangements round the clock. For the problems which I mentioned earlier, namely land problem, buildings problem, problem of land prices, rentals and manpower supply, the implementation of the accreditation system alone cannot address them all.
Even with the accreditation system, the elderly people will not be able to enjoy quality nursing home services if we fail to address the land problem and if land prices, property prices and rentals remain so high. Therefore, it is easy to come up with ideas, but to really ensure that the elderly can enjoy quality service, we still have to address the problems which I just mentioned.
MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, Chief Executive, the Mainland authorities have recently started to cut import duties on certain consumer products to boost domestic consumption. The situation is expected to persist. Hong Kong will gradually lose out on our edge as the Shoppers' Paradise and we can no longer rely on shopping to attract Mainland tourists to visit Hong Kong.
It is thus necessary to add new ancillary facilities for the tourism industry. In fact, in the coming few years, a number of tourism infrastructures are in the pipeline, including the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD) and the Kai Tak Fantasy; besides, many development projects in Lantau are also tourism-related. However, the said projects are under the portfolios of three different Policy Bureaux, each with its own development focus. In face of the coming challenges in the tourism industry, how will the Chief Executive co-ordinate the tourism aspect in the aforesaid projects?
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, the SAR Government attaches great importance to the contribution of the tourism industry to the economy and social development of Hong Kong. As I have repeatedly pointed out, although the tourism industry, now occupying roughly the same share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as that of the professional services industry, contributes not as much as the finance industry to our GDP, it provides job opportunities for numerous grass-roots workers in Hong Kong. And that is why we attach great importance to the development of the tourism industry in Hong Kong.
11990 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
Hong Kong is a tourism hub. Hong Kong's tourism industry has played a vital role in our economy and social development in the past few decades. As time changes, the tourism also adjusts its focuses and selling points. I thus have pointed out in my opening speech that we cannot rest on our laurels. It is possible that our selling points, our strengths and edges today may be weakened when the overall situation evolves with times. Hence, we need to continuously explore new selling points and strengths.
As far as the tourism industry is concerned, in the past when there were a large number of Mainland visitors coming to Hong Kong, especially when they focused on visiting a certain districts, conflicts were broken out between Hong Kong people and Mainland visitors. The SAR Government is very concerned about the matter. As such, we have adjusted the "multiple-entry" Individual Visit Endorsements by replacing it with the "one trip per week" Individual Visit Endorsements. The matter has now subsided. Hong Kong's tourism industry still has great potential for development. What does this include? Under the existing policy, Mainland residents in only 49 cities are eligible to come to visit Hong Kong through the Individual Visit Scheme instead of joining guided tours, and there are about 660 cities on the Mainland. Hence, our next task is to explore ways to open up new markets and find new strengths and selling points in Hong Kong.
In tandem with opening up new markets, we can explore ways to better control the total number of in-bound tourists to Hong Kong. That is to say, we can limit the annual number of in-bound Mainland tourists, regardless of which provinces or cities they are from, to a certain level, so as to avoid straining our transport and community facilities, and thereby preventing conflicts between local residents and Mainland tourists from taking place.
MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): The Chief Executive has not clearly answered my question just now. As I said just now, while different tourist spots will be commissioned in Hong Kong, such tourist spots are under the portfolios of different Policy Bureaux. For instance, the WKCD is put under the Home Affairs Bureau, projects in Lantau are under the Development Bureau, and Kai Tak Fantasy is under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. These projects I have just mentioned are closely related to tourism, but each of the said Bureaux has its own considerations. Just now the Chief Executive referred to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11991 the tourism industry as one of the four major economic pillars of Hong Kong. Even though the Government has attached so much importance to the industry, with the Policy Bureaux acting in their own different ways, how can the said projects help to push forward tourism development?
Actually, I wish to ask the Government whether it is feasible to assign one Secretary of Department to co-ordinate all the infrastructural projects in this regard and formulate comprehensive planning for the tourism industry. I wonder if the Chief Executive has such consideration.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, the tourism ancillary facilities involve not only the few Policy Bureaux that Mr YIU mentioned just now. They actually straddle across the work of several Departments and Bureaux. For instance, overnight visitors will need to stay in a hotel and this involves the work of lands and planning departments; with more visitors coming to Hong Kong, the supporting manpower related to the tourism industry will have to be strengthened, and this concerns our labour and population policies.
Hence, while we attach importance to the tourism industry, the entire Government, or what we call a joined-up government, including the Chief Executive, the three Secretaries of Departments, the 12 Directors of Bureaux and colleagues of different departments need to pull together to do a job in all aspects, including tourism. At present, as several Departments and Bureaux are involved and joint efforts have been made in this respect, I do not see any need to set up a new department or assign a Secretary of Department to co-ordinate the work of the several departments involved.
MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Good morning, President, I thank the Chief Executive for coming to the Question and Answer Session today. As I always talk shop, I would like to ask about the financial and economic issues. In regard to the economic development of Hong Kong, I believe both the public and the sector know that our country has been providing more than a few opportunities. In the financial sector, for instance, a connect system for stock exchange has recently been launched, and another stock exchange platform is getting ready to be connected. The turnover volume, tax income and brokerage so brought forward have all increased evidently. Besides, together with the Mainland, we have recently announced the mutual recognition of funds 11992 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 arrangement between Hong Kong and the Mainland. I believe these will greatly stimulate the Hong Kong economy. Many regions in the world are envious of China which have so many markets, and can act in co-operation with Hong Kong, a market which connects the world.
In this connection, I would like to ask a question. In order to support the National 13th Five-Year Plan of our country in the coming years, the SAR Government has already submitted its proposals to the Central Government. Regarding the preliminary plan of the National 13th Five-Year Plan, could the Chief Executive inform the public and various sectors of any progress made, so that we can get prepared and strive for an all-win situation?
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, in respect to the National 13th Five-Year Plan of our country, we have submitted our proposals concerning the roles that Hong Kong can play and the functions that Hong Kong can exercise. In the proposals, a major part is related to the financial industry, including consolidating and enhancing the status of Hong Kong as a global offshore RMB hub and an international asset management centre, consolidating the role of Hong Kong as a leading international investment and financing platform in the region, as well as deepening and expanding mutual access between the financial markets of the Mainland and Hong Kong. As for other issues, such as Hong Kong's status as an international maritime centre, they also have financial elements. For instance, some members of society and certain committees formed by the Government have put forward suggestions on aircraft and ship leasing businesses. These are financial activities and are also related to Hong Kong's status as an international maritime centre.
Apart from the abovementioned National 13th Five-Year Plan to which we have already submitted our financially related proposals, I deeply believe that Hong Kong also has its functions and roles to perform in regard to the large-scale policies and measures recently initiated by our country, such as "One Belt One Road" and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and that we can make contributions to our country in this connection. Therefore, the SAR Government, including the Financial Secretary and other financial departments, will keep on following up this issue with the Central Government.
In regard to the remarks made by Mr NG Leung-sing before asking his questions, I wish to make a response here. Hong Kong is the international LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11993 financial centre of our country, and at the same time, we are the Chinese financial centre in the international arena. Same as in other areas, we can give full play to our double edges of "one country" and "two systems" at the same time. In this aspect, I am full of confidence. This is also the reason why I have set up the Financial Services Development Council (FSDC) shortly after I took office. It is because in the financial field, Hong Kong already has many departments responsible for monitoring work, but there was not a department especially responsible for development work. I thus came up with the idea of the FSDC and it is now being set up. They have submitted 14 reports to date which are rather helpful to the SAR Government in this aspect of work.
MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): I would like to follow up on the FSDC mentioned by the Chief Executive just now. I think while democracy is what the Hong Kong people need, money is what they need more. The filibuster in the Legislative Council at present will affect the preliminary work mentioned earlier, including the FSDC. As far as I know, the members concerned are still using their own resources as no reasonable resources are being provided for them. If that really is the case, I would like to ask this question: in regard to the filibuster in the Legislative Council or some destructive actions which serve to impede the economic projects, do we need to conduct more assessments and put forward more corresponding proposals so that the public and various sectors can really be benefited?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, a supplementary question should follow up on the question raised at first, and every Member can only raise one question.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, it is up to the Chief Executive to decide whether or not to answer the Member's supplementary question.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I hope you can clarify this. Our understanding is that every Legislative Council Member can only raise one question during a Question and Answer Session …
11994 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, a Member can raise one question. After the Chief Executive has given an answer, that Member can ask a simple supplementary question.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): However, President, this is not a follow-up question but a separate question. Hence, I hope President can make a ruling.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, the question raised by Mr NG Leung-sing is about the economic development of Hong Kong. Whether the supplementary question is related to the question will be decided by the Chief Executive himself.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): I thank President for your brilliant ruling.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, I have to remind you again. Please do not make a hubbub in your seat when other Member or the Chief Executive is speaking. Chief Executive, please answer.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong's potential for financial development is very great indeed. The first question asked by Mr NG Leung-sing mentioned about the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect, mutual recognition of funds arrangement, and Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect. Within one year, we can provide three additional big engines to the financial industry of Hong Kong. In fact, the power of these three big engines has not been fully exhibited to date. Apart from these three measures, a lot of financially related work can also be done. Although the financial industry only employs 6% of the population in Hong Kong, it contributes 16% to our GDP. Thus, it deserves our attention. Besides, when our country is in the course of reforming and opening of the financial industry, among the various cities nation-wide, Hong Kong has displayed its unique function and can provide its unique contributions to the country. Therefore, we attach great importance to the financial industry.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11995
However, similar to the economic development and the development of other aspects of society, the development of the financial industry has met some forces of resistance in society and internal friction has emerged. This includes the filibuster when we put forward some requests or measures to the Legislative Council. One simple example is the Budget or the Appropriation Bill put forward by the Financial Secretary to the Legislative Council, which has been thwarted unnecessarily through filibustering. Not only is the economy or the development of individual industries in Hong Kong being affected, Hong Kong people's livelihood is also being affected. In regard to the question of filibustering, a fair public opinion has already been formed in the community. I am delighted to see that in the past few months, the filibuster in the Council has been contained. I think this is the effect of public opinion.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): President, about six weeks ago, Chief Secretary Carrie LAM invited pan-democratic Members including me to meet with her. She brought up two points at the meeting: first, the 31 August constitutional reform package cannot be revised; and second, she suggested that I should listen and make reference to public opinion. Meanwhile, the Chief Executive's administration partners ― Members from the Federation of Trade Union (FTU) and the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) ― have been calling on the pan-democratic camp to vote for the 31 August constitutional reform package according to public opinion. Yet when the FTU and DAB Members were questioned by the host of a radio programme, they indicated that they would not follow public opinion to cast an opposition vote. Chief Executive, in this Council, I have repeatedly asked you about the details of the surveys. Your officials are reluctant to disclose the results of government surveys, but you have frequently referred to those surveys and indicated that the majority of public opinion is in favour of the 31 August constitutional reform package. The approach adopted by the FTU and the DAB is an irresponsible one, as they will behave like a bad loser, a wooden doll. My question for the Chief Executive is: Will he follow public opinion, or will he follow the approach adopted by the FTU and the DAB to play irresponsibly and behave like a bad loser?
(Dr CHIANG Lai-wan indicated her wish to speak)
11996 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Chief Executive, please hold for a moment.
If the question raised by a Member contains accusation against other Members or political parties in this Council, it is difficult for me not to allow the accused political party or Member to make a response. This, however, will cause hindrance to the Members who wish to take this opportunity to learn from the Chief Executive the latest information of the Government. It comes to my attention that some DAB Members have indicated their wish to speak, but I have no intention to start a debate here. I would like to remind Members, despite the political background of Members, from now onwards, they should not make accusation against other Members or political parties while raising questions. We have Member who did that just now.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): The media have already made public the faces and remarks of these Members.
(Some Members spoke loudly in their seats)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members please do not speak loudly in your seats.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): … on Cable TV and Commercial Radio.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Stop speaking immediately. This is the best example showing that this kind of accusation would arouse a debate. As such, Members should refrain from doing so. It is unnecessary for Members to make accusations against others while raising questions.
Chief Executive, please reply to Mr Frederick FUNG's question.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, it is of course impossible for me to make a response on behalf of other persons with respect to certain remarks referred to by Mr Frederick FUNG, regardless of whether his remarks are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11997 comprehensive and accurate or not. At the same time, I know that some pan-democratic Members said they have their own view, they are determined to vote down the constitutional reform package despite public opinion. In that case, what is the point and value of Mr Frederick FUNG's question? But I believe our society …
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Would the Chief Executive respect public opinion?
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): I and the Government of course respect public opinion. On the issue of constitutional reform, the opinion surveys conducted by different institutions clearly show that those supporting the Government's constitutional reform package outnumber those against it, and those holding the view that Legislative Council Members should pass the package outnumber those thinking that the package should not be passed. In my view, the public opinion polls conducted by various organizations all clearly show this point. As I mentioned just now, the SAR Government also conduct public opinion surveys from time to time to provide us with some reference on public opinion. One of the questions, perhaps Mr Frederick FUNG or some of you may appoint some agencies to do a survey in this respect. I think Mr Frederick FUNG or other pan-democratic Members would find the result inspiring and indicative. The survey should ask this question: In case the package is negatived, who should bear the biggest responsibility for the package being vetoed? I believe the result … We have done that more than once, it is a relatively stable figure obtained over a period of time, though I have no intention to talk about it here. Mr Frederick FUNG, there is still time, you can quickly get the result on your own in about a week's time. You may appoint an agency that you consider trustworthy to get the result.
On the issue of public opinion survey, I would like to take this opportunity to briefly elaborate how two different questions ― one is "whether you support the package" and the other one is "whether you think the Legislative Council should pass the package" ― generate different results. Some people against the package also urge Legislative Council Members to pass the package, even though deep in their heart they consider the package not an ideal one ― this kind of people certainly exist, and this is understandable. But then, they prefer this 11998 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 package than the status quo, whereby the Chief Executive will be returned by 1 200 persons, and they can only watch the election process through television at home. This explains why quite a number of people against the package call on Legislative Council Members to pass the package. If these two different questions are asked, they will generate different results. Having said that, when asked "whether you support the package", those supporting the package still outnumber those against it; when asked "whether you think the package should be passed", those responding that the package should be passed still outnumber those responding that the package should not be passed. This would point to another issue that I mentioned just now: Given that quite a large number of people are of the view that the package should be passed even though some of them are against the package, who should bear the responsibility if a group of Legislative Council Members insist on voting down the package? This is a question worth asking, and the public opinion surveys conducted by the SAR Government have repeatedly asked this question. I am afraid the answer is not what Mr Frederick FUNG and other pan-democratic Members would love to see. The Hong Kong people have been waiting for the opportunity to exercise their right to elect the Chief Executive through "one person, one vote" for a very long time.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Let me be specific here. According to RTHK's morning news report, the public opinion poll conducted by The Chinese University of Hong Kong showed that slightly over 45% of the people support the passage of the package, while 43% of the people are against it. After taking into account the deviations and errors, the support rate for the two sides are indeed very close. My question is: Given that the public support rate for the two sides are very close, will the Chief Executive respect public opinion and withdraw the 31 August package?
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): The 31 August package is neither put forth by the Chief Executive nor the SAR Government, the 31 August package …
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): The package that have been tabled to the Legislative Council recently.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 11999
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): The 31 August package is not a proposal, it is a decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), the institution with the highest authority. Will the National People's Congress (NPC) withdraw the Decision, so that the SAR Government can formulate a new package based on a different decision? If Mr Frederick FUNG joins the visit to Shenzhen three days later, he can directly communicate with the three Mainland officials. In my opinion, the possibility of such withdrawal is nil. Given that the NPCSC made the decision in a prudent and serious manner, it will not withdraw the decision due to opposition from slightly over one third of the Members in the Legislative Council. As such, the options before Members are very clear ― Members can either choose the status quo or the constitutional reform package put forth by the Government according to the 31 August Decision and the requirements of the Basic Law, so that Hong Kong people can exercise their right to elect the Chief Executive through "one person, one vote" shortly.
On the issue of public opinion, Mr Frederick FUNG certainly can use this public opinion poll as a reference. Yet at the end, when the Government's package is tabled for voting in this Chamber, no matter Mr Frederick FUNG will press which button, the relevant political accountability and consequence should be borne by Mr Frederick FUNG himself.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Chief Executive has not answered my question. How come his reply is a question for me? President, who should be questioned today, I or the Chief Executive?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FUNG, please sit down. Other Members only stand up twice to raise their question and supplement question after I call their names. However, you have stood up for a total of six times, of which a number of times you have stood up before your name was called. I have to ask you to observe the rules.
MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, the implementation of the "One Belt One Road" national policy will serve as a new engine for global economic development. In addition to opening up new markets, it will also facilitate the 12000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 development of the countries and regions along the Belt and the Road. The policy can create a multi-win situation. It is believed that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the newly established Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) will give play to their due influences in regard to aspects such as safety issues and infrastructural facilities.
Nevertheless, it is a long-term policy which will not produce instant results. The Chief Executive used to say that the "One Belt One Road" national policy is a new opportunity to Hong Kong and Hong Kong may get a share of the benefits because Hong Kong has an edge in terms of the project development modes. The question is, how can Hong Kong materialize its edge by seizing the infinite business opportunities brought about by the "One Belt One Road" initiative as well as other policies? At present, the Hong Kong community (in particular the business sector) sees the "One Belt One Road" national policy a rather vague concept. May I ask the Chief Executive what government policies or initiatives would be put in place to assist the business community in Hong Kong to comprehend the specific and potential business opportunities in the "One Belt One Road" national policy, so that they can foresee the opportunities beforehand and stay ahead of other competitors and make the first step in advance?
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, all of the countries involved in the "One Belt One Road" initiative are targets we need to win over. When we are trying to develop with these countries a better economic and trade relationship with higher economic benefits, we will certainly tie in with the State's major national strategy, and I believe that the State will support Hong Kong in carrying out the relevant work.
I wish to cite a simple example. Several weeks ago I visited Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. At that time, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) was holding a summit in Kuala Lumpur and leaders of 10 ASEAN member states met at Kuala Lumpur. ASEAN member states are located along the "Maritime Silk Road" ― which is part of the "One Belt One Road" initiative. President, I am happy to inform Mr Martin LIAO and other Legislative Council Members that we received exceptionally courteous treatment in Kuala Lumpur. At that time, leaders of 10 nations met and held the summit in Kuala Lumpur. No other non-ASEAN economic entity sent representatives to Kuala Lumpur except Hong Kong. While we were in Kuala Lumpur, we took the opportunity LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 12001 and requested to meet the leaders of six of the 10 ASEAN nations. They are either Presidents, Premiers or Prime Ministers of these countries, and they are willing to meet me or the Hong Kong SAR Government's representative. It has nothing to do with who I am, but because everybody attached importance to the co-operation relationship with Hong Kong, as well as the roles that Hong Kong can give play to.
In future, while we will have a host of chances, what restrictions are we going to face? I can think of three aspects. First, no pain, no gain. There are many things that we (including myself, the Financial Secretary and Secretaries, and so on) need to strive for. We knew that we would be very busy in that period of time, but when we learnt that the 10 ASEAN member nations were holding the summit in Kuala Lumpur, we just spared two to three days' time to meet with these heads of states. I have to attend 10 functions in one day, including two talks and five bilateral meetings, and so on. They have also attached great importance to such functions.
As such, we really need energy and time to work things out. This is also why I have mentioned in my opening remarks that if our constitutional reform package is passed, we should get enactment work of the local legislation done. We also hope that in dealing with the enactment work of the local legislation, we need not spend too much efforts and time tackling various controversies as we did in the past year or two. Instead, I hope we can have the time to tackle the job which I mention just now.
If the constitutional reform package is negatived, then we should not waste time and efforts on issues relating to constitutional reform endlessly. For that reason, in the coming few years, we have to recover the time lost. The Chief Executive, Secretaries of Departments, Directors of Bureaux and colleagues in other government departments need to invest time and effort to strive for these opportunities. This is the first point. The second point is the land issue, while the third is the manpower issue. If we are to achieve economic results, we cannot just rely on our thought or determination. If we want to put some policies into practice, they cannot be achieved without lands and buildings or manpower. These two are the constraints we meet frequently in the course of securing opportunities, developing the economy and society, as well as improving the livelihood of the people.
12002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
Just as I always said ― though I cannot disclose too much at this point ― many large international enterprises are interested in relocating their regional headquarters or even global headquarters to Hong Kong. In China, a lot of large state-owned enterprises and civilian enterprises are interested in relocating their national headquarters or certain functions of their headquarters to Hong Kong. As I have always said, if we need Central, and other people need Central … At present, there are two commercial sites in Central which can be developed into 2 million sq ft of Grade A office premises, that is about the scale of two blocks of Jardine House. If the construction works should start today, they could be completed in three years, and I have confidence that they would be fully let out three years later as the demand is quite enormous. However, where are these two sites? We face a lot of resistance when we try to change the land use or develop the sites.
Therefore, I consider this question worth raising: What should the HKSAR Government do under the major strategy of the "One Belt One Road" initiative. It is our duty. Nevertheless, we should solve two problems at the same time. The first is the bottleneck issue, or the land and manpower issue I have mentioned just now. The second issue is about internal conflict. Our society can see the opportunities, but we are simply wasting our energy and time. We should have done that in a more effective way by using our time and energy on things that will better benefit our society. I attach great importance to this task, and I am optimistic about the economic development of Hong Kong. We will seize the opportunity of the "One Belt One Road" initiative. I believe the state will support us, and we can make contribution to our nation.
MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): I believe the Government … I agree with the two problems mentioned by the Chief Executive just now. But of course, apart from the two problems, the Government does have more information than the community.
May I ask what measure can help to convey to the business sector of Hong Kong the information that the Government has and the business opportunities that it knows, or what measures are in place to help the business sector to understand better the potential business opportunities?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 12003
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): I thank Mr Martin LIAO for raising this supplementary question. The Government and the business community have a bilateral relationship in this respect. On the one hand, when we get hold of the information, we will report and share with the business sector and the entire community, we also hope the business sector will give us some advices on the other. We hope the business sector will put forward some propositions to the SAR Government.
In fact, Hong Kong is not a big place, yet our business, financial and professional sectors have already gone global. A lot of businessmen, financial and professional people have obtained front-line experience in countries and economic entities along the route of the "One Belt One Road" initiative. Therefore, we will attach great importance to their views.
We will report to society (including the business sector) in due course regarding how the SAR Government will make good use of the chances brought about by the "One Belt One Road" initiative and the AIIB, as well as our ideas of converting these chances into results of economic development.
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, I believe we all agree that one very important quality required of the Chief Executive is the ability to get the right person for the right job. President, you and I had been secondary school principals before. In a secondary school, if a teacher is found to be inept for the position and the situation has not been improved for a long time, I believe that the principal has to shoulder the responsibility. In the SAR Government managed by the Chief Executive, we also see that the popularity ratings of some government officials have been in negative figures over a long period of time. The situation has been remaining the same for three years now. Today, the Chief Executive mentioned about "public opinions" and "respect for public opinions" many times. However, the public opinions have very clearly and persistently shown that the public are very dissatisfied with the performance of some government officials.
I would like to ask whether it is all because the Chief Executive has problems with getting the right person for the right job, or he has failed to help the government officials perform better after they have taken the office. If the situation persists, will the Chief Executive just let things go on like this, or will he have any plans to deal with this problem? We know that the performance of 12004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux will directly affect people's livelihood. In regard to these livelihood problems, does the Chief Executive have to shoulder the responsibility concerned? Instead of introducing a new Innovation and Technology Bureau and adding one more Bureau Director, should we take the right course of improving the existing team of Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux?
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, during the past three years, the SAR Government has been working hard as a team and making arduous efforts for the entire Hong Kong society, including our education industry. In the course of our work, if there are any shortcomings and places where we can do better, I very much hope that Mr IP Kin-yuen can, in an attitude that concerns himself with facts and not with individuals while not taking things personally, be more positive in putting forward some good suggestions on education and other fronts. I believe that my entire accountable team and I will be very willing to listen.
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, the Chief Executive is obviously avoiding the question. He is passing the buck to Members and avoiding his responsibility as the supervisor. My question is that as the supervisor, he can directly supervise his subordinates, and I am also not directing against one person as a few government officials are involved. It is not feasible for the Chief Executive to avoid dealing with this question perpetually, as the Central Government will intervene. We all know that in regard to the Central Government, there is currently a view pointing out that they need to directly and constantly monitor our Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, please raise your supplementary question.
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is that if the Chief Executive avoids dealing with the issue, we will have to face a new crisis and this crisis will involve whether "one country, two systems" can continue to be maintained. Chief Executive, if the performance of our future Secretaries will be monitored by the Central Government, will your role be sidelined? Will you manage your team well so that we do not have to face this new challenge?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 12005
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, Mr IP Kin-yuen wanted to say something but stopped on second thoughts. Then in the supplementary question, he even switched the focus of the question. The principal officials are accountable to me. The principal officials are nominated by me and appointed by the Central Government. This is clearly written in the Basic Law. As Mr IP Kin-yuen wanted to speak but stopped on second thoughts, I do not want to guess which incident or which person Mr IP Kin-yuen was referring to.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, you and some Members of this Council will go to meet with the constitutional reform trio of the Chinese side in Guangzhou this Sunday, 31 May, to discuss issues concerning the constitutional reform …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, the meeting place should be Shenzhen. (Laughter)
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please continue with your question.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Some Members, including those of the pan-democratic camp as well as the pro-establishment camp, were very happy to learn that the visit would be led by Carrie Lam. They have mistakenly thought that LEUNG Chun-ying would not join the visit, but this is actually a beautiful misunderstanding. When they realized that LEUNG Chun-ying would also attend the meeting, they just felt a chill down their spine, worrying that he would only get in everybody's hair and spoil the whole matter.
As we can all hear today, the role played by LEUNG Chun-ying throughout the constitutional reform process is really weird, as he just kept on doing destructive things. When Carrie LAM and Bernard CHAN were saying that they had no confidence in the constitutional reform package gaining passage, he expressed great confidence in its passage; and when we are about to go to the Mainland to discuss with the relevant officials, he tells us in his reply today that there is actually nothing left to negotiate. In his opinion, with regard to the constitutional reform package, we have to either "pocket it first" and accept it or 12006 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 vote against it, but the responsibility will be borne by Members of the pan-democratic camp …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please raise your question.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): My question is very important. As a matter of fact, under the framework of the 31 August Decision, I think the negotiation to be held, with or without LEUNG Chun-ying, would not arrive at any conclusion. This is because Members of the democratic camp have already signed an undertaking indicating that they will definitely vote against the constitutional reform package that leads to bogus universal suffrage under the framework of the 31 August Decision.
However, I have a very clear question to put to LEUNG Chun-ying. There is no room for compromise now, not even a fake one, as ZHANG Rongshun, the Vice-Chairperson of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), has stated openly that there is no room for amending the constitutional reform package. According to him, replacing "corporate votes" with "personal votes" would be tantamount to changing the nature of the existing four sectors of the Nominating Committee, while those from the opposition camp would be encouraged to stir up trouble if the idea of "blank-vote veto" is adopted. May I ask LEUNG Chun-ying if he agrees with the remarks made by ZHANG Rongshun? If he does agree, there is really nothing left to discuss; then, why bother to have a meeting in Shenzhen? What else is there for us to negotiate? There is nothing to talk about since there is no room for making amendment. If he does not agree with the remarks, why can a Beijing official be allowed to interfere openly with the principle of "a high degree of autonomy" in Hong Kong and the local legislative exercise? Would LEUNG Chun-ying please reprimand such official without reservation and prove to Members of the pan-democratic camp that he does not agree with the remarks made by ZHANG Rongshun, and that there is still room for negotiation at the upcoming meeting in Shenzhen?
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, paragraph 7 of Annex I: "Method for the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" to the Basic Law clearly stipulates that "if there is a need to amend the method for selecting the Chief Executive for the terms subsequent to the year 2007, such amendments must be made with the endorsement of a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 12007 two-thirds majority of all the members of the Legislative Council and the consent of the Chief Executive, and they shall be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for approval." A total of three parties are involved here, namely, Members of the Legislative Council, the Chief Executive and the NPCSC. Therefore, the meeting to be held in Shenzhen ― let me digress a little and make it clear that Shenzhen and Guangzhou are two different cities, Guangzhou is not a part of Shenzhen and Shenzhen not a part of Guangzhou. Hence, the place we are going to visit is Shenzhen rather than Guangzhou.
So, three parties are involved here. When it comes to such a critical issue and as we have reached a crucial and important moment for the constitutional development of Hong Kong, all the three parties should be present. Whether it is for the current exercise or in the future, all these three parties should be present whenever the procedures as stipulated in paragraph 7 of Annex I are initiated again. It is also the aspiration of Hong Kong people that the three parties, which are given such responsibilities and powers under the Basic Law, would sit down and sort out everything together so that Hong Kong people can exercise their right of electing the Chief Executive through "one person, one vote". This is what the whole thing is about.
Mr CHAN has mentioned in his remarks just now that there was nothing left to discuss and pan-democrats would definitely vote against the package. For anyone who comes across such an important issue … Taking into consideration that each Legislative Council Member is elected by his voters, and that different voters would have different expectations and demands of their elected representatives in the Legislative Council on the issue in question, how can he make such a non-remediable remark? How can anyone make such a rigid and resolute remark? If Members of the pan-democratic camp really think that all of them will undoubtedly vote down the package, why do they need to bundle themselves up with three joint signature campaigns?
(Mr Albert CHAN held up an umbrella and a placard while yelling loudly in his seat)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, leave the Chamber immediately.
(Mr Albert CHAN kept on yelling loudly)
12008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Leave the Chamber immediately.
(Mr Albert CHAN continued to yell loudly and left the Chamber with the assistance of security officers)
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): If Mr CHAN is so confident of the voting stance of the pan-democrats and believes that they will definitely vote down the reform package, I wonder if Mr CHAN will agree that the pan-democrats should stop bundling themselves up so that the 27 Members of the pan-democratic camp can hold themselves responsible to their voters and cast their votes in accordance with their own will and their judgments of the overall situation.
Quite a number of Members have touched on the issue of opinion poll just now. In addition to studying the results of some opinion polls, the SAR Government has also been conducting public opinion surveys with very stable results for a long period of time. One of questions included in such public opinion surveys asked the respondents whether Members of the pan-democratic camp should bundle themselves up in voting on the constitutional reform package, and if not, should they cast their votes in accordance with their own will. This is not a difficult question to ask and I would like to suggest Mr CHAN, as I have suggested Mr Frederick FUNG earlier, commissioning an opinion survey agency to conduct an opinion poll with the above question. I am afraid the results thus obtained may not be what he wants to see.
I think that on the day the package is put to a vote, each and every Member should, on the basis of their own knowledge and judgments of the issue, adopt the attitude that they should be responsible to their voters and make a decision or participate in making the decision as to whether the Chief Executive should be elected through "one person, one vote" by 5 million eligible voters in Hong Kong. Regarding the remarks made by the Vice-Chairperson of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the NPCSC, ZHANG Rongshun, as I have already stated in my reply to the questions raised by some other Members just now, in my opinion, if Mr CHAN has any views about the issue, it would be better for him to join the visit to Shenzhen so that the three parties concerned, that is, the Central Authority, the Chief Executive and Members of the Legislative Council can sit down and sort things out, regardless of whether he would express his views dispassionately or indignantly.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015 12009
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I think no matter LEUNG Chun-ying is present at the meeting or not, he would not be able to bring about a radical change in the situation under the framework of the 31 August Decision. However, LEUNG Chun-ying has not answered my question though he claimed that a reply had been given. My question is very clear: according to the remarks made by ZHANG Rongshun, there is no room for amending the constitutional reform package and there is no room for discussion as far as the two proposals of replacing "corporate votes" with "personal votes" and adopting the idea of "blank-vote veto" are concerned. Thus, the question is not about we joining the visit to explore if there is still room left for discussion. I was asking the Chief Executive to answer us today if he agrees with the remarks made by ZHANG Rongshun. If he does agree, I think Members of the pan-democratic camp should not join the visit at all. There is nothing we can discuss about if a reply to this question is not available before we set off for Shenzhen. What is the point of joining the visit? Shall we pretend to discuss?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please sit down. Chief Executive, please reply.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): President, we still have three days to go and it only takes us a maximum of two-odd hours to travel to and from Shenzhen by bus. As one of our representatives of public opinion and as a representative body of the entire community of Hong Kong, I think Mr CHAN and all other Members should fulfil their responsibilities at such a crucial and important moment in our history, instead of making their own prior judgments. What does it cost us? Just a Sunday and basically just a Sunday morning …
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, we are not the ones who make prior judgments. It is ZHANG Rongshun who has made his judgments known in advance.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please do not interrupt the Chief Executive.
12010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 28 May 2015
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): He is avoiding my question because he dares not give his reply, he dares not tell us whether ZHANG Rongshun is right or wrong. Why should we take the trip to Shenzhen if he does not even dare to tell us whether he thinks it is right or wrong …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, stop speaking immediately.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): Instead of going through a report or an analysis prepared by a third party, it would be better for Mr CHAN to spend half a Sunday to make a round trip of two-odd hours by bus to get, in person, an answer to a question which he is so concerned about. If he refuses to do so under such circumstances, I believe Hong Kong people will form their own opinions on the matter.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): It is not that I refuse to do so. The fact is that the matter cannot be discussed and in that case, what is left for us to negotiate in Shenzhen? If you consider it feasible to discuss …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, stop speaking at once. The Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session ends here.
The Chief Executive will now leave the Chamber. Members will please stand up.
(Some Members yelled)
ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council.
Adjourned accordingly at 10.49 am.